A few exegetical comments
> To: Synoptic
> On: Protocol
> From: Bruce
>
> A great deal of nonsynoptic time seems to have been spent, and to continue
> to be spent, on this "Oxon" issue. I quote one relevant item of the list
> protocol as recently posted:
>
> 8. It is essential to provide a full signature for every Email message
> sent
> to Synoptic-L. This signature should identify yourself, your address and,
> where appropriate, your institutional affiliation and homepage
>
> Please note that this is a requirement to identify those posting by their
> name, and current address or institutional affiliation (which functions as
> an address for most academics).
I am curious about the "or" you slip in between "current address"
and "institutional affiliation," since the text in questions has an
"and," the qualification here being only "where appropriate."  Does
this not mean that both are to be given?  (???)  So when your "or"?
>
> It turns out that "Oxon" is not an address, and it is not an institutional
> affiliation. Despite one recent comment, it does not appear that there is
> anything in list protocol to require the routine posting of a curriculum
> vitae.
Another exegetical anomaly I fear, for while "Oxon" is indeed not
an address or institutional affiliation, why is is not included in the
first portion of the sentence, "to identify" oneself.  While it is true,
that this is not specifically required, where is it precluded?  In fact,
why not an abbreviated vitae, which I have always found to be most
helpful.  (???)
>
> Another relevant item of list protocol is the following, and again I quote:
>
> 10. Please avoid all critical comments of a personal nature. While the
> "cut
> and thrust" of academic argument is welcome, this should never descend into
> personal attack.
>
> There have been repeated instances, on this list as well as on others which
> overlap with it in membership, of attempts to discredit participants on the
> basis of their academic qualifications, rather than on the substance of
> their arguments. That would appear to be a violation of the prohibition of
> ad hominem attacks. If a member making an argument is in fact incompetent
> with respect to the topic being discussed, that can be brought out, and can
> only properly be brought out, by demonstrating the inaccuracy or irrelevance
> of some points of the argument, by an argument which *goes to* the argument,
> and not to the person making it. It cannot validly be brought out by calling
> in question the educational background of the person making that argument.
>
> This repeated violation has consistently gone unrebuked by the respective
> list managers. I venture to call it to their attention now, as a matter
> deserving their consideration.
Here you have raised my curiosity for I can not think of any
such ... although that might be the product of my poor old mind.
Perhaps you might share with me some "for instances" in an
off-board e-mail, which I surely would appreciate.
>
> Respectfully submitted,
>
> E Bruce Brooks
> Warring States Project
> University of Massachusetts at Amherst
>
>
Frank

Clive F. Jacks, Th.D. (Union Theological Seminary, NYC)
Professor Of Religion, Emeritus
Pikeville College,
Pikeville, KY

(but now happily retired back home in the metro Atlanta area!)

There is precious little information about Jeffrey B. Gibson.  He owns
several e-lists and I find his CV not posted on academia.edu.  I am highly
suspicious of him and suspect him of academic fraud.  He appears to be
stalking me.

Barré

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Mark, as list-owner, would  you put a stop to this? Most of us on this
list know Jeffrey personally, know his scholarship, some have seen and
salivated and benefited from his personal library, and have always
found him to be insightful and one who enjoys a good argument but does
not suffer fools lightly.  While Barre is free to disagree with him on
any particular issue, do we really want to encourage further ad
hominem?



--

Larry Swain

Chair, English Dept.

Bemidji State University

Editor in Chief, The Heroic Age

www.heroicage.org

theswain@...





On Tue, Jan 29, 2013, at 09:41 AM, [1]lmbarre@... wrote:



There is precious little information about Jeffrey B. Gibson. He owns
several e-lists and I find his CV not posted on academia.edu. I am
highly
suspicious of him and suspect him of academic fraud. He appears to be
stalking me.
Barré
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


References

1. mailto:lmbarre@...
2.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Synoptic/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJxNGc2cDlzBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE\
0BGdycElkAzE1NjIzODcxBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTA3NDA1NwRtc2dJZAM0NzY1BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3J\
wbHkEc3RpbWUDMTM1OTQ3NDE2MQ--?act=reply&messageNum=4765
3. mailto:lmbarre@...?subject=Re%3A%20Jeffrey%20B%2E%20Gibson%20%28Oxon%29
4.
mailto:Synoptic@yahoogroups.com?subject=Re%3A%20Jeffrey%20B%2E%20Gibson%20%28Oxo\
n%29
5.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Synoptic/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJmYWlwb2FyBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE\
0BGdycElkAzE1NjIzODcxBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTA3NDA1NwRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNudHBjBHN0aW1lAzE\
zNTk0NzQxNjE-
6.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Synoptic/message/4765;_ylc=X3oDMTM1bjNhMjJvBF9TAzk\
3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE1NjIzODcxBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTA3NDA1NwRtc2dJZAM0NzY1BHNlYwNmdHI\
Ec2xrA3Z0cGMEc3RpbWUDMTM1OTQ3NDE2MQR0cGNJZAM0NzY1
7.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Synoptic;_ylc=X3oDMTJmbGFsYjE2BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdy\
cElkAzE1NjIzODcxBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTA3NDA1NwRzZWMDdnRsBHNsawN2Z2hwBHN0aW1lAzEzNTk0\
NzQxNjE-
8. http://markgoodacre.org/synoptic-l
9.
http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJlcm43MGllBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE1NjIzOD\
cxBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTA3NDA1NwRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNnZnAEc3RpbWUDMTM1OTQ3NDE2MQ--
   10.
mailto:Synoptic-traditional@yahoogroups.com?subject=Change%20Delivery%20Format:%\
20Traditional
   11. mailto:Synoptic-digest@yahoogroups.com?subject=Email%20Delivery:%20Digest
   12. mailto:Synoptic-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe
   13. http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
   14.
mailto:ygroupsnotifications@yahoogroups.com?subject=Feedback%20on%20the%20redesi\
gned%20individual%20mail%20v1

--
http://www.fastmail.fm - The professional email service



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

On 1/29/2013 9:41 AM, lmbarre@... wrote:
> There is precious little information about Jeffrey B. Gibson.  He owns
> several e-lists and I find his CV not posted on academia.edu.

