There is some convoluted syntax in Mark 7:11-1-12 with parenthetical statements and embedded discourse, etc.
11 ὑμεῖς δὲ λέγετε· ἐὰν εἴπῃ ἄνθρωπος τῷ πατρὶ ἢ τῇ μητρί· κορβᾶν, ὅ ἐστιν δῶρον, ὃ ἐὰν ἐξ ἐμοῦ ὠφεληθῇς, 12 οὐκέτι ἀφίετε αὐτὸν οὐδὲν ποιῆσαι τῷ πατρὶ ἢ τῇ μητρί, …
I’ve translated it like this:
11 but you say, ‘If a man says to father or mother, “Whatever you should benefit from me is Corban” ’ (that is, a gift), 12 then you no longer allow him to do anything for father or mother, …
This is part of a larger statement, but this chunk is self-contained. The preceding is a coordinated statement and the following is an adverbial participle clause.
I have two hesitations. First, I’m assuming this is intended to be a 3d class condition: protasis, Ἐὰν εἴπῃ…; apodosis, οὐκέτι ἀφίετε…. That is the way most translations handle it. But, second, that analysis results in the protasis being a statement by the Pharisees and scribes (quoted by Jesus, direct discourse), but the protasis consists of Jesus’ words describing the consequences of their actions/statement. That seems unusual to me, but I’m not quite sure how else the syntax might be analyzed.
Perhaps I’m missing something here, or perhaps it’s not unusual and I’m just thinking clearly today. Any suggestions?
Rod,
I remember puzzling over this one doing the LDGNT. I understood ἐὰν εἴπῃ ἄνθρωπος τῷ πατρὶ ἢ τῇ μητρί· κορβᾶν, ὅ ἐστιν δῶρον, ὃ ἐὰν ἐξ ἐμοῦ ὠφεληθῇς as all part of the conditional frame, a very large and complex frame of reference for the proposition that begins at v. 12. His primary point is that they are preventing the son from doing his duty to his parents. Note how you have supplied ‘then’ in your translation, suggesting you see this as the transition to the next chunk of the proposition. Greek uses asyndeton. If the protasis were shorter, one might have found a connective of some kind introducing v. 12.
Also, I am not exactly understanding your point here:
“that analysis results in the protasis being a statement by the Pharisees and scribes (quoted by Jesus, direct discourse), but the protasis (apodosis?) consists of Jesus’ words describing the consequences of their actions/statement.” I am not understanding the ‘but’ in talking about the two parts of the protasis. Could you rephrase the question?
It is indeed a long protasis, but fits well with the text. Jesus is addressing the Pharisees in direct discourse, so one would expect the apodosis to address them as well.
The asyndeton doesn’t surprise me; 3d class more often doesn’t have a connective. What’s perplexing is that if my understanding is right (reflected in my transl.), then the ἐάν/”if” is part of what the *Pharisees* say, but that leaves their condition without an apodosis since v 12 is obviously *Jesus’* words. The only alternative I see is to make the quote of the Pharisees start on verse later: … if “a man says…,” then…. But the syntax doesn’t seem to allow that since the ἐάν *follows* ὑμεῖς δὲ λέγετε. For the alternative I would have expected something like, Ἐὰν ὑμεῖς εἴπῃς, εἴπῃ ἄνθρωπος τῷ πατρὶ …
I think I understand now. One might have expected: “but you say, ‘If a man says to father or mother, “Whatever you should benefit from me is Corban” (that is, a gift), 12 then he is no longer allowed to do anything for father or mother’… I expect that they would not have taught this, as it would directly contradict the expectations of the law. By implication, however, this is what they ended up teaching as a result of redirecting the gifts. I think you are correct in understanding that there is no apodosis in direct quote from the Pharisees, but one that is refashioned by Jesus. He avoids putting words in their mouth they likely would not have said outright, but makes the same point.
Take a look at how things are reshaped in the parallel in Mt 15:5-6:
5 ὑμεῖς δὲ λέγετε, Ὃς ἂν εἴπῃ τῷ πατρὶ ἢ τῇ μητρί, Δῶρον ὃ ἐὰν ἐξ ἐμοῦ ὠφεληθῇς, 6 οὐ μὴ τιμήσει τὸν πατέρα αὐτοῦ· καὶ ἠκυρώσατε τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ διὰ τὴν παράδοσιν ὑμῶν.
Matthew establishes a hypothetical context similar to Mark’s “If a man should say…” By using the Ὃς ἂν, he still introduces a hypothetical individual, but avoids the need for an apodosis by avoiding the protasis. Mark’s rendering is understandable, but the use of the conditional to introduce “the guy” paints him into a grammatical corner, giving it an awkwardness that you picked up on. Matthew accomplishes the same discourse task using a different mechanism, thus avoiding the problem altogether. There was another example like this that I discuss in the grammar where Mark 11:23 uses Ὃς ἂν to introduce a hypothetical person in a pendens construction, but it makes for a complex description before you actually read what is stated about them. In the parallel in Matthew 21:21, the writer uses a conditional, but applies it to the audience in second person, avoiding the need for introducing “this guy”. See p. 237 in the grammar.
Sorry for missing your point in the first place, I think my prose compositions are more Markan than some would like, so I read over it.
Happy Father’s Day, Rod
That’s helpful Steve, esp. the comparison with Matthew–which is another illus. of Markan priority with Matt “cleaning up” Mark’s syntax.
Pingback: Update « NT Discourse
Pingback: Introducing new entities « NT Discourse