My last post on deictics and verbs of motion stemmed from running into a synoptic difference regarding the call of the first disciples. Typically ἐρχομαι refers to movement toward some deitic reference, in contract to πορευομαι being used for reference away from the center. Carl Conrad posted an important comment about the impact compounding verbs can have on their overall meaning. One such compound that I have wondered about is ἀπερχομαι. In perusing the lexica, BDAG and LSJ both list “go away, depart (from)” as the top glosses, making me wonder if the prefixing of the preposition in this case has essentially changed the deictics for this verb of motion. The translation information for the GNT (based on the ESV reverse-interlinear data) supports the change to motion away, as does the LXX-BHS alignment. The verbs used to render it in the vast majority of cases indicates motion away rather than toward the deictic center, opposite of the core semantic meaning of ἐρχομαι. I am hesitant to say that the deictics have changed based only on the glosses, as that may simply highlight the mismatch in usage between the languages. Looking at the usage in Matthew versus Luke, there is a measure of consistency. Mark uses ἐξερχομαι in similar contexts (e.g. Mk 2:12), but it is often rendered differently in the parallel versions (Mt 9:7 and Luke 5:25 use ἀπερχομαι).
I feel fairly sure about the change of deictics with ἀπερχομαι compared to simple ἐρχομαι. I am hesitant to claim a similar change regarding ἐξερχομαι, especially based on the frequent change of Mark’s usage in the gospel parallels. For instance, Matthew 8:32 uses these verbs in opposition in some contrast to the synoptic parallels.
Matthew 8:32 καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς· ὑπάγετε. οἱ δὲ ἐξελθόντες ἀπῆλθον εἰς τοὺς χοίρους· καὶ ἰδοὺ ὥρμησεν πᾶσα ἡ ἀγέλη κατὰ τοῦ κρημνοῦ εἰς τὴν θάλασσαν καὶ ἀπέθανον ἐν τοῖς ὕδασιν.
Mark 5:13 καὶ ἐπέτρεψεν αὐτοῖς. καὶ ἐξελθόντα τὰ πνεύματα τὰ ἀκάθαρτα εἰσῆλθον εἰς τοὺς χοίρους, καὶ ὥρμησεν ἡ ἀγέλη κατὰ τοῦ κρημνοῦ εἰς τὴν θάλασσαν, ὡς δισχίλιοι, καὶ ἐπνίγοντο ἐν τῇ θαλάσσῃ.
Luke 8:33 ἐξελθόντα δὲ τὰ δαιμόνια ἀπὸ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου εἰσῆλθον εἰς τοὺς χοίρους, καὶ ὥρμησεν ἡ ἀγέλη κατὰ τοῦ κρημνοῦ εἰς τὴν λίμνην καὶ ἀπεπνίγη.
I would rather understand Matthew maintaining the deictic center with Jesus and having the pigs “go/depart” to the pigs than to posit a different sense. Based on the salience of the pigs, it is understandable to have the deictic center shift in Mark and Luke to where the demons are headed. Levinsohn notes that Luke regularly shifts the center to the next place where salient action occurs. In any case, ἐξερχομαι seems to be used for motion toward rather than motion from, notwithstanding Mark’s use to the contrary. I would appreciate hearing your thoughts on the matter.
My main interest in digging into the deictics was the practical payoff for exegesis, not just the translation issue. If the writer chooses to describe the motion as moving away versus coming toward, what difference does it make? Consider that calling of the first disciples. After Jesus calls Simon and Andrew, they ditch their stuff and their dad and follow Jesus. Matthew and Mark differ in the verbs of motion used. Instead of claiming a different “sense” of the verb, it seems prudent to examine the effect of using a different deictic center. Take a look.
Matthew 4:22 οἱ δὲ εὐθέως ἀφέντες τὸ πλοῖον καὶ τὸν πατέρα αὐτῶν ἠκολούθησαν αὐτῷ.