So what?

>   I am highly
> suspicious of him and suspect him of academic fraud.  He appears to be
> stalking me.

Quite the contrary:

  From Academia.edu

> Notifications
>
>
> Someone from Australia found your profile page on Google with the
> keyword: "Jeffrey B. Gibson"
> 2013-01-29 01:16:59 -0800
>
> *LM Barré, PhD started following you. *


Jeffrey

--
---
Jeffrey B. Gibson  D.Phil. Oxon.
1500 W.  Pratt Blvd
Chicago, IL
jgibson000@...



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

"Jeffrey B. Gibson...owns several e-lists and I find his CV not posted on
academia.edu. I am highly
suspicious of him and suspect him of academic fraud."

Now, this is ringing bells.  Is this yet another incarnation of Geoff Hudson,
who became well known to us on Crosstalk some years ago?  Sorry, but I think
this is not only off-topic, but offensive.

Cheers,
Rev Tony Buglass BA, MTh
Calderdale Methodist Circuit

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Moderator's Note: No more messages in this thread means no more.  One
participant has already placed on moderated status, and I'll be happy to
add more.

Stephen Carlson
--
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D. (Duke)
Post-Doctoral Fellow, Theology, Uppsala


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

From: lmbarre@...
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 9:41 AM
To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Jeffrey B. Gibson (Oxon)

       There is precious little information about Jeffrey B. Gibson.  He owns
several e-lists and I find his CV not posted on academia.edu.  I am highly
suspicious of him and suspect him of academic fraud.  He appears to be stalking
me.

       Barré


       Lloyd:
            I have known Jeffrey for many years and we co-moderate for each other
on Crosstalk and Johannine Literature. He is an instructor for City Colleges of
Chicago and lecturer in New Testament Studies for the Institute of Pastoral
Studies and Loyola University.  I have been very busy on a late life “fun
degree” in ANE studies so I have not been keeping up with e-talk. Jeffrey is a
firm taskmaster but he knows his stuff.  I don’t think he “stalks” anyone.
I would suggest having a talk with Jeffrey in e-mail but I assure you there is
no academic fraud. I don’t think that is a charge you should make publicly.
I’m sorry if you two have “hit it off” wrong.
       Jack



            FREE Animations for your email by IncrediMail

                   Click Here!









[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Lloyd

Jeffrey Gibson is well-known on this list and several others for more than a
decade. You, on the other hand, are new. None of us are suspicious of you since
anyone can search and find you think of yourself as the neo-Reimarus in  A
Brilliant Deceit and Other Essays

And well-known on other lists too. 

http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-hebrew/1999-January/001193.html

http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-hebrew/1999-January/001197.html


Now, I do not always agree with Jeffrey Gibson, but I actually respect him and
believe he has something worthwhile to contribute to the good of the community.
 
Prof. Giovanni "John" N. Lupia III
Parenti, Italia, New Jersey, USA; Beirut, Lebanon
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Roman-Catholic-News/
http://www.reginacaelipress.com/
God Bless Everyone


________________________________
  From: Jack Kilmon <jkilmon@...>
To: lmbarre@...; Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 4:52 PM
Subject: [Synoptic-L] Re: Jeffrey B. Gibson (Oxon)


 


From: lmbarre@...
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 9:41 AM
To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Jeffrey B. Gibson (Oxon)

There is precious little information about Jeffrey B. Gibson.  He owns several
e-lists and I find his CV not posted on academia.edu.  I am highly suspicious of
him and suspect him of academic fraud.  He appears to be stalking me.

Barré


Lloyd:
I have known Jeffrey for many years and we co-moderate for each other on
Crosstalk and Johannine Literature. He is an instructor for City Colleges of
Chicago and lecturer in New Testament Studies for the Institute of Pastoral
Studies and Loyola University.  I have been very busy on a late life “fun
degree” in ANE studies so I have not been keeping up with e-talk. Jeffrey is a
firm taskmaster but he knows his stuff.  I don’t think he “stalks” anyone.
I would suggest having a talk with Jeffrey in e-mail but I assure you there is
no academic fraud. I don’t think that is a charge you should make publicly.
I’m sorry if you two have “hit it off” wrong.
Jack

FREE Animations for your email by IncrediMail

Click Here!





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

On 1/29/2013 5:19 PM, John Lupia wrote:
> Lloyd
>
> Jeffrey Gibson is well-known on this list and several others for more than a
decade. You, on the other hand, are new. None of us are suspicious of you since
anyone can search and find you think of yourself as the neo-Reimarus in  A
Brilliant Deceit and Other Essays
>
> And well-known on other lists too.
>
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-hebrew/1999-January/001193.html
>
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-hebrew/1999-January/001197.html
>
>
> Now, I do not always agree with Jeffrey Gibson, but I actually respect him and
believe he has something worthwhile to contribute to the good of the community.

May I ask that list members cease posting to this thread.

I appreciate how you are coming to my defense,  but all you are doing is
"feeding the troll".

Jeffrey

--
---
Jeffrey B. Gibson  D.Phil. Oxon.
1500 W.  Pratt Blvd
Chicago, IL
jgibson000@...

I thought this thread was closed, as it should be. On to the Gospels.

