QUESTION
I noticed this idiom (if it is an idiom) ἐν ᾧ in my reading today in Mark 2:19, which looks to mean ‘during’. I don’t have any particular insight on it but did a search and saw that it occurs 52 times, and I’ve never really noticed it. Can you provide any insights into ἐν ᾧ ?
Mark 2:19 (NA27 with Mounce-Koivisto Morphology)
" 19 καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς ὁ Ἰησοῦς· μὴ δύνανται οἱ υἱοὶ τοῦ νυμφῶνος ἐν ᾧ ὁ νυμφίος μετʼ αὐτῶν ἐστιν νηστεύειν; 1ὅσον χρόνον ἔχουσιν τὸν νυμφίον μετʼ αὐτῶν οὐ δύνανται νηστεύειν."
RESPONSE
The hapax ὡς ἦν is an adverbial subordinator clause. Some translators connect local PP ἐν τῷ πλοίῳ in the default way with adjacent ἦν (option 1), and others connect it in the non default way with distal παραλαμβάνουσιν (option 2) skipping over the adjacent candidate ἦν. The syntax does not give us a decisive clue which is right (although we want to prefer the default adjacent general rule). It has to be decided semantically (playing field for speculators), although it is probably not a theological point.
The option 1 translators tend to imply “since/while” while the option 2 translators tend to put the comma and imply “just as he was without making special preparations” (Leedy takes option 2 and Robertson concurs, but NU lacks the comma, which is noncommittal).
I disagree with the majority that supply “just” or “even” (following the Vulgate supply of ita before ut). The “without preparation" idea of Robertson is very old, implied by Jerome and made explicit by Bengal sine apparatu. I did not see any English or German translations that I liked. My personal opinion is that Mark was not implying option 2 or “since" but was merely being pleonastic or parenthetical in making sure that the readers had the right picture that Jesus was in the ship with them when they took him by ship, but I could be wrong. Of course as usual I am not implying that option 2 is wrong semantically since they did take him in the ship just as he was. I just do not think option 2 identifies the Greek syntax. Option 1 has the right head-dependent connection for the PP but probably not the right syntax for the sentence. (This all will be more immediately apparent when we get the GNT-GC diagrammer launched.)
The bigger question (besides the connection) is what semantic purpose Mark had in inserting the (apparently secondary) subordinator clause. I personally do not see why Mark would want to be telling us that they did not get him a rain coat or tooth brush or something vague like that first before starting out. You get ready to leave by getting your stuff at hand. It is trivial and does not need real estate in the Bible verses.
My Option 3 connects the PP with ἦν like option 1 but uses different syntax and grammatical relations and lacks any semantic implications like ita or just or since:
And they dismissed the crowd and took him along--he was already with them in the ship.
The parenthetic option has the advantage of explicitly avoiding any eisegesis.
I prefer the French translation with the dangling participle, like a parenthetic assertion.
Marc 4:36 French: Louis Segond (1910)
Après avoir renvoyé la foule, ils l'emmenèrent dans la barque où il se trouvait; il y avait aussi d'autres barques avec lui.
Before having sent the crowd back, they brought him in the ship where he was located.
Marc 4:36 French: Martin (1744)
Et laissant les troupes, ils l'emmenèrent [avec eux], lui étant déjà dans la nacelle; et il y avait aussi d'autres petites nacelles avec lui.
And leaving the crowds, they brought him with them--himself already being in the boat.
However, the first one still requires syntactical transposition to make it smooth, but the second one is like an oblique circumstantial participle.
Should we be posting stuff like this in a blog on the site instead of in articles? It has a spontaneous question and answer format but is not a strong demonstration of GC syntax.
—Dennis Kenaga
P.S. The other thing that I did not mention is that ὡς is the most complex/flexible word in the GNT syntactically and is often almost colorless/optional.
ὡς is definitely a subordinator here, but the purpose of the subordinator clause is fuzzy, and a professional editor would probably have wanted to express the idea with more definition and concision.