Mark 5:4, 19-20; Luke 8:29, 39

Luke 8:26-39 was the Gospel reading on the Worship Anew program for the Second Sunday of Pentecost last year (22 June).  I was following along in the Latin Vulgate and noticed a characteristic in verse 29 that (probably just coincidentally) matches the meaning.

praecipiebat enim spiritui inmundo ut exiret ab homine multis enim temporibus arripiebat illum et vinciebatur catenis et conpedibus custoditus et ruptis vinculis agebatur a daemonio in deserta

In the ESV, this is:

For he [Jesus] had commanded the unclean spirit to come out of the man.  (For many a time it had seized him.  He was kept under guard and bound with chains and shackles, but he would break the bonds and be driven by the demon into the desert.)

The phrase "catenis et conpedibus custoditus" ("with chains and with shackles held in custody") exhibits consonance in Latin.  That the successive words begin and end with the same sound lends a sense of stasis, illustrating the man's (temporary) immobility.

The account in Mark (5:1-20) exhibits the same feature (in verse 4), but the phrase is shorter (merely "conpedibus et catenis" - "with shackles and with chains"):

quoniam saepe conpedibus et catenis vinctus disrupisset catenas et conpedes comminuisset et nemo poterat eum domare

for he had often been bound with shackles and chains, but he wrenched the chains apart, and he broke the shackles in pieces.  No one had the strength to subdue him.  [ESV]

---&---

I also noticed a sort of syllogism in Luke 8:39:  "'Return to your home, and declare how much God has done for you.'  And he went away, proclaiming throughout the whole city how much Jesus had done for him."  The similarity between "'how much God has done for you'" and "how much Jesus had done for him" implies that Jesus is God.  By recounting the event in this way, the man's statement also becomes a testimony to his faith in Jesus' divinity.

This, too, is in the Mark 5 account:  "19 And he did not permit him [to go with Jesus] but said to him, 'Go home to your friends and tell them how much the Lord has done for you, and how he has had mercy on you.'  20 And he went away and began to proclaim in the Decapolis how much Jesus had done for him, and everyone marveled."

Matthew 20:20-34, Mark 10:35-52

For the last five years or so, I've been studying Gothic via Joseph Wright's A Primer of the Gothic Language.  Part of the book contains fragments of the Gospels in Gothic, and as I was stumbling through Mark last year, I noticed a significant contrast in chapter 10.  In the second half of the chapter (verses 35-52), Jesus twice asks the question "What do you want me to do for you?" - first to James and John (in verse 36) and then to Bartimaeus (in verse 51).  The identical* form of this question highlights the different contexts in which it appears, specifically the opposite ways in which these two parties approach Jesus.  James and John come to Him as if they have authority over Him, expecting their demands to be met ("We want you to do for us whatever we ask of you"), but Bartimaeus begins with humility ("Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!").

About a week after I noticed this similarity, I ran across the parallel in Matthew 20:20-34.  In this account, it's James and John's mother who asks on behalf of her sons, and Jesus' questions aren't identical ("What do you want?" in verse 21, but "What do you want me to do for you?" in verse 32).  Because there are two blind men here, however, the account draws a sharper contrast between the two parties.  The two brothers who aspire to high positions are more evenly balanced against the two blind men who demonstrate humbleness.

---

*It's identical in English, but it differs slightly in other languages, principally depending on whether you is singular or plural.

Matthew 27:46, Mark 15:34

The divine vocatives in Daniel 9:19 that I wrote about last week got me thinking about Matthew 27:46:

And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?" that is, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"

Mark 15:34 is a parallel verse:

And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?" which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"

I think it may be significant that "My God" is repeated here.  Of course, this is a quotation of Psalm 22:1, where אֵלִי appears twice, but in this context, where Jesus is experiencing a separation from God as part of the punishment for sin, it's almost as if each "My God" is directed to an-other Person in the Trinity:  one to God the Father and one to the Holy Spirit.  The verbs here are singular, though.