Joseph Edmiston (lots of postnominals but irrelevant to this list)
SMMC, Malibu, California


From: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Synoptic@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
John Lupia
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 3:20 PM
To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Re: Jeffrey B. Gibson (Oxon)



Lloyd

Jeffrey Gibson is well-known on this list and several others for more than a
decade. You, on the other hand, are new. None of us are suspicious of you since
anyone can search and find you think of yourself as the neo-Reimarus in  A
Brilliant Deceit and Other Essays

And well-known on other lists too.

http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-hebrew/1999-January/001193.html

http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-hebrew/1999-January/001197.html

Now, I do not always agree with Jeffrey Gibson, but I actually respect him and
believe he has something worthwhile to contribute to the good of the community.

Prof. Giovanni "John" N. Lupia III
Parenti, Italia, New Jersey, USA; Beirut, Lebanon
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Roman-Catholic-News/
http://www.reginacaelipress.com/
God Bless Everyone

________________________________
From: Jack Kilmon jkilmon@...<mailto:jkilmon%40historian.net>>
To: lmbarre@...<mailto:lmbarre%40gmail.com>;
Synoptic@yahoogroups.com<mailto:Synoptic%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 4:52 PM
Subject: [Synoptic-L] Re: Jeffrey B. Gibson (Oxon)




From: lmbarre@...<mailto:lmbarre%40gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 9:41 AM
To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com<mailto:Synoptic%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Jeffrey B. Gibson (Oxon)

There is precious little information about Jeffrey B. Gibson. He owns several
e-lists and I find his CV not posted on academia.edu. I am highly suspicious of
him and suspect him of academic fraud. He appears to be stalking me.

Barré

Lloyd:
I have known Jeffrey for many years and we co-moderate for each other on
Crosstalk and Johannine Literature. He is an instructor for City Colleges of
Chicago and lecturer in New Testament Studies for the Institute of Pastoral
Studies and Loyola University. I have been very busy on a late life “fun
degree” in ANE studies so I have not been keeping up with e-talk. Jeffrey is a
firm taskmaster but he knows his stuff. I don’t think he “stalks” anyone.
I would suggest having a talk with Jeffrey in e-mail but I assure you there is
no academic fraud. I don’t think that is a charge you should make publicly.
I’m sorry if you two have “hit it off” wrong.
Jack

FREE Animations for your email by IncrediMail

Click Here!

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Can anyone explain to me why Mk 2:27 is not considered to be a Western-Non? In
D, a, c, d, e, ff2, and i most of this
verse is not present (the beginning of the verse, although present, is
different), and the last part of the verse is not
present in W and Sy-S, so it would appear to fit the bill. Is it because the
omitted text does not exactly fit our verse
divisions? If so, this would seem to be a strange reason. Can anyone shed any
light on this?



David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA

https://sites.google.com/site/inglisonmarcion/



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

There are more like this:
For Mk consider 5:21, 6:49-50, 9:35, 14:65

Hort just selected some important ones.
His list is not exhaustive.

Best wishes
Wieland

With regard to Mark 2.27 Wieland wrote
----------------
There are more like this:
For Mk consider 5:21, 6:49-50, 9:35, 14:65
Hort just selected some important ones.
His list is not exhaustive.
----------------

If Mark 2.27 might have been interpolated into texts
other than D and its allies then what becomes of
arguments like this:

Jesus of Nazareth: An independent historian's account of his life ...
- Page 373  books.google.co.uk/books?isbn=0567645177
Maurice Casey - 2010 - Preview - More editions

"I have just pointed out that Mk 2.27-28 is a passage where bilingual
translators could see the original Aramaic idiom with particular ease.
Nonetheless, Mk 2.28 is a sound example of a passage in which monoglot
speakers of Greek would see ..."

I don't have the book to hand so only have the snippet not its context,
but the implications might be interesting.  If 2.27 is problematic
how far is that taken into account in the long running bar nasha debates?

David M.


---------
David Mealand,     University of Edinburgh


--
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.

David M, thanks for the comment. I also do not have the book, although the
majority can be found here:
http://books.google.com/books?id=lXK0auknD0YC
<http://books.google.com/books?id=lXK0auknD0YC&pg=PA373&lpg=PA373>
&pg=PA373&lpg=PA373. It would definitely be interesting to know what possible
Western-Non-Interpolations there are
(whether noted by Hort or not!) in which the text not present in the Western
texts (I do not like saying 'omitted'
because it is prejudicial) contains mention of 'the Son of man' in those mss in
which it is present. I don't know
whether such a list exists as such, but it ought to be possible to extract the
information for Mk (for example) from
Wieland's own excellent Textual Commentary on Mark. Thank you Wieland, yet one
more task for me. J



David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA

https://sites.google.com/site/inglisonmarcion/



From: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Synoptic@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
David Mealand
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 3:50 AM
To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Re: Mk 2:27: A Western Non-Interpolation or not?

With regard to Mark 2.27 Wieland wrote
----------------
There are more like this:
For Mk consider 5:21, 6:49-50, 9:35, 14:65
Hort just selected some important ones.
His list is not exhaustive.
----------------

If Mark 2.27 might have been interpolated into texts
other than D and its allies then what becomes of
arguments like this:

Jesus of Nazareth: An independent historian's account of his life ...
- Page 373 books.google.co.uk/books?isbn=0567645177
Maurice Casey - 2010 - Preview - More editions

"I have just pointed out that Mk 2.27-28 is a passage where bilingual
translators could see the original Aramaic idiom with particular ease.
Nonetheless, Mk 2.28 is a sound example of a passage in which monoglot
speakers of Greek would see ..."

