modus.irrealis wrote:

My only comment is that I took οτι in 11 to mean "why", i.e. the indirect interrogative being used as a direct interrogative.

I see that King James takes it the same way; the Vulgate has "quid" which is as ambiguous as οτι, while Luther clearly treats οτι as introduction of speech (Sagen doch die Schriftgelehrten, dass Elias muss zuvor kommen "Yet the scribes say that Elias must come before.")

modus.irrealis wrote:

I believe that's the usual interpretation. 12-13, though, seems like a strange response to the disciples' question -- part of my problem is due to the fact that I don't quite get the force of ινα in 12 -- but honestly, I think I sometimes need Mark to give me more details so I can understand how one verse follows another.

Here, like elsewhere in such situations, I can imagine that we simply have to do with a layered text - it's not that Mark was incoherent or confused, it's just that explanations and quotes have been added during the early (oral) transmission period of the gospels to underline certain points and to make sure that Jesus's sayings are interpreted in a certain way.

hwhatting wrote:

modus.irrealis wrote:

My only comment is that I took οτι in 11 to mean "why", i.e. the indirect interrogative being used as a direct interrogative.

I see that King James takes it the same way; the Vulgate has "quid" which is as ambiguous as οτι, while Luther clearly treats οτι as introduction of speech (Sagen doch die Schriftgelehrten, dass Elias muss zuvor kommen "Yet the scribes say that Elias must come before.")

It seems that Luther doesn't treat this as being a question at all. I don't quite see the reason for that -- my main reason for understanding οτι as "why" was to get a question. There's also the possibility that it could be "Do the scribes say ... ?" but that doesn't seem right in context.

Quote:

Here, like elsewhere in such situations, I can imagine that we simply have to do with a layered text - it's not that Mark was incoherent or confused, it's just that explanations and quotes have been added during the early (oral) transmission period of the gospels to underline certain points and to make sure that Jesus's sayings are interpreted in a certain way.

That makes sense.

On to Mark 9:14-18

14 Καὶ ἐλθόντες πρὸς τοὺς μαθητὰς εἶδον ὄχλον πολὺν περὶ αὐτοὺς καὶ γραμματεῖς συζητοῦντας πρὸς αὐτούς.
15 καὶ εὐθὺς πᾶς ὁ ὄχλος ἰδόντες αὐτὸν ἐξεθαμβήθησαν, καὶ προστρέχοντες ἠσπάζοντο αὐτόν.
16 καὶ ἐπηρώτησεν αὐτούς, Τί συζητεῖτε πρὸς αὐτούς;
17 καὶ ἀπεκρίθη αὐτῷ εἷς ἐκ τοῦ ὄχλου, Διδάσκαλε, ἤνεγκα τὸν υἱόν μου πρὸς σέ, ἔχοντα πνεῦμα ἄλαλον·
18 καὶ ὅπου ἐὰν αὐτὸν καταλάβῃ ῥήσσει αὐτόν, καὶ ἀφρίζει καὶ τρίζει τοὺς ὁδόντας καὶ ξηραίνεται· καὶ εἶπα τοῖς μαθηταῖς σου ἵνα αὐτὸ ἐκβάλωσιν, καὶ οὐκ ἴσχυσαν.

I don't think I have any issues with these verses.

modus.irrealis wrote:

It seems that Luther doesn't treat this as being a question at all. I don't quite see the reason for that -- my main reason for understanding οτι as "why" was to get a question. There's also the possibility that it could be "Do the scribes say ... ?" but that doesn't seem right in context.

Yes, Luther treats it as an objection, not as a question.

Literal Translation of Mark IX, 14-18

14 And having come to the disciples (they) saw crowd much around them and scribes dicussing with them.
15 And immediately all the crowd having-seen him (they) became-amazed and towards-running saluted him.
16 And he questioned them: "What (you) discuss with them?"
17 And answered yim one out-of the crowd: "Teacher, (I) brought the son my before you, having soul mute;
18 And where if him (he) seizes (he) tears him, and (he) foams and gnashes the teeth and emaciates; and (I) spoke to the disciples yours that it (they should) expel, and not (they) could."