Mark 12:44

On Worship Anew a couple months ago, the Gospel reading was Mark 12:38-44.  In all of the English translations I referenced (ESV, NIV, and NKJV), there's a chiastic structure in verse 44.  Here's the ESV:

"For they all contributed

out of their abundance,

but she out of her poverty

has put in everything she had, all she had to live on."

Such a structure highlights the opposite natures of "abundance" (the NIV has "wealth") and "poverty" and perhaps even the different manners in which the rich people and poor widow gave their offerings.

This structure isn't in the Greek, though, where this verse is:  πάντες γὰρ ἐκ τοῦ περισσεύοντος αὐτοῖς ἔβαλον, αὕτη δὲ ἐκ τῆς ὑστερήσεως αὐτῆς πάντα ὅσα εἶχεν ἔβαλεν, ὅλον τὸν βίον αὐτῆς.  The two clauses have roughly the same structure here, something like "All out of their abundance contributed, but she out of her poverty put in...."

Mark 10:21

A couple weeks ago (13 October, Twenty-First Sunday after Pentecost), the Gospel reading was Mark 10:17-22.  While watching Worship Anew, I was following along in the Latin Vulgate and noticed a significant difference in verse 21.  In the ESV, Jesus tells the rich young man, "You lack one thing" (the NIV and NKJV simply invert this:  "One thing you lack"), but in the Vulgate, He says, "Unum tibi deest" ("One thing is lacking from you," although technically, "tibi" is in the dative case).  The Greek is similar:  ἕν σε ὑστερεῖ.

The rich young man is too concerned about his own efforts in acquiring eternal life, apparently not understanding that whatever they are, they would be insufficient and that eternal life is given to him freely (just like an earthly inheritance).  The accusative σε in the Greek (and dative "tibi" in the Latin) stands in contrast to the nominative "you" in the English translations, and, coincidentally, this matches the lesson (or a lesson) that the man needs to learn:  he doesn't have to be the subject or the one doing the action.  It's done for him.  

For what it's worth:  in my German New Testament, this clause is "Eines fehlt dir" (with the dative "dir"), and in my French New Testament, it's "Il te manque une chose" (with the accusative "te").

Matthew 8:27, Mark 4:41

When I watched the Daily Dose of Greek video on Matthew 8:27 last month, I remembered my comments on Mark 4:41, which is a very similar verse, and I had a few more thoughts.

Οἱ δὲ ἄνθρωποι ἐθαύμασαν λέγοντες· ποταπός ἐστιν οὗτος ὅτι καὶ οἱ ἄνεμοι καὶ ἡ θάλασσα αὐτῷ ὑπακούουσιν;

And the men marveled, saying, "What sort of man is this, that even winds and sea obey him?" [ESV]

Because καὶ... καὶ... can also be the correlative "both... and..." (as in Matthew 10:28:  καὶ ψυχὴν καὶ σῶμα, "both body and soul"), the last part of the verse could be translated as "What sort of man is this that both the winds and the sea obey him?" which provides a sense of the breadth of Jesus' command over nature.  (I'll reiterate what I said about Mark 4:41, though:  "Even the winds and the sea" is probably a better translation.)

This may be (and probably is) overanalyzing the text, but there's an additional sense of breadth because there's a variety in the grammatical gender and number of the direct objects:  ἄνεμοι is masculine plural, and θάλασσα is feminine singular.  Of course, there's also a range just because the sea is beneath and the winds are around and above.

Nearly all the same can be said for this text in the Latin Vulgate:  "porro homines mirati sunt dicentes qualis est hic quia et venti et mare oboediunt ei."  "Et... et..." can be the correlative "both... and..." or even and and individually; venti (winds) is masculine plural; but mare (sea) is neuter singular.

Of what features I noted, the German text has only different grammatical genders for wind (masculine Wind) and sea (neuter Meer):  "Die Menschen aber verwunderten sich und sprachen:  Was ist das für ein Mann, daß ihm Wind und Meer gehorsam sind?"