I don't have the book to hand so only have the snippet not its context,
but the implications might be interesting. If 2.27 is problematic
how far is that taken into account in the long running bar nasha debates?

David M.

---------
David Mealand, University of Edinburgh

--
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.



   _____

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.2890 / Virus Database: 2639/6067 - Release Date: 01/29/13



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Casey both in his Solution book, and in his Jesus book,
argues that the Greek of Mk. 2.27-28 reflects the policy
of a bilingual translator who is aware of Aramaic idiom.

The absence of 2.27 in D and its allies suggests that 2.27
may not have been an original part of the text of Greek Mark.

My impression is that we could accept one of these inferences
but not both of them, yet I can see that each of them has some
force, and that it is not easy to resolve the resulting dilemma.
Casey's argument on this point seems well founded, (though I do
not agree with his early datings for some of the texts).

The case for seeing D and allies as evidence for interpolation
in other texts is not to be dismissed hastily.  There is a problem
here.  Was the absence of 2.27 a later omission, or did an
interpolator manage to introduce something which matched the translation
policy which Casey detects?

   David M.

PS  Yes
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=lXK0auknD0YC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_g\
e_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
also brings up Casey, Jesus, p373 (and much else) if you scroll down


---------
David Mealand,     University of Edinburgh


--
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.

I’ve been working on this issue in relation to Marcion and Lk 6:5. Here is the
relevant (unfinished) chunk of text (I am indebted to Wieland for a lot of
this):



*** In most mss Mk 2:27-28 read:



And he said unto them, [2:27a] The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the
Sabbath: [2:27b]

Therefore [2:28a] the Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath. [2:28b]



As Willker indicates, the use of ‘man’ (ton anthrƍpon) in Mk 2:27 and
‘the Son of man’ (ho huios tou anthrƍpou) in Mk 2:28 creates a problem:



The wording of v. 27-28 is somewhat redundant, typical for Mk. The story has one
conclusion too many. Either Jesus is superior to the Sabbath, or everyone is...
The previous context with Abiathar and David fits good to verse 28. On the other
hand verse 27 fits good to verses 23-24, but perhaps these were already too
remote and verse 27 was considered as interrupting the narrative.



This problem seems to have been recognized in the Old Latin, as in D, a, c, d,
e, ff2, and i, Mk 2:26 is followed by this text instead:



Dico autem vobis, quoniam Dominus est filius hominis etiam sabbati (a, c, d, e,
ff2, i)

legƍ de hymin, kyrios estin ho huios tou anthrƍpou kai tou sabbatou (D)



I say unto you, the Son of Man is lord also of the Sabbath.



This is a variant of Mk 2:27a, followed by Mk 2:28b, except that D has “legƍ
de hymin” in place of “kai elegen autois,” which is the usual beginning to
Mk 2:27. Willker points out that: “legƍ de hymin” is un-Markan, and also
notes that:



“it appears not in Mk, but 7 times in Mt and 5 times in Lk. Note that the
parallel Mt 12:6 introduces Jesus' words with “legƍ de hymin”, which is
also found in the Western text of Mk 2:28.”



The use of these words in D may indicate that they are a translation from the
Old Latin in d, rather than being taken from the Markan original. W and Sy-S
also have a shorter form of these verses, omitting just the last part of Mk 2:27
(“and not man for the Sabbath”), while keeping the whole of Mk 2:28. Willker
again:



That other scribes found the doubling problematic can be seen in W and Sy-S,
which both omit the second part of verse 27.



Steven Ring suggested (tcg forum 2/2011), that perhaps the original meaning was:

"The Sabbath was created for man, not man for the Sabbath, therefore man is lord
of the Sabbath."

This removes the difficulty of two different subjects.



The absence of an equivalent to Mk 2:27 in both Mt and Lk may be considered to
be a Minor Agreement of Mt and Lk against Mk. However, the omission of some or
(nearly) all of Mk 2:27 in a significant portion of the Western tradition
complicates the issue. ***



This is where I am so far. As you can see, I’m not sure at all what to
conclude from the above, so any thoughts would be appreciated.



David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA

https://sites.google.com/site/inglisonmarcion/



From: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Synoptic@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
David Mealand
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 11:19 AM
To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Synoptic-L] Re: Mk 2:27: A Western Non-Interpolation or not?

Casey both in his Solution book, and in his Jesus book, argues that the Greek of
Mk. 2.27-28 reflects the policy of a bilingual translator who is aware of
Aramaic idiom.

The absence of 2.27 in D and its allies suggests that 2.27 may not have been an
original part of the text of Greek Mark.

My impression is that we could accept one of these inferences but not both of
them, yet I can see that each of them has some force, and that it is not easy to
resolve the resulting dilemma. Casey's argument on this point seems well
founded, (though I do not agree with his early datings for some of the texts).

The case for seeing D and allies as evidence for interpolation in other texts is
not to be dismissed hastily. There is a problem here. Was the absence of 2.27 a
later omission, or did an interpolator manage to introduce something which
matched the translation policy which Casey detects?

David M.

PS Yes
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=lXK0auknD0YC
<http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=lXK0auknD0YC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_\
ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false>
&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
also brings up Casey, Jesus, p373 (and much else) if you scroll down

---------
David Mealand, University of Edinburgh



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

This review http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/1999/1999-12-03.html#n3 Of Casey’s
“Aramaic Sources of Mark's Gospel” looks to be helpful re. ‘the ‘son of
man’ issue in Mk 2:28.



David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA

https://sites.google.com/site/inglisonmarcion/





From: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Synoptic@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
David Mealand
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 11:19 AM
To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Synoptic-L] Re: Mk 2:27: A Western Non-Interpolation or not?