On to Mark 9:19-24

19 ὁ δὲ ἀποκριθεὶς αὐτοῖς λέγει, Ὦ γενεὰ ἄπιστος, ἕως πότε πρὸς ὑμᾶς ἔσομαι; ἕως πότε ἀνέξομαι ὑμῶν; φέρετε αὐτὸν πρός με.
20 καὶ ἤνεγκαν αὐτὸν πρὸς αὐτόν. καὶ ἰδὼν αὐτὸν τὸ πνεῦμα εὐθὺς συνεσπάραξεν αὐτόν, καὶ πεσὼν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἐκυλίετο ἀφρίζων.
21 καὶ ἐπηρώτησεν τὸν πατέρα αὐτοῦ, Πόσος χρόνος ἐστὶν ὡς τοῦτο γέγονεν αὐτῷ; ὁ δὲ εἶπεν, Ἐκ παιδιόθεν·
22 καὶ πολλάκις καὶ εἰς πῦρ αὐτὸν ἔβαλεν καὶ εἰς ὕδατα ἵνα ἀπολέσῃ αὐτόν· ἀλλ' εἴ τι δύνῃ, βοήθησον ἡμῖν σπλαγχνισθεὶς ἐφ' ἡμᾶς.
23 ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν αὐτῷ, Τὸ Εἰ δύνῃ πάντα δυνατὰ τῷ πιστεύοντι.
24 εὐθὺς κράξας ὁ πατὴρ τοῦ παιδίου ἔλεγεν, Πιστεύω· βοήθει μου τῇ ἀπιστίᾳ.

Literal Translation of Mark IX, 19-24:

19 He but having-answered to-them says: o generation faithless*1), until when before you (I) will-be? until when (I) will-suffer you? Bring him before me.
20 And (they) brought him before him. And having-seen him the spirit immediately tore him, and having fallen on the ground (he) rolled foaming.
21 And he asked the father his: how-many year is that this has-happened to-him? He but said: out-of from-childhood.
22 And often and into fire him (he) threw*2) and into waters so-that (he may) kill*3) him; but if something (you) can, help us having-pitied us.
23 The but Jesus told him: that if (you) can, all possible (for) the believing.
24 Immediately having-cried the father of the child said: (I) believe; help my the faithlessness.

*1) Shouldn't that be 'απίστη ?
*2) An observation on aspect - Russian would use the imperfective aspect for a frequently repeated action like this.
*3) Is this 'απώλεσα ?

How did you understand the το in 23, where you have "that"? I'm not sure but I can only read it as quotes leading to a sort of fragment, almost a question: 'if you can'? all things are possible...

hwhatting wrote:

*1) Shouldn't that be 'απίστη ?

For adjectives ending in -ος, most of the ones that are compounds (including those with prefixes like απιστος), and a few others, don't have separate feminine forms. That reminds me of how in Modern Greek, where this is much more limited (although in more formal contexts you see things like η Ορθόδοξος Εκκλησία), you still have the feminine έγκυος "pregnant" being by far predominant. I have never heard έγκυα used and it gets very few google hits. Although in the plural the distinctly feminine έγκυες wins out over έγκυοι. Language can be really strange some times.

Quote:

*2) An observation on aspect - Russian would use the imperfective aspect for a frequently repeated action like this.

Interesting. In Modern Greek the equivalent πολλές φορές = πολλάκις wouldn't force a choice of aspect. It would just depend on the usual factors, which means that you more often see the aorist or perfect with it.

Quote:

*3) Is this 'απώλεσα ?

Yes -- it's the aorist subj. of απολλυμι.

