Download - Apollonius' Corollary in the Gospel of Mark
-
7/30/2019 Apollonius' Corollary in the Gospel of Mark
1/21
ANARTHROUS HEAD NOUN MODIFIED BY AN ANARTHROUS GENITIVE NOUNIN THE GOSPEL OF MARK
by
Dominic P. Venuso
A PAPER
Submitted to Dr. D. A. Carsonin partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the course NT 8721Advanced Greek Grammar
at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School
Deerfield, IllinoisApril 2013
-
7/30/2019 Apollonius' Corollary in the Gospel of Mark
2/21
1
Introduction
Does refer to an angel of the Lord or to the angel of the
Lord? In Mark 15:39, what did the Centurion mean when he confessed:
? These are some of the exegetical questions that highlight the
potential importance of Apollonius Corollary. In this paper, I will be doing an inductive
grammatical study to determine the validity of Apollonius Corollary in the Gospel of Mark. 1
First, we will define the rule, then we will walk through the various kinds of texts where the
rule could potentially apply, and finally, we will draw some conclusions.
The Rule
In general, both of the rules tied to Apollonius name recognize a close
relationship between a noun and the genitive noun that qualifies it .2 Apollonius Canon holds
that the head noun and the genitive noun will generally either be both articular or both
anarthrous. 3 Apollonius Corollary holds that when both nouns are anarthrous, both will
1 Hedges did his major work in the Pauline literature. According to DanielWallace, unpublished research has also been done on the Petrine epistles and in somenarrative material. These studies confirmed Hedges original work. To continue this research,in this paper, I will be investigating the rule in the Gospel of Mark (a corpus that, to myknowledge, has not been done yet).
2
Different grammarians label the relationship different ways. When referringto the whole structure, the nouns are said to be in regimen. The noun is variously called: thehead noun, the governing noun, or nomen regens . The genitive is called: the genitive noun,the governed noun, or nomen rectum .
3 A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Researc h (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1934), 780782. For exceptions, seeSanford D. Hull, Exceptions to Apollonius Canon in the New Testament: A Grammatical
-
7/30/2019 Apollonius' Corollary in the Gospel of Mark
3/21
usually have the same semantic force. 4 The semantic force may be definite, qualitative, or
indefinite. David Hedges work concluded that Apollonius Corollary, though not an
absolute rule, had general validity.5
Specifically, he found:
On the average, absolute agreement was observed in 74% of the cases, while20% of the pairs differed by only one semantic step [e.g., Q-D] and only 6%differed by two steps. It was further determined that in general if theconstruction involved , the nouns were probably both definite (68%), if the construction involved only a preposition, they were probably bothqualitative (52%), and if the construction involved neither proper nouns, ,
prepositions, nor equative verbs, then the nouns, though agreeing, had aboutan equal chance of being any of the three definiteness classes. 6
The Texts
An Accordance search was run to collect all of the instances of an anarthrous
head noun modified by an anarthrous genitive noun in the Gospel of Mark .7 This search
rendered 47 hits in 40 verses. 8 As I work through the texts inductively in this paper, I will
first eliminate the false positives. Then, I will group the texts according to Hedges various
Study, Trinity Journa l 7, no. 1 (Spr 1986): 316.4 Daniel B. Wallace, The Basics of New Testament Syntax an Intermediate
Greek Gramma r (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000), 250.5 David William Hedges, Apollonius Canon and Anarthrous Constructions
in Pauline Literature: An Hypothesis, 1983.
6 Ibid., 6667.7 See Appendix 1 for a diagram of the construct search. It is theoretically
possible that this search could have missed a couple of extremely rare cases of nouns inregimen that are greatly spread apart, which could only be found by many years of readingthrough Mark.
8 See Appendix 2 for a complete list of the results.2
-
7/30/2019 Apollonius' Corollary in the Gospel of Mark
4/21
structural categories. 9 Under each heading, I generally will order them first by definiteness
and then canonically.
False Positives
Cases of apposition were not counted, thus removing three hits (Mark 1:1;
Mark 2:26). 10 Mark 1:30 had an article that was far enough out of range to not be detected by
my parameters. I am also excluding genitives that modify words that follow them (Mark
6:43). With these false positives excluded, this leaves us with 42 hits in 37 verses to
investigate.