In French, there's something of a sense of breadth between masculine plural vents (winds) and feminine singular mer (sea):  "Ces hommes furent saisis d'étonnement:  Quel est celui-ci, disaient-ils, à qui obéissent même les vents et la mer?"

Mark 1:22

I'm still behind on watching Worship Anew programs, but when I watched the program for 28 January (the Fourth Sunday after Epiphany) a couple weeks ago, I noticed a significant contrast in the Gospel reading from Mark 1.  In the ESV, Mark 1:22 is "And they [the people in the synagogue] were astonished at his [Jesus'] teaching, for he taught them as one who had authority, and not as the scribes."  While following along in the Latin Vulgate, I noticed that what's translated as a relative clause in the ESV ("who had authority") is a participial in the Latin ("potestatem habens"), as it is in the Greek (ἐξουσίαν ἔχων), so it's more like "having authority."  Since participles are verbal adjectives, there's some of the action quality of a verb here, and this contrasts with the more static nature of the noun "scribes" (γραμματεῖς, "scribae").

For what it's worth:  in my German New Testament, this participial is translated as a prepositional phrase ("mit Vollmacht" "with power"), but my French New Testament retains it as a participial ("ayant autorité").

Isaiah 29:13, Matthew 15:8, Mark 7:6

A few months ago, I watched the Concordia University Wisconsin chapel service from 28 August 2018:

The text was Isaiah 29:11-19.  I was following along in the Latin Vulgate and noticed part of verse 13:  "cor autem eius longe est a me."  In the ESV, this is "while their hearts are far from me."  In both of these, as it is in the Hebrew (although with far fewer words:  וְלִבּ֖וֹ רִחַ֣ק מִמֶּ֑נִּי), "heart" ("cor") is about as distant as possible from "me" ("me"), so the meaning of the clause is illustrated in its structure.  The conjunction in Latin ("autem") is post-positive, so "cor" and "me" are at completely opposite ends of the clause.

The next day, I watched the CUW chapel service from 29 August.  The reading then was Mark 7:1-8, in which Jesus quotes this passage from Isaiah.  Part of verse 6 exhibits the same feature:  "cor autem eorum longe est a me."  It's also present in the ESV ("but their heart is far from me") and in the Greek (ἡ δὲ καρδία αὐτῶν πόρρω ἀπέχει ἀπ᾽ ἐμοῦ).  This clause is identical in Matthew 15:8.

I also referenced my German and French New Testaments.  This feature is present in both Matthew 15:8 and Mark 7:18, where the clauses are identical:  "aber ihr Herz ist fern von mir" and "mais son cœur est éloigné de moi." 

Last First/First Last

Last month, I tried to watch the Concordia University Wisconsin chapel service from 25 September 2017 (the audio cuts out about two thirds of the way through).  The reading, which was Matthew 20:1-16, is intact, though, and I had a small realization about verse 16:  "'So the last will be first, and the first last.'"  There's a chiastic structure here, and it illustrates that inversion.

The same feature is present elsewhere:  Matthew 19:30 ("'But many who are first will be last, and the last first.'"), Mark 10:31 ("'But many who are first will be last, and the last first.'"), and Luke 13:30 ("'And behold, some are last who will be first, and some are first who will be last.'").

On Barabbas

Even before the Daily Dose of Greek got to John 18:40 last month, I started thinking about Barabbas.  Back in August last year, I had a small realization about this particular verse (which I never got around to writing about), and I had an-other realization after watching the Daily Dose of Greek video.

Previously, I'd thought of this exchange between Barabbas and Jesus only as a representation of the exchange between guilt and innocence (aside, of course, from the recounting of an actual event).  In the same way that innocent Jesus takes the place of guilty Barabbas, He also takes the punishment that should be ours.

