Albuquerque on Mark 2:10

[Matthew Longhorn]

ἵνα δὲ εἰδῆτε ὅτι ἐξουσίαν ἔχει ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ⸂ἀφιέναι ἁμαρτίας ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς⸃ — λέγει τῷ παραλυτικῷ· 11 σοὶ λέγω, ἔγειρε ἆρον τὸν κράβαττόν σου καὶ ὕπαγε εἰς τὸν οἶκόν σου. Mark 2:10-11 (NA28)

I tend to mark up my electronic NA28 and BDAG in Olive Tree with interesting quotes from journal articles or books. Here is one I came across today from when I read Albuquerque in his Book Presupposition and [e]Motion pg 68-69 that I am really not convinced by

The analysis of these clauses must include the largest discourse spectrum to grasp a fair understanding of the use of the participles in these passages. All three evangelists present the authority of the exalted Son of God as the main point in this discourse involving a healing story. The paralytic healing is used as a means to show the authority of the Son of Man to forgive sins. The verb of perception (εἰδῆτε) places the focus of all these parallel passages (“in order to know”) on the fact that Jesus Christ has the authority to forgive, something that only the true God has. The complement of the primary clause comes with a complex clause having one subordinate clause followed by one embedded clause with the infinitive. The perception of “forgiving sins” cannot be directly perceived by the readers. They need to reflect about it, and decide if they would take as a “true proposition” or not. The use of the infinitive indicates that they did not accept the utterance of forgiveness as a true proposition, so something else would be necessary to make such an assumption into a real accepted proposition. ←68 | 69→ The movement from an abstract reflective world with the infinitive changes into the author’s assessment in the direct discourse uttered by Jesus. From a presuppositional world (infinitive), a material process is described by a combination of imperatives ἔγειρε καὶ ἆρον … καὶ περιπάτει (three imperatives in Mark 2:9, and two imperatives ἔγειρε … καὶ περιπάτει in both Matthew 9:5, and Luke 5:23. The direct discourse unfolds by showing that what Jesus compares is an indirect perception with a direct grasp of his powerful ministry. After asking what is the easiest, Jesus moves on to address the paralytic with another three imperatives in the book of Mark (2:11) ἔγειρε ἆρον … καὶ ὕπαγε.

Albuquerque, Roque N.. Presupposition and [E]motion: The Upgraded Function and the Semantics of the Participle in the New Testament . Peter Lang. Kindle Edition.

His argument is based off an opposition at the level of the verb between mood (+attitude) and infinitives/participles -attitude/+presupposition. He then divides the participles and infinitives with participles being +factive and infinitives being -factive
With this analysis he argues that the author invites the reader to participate in the construction of the meaning and decide whether they accept it as true or not. This invitation to participate is based off the -attitude element of infinitives here, with the lack of person marking in the infinitive contributing to this.

I would just read this as a complementary infinitive to indicate the content of "εἰδῆτε" and am not entirely sure what else he could have used. A participle doesnt seem like it would fit here, so that removes an element of choice in the =factive - factive opposition. Given a lack of choice between the two (unless I am wrong), I can't see how this can be part of the author's meaning

[Stephen Carlson]

ἵνα δὲ εἰδῆτε ὅτι ἐξουσίαν ἔχει ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ⸂ἀφιέναι ἁμαρτίας ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς⸃ — λέγει τῷ παραλυτικῷ· 11 σοὶ λέγω, ἔγειρε ἆρον τὸν κράβαττόν σου καὶ ὕπαγε εἰς τὸν οἶκόν σου. Mark 2:10-11 (NA28)

...

I would just read this as a complementary infinitive to indicate the content of "εἰδῆτε" and am not entirely sure what else he could have used. A participle doesnt seem like it would fit here, so that removes an element of choice in the =factive - factive opposition. Given a lack of choice between the two (unless I am wrong), I can't see how this can be part of the author's meaning

Doesn't the infinitive complement ἐξουσίαν ἔχει rather? But your other points are well taken.

[Matthew Longhorn]

Agreed, I was just focusing on it providing the content of "knowing" rather than the verb it is a complement to. Looking at it i definitely focussed on too narrow a portion of the content of knowing

[nathaniel j. erickson]

It sounds like this is an attempt to mash up linguistic analysis with the new(-ish) fad in Gospels studies, so-called performance criticism. I'm not sure what this interpretation accomplishes other than taking a text that seems pretty straightforward in the narrative and make it really abstract and difficult to talk about.