Texts Containing Proper Nouns Or K
There are three occurrences of this category in three verses. Because proper
names are always definite, and because the genitive nouns in all three of these instances are
proper nouns, the genitive nouns in these passages are all definite. The only question is: what
is the definiteness of the head nouns? In Mark 6:3, we find the question,
, ;.
Here the people are specifically identifying Jesus as (the brother of
James)the head noun is definite. In Mark 10:47-48, we find two occurrences of the same
phrase: . In this phrase, the head noun is in the vocative, specifically imploring
9 Hedges, Apollonius Canon and Anarthrous Constructions in PaulineLiterature.
10 Accordance counts Mark 1:1 as 3 hits, even though only one hit ( ) needs to be explained for our purposes.
3
-
7/30/2019 Apollonius' Corollary in the Gospel of Mark
5/21
Jesus by addressing him as, son of David. They also are both definite. Therefore, all three
of these instances are definite-definite.
Texts Containing 11
There are two instances of this category in Mark. In Mark 1:1 (in some
manuscripts) Jesus is given the Messianic title, . The monadic nature of this title
means that it is definite-definite. In Mark 11:22 , we find the abstract (and therefore
qualitative-definite) head noun . 12 Both of these cases are similar to the previous
category in that they essentially use as God the Fathers proper name. This means that
the genitive nouns are also definite.
Texts Where The Head Noun Is An Object Of A Preposition
There are five cases where it is so clear that they are definite-definite I will
not provide arguments, but simply list them. Mark 10:6 appeals to the pattern that God
established ( from the beginning of the creation). In Mark 12:10,
the prophecy is cited which says that Jesus has become (the chief
cornerstone). The phrase, in Mark 13:19 (like 10:6), refers to the
definite starting point of the creation. Mark 13:27 contains two constructions of nouns in
11 If one was especially interested in this category, it would certainly be
necessary to consider a larger corpus since the only instances of texts containing in Mark are referring to God.12 Technically, the abstract noun could be counted either as definite or
qualitative, but there is probably no meaningful difference between the two choices;Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Researc h, 794;Basil L Gildersleeve and Charles William Emil Miller, Syntax of Classical Greek from
Homer to Demosthenes .. . (New York: American Book Company, 1900), 259.4
-
7/30/2019 Apollonius' Corollary in the Gospel of Mark
6/21
regimen which depict a definite span: (from the
ends of the earth to the ends of heaven).
Beyond these clear cases, I had some difficulty in deciding between
qualitative and either definite or indefinite. In Mark 1:4, (for the
forgiveness of sins) seems best to be understood as definite-definite, since on the whole it is
referring to a definite purpose for the baptism of repentance (although, again, the abstract
element certainly admits the qualitative option). The phrase,
, in Mark 12:14 is an idiom for you are not swayed by appearances, and should
probably be taken as definite-definite (the face of men). While it could be definite-definite,
in Mark 9:31 is probably qualitative-qualitative, referring not
literally to the hands of men but to human captivity or bondage, emphasizing the quality of
each of the nouns. In Mark 5:25, seems most likely to be indefinite-
qualitative: a discharge of blood.
This section showed greater diversity than the previous two structural
categories. There were seven that were definite-definite, one qualitative-qualitative, and one
indefinite-qualitative.
Texts Where The Head Noun Is The Subject Or Object Of An Equative Verb
One instance here is definite-definite (Mark 3:17): Jesus gave James and John
the new nickname, (Sons of Thunder). One is qualitative-qualitative (Mark 1:17) : Jesus uses the metaphor,
(I will make you to become fishers of men). One is
indefinite-qualitative (Mark 4:37): (a great windstorm). 5
-
7/30/2019 Apollonius' Corollary in the Gospel of Mark
7/21
Texts With Combined Categories
One (a case of a preposition and ) is clearly definite-definite (Mark
11:9): (in the name of the Lord). Though Harner has disputed it, I also think that in Mark 12:35 is definite-definite (this is a combination of
equative verb and proper noun). Harner argues for a qualitative force to the head noun
because of the contextual emphasis on Davidic decadency. 13 However, this emphasis is
maintained even if we take the head noun as definite. Because of the idea of a monadic son
of David, it is best to take it as a definite.