Considering the passage more closely, I realized that there's a bit more depth than that; there are also specific contrasts between the characters of these two figures.  In John 18:40, the Evangelist comments "Now Barabbas was a robber," and this contrasts with Jesus, Who gives freely (the feeding of the five thousand, for example).  In Mark 15:7, Barabbas is described as one of "the rebels in prison, who had committed murder in the insurrection."  Jesus is the exact opposite of these attributes, too.  Instead of rebelling, He kept the law perfectly (Hebrews 9:14), and rather than murdering, He creates life (in Acts 3:15, He is called the Author of life).

My other realization, looking at the accounts from a different perspective, is that the crowd is representative of our sinful human nature.  In the same way that the crowd calls for Barabbas and rejects Jesus, we would cling to the darkness of sin and shun the Light of righteousness.

Matthew 20:24, Mark 10:41

A couple weeks ago, I watched the Concordia University Wisconsin chapel service from 23 March 2015:

The reading was Mark 10:35-45.  I'm pretty sure that Dr. Feiertag reads the NIV, where verse 41 is translated as "When the ten heard about this, they became indignant with James and John."  I was following along in my French New Testament, where this verse is rendered as "Les dix, ayant entendu cela, commencèrent à s'indigner contre Jacques et Jean."  Where the NIV has "indignant with" and the ESV has "indignant at," the French translation has "s'indigner contre."  (In Greek, the preposition here is περὶ.)  In French, contre also means against.  This carries a greater weight than de (the other preposition, meaning with or at, used with this verb), so in this particular translation, there's a greater sense of opposition between the ten disciples and the two brothers.

Matthew 20:24 is comparable.

My French translation has:  "Les dix, ayant entendu cela, furent indignés contre les deux frères."

The ESV has:  "And when the ten heard it, they were indignant at the two brothers."

And the NIV has:  "When the ten heard about this, they were indignant with the two brothers."

Mark 10:30

I'll have started Luke by the time this post is published, but at the time of writing, I've been reading Mark.  I found an instance of polysyndeton in Mark 10:30 (quoted with verse 29 for context):  "29 Jesus said, 'Truly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or lands, for my sake and for the gospel, 30 who will not receive a hundredfold now in this time, houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and lands, with persecutions, and in the age to come eternal life.'"

The function of the polysyndeton here seems to be simply to illustrate the abundance of this "hundredfold."

Matthew 9:12, Mark 2:17

Near the beginning of the month, I watched the Concordia University Wisconsin chapel service from 21 September:

This was the Feast Day of St. Matthew, and the reading was Matthew 9:9-13.  Not too long before this, I'd read the parallel account in Mark 2:13-17.  I felt that something was off about the structure of "'Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick'" (in verse 17), but it wasn't until hearing the same construction in Matthew (in verse 12) that I had some insight into it.

What had puzzled me is that there are some implied words in the second clause:  "Those who are sick [have need of a physician]."  I'd understood the meaning, of course; I simply hadn't understood what was going on in the grammar.

Consequently, I realized that such an ellipsis is significant.  In the same way that the phrase "those who are sick" requires the implied words in order to form a complete clause, the sick people need the treatment of a doctor in order to become healthy.

Mark 6:8

I've been reading Mark lately, and a couple weeks ago, I noticed a small feature in 6:8:  "He [Jesus] charged them [the disciples] to take nothing for their journey except a staff - no bread, no bag, no money in their belts."

This list of items that the disciples are not to take exhibits asyndeton, and this lack of conjunctions mirrors their lack of provisions.

Mark 13:6

Last week, I watched the Daily Dose of Greek video on Mark 13:6:

I'd always understood this verse and specifically the "'I am he!'" more prosaically, but looking at the original Greek made me realize that this "ἐγώ εἰμι" is a reference to Exodus 3:14 where God says to Moses, "'I AM WHO I AM.'"  Jesus takes up this title multiple times in John's Gospel ("I am the bread of life," "I am the Good Shepherd," "I am the way, and the truth, and the life," "I am the vine," et cetera), but the "many" described here claim it falsely.

