[b-greek] Re: New theme at Mk 9:42?

From: clayton stirling bartholomew (c.s.bartholomew@worldnet.att.net)
Date: Thu Aug 10 2000 - 17:05:19 EDT


on 08/10/00 9:00 AM, CWestf5155@aol.com wrote:

> Let me make a few more observations:
>
> I see the interpersonal structure and the roles of agent/subject and
> object/goal/recipient as being very significant.
>
> hOS (AN) as subject/agent in vv. 37, 40, 41 & 42 create a unifying pattern,
> even though the referents switch back and forth.
>
> SE as object/goal links vv. 43-48 (and perhaps through v. 50, if you want to
> see vv. 49-50 as and expansion of PUR in v. 48).
>
> Summarizing the interpersonal structure:
>
> v. 37 hOS AN hEN TWN TOIOUTWN PAIDIWN DEXHTAI
> Whoever (of the disciples?) welcomes such children...
> v. 40 hOS GAR OUK ESTIN KAQ hUMWN
> For whoever (of the outsiders) is for us...
> v. 41 hOS GAR AN POTISH hUMAS POTHRION
>For whoever (of the outsiders) gives you a cup of [water]
> v. 42 KAI hOS AN SKANVDALISH hENA TWN MIKRWN TOUTWN
> And whoever (of the disciples?) 'stumbles' one of these little ones
>
> Hey, this looks a bit chiastic, doesn't it?
>

{snip}

> I'd say that SKANDALIZW in v. 42 creates cohesion across the interpersonal
> shift at v. 43, and does not determine a boundary. This is very common. A.
> Vanhoye, in his description of the structure of Hebrews calls these 'hook
> words', which George Guthrie catagorizes in an extremely complex way in his
> dissertation on Hebrews. Dik calls it 'forward harmony' in Theory of FG, vol
> 1, p. 321.

Cindy,

Nice work! It is a pleasure to get responses which have this much thought
put into them. Your analysis of the interpersonal structure looks very
intriguing and I will ponder it for a while.

Meanwhile, I am still a little befuddled about Mk 9:43-50. It looks to me
like Mark is using words like SKANDALIZW, PUR and ALS to tie together
otherwise unrelated material. There seem to be real thematic/semantic breaks
at 9:42/43 and 9:48/49 and 9:49/50. Mark appears to be using word play to
tie these segments into a chain. Here are the breaks and the words used to
span the breaks:

9:42/43 SKANDALIZW
9:48/49 PUR
9:49/50 ALS

The segment 9:48-50 is particularly tricky where the thematic/semantic
transitions are very rapid. This may be a similar idea to 'hook words." Not
sure since I have not read A. Vanhoye. I would agree that SKANDALIZW does
not "determine" a boundary, that is it is not a boundary marker. However in
9:42/43 I think there is a boundary of some sort and SKANDALIZW is being
used to provide some level of apparent thematic cohesion.

Thanks again for your thoughts on this.

Clay

--
Clayton Stirling Bartholomew
Three Tree Point
P.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062



---
B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [jwrobie@mindspring.com]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-327Q@franklin.oit.unc.edu
To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu




This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:36:33 EDT