Casey both in his Solution book, and in his Jesus book, argues that the Greek of
Mk. 2.27-28 reflects the policy of a bilingual translator who is aware of
Aramaic idiom.

The absence of 2.27 in D and its allies suggests that 2.27 may not have been an
original part of the text of Greek Mark.

My impression is that we could accept one of these inferences but not both of
them, yet I can see that each of them has some force, and that it is not easy to
resolve the resulting dilemma. Casey's argument on this point seems well
founded, (though I do not agree with his early datings for some of the texts).

The case for seeing D and allies as evidence for interpolation in other texts is
not to be dismissed hastily. There is a problem here. Was the absence of 2.27 a
later omission, or did an interpolator manage to introduce something which
matched the translation policy which Casey detects?

David M.

PS Yes
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=lXK0auknD0YC
<http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=lXK0auknD0YC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_\
ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false>
&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
also brings up Casey, Jesus, p373 (and much else) if you scroll down

---------
David Mealand, University of Edinburgh



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Either Mk 2.27 is an interpolation absent in D and some of
its allies, or it is a relic of pre-Markan polemic in Aramaic
with which later tradition was less comfortable.  But which?

Some or all of Mark 2.27 is absent from a) Matthew b) Luke
c) the text of Mark in W, D and some allies of D.

Luke does share _kai e)legen autois_ with Mark 2.27 though,
so doesn't lack all of Mk 2.27.   But the D text of Luke lacks
what survives of Mk 2.27-28 in Luke at this point and offers
it 5 verses later!  That fact also needs to be weighed.

Further in Mark 2.27a  W D etc use what is considered a non-Markan
idiom  (But I say to you) before either the first clause of 2.27
(the sabbath came about for man) or to run straight into 2.28b.

What all of these have in common is an absence of the proposition
in 2.27b that "man" did not come into existence for the sake of
the sabbath.  They don't all lack all of Mk. 2.27

2.27b  therefore seems to be a sentiment that was just a bit too radical
for Matthew, Luke and some tradents of Mark.  In some cases almost
the whole verse is missing, in others just the second half of it.

That is slightly odd as the line of argument that the Torah came into
existence for humanity and not the other way round is not too distant
from some lines of Rabbinic debate.  All the same it is a combative
response to a criticism, and could have left some readers of Mark
uncomfortable with a sharp and radical logion.  An added factor in
the loss of part or all of 2.27 might well be a distinct preference
for the proposition in 2.28 once the Greek that goes into Mark has
replaced  _bar nasha_ with   _ho huios tou anthrwpou_ .  For what
Casey calls "monoglot speakers of Greek" the phrase is understood
as a title which refers to a unique individual.  That obviously
did appeal to the subsequent tradition, and gets greater prominence,
with less chance of being understood in a general sense, when some
or all of 2.27 is absent.

So I think I am now tending to favour the antiquity of what underlies
Mk.2.27, and _not_ to see its full or partial absence in some texts of
Mark as indicating 2.27 might be an interpolation. (I might well see
other absences in D as pointing to interpolation in other manuscripts
but I am less convinced about this one.)

David M.


---------
David Mealand,     University of Edinburgh



---

--
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.

David, I’m afraid I can’t agree with you re. Mk 2:27. As I see it, there are
just too many ‘oddities’ surrounding this verse for it to be part of the
original Greek of Mk:

1)      The verse is not present in either Mt or Lk.

2)      Either aMt didn’t know Mk 2:27, or he did but chose to replace it with
Mt 12:5-7 (No extant mss of Mt omit these verses, and they have no variants that
I know of).

3)      Either aLk didn’t know Mk 2:27, or he did but chose to omit it.
However, someone else (who we assume knew about Mt 12:5-7?) then added Lk 6:5D
to Bezae (both D and d).

4)      Mk 2:27 and 28 do not fit well together, with v. 27 NOT leading to the
conclusion in v. 28.

5)      D, a, c, d, e, ff2, i contain a severely shortened variant of Mk
2:27-28, reading: ‘I say unto you, the Son of Man is lord also of the
Sabbath.’ This avoids the problem noted above by essentially omitting Mk 2:27,
but beginning with a phrase that is non-Markan, and appears to be taken from Lk
6:5a instead.

6)      W and Sy-c also contain shorter variants of Mk 2:27, with W also
beginning with: ‘I say unto you.’



Casey suggests (insists?) that v. 28 originally contained ‘man’ instead of
‘Son of man.’ Casey’s argument here, if not circular, at least contains a
U-turn: He uses the Greek of Mk and his understanding regarding ‘bar nasha’
to re-construct an Aramaic text, and then turns round and uses that
re-construction to hypothesize a Greek text for which we have no mss evidence,
in which a perfectly understandable translation of Mk 2:27-28 from the Aramaic
was changed into one that was so problematic that Mk 2:27 was omitted from both
Mt and Lk, and significantly changed in several Western mss of Mk itself.



The only way I could see this working would be if Mk 2:27 WAS original, but got
omitted very early when Mk 2:28 was changed, and was then re-instated (sometimes
with changes to try to avoid the problem)  after Mt and Lk were written. This
just seems too complicated for me, with the suggestion that Mk 2:27 was just not
in the original Greek of Mk seeming much simpler, and leading to the same
situation we see today.



David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA

https://sites.google.com/site/inglisonmarcion/



From: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Synoptic@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
David Mealand
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 11:53 AM
To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Synoptic-L] Re: Mk 2:27: A Western Non-Interpolation or not?

Either Mk 2.27 is an interpolation absent in D and some of its allies, or it is
a relic of pre-Markan polemic in Aramaic with which later tradition was less
comfortable. But which?