Mark 12:30

When I watched the Daily Dose of Greek video for Mark 12:30 last week, I noticed a couple rhetorical features.

"'And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.'"

The repetition of "and" is polysyndeton.  I'm not sure if the repeated "all" is technically anaphora (it is near the beginning of each prepositional phrase, but I'm not sure if that's enough to fulfill the definition).  In any case, these repetitions give a sense of the totality of the self that one should devote to God.

Mark 10:44

I'm still working my way through Mark.  A little over a week ago, I watched the Daily Dose of Greek video for Mark 10:44 and noticed a small feature in the word order.

καὶ ὃς ἂν θέλῃ ἐν ὑμῖν εἶναι πρῶτος, ἔσται πάντων δοῦλος.

"and whoever would be first among you must be slave of all."

As if to reflect this idea of being "slave of all" and in the lowest position, the word for "slave" (δοῦλος) is placed last in the sentence.

Mark 9:14-29 (Jesus Heals a Boy with an Unclean Spirit)

I've been working through Mark 9 in the archives of the Daily Dose of Greek, and a couple weeks ago, I realized that the account in verses 14-29 (where Jesus heals a boy with an unclean spirit) provides something of a foreshadowing of the resurrection of the dead.

This is clearest in verses 26 and 27:  "26 And after crying out and convulsing him terribly, it [the unclean spirit] came out, and the boy was like a corpse, so that most of them [the people in the crowd] said, 'He is dead.'  27 But Jesus took him by the hand and lifted him up, and he arose."  After a deathlike state, the boy arises.  The verb here is ἀνίστημι, and this is the same verb that's used to refer to the resurrection of the dead in John 11 (where Jesus raises Lazarus from the dead).

Mark 8:31

I'm still working my way through Mark in the Daily Dose of Greek archives.  A little over a week ago, I watched the video for Mark 8:31:

I noticed polysyndeton among the infinitives:  καὶ ἤρξατο διδάσκειν αὐτοὺς ὅτι δεῖ τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου πολλὰ παθεῖν καὶ ἀποδοκιμασθῆναι ὑπὸ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων καὶ τῶν ἀρχιερέων καὶ τῶν γραμματέων καὶ ἀποκτανθῆναι καὶ μετὰ τρεῖς ἡμέρας ἀναστῆναι·

This repetition gives some sense of amount, reflecting that πολλὰ.

Mark 5:25-27

Last month, I watched the Daily Dose of Greek videos that cover Mark 5:25-27.

In the video for verse 25, Dr. Plummer says that this hypotactic style is "unusual for Mark."  Since I don't have much experience in reading the original Greek of the New Testament, I'll have to take his word on that, but in studying these verses, I realized that this hypotactic style has a function here.

The subject γυνὴ in verse 25 doesn't receive a verb (ἥψατο) until verse 27.  In between are various participles.

25 Καὶ γυνὴ οὖσα ἐν ῥύσει αἵματος δώδεκα ἔτη
26 καὶ πολλὰ παθοῦσα ὑπὸ πολλῶν ἰατρῶν καὶ δαπανήσασα τὰ παρ᾽ αὐτῆς πάντα καὶ μηδὲν ὠφεληθεῖσα ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον εἰς τὸ χεῖρον ἐλθοῦσα,
27 ἀκούσασα περὶ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ, ἐλθοῦσα ἐν τῷ ὄχλῳ ὄπισθεν ἥψατο τοῦ ἱματίου αὐτοῦ·

(Here's a link to the interlinear.)

The distance between the subject and the verb provides an illustration of the twelve years during which this woman has been in this condition.  Along with giving detail, it represents duration.  Her touching Jesus' garment simultaneously completes this clause ("the woman... touched") and heals her discharge of blood (as verse 29 describes).  The end of her suffering coincides with this grammatical completion.