[MAubrey]

...to mash up linguistic [sounding] analysis with the new(-ish) fad in Gospels studies...

There. Fixed it.

[Matthew Longhorn]

...to mash up linguistic [sounding] analysis with the new(-ish) fad in Gospels studies...

There. Fixed it.

OUCH!

[MAubrey]

...to mash up linguistic [sounding] analysis with the new(-ish) fad in Gospels studies...

There. Fixed it.

OUCH!

It's just that the function and thus meaning of grammatical categories exists at such a subconscious level, that to talk about author & audience as agents of grammatical meaning (invite to participate) is not a particularly, well, meaningful means of describing grammar.

[RandallButh]

Actually, this is not a simple read for those in the 21st century. There are several of points of background information and word order that are necessary for a good reading.

First of all, ἐξουσίαν ἔχει is an idiomatic word order for the verb σχεῖν. This is practically equivalent to a verb-first clause, though technically the ἐξουσίαν has received Focus marking through position.

Secondly, in terms of culture, the phrase "Son of Man" is neither equivalent to "Son of God" nor to simple "human," but requires a culturally sensitive processing. The ubiquitous articular use ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ("the Son of the Particular Human") has become a title for all three synoptic writers and points to a title בר-אנש/בא-אנשא in the original context. (For those unaware of the ability to use an Aramaic phrase in a Hebrew sentence in the first century, I will leave them to hash out how 'defining' a potential Aramaic article was. In a Hebrew sentence a titular Aramaic phrase would fairly clearly allude to Daniel 7, as the gospel writers all make explicit in the trial scene at the end of their gospels.)

Thirdly, the "son of man" in Daniel was in a heavenly vision, not on earth. Which would explain the inclusion of "on earth" for the Son of Man's activity. The issue is not just 'forgiving sins', something possibly part of the heavenly judgement scene, but doing so ON EARTH.

Fourthly, of course, Jesus is referring to himself as his following actions showed. This third-person referencing can sometimes be confusing in other cultures.

Fifthly, different texts and gospels handle the word order of "on earth" differently. Matt and Luke make ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς focal in front of the governing verb ἀφιέναι. Mark is more insipid, with the Alexandrian text giving a natural prominence through Relevance Theory, and the Byzantine text topicalizing 'on earth' and leaving 'sins' in a more prominent position via Relevance Theory. I personally like the word order of Matt and Luke best in this passage. Delitzsch mimicked the Greek in all three synoptics in his high register translation while the old Aramaic translation (Peshitto) used a focal word order on "on earth" in all three synoptists.

This is quite a significant text and one with roots that may go back to a source(s) behind our gospels as we see in the rare break up of the speech with an internal speech margin ("he said to the paralytic"). The preposed explanation (in order for you to know...) followed by direct speech to only the paralytic was likely original to the situation and in a source with anacolothon (uneven syntactic switching) that was so arresting and unique that everyone preserved it, although "he said/he says" helps us process this in our Greek gospels.

So this is a text worth savoring.

[Matthew Longhorn]

Fifthly, different texts and gospels handle the word order of "on earth" differently. Matt and Luke make ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς focal in front of the governing verb ἀφιέναι. Mark is more insipid, with the Alexandrian text giving a natural prominence through Relevance Theory, and the Byzantine text topicalizing 'on earth' and leaving 'sins' in a more prominent position via Relevance Theory. I personally like the word order of Matt and Luke best in this passage. Delitzsch mimicked the Greek in all three synoptics in his high register translation while the old Aramaic translation (Peshitto) used a focal word order on "on earth" in all three synoptists.

Hi Dr Buth, what do you mean "via relevance theory" here? What element of the theory are you referring to?

[RandallButh]

For Matthew:
the verb ἀφιέναι does not need or require extra phrases that specifies time or place or other marginal/optional information. Also, everything was already taking place "on earth," both the incident and the speech.
Relevance Theory states that persons interpret explicit statements on an assumption of "relevance" in which persons do not repeat or add unnecessary information. Explicit statements therefore reveal the assumptions of the author/speaker about what they think that the audience needs to know. It is a fancy way of saying that listeners/readers must consider the pragmatic effects of explicit information as well as why some information may be left out or implicit. This becomes even more important if the potentially "unnecessary" information is linguistically [by syntax or prosody] marked for Focus as in Matt and Luke. Nevertheless, even Mark still includes the natural prominence/salience of adding new information, assumed necessary, at the end of a sentence.