Some or all of Mark 2.27 is absent from a) Matthew b) Luke c) the text of Mark
in W, D and some allies of D.

Luke does share _kai e)legen autois_ with Mark 2.27 though, so doesn't lack all
of Mk 2.27. But the D text of Luke lacks what survives of Mk 2.27-28 in Luke at
this point and offers it 5 verses later! That fact also needs to be weighed.

Further in Mark 2.27a W D etc use what is considered a non-Markan idiom (But I
say to you) before either the first clause of 2.27 (the sabbath came about for
man) or to run straight into 2.28b.

What all of these have in common is an absence of the proposition in 2.27b that
"man" did not come into existence for the sake of the sabbath. They don't all
lack all of Mk. 2.27

2.27b therefore seems to be a sentiment that was just a bit too radical for
Matthew, Luke and some tradents of Mark. In some cases almost the whole verse is
missing, in others just the second half of it.

That is slightly odd as the line of argument that the Torah came into existence
for humanity and not the other way round is not too distant from some lines of
Rabbinic debate. All the same it is a combative response to a criticism, and
could have left some readers of Mark uncomfortable with a sharp and radical
logion. An added factor in the loss of part or all of 2.27 might well be a
distinct preference for the proposition in 2.28 once the Greek that goes into
Mark has replaced _bar nasha_ with _ho huios tou anthrwpou_ . For what Casey
calls "monoglot speakers of Greek" the phrase is understood as a title which
refers to a unique individual. That obviously did appeal to the subsequent
tradition, and gets greater prominence, with less chance of being understood in
a general sense, when some or all of 2.27 is absent.

So I think I am now tending to favour the antiquity of what underlies Mk.2.27,
and _not_ to see its full or partial absence in some texts of Mark as indicating
2.27 might be an interpolation. (I might well ee
other absences in D as pointing to interpolation in other manuscripts but I am
less convinced about this one.)

David M.

---------
David Mealand, University of Edinburgh



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

To: Synoptic
On: Mk 2:27
From: Bruce

I can only agree with David Inglis on the secondarity of Mk 2:27, not least
because I have previously expounded much the same position some years ago on
this list, and in one or another SBL meeting. His point #4 is a higher
critical argument that I would prefer to state this way: 2:27 and 2:28 give
different reasons why it is OK for Jesus and his followers to pluck grain on
the Sabbath. Logically, we do not need two reasons; one is plenty. Of the
two presently available in Mark, 2:27 is universalist, and in effect
abrogates Sabbath observance for everyone, at all times. 2:28 is specific,
it applies only to Jesus, and only to the present occasion, and only it
relates to the Davidic tone of his previous discourse (2:25-26, the
reference to David in scripture). Jesus has the same privileges as David
once had.

And for the same reason.

2:28 belongs rather to the time when Christianity had divorced itself from
Jewish usages, and had become an interculturally focused movement. Mark, on
evidence repeatedly presented, some of it by myself, is an accretional text,
and in such a text, the early layers are earlier than the later layers. In
cultural history terms, as also in philological terms, Mk 2:27 belongs to a
later layer, whereas Mk 2:28 belongs to a later one. That is to say, Jesus's
exceptionalism is earlier, historically, than is Paul's ethical
universalism. There is nothing very surprising about this conclusion; what
is interesting is to find both ends of it present in Mark.

Another late passage, showing an more extreme divorce from Jewish ways, and
even from knowledge of what those ways are, is the notorious Mk 7:3-4, where
those listening to Mark's story of Jesus have to be taken aside and
instructed about Jewish customs, so that they will know what the story is
ABOUT.

Reflecting on these and similar examples, we may moved to think about Mark
as a book composed within memory of the agenda of the historical Jesus, but
also affected here and there by passages belonging to a substantially later
period, and addressing a culturally different audience. This would be a dark
and permanent perplexity, did not Luke's biography of Mark give us some
clues about how such differences in one man's text might have come about.

Bruce

E Bruce Brooks
Warring States Project
University of Massachusetts at Amherst

David Inglis wrote
-----------
Mk 2:27 and 28 do not fit well together, with v. 27 NOT leading to the
conclusion in v. 28.
-----------

Compare

A2.27 the sabbath was made for man not man for the sabbath
A2.28  so (a/the) son of man is lord even over the sabbath

with
G2.27 the sabbath was made for man and not man for the sabbath
G2.28 so THE SON of MAN (title) is Lord even over the sabbath

A2.27 leads to A2.28 much better than G2.27 leads to G2.28

hence the problem.

I have, of course, over-emphasized, but have done so in order
to try to indicate the point at issue.

Matthew does indeed not like Mark 2.27 at all, but he is
prepared to accept that special cases: priests doing duty
in the temple, or "THE SON of MAN", can override normal prohibitions
on shabbat, but this is not the case for just any member of the
human race according to Matthew.  Note also the latter's alteration
to the Markan Apocalypse at Matt.24.20 versus Mk. 13.18.

The shift from Aramaic to Greek translation, and then to people who
use the Greek translation but are losing, or have lost, touch with
the Aramaic gradually cranks up a problem.  A crucial ambiguity
has now been lost in 2.28.  So 2.27 is now problematic.  The solution
was to dump some or all of Mark 2.27.

But the passage is a splendid mix of linguistic and text-critical
complications, quite enough to keep people busy for a long time.

David M.





---------
David Mealand,     University of Edinburgh


--
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.

I have just added to my website a page detailing my thoughts on this issue, with
a slightly modified version of the text below as the conclusion. If anyone is
interested the link to this page is given below, and I welcome all comments,
corrections, etc., either on-list or off. Thanks to Wieland Willker for his TC
Mark page, which I quote in a number of places.



