Re: [Synoptic-L] Apologies and gegraptai and Kathws
- RickR370@... wrote:
Dr Gibson you took issue with my comment some time back that Mark never uses Kathws to introduce a quotation. You are confusing Kathws with hws and houtws.
So far as I can see, I am doing no such thing.
Kathws is a conjunction that combines kata and hws. When Mark employs this form it is never used to introduce a quotation.That may be so. But the issue isn't, as you are putting it, whether or not Mark uses KAQWS to introduce a quotation .
The issue is what Mark's use of KAQWS with GEGRAPTAI + a citation/quotation (however badly attributed) indicates he is up to. And given the function that the exact same construction has when it is used elsewhere in the NT, in the LXX, in the DSS and Rabbinic literature, and by "secular" Greek writers (namely, to introduce a quotation), why would we expect, as you seem to think we should, that it was intended by Mark when **he** used it, as he most certainly does at Mk, 1:2, to have some function other than what contemporary usage shows it consistently had?
So I ask again if you have any evidence -- and assertion, mind you, is not evidence -- that KAQWS + GEGRAPTAI before a quotation ever functioned as anything but a citation formula?
I recently noticed that the interlinear text of the Zondervan Greek English Interliear translates the perfect passive indicative of gegraptai, "it has been written". I am sure it is because "is written" is just not enough to convey the proper meaning of the text. I can't help but wonder if they have been reprimanded for adding words to their translation in order to make the meaning clearLeaving aside the question of who would reprimand them, the real question is what makes you think anyone would have cause to do so, since "It has been written" adds *no* words to the proper translation of GEGRAPTAI. In fact, "it has been written" is exactly what GEGRAPTAI literally means. Or am I missing something?
Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.)
1500 W. Pratt Blvd. #1
Chicago, IL 60626