In Mark 15:39, we come to the most exegetically significant instance of an
anarthrous head noun modified by an anarthrous genitive noun in Mark. This one is a
combined category of equative verb and . The centurion, upon seeing how Jesus died,
confesses, (Truly this man was the son of
God). I agree with those who argue that there is one meaning for the centurion and one for
Mark. 14 There is a great deal of debate about what the centurion would have meant, though
he probably means it in an indefinite or qualitative sense. When one considers the flow of
Marks gospel, it is clear that Mark uses it as definite-definite, since it is the climactic
Christological confession in his book. 15 Note that, assuming the inclusion of in
13 Philip B. Harner, Qualitative anarthrous predicate nouns : Mark 15:39 andJohn 1:1, Journal of Biblical Literatur e 92, no. 1 (Mr 1973): 79.
14 Vincent Taylor, The Gospel According to St. Mark: The Greek Text with Introduction, Notes, and Indexe s (London: Macmillan, 1952), 597.
15 R. T. France, The Gospel of Mark: A Commentary on the Greek Tex t (The New international Greek Testament commentary; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2002), 659 660; Philip G. Davis, Marks Christological Paradox, Journal for the Study of the NewTestamen t, no. 35 (1989): 1112.
6
-
7/30/2019 Apollonius' Corollary in the Gospel of Mark
8/21
1:1, Mark starts his gospel by ascribing two titles to Jesus: Christ and Son of God. The
book is then divided into two halves where each title is developed. Each half comes to a
climax with a human confession (Mark 8:29; 15:39). There is room in either case for the
human speakers to not be speaking with the full understanding of their confession (this is
clearly what is going in Peters case, Mark 8:3133), while Mark still means the confessions
in their fullest sense.
Texts Containing No Special Structural Features
Of the texts that have no special structural features, eight are definite-definite.
The first is Mark 1:6, where we learn that John the Baptist was clothed with a specific kind
of garment: (the hair of the camel). In Mark 4:31, Jesus speaks of
(a grain of mustard seed). While the English gloss requires an
indefinite article, the construction is definite-definite because the first noun is a generic noun
and the second denotes a particular plant. Mark 7:4 mentions a specific tradition,
(the washing of the cups). Mark 7:7 condemns teaching as
doctrine, (the commandments of men). While this might seem
like a rare occurrence of a move from definite to more indefinite (i.e. definite-qualitative),
verse 8 reinforces the idea that it is definite-definite, by having the parallel idea of
. After the feeding of the four thousand, Mark 8:8 reports that
after everyone ate their full, they still took up (the leftover fragments), which amounted to seven basketfuls. Similarly, Mark 8:19-20 twice refers back
to these baskets of fragments as, (the baskets full of the
7
-
7/30/2019 Apollonius' Corollary in the Gospel of Mark
9/21
fragments). Finally, Mark 13:8 warns that the signs of verses 6-8 are only
(the beginning of the birth pains).
There are a number of instances where at least one of the nouns is qualitative.
Only one instance in this category is qualitative-qualitative. 16 Mark 4:5 warns that the seed
sown on the rocky ground sprang up because it had no (depth of soil). Seven
instances are indefinite-qualitative. In Mark 1:4, John the Baptist preaches
(a baptism of repentance). The genitive noun in this instance is abstract, and
functions as an attributive genitive, and so, in terms of definiteness, is qualitative. 17 Mark
10:4 alludes to Moses permission of (a certificate of divorce).
Mark 11:17 contains two: (a house of prayer) and
(a den of robbers). 18 In Mark 14:3, we read of (an alabaster jar of
ointment).
A number of the hits in this paragraph could potentially be understood as
indefinite-qualitative (the genitives of content and material, for example, were tempting to
handle this way). Ultimately, I decided to count these as indefinite-indefinite thinking of
them as basically meaning a cup of some water or a herd of some pigs for example. 19
16 I should say, one clear case. One could argue that some of these indefinite-qualitative constructions are better taken as qualitative on the whole. As I will note later, thisis one of the most challenging areas to make a distinction.
17 The approach taken in determining the definiteness of the genitive in thiscase is paradigmatic of how I have handled the genitives in many of the examples in thiscategory. To save space, I have decided not to rehash it all in every instance.
18 One could conceivably identify these as qualitative-qualitative, emphasizingthe character of a house or a den, respectively. I went with the more straightforwardindefinite. Cf. Harner, Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns, 78.