David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA

https://sites.google.com/site/inglisonmarcion/Home/mark-2-27-28



From: David Inglis [mailto:davidinglis2@...]
Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2013 4:12 PM
To: 'Synoptic@yahoogroups.com'
Subject: RE: [Synoptic-L] Re: Mk 2:27: A Western Non-Interpolation or not?



David, I’m afraid I can’t agree with you re. Mk 2:27. As I see it, there are
just too many ‘oddities’ surrounding this verse for it to be part of the
original Greek of Mk:

1)      The verse is not present in either Mt or Lk.

2)      Either aMt didn’t know Mk 2:27, or he did but chose to replace it with
Mt 12:5-7 (No extant mss of Mt omit these verses, and they have no variants that
I know of).

3)      Either aLk didn’t know Mk 2:27, or he did but chose to omit it.
However, someone else (who we assume knew about Mt 12:5-7?) then added Lk 6:5D
to Bezae (both D and d).

4)      Mk 2:27 and 28 do not fit well together, with v. 27 NOT leading to the
conclusion in v. 28.

5)      D, a, c, d, e, ff2, i contain a severely shortened variant of Mk
2:27-28, reading: ‘I say unto you, the Son of Man is lord also of the
Sabbath.’ This avoids the problem noted above by essentially omitting Mk 2:27,
but beginning with a phrase that is non-Markan, and appears to be taken from Lk
6:5a instead.

6)      W and Sy-c also contain shorter variants of Mk 2:27, with W also
beginning with: ‘I say unto you.’



Casey suggests (insists?) that v. 28 originally contained ‘man’ instead of
‘Son of man.’ Casey’s argument here, if not circular, at least contains a
U-turn: He uses the Greek of Mk and his understanding regarding ‘bar nasha’
to re-construct an Aramaic text, and then turns round and uses that
re-construction to hypothesize a Greek text for which we have no mss evidence,
in which a perfectly understandable translation of Mk 2:27-28 from the Aramaic
was changed into one that was so problematic that Mk 2:27 was omitted from both
Mt and Lk, and significantly changed in several Western mss of Mk itself.



The only way I could see this working would be if Mk 2:27 WAS original, but got
omitted very early when Mk 2:28 was changed, and was then re-instated (sometimes
with changes to try to avoid the problem)  after Mt and Lk were written. This
just seems too complicated for me, with the suggestion that Mk 2:27 was just not
in the original Greek of Mk seeming much simpler, and leading to the same
situation we see today.



David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA

https://sites.google.com/site/inglisonmarcion/



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I am hesitant to repeat a point but
I would recommend re-reading at least
Casey, Solution, 19 & 262-263, and
Casey, Jesus, 370-374.




---------
David Mealand,     University of Edinburgh


--
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.

David M, I apologize if I am failing to understand which point you are referring
to, so perhaps I can re-state some things:

1)      Casey makes it clear that ‘bar nasha’ is a normal term for the
generic ‘man’ (or perhaps ‘people’) (and by the way is quite happy to
berate others for failing to understand this);

2)      Assuming that Mk 2:28 had an Aramaic original (which I am quite happy
with as a possibility) then the original Greek translation was either ‘man’
(generic) or ‘the Son of man’ (Christological), with the translation
decision basically resting on the translators familiarity with Aramaic.

As we don’t know whether aMk was bilingual or not (or is this where there are
points I haven’t appreciated?) then we have to examine the mss evidence of the
variants of Mk 2:27 (and the verses in the equivalent places in Mt and Lk) in
the light of both translations, and see if using that we can determine the
probable history of Mk 2:27. Other than pointing out that we need to allow for
both translations, I’m not sure how Casey figures in this process. Is there
something I’m missing?

David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA

https://sites.google.com/site/inglisonmarcion/



From: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Synoptic@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
David Mealand
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 11:34 AM
To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Synoptic-L] Re: Mk 2:27: A Western Non-Interpolation or not?

I am hesitant to repeat a point but I would recommend re-reading at least Casey,
Solution, 19 & 262-263, and Casey, Jesus, 370-374.
---------
David Mealand, University of Edinburgh



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

To: Synoptic
In Response To: David Inglis
On: Mark
From: Bruce

David: As we don't know whether aMk was bilingual or not . . .

Bruce: Of course not. But are we really entirely in the dark?

1. Mark knew some Greek because he wrote in Greek. His Greek has been
faulted, but I have seen arguments that some of the supposed solecisms may
after all not be that bad; though perhaps not of academic level. It is at
least presentable Greek. Perhaps: provincial Greek. When he gives the name
of Jesus' first-called disciple, he uses the Greek form Peter, not (as Paul
invariably does) the Aramaic equivalent Cephas. In at least this instance,
where a choice offers between Aramaic and Greek, Mark's language of
preference is Greek. In Mark's own household, the maid's name was Rhoda (so
says Luke), a Greek name which implies an affectation of Greek culture.

I am reminded of the cultured Berlin households of the 19c, say that of
Mendelssohn, or of von Ranke (whose wife was Irish; some of his collected
letters are in English), where English as well as German was the medium of
interchange and cultural enjoyment. Or French at the 19c Russian court.