Mark 1:20 καὶ εὐθὺς ἐκάλεσεν αὐτούς. καὶ ἀφέντες τὸν πατέρα αὐτῶν Ζεβεδαῖον ἐν τῷ πλοίῳ μετὰ τῶν μισθωτῶν ἀπῆλθον ὀπίσω αὐτοῦ.
Matthew’s use of “follow” places the deictic center with Jesus, the person or thing that is being followed. From a cinematic standpoint, this scene would be shot as though the camera were leaving with Jesus and the disciples, perhaps looking back on Zebedee standing on the shore.
Mark’s protrayal provides a different scene. Based on the deictics of ἀπέρχομαι, the deictic center is most likely Zebedee and the place they depart from. Cinematically, this infers shooting the scene from Zebedee’s standpoint, watching Jesus and his boys walk off in the distance.
This latter strategy is employed in the Hebrew of Gen 22:6, 8, each time “the two of them went on together.” The deictics portray things such that the camera is watching Abraham and Isaac walk away (הלכ). This stands in contrast to them “arriving” at the place that God told them in 22:9 using בוא. There really is a rhyme and reason to this usage, it just takes a frame of reference for making sense of it.
Next time you hit a verb of motion in your Greek reading (which will probably not be too long, based on their frequency), slow down and think about the deictics. Where/who is the center, how would it be shot with a camera, from what vantage point?
At least in the NT compounds of poreuomai are rare. Compounds of erchomai are much more common, and are often traditionally rendered in English with compounds of “go”. Given this, I can’t help wondering if the typical movement towards deictic function of erchomai is lost or cancelled in compounds. Indeed it seems rather like the etymological fallacy to expect that the compounds have the same deictic specifics as the simple verb. (I note that in Russian simple verbs often have specific meaning components which are lost in their compounds.) So if you think they do, I think you need to make a positive case for this, rather than assume it in the lack of clear evidence to the contrary.
Thanks for the input, Peter. There seem to be many variables in play, but your comment highlights one I was missing. I get the sense that register may be another, in the Mark’s usage seems somewhat out of step at points, and other times not. I will start paying closer attention to such issues from here on. Thanks again.
This is perhaps a tangential issue, but what you say of “translation information for the GNT (based on the ESV reverse-interlinear data)” bothers me. It means that somebody else has decided the issue for you about what the word means. This is a primary reason why I abhor the reverse-interlinear standards adopted by Logos.
Carl, I am talking about the data retrieved from a report about how the term was rendered by the ESV translators. It represents a broader sense of usage than I would obtain from a lexicon entry alone. It essentially pulls together in a report what would otherwise be done in a concordance search. It does not decide the issue for me, it simply gathers information. I did the same in LXX using the LXX-BHS reverse interlinear. It allows me to see the Hebrew understood to align to the Greek translation. This is imperfect at best, as LXX sometimes appears to manifest a different source reading.
Without a reverse-interlinear, I would need to look up every occurrence, read the context of both the original and the translation, the isolate the corresponding elements. For the number of occurrences of a verb of motion like ἀπερχομαι, this information would not be worth the effort for a quick thumbnail in a blog post.
Like they say at the NRA, “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” Notwithstanding the fact that guns may be the implement used, I view data as being neutral, but it surely can be abused. I abhor lexica for much the same reasons as you likely despise the technology–it can do the thinking for you if you let it. In the end it is up to us what we do with it, right?
Okay, I’m paddling VERY hard trying to keep up with you, Steve (from a layman’s point of view). I LOVE this stuff though because it carries such profound implications for biblical interpretation. I’m wondering how many discrepancies in the Bible can be cleared up by careful consideration of things like deictics.
John, I think a good case can be made in the gospels that some of what have been characterized discrepancies can be reasonably–perhaps even better–explained as differences in the evangelist’s communication objectives. If all goes well, this theme will be the focus of my conference papers this November. Deictics don’t solve everything, but it provides greater understanding of the nature of the differences, perhaps even why the change was made. Hopefully I’ll know more in a year or two.