19 There is a danger in depending too heavily on glosses, however, some8
-
7/30/2019 Apollonius' Corollary in the Gospel of Mark
10/21
Mark 2:21 mentions (a piece of cloth). In Mark 5:11, we read of
(a herd of pigs) into which the demons wish to be cast. Mark 9:41 talks of
(a cup of water). Mark 13:7 prophecies of (rumorsof wars). In Mark 14:13, Jesus tells the disciples to look for a man carrying
(a jar of water). Finally, in Mark 15:36, someone fills (a
sponge with sour wine).
This category showed the greatest diversity. I counted eight that were definite-
definite, one that was qualitative-qualitative, seven that were indefinite-qualitative, and six
that were indefinite-indefinite.
proved to be a helpful gloss for me in working through so many examples to test whether or not an indefinite understanding made sense, not only here, but elsewhere in the paper.
9
-
7/30/2019 Apollonius' Corollary in the Gospel of Mark
11/21
Conclusions
The following table shows the number of hits each level of definiteness
received according to the structural categories outlined above:
D-D Q-Q I-I One-step Two-stepsProper Noun 3 0 0 0 0
2 0 0 0 0Preposition 7 1 0 1 0
Equative Verb 1 1 0 1 0Combo 3 0 0 0 0 None 8 1 6 7 0Total 24 3 6 9 0
An inductive study of the construction in Mark confirms Hedges original
assessment that though the rule is not absolute, it is generally valid. I found that it held true
about 79% of the time (versus Hedges 74%).
There are three relatively minor differences between what Hedges found in
the Pauline literature and what I have found in the Gospel of Mark. They are easily
explainable by small differences in judgment or by the difference in the size of the samples.
First, I did not find any examples of two-step difference in definiteness (e.g. definite-
indefinite). The choice was always within a one step difference. Second, I found no clear
cases where the genitive noun was less definite than the head noun. The only potential ones
would be instances where the first is definite and the second could be taken as qualitative
(e.g. Mark 7:7). Third, the rule held true in 100% of the cases containing a proper noun or
10
-
7/30/2019 Apollonius' Corollary in the Gospel of Mark
12/21
where or essentially functioned as a proper noun (including when additional
structural features were present). For Hedges, there were more exceptions.
The most notable difference from Hedges is that I found far fewer qualitative-
qualitative constructions than Hedges. For example, Hedges found that in the case of
constructions with no special structural distinctions, the definiteness was usually shared but
had about an equal chance of being any of the three classes. In my results, there was only one
instance of qualitative-qualitative in that category. There was a roughly equal chance of
definite-definite, indefinite-indefinite, and a one step difference. Why such a different result?
Honestly, this may be due to my lack of clarity regarding the qualitative class (something I
have mentioned before, and that relates to my final point). Another possibility is that it may
instead be a result of the different genres. This is something that might be good to do further
research on. It is conceivable that in heavily theological discourse you will find more
qualitative constructions than in historical narrative.
What is the significance of this papers findings? In a traditional or strict
understanding of the rule, the exceptions are frequent enough that one must consider deictic
and lexical clues to decide the definiteness of either of the nouns in regimen. So, the rule as
traditionally stated offers little in terms of exegetical help. Practically, Apollonius corollary
is helpful mainly as a working hypothesis for the cases where all else is equal. However, if
we broaden our understanding of the rule to distinguish only between two optionsthe two
ends of the spectrum (indefinite-qualitative and qualitative-definite)then the rule is helpful.
In every example we have surveyed in Mark, the nouns were always within a one step
difference of definiteness. In Mark, even the most questionable constructions were always a
11
-
7/30/2019 Apollonius' Corollary in the Gospel of Mark
13/21
decision between one-step differences. It is in these instances of potentially two-step
differences that exegetically significant questions arise (e.g. the meaning of
) . In this broader understanding of the rule, one should only be willing to understandany given instance of the construction as having a two-step difference in definiteness if there
are strong reasons to do so.