2. Mark seems to have known a number of people fin Jerusalem, possibly
including Simon of Cyrene and his two sons, who are important in the
narrative because at least Simon was an eyewitness to the Crucifixion. If
Simon was a Jew of Cyrene (north Africa), he may not have been a fluent
speaker of Aramaic, and if Mark's circle included people not that fluent in
Aramaic, his own basic language need not have been Aramaic, though
undoubtedly he knew enough Aramaic to get around. The Aramaisms in Mark have
been variously assessed; some who should know find them not always precise.
Mark himself, in giving Aramaisms, invariably translates them for his
readers. Then his expected readers were not assuredly Aramaic-fluent. This
would be another hint that Mark's own circle were not, or not all, or not
all that, fluent in Aramaic.  The only parts of the Jesus story that Mark
really knows up close, as it were, are the Jerusalem parts; for the Galilee
parts, where these are not simply invented, he seems (on the evidence of the
shape these things have within the overall story of Mark) to have relied on
the reports of others. It is likely enough that one of these informants was
Peter (though not, I should think, Peter in Rome; that is taking things too
far in a deuteroPauline direction; far more likely, as Luke suggests, Peter
in Jerusalem). The only person Mark describes physically is John the
Baptist, and John was a popular revivalist preacher in the vicinity of,
again, Jerusalem. For a convinced and early believer in Jesus not ever to
have visited Galilee, or to have heard Jesus preach there firsthand, argues
a lack of comfort in a more exclusively Aramaic-speaking area. Of course the
dialect there was crude, but still.

3. Mk, alone of the Gospels, includes some easy Latinisms, which would have
been natural enough for anyone living in Jerusalem, where there was a strong
Roman military and economic presence. He does not translate these Latinisms;
he expects them to be understood. Then for his intended audience, and
conceivably for himself, Latin (a certain amount of contact Latin) was a
given. His own name (Mark) is Latin, and not Greek (like the non-Aramaic
names of many of his contemporaries).

Not to run this too far, I come up with at least trilingual, taking
"lingual" in a somewhat wide and forgiving sense. Or to put it in a phrase:
a cosmopolitan Jew of Jerusalem.

Bruce

E Bruce Brooks
Warring States Project
University of Massachusetts at Amherst

As far as the phrase 'Son of man' is concerned, it seems to me likely that
the great majority of Markan occurrences are in passages created by Mark
(the exceptions being in 8:38 and 13:26, loosely based on the logia, and
9:12 and 14:62, both part of late interpolations). This assessment of the
majority of the Markan Son of man passages is based on seeing how well they
match the perceived purpose of the author, and on how anomalous they would
be in various ways if taken as pure historical accounts.

Thus I see 2:27b-28 not as a translation, but as a Markan creation. The
question of whether verse 28 is translated correctly is surely based on the
flawed assumption of Markan lack of creativity.

Ron Price,

Derbyshire, UK

http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/syno_home.html



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I have recently started think again about the Great Omission, and (prompted by
Google) have just re-read several 2010
posts on the subject on CrossTalk, beginning here
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crosstalk2/message/23389 . There are
several theories regarding why the Great Omission exists, one of which
(championed by Bruce Brooks) I find appealing.
This is the theory that all aLk had access to (initially, at least) was an
early, unfinished, or damaged copy of Mk that
did not contain the omitted portion of Mk, approximately 6:45-8:26 (I say
approximately because there seems to be no
agreement as to exactly where the omission begins and ends, which is curious in
itself). I seems to me that there are
other clues that suggest that this copy of Mk was not just pristine except for
this one omission, but that the damage
(if that is what it was) occurred elsewhere, and the start and end of the
damaged portions were not at 'clean' textual
boundaries.



First, the Great Omission itself does not have clean boundaries. Lk 9:17 marks
the end of the feeding of the 5000, and
the last part of Lk 9:19 "and he asked them, saying, Whom say the people that I
am?" appears to directly parallel Mk
8:27b, but Lk 9:18 makes a very awkward switch from Jesus being with his
disciples in 9:17, to being alone praying in
9:18a, to being back with his disciples and talking to them in 9:18b. It would
seem to have been much better to simply
leave out the 'alone' mention, unless aLk saw it in his copy of Mk, with the
obvious places being either Mk 6:46 or 47.
However, if aLk saw Mk 6:45 there is no suggestion of it here. Instead, an echo
of this verse can be found in Lk 9:10c,
where Bethsaida is mentioned. The problem is that verse has several variants,
breaking basically breaking down into
three 'clusters': A deserted place; Bethsaida; or a combination of the two. As
feeding 5000 in a city is unlikely, it
seems that the mention of Bethsaida here is a secondary addition. Because
Bethsaida is not mentioned between Lk 9:17 and
18 (where it would be expected) it is possible that aLk had a loose fragment of
text (or a torn leaf) that mentioned
Bethsaida, but that he did not know exactly where to locate it. Given that,
adding it to Lk 9:10 may have made the most
sense.



The other obvious possible point of damage is the ending of Mk. Although many
people have argued that Mk ends where it
was supposed to, it is also clear that many people were not satisfied with this
suggestion, hence the various attempts
to provide a new ending, including both aMt and aLk. If Mk 16:8 was not the
intended end, then either it was never
finished, or it was damaged.



Hints of other another possible fragment that aLk could have had can be found at
the beginning of Lk 12, where Lk 12:1
may be an echo of Mk 8:1, and Lk 12:2 may be an echo of Mk 8:15. If so, it
tempting to suggest that this may be all that
was left of a leaf that originally contained Mk 8:1-16, and aLk inserted the
fragments of text into the beginning of
chapter 12. Perhaps someone could 'do the math' to see if Mk 8:1 and 8:15 could
have been back-to-back on a leaf of a
codex?



Finally, if aLk's copy of Mk did have more extensive damage than just one single
large 'Great Omission,' then it is not
at all unreasonable to suppose that the damage could extend to leaves being
loose and in the wrong order, thus providing
a very simple explanation of why aLk re-arranged much of Mk.



This is of course little more than speculation, but I think it would be at least
worth looking into whether Mk 8:1 and
8:15 could have been back-to-back. Does anyone feel like attempting this?



David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA

https://sites.google.com/site/inglisonmarcion/



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