Here's Mark 9:25-29:

25 ἰδὼν δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς ὅτι ἐπισυντρέχει ὄχλος ἐπετίμησεν τῷ πνεύματι τῷ ἀκαθάρτῳ λέγων αὐτῷ, Τὸ ἄλαλον καὶ κωφὸν πνεῦμα, ἐγὼ ἐπιτάσσω σοι, ἔξελθε ἐξ αὐτοῦ καὶ μηκέτι εἰσέλθῃς εἰς αὐτόν.
26 καὶ κράξας καὶ πολλὰ σπαράξας ἐξῆλθεν· καὶ ἐγένετο ὡσεὶ νεκρός, ὥστε τοὺς πολλοὺς λέγειν ὅτι ἀπέθανεν.
27 ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς κρατήσας τῆς χειρὸς αὐτοῦ ἤγειρεν αὐτόν, καὶ ἀνέστη.
28 καὶ εἰσελθόντος αὐτοῦ εἰς οἶκον οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ κατ' ἰδίαν ἐπηρώτων αὐτόν, Ὅτι ἡμεῖς οὐκ ἠδυνήθημεν ἐκβαλεῖν αὐτό;
29 καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς, Τοῦτο τὸ γένος ἐν οὐδενὶ δύναται ἐξελθεῖν εἰ μὴ ἐν προσευχῇ.

modus.irrealis wrote:

How did you understand the το in 23, where you have "that"? I'm not sure but I can only read it as quotes leading to a sort of fragment, almost a question: 'if you can'? all things are possible...

I understood it as a sentence anaphoric pronoun "if you can do that (i.e. believe)". If you look at the variants, you see that this fragment has been filled up to be read that way in many of them.

I don't believe, though, that το could be used as a pronoun like that (in Koine Greek). If you mean variants like το ει δυνασαι πιστευσαι, I have the same issues with that το too.

modus.irrealis wrote:

I don't believe, though, that το could be used as a pronoun like that (in Koine Greek). If you mean variants like το ει δυνασαι πιστευσαι, I have the same issues with that το too.

That's probably why there is a variant τουτο ει δυνη - some ancient scribes didn't like the construction with το as well. I can't contribute anything more here - The Vulgate, Luther, and King James all simply ignore the το.

Literal Translation of Mark IX, 25-29

25 Having-seen but the Jesus that together-comes crowd (he) scolded the spirit the unclean saying to him: the mute and deaf spirit, I order you, go-out out-of him and not-again (you) enter into him.
26 And having-cried and much having-torn (he) went-out; and (he) became as-if dead, so-that the many to say that (he) died.
27 The but Jesus having-grasped*1) the hand his raised him, and he got-up.
28 And (of entering his =) when he entered into house the disciples his among self asked him: That we not could cast-out it?
29 And he told them: that the kind in nothing can go-out if not in prayer*2).

*1) We had that before, hadn’t we? That would be accusative in Classical Greek in this meaning?
*2) I’ve been wondering about this – Jesus doesn’t need prayer to cast the spirit out. But he’s Jesus, after all…

hwhatting wrote:

*1) We had that before, hadn’t we? That would be accusative in Classical Greek in this meaning?

Yes, it would take the accusative in analogous meanings. I don't think it could mean just "take hold of" in Classical Greek.

Quote:

*2) I’ve been wondering about this – Jesus doesn’t need prayer to cast the spirit out. But he’s Jesus, after all…

There are many thing I don't understand. I guess this could be a Jesus-as-man sort of thing, although he didn't quite use prayer to cast it out, or maybe he means for the disciples, although I would assume they tried prayer as well.

And Mark 9:30-34

30 Κἀκεῖθεν ἐξελθόντες παρεπορεύοντο διὰ τῆς Γαλιλαίας, καὶ οὐκ ἤθελεν ἵνα τις γνοῖ·
31 ἐδίδασκεν γὰρ τοὺς μαθητὰς αὐτοῦ καὶ ἔλεγεν αὐτοῖς ὅτι Ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου παραδίδοται εἰς χεῖρας ἀνθρώπων, καὶ ἀποκτενοῦσιν αὐτόν, καὶ ἀποκτανθεὶς μετὰ τρεῖς ἡμέρας ἀναστήσεται.
32 οἱ δὲ ἠγνόουν τὸ ῥῆμα, καὶ ἐφοβοῦντο αὐτὸν ἐπερωτῆσαι.
33 Καὶ ἦλθον εἰς Καφαρναούμ. καὶ ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ γενόμενος ἐπηρώτα αὐτόυς, Τί ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ διελογίζεσθε;
34 οἱ δὲ ἐσιώπων, πρὸς ἀλλήλους γὰρ διελέχθησαν ἐν τῇ ὁδῶ τίς μείζων.