Finally, building on the last point, I want to point out that one of the
challenges I often came up against in working through the texts was making a distinction
between qualitative and indefinite, and between qualitative and definite. When Wallace
defines the three, he rightly points out that there is some overlap in the categories. 20 The
category of qualitative, in particular, ranges along the spectrum of indefinite to definite. In
reading through Harner, I noticed that he would often treat the qualitative as something
almost in a different category altogether from the definite and indefinite. 21 To illustrate the
problems with the qualitative class, note that there are genitives that would seem to be
placing the emphasis on the quality of a thing (attributive genitives, genitives of material and
content) that in fact can take the article, and so are formally definite (e.g. Jhn 21:8; Col 1:22;
2:3, 9, 11). Furthermore, traditionally, abstract nouns are understood to be qualitative, but
they may also take the article and therefore be technically definite (e.g. Acts 11:23). In Mark,
the clearest example I found of this sort of thing was in Mark 7:7-8, with
and . So, in general, I think more work could
be done on investigating how to understand the categories of definite, qualitative, and
20 Wallace, The Basics of New Testament Syntax an Intermediate Greek Gramma r, 243244.
21 Harner, Qualitative anarthrous predicate nouns, 79.12
-
7/30/2019 Apollonius' Corollary in the Gospel of Mark
14/21
indefinite. Especially, more work could be done on understanding the qualitative category
and how it relates to genitive constructions.
13
-
7/30/2019 Apollonius' Corollary in the Gospel of Mark
15/21
APPENDIX 1
ACCORDANCE CONSTRUCT WINDOW FOR APOLLONIUS COROLLARY
14
-
7/30/2019 Apollonius' Corollary in the Gospel of Mark
16/21
15
-
7/30/2019 Apollonius' Corollary in the Gospel of Mark
17/21
APPENDIX 2
ANARTHROUS HEAD NOUNS MODIFIED BY ANARTHROUS GENITIVE NOUNS
IN THE GOSPEL OF MARK
Mark 1:1 [ ].
Mark 1:4 [ ] .
Mark 1:6 .
Mark 1:17 , .
Mark 1:30 , .
Mark 2:21 , .
Mark 2:26 , , ;
Mark 3:17 [] ,
16
-
7/30/2019 Apollonius' Corollary in the Gospel of Mark
18/21
Mark 4:5 ,
Mark 4:31 , ,
,
Mark 4:37 , .
Mark 5:11
Mark 5:25
Mark 6:3 ,
; ; .
Mark 6:43 .
Mark 7:4 , , [ ] _
Mark 7:7 .
Mark 8:8 , .
Mark 8:19 ,
; . 20 , ; [ ] .
Mark 9:31
17
-
7/30/2019 Apollonius' Corollary in the Gospel of Mark
19/21
, ,
.
Mark 9:41 , .
Mark 10:4 .
Mark 10:6
Mark 10:47
, . 48 , .
Mark 11:9
Mark 11:17 ; .
Mark 11:22 .
Mark 12:10 ,
Mark 12:14 , , ; ;
Mark 12:35
;
Mark 13:7
18
-
7/30/2019 Apollonius' Corollary in the Gospel of Mark
20/21
, , . 8 , , .
Mark 13:19 .
Mark 13:27 [ ] .
Mark 14:3 ,
,
. Mark 14:13 ,
Mark 15:36 [ ]
.
Mark 15:39 .
19
-
7/30/2019 Apollonius' Corollary in the Gospel of Mark
21/21
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Davis, Philip G. Marks Christological Paradox. Journal for the Study of the NewTestament , no. 35 (1989): 318.
France, R. T. The Gospel of Mark: A Commentary on the Greek Text . The Newinternational Greek Testament commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2002.
Gildersleeve, Basil L, and Charles William Emil Miller. Syntax of Classical Greek from Homer to Demosthenes ... New York: American Book Company, 1900.
Harner, Philip B. Qualitative anarthrous predicate nouns : Mark 15:39 and John 1:1. Journal of Biblical Literature 92, no. 1 (Mr 1973): 7587.
Hedges, David William. Apollonius Canon and Anarthrous Constructions in PaulineLiterature: An Hypothesis, 1983.
Hull, Sanford D. Exceptions to Apollonius Canon in the New Testament: A GrammaticalStudy. Trinity Journal 7, no. 1 (Spr 1986): 316.
Robertson, A. T. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research . Nashville: Broadman Press, 1934.
Taylor, Vincent. The Gospel According to St. Mark: The Greek Text with Introduction, Notes, and Indexes . London: Macmillan, 1952.
Wallace, Daniel B. The Basics of New Testament Syntax an Intermediate Greek Grammar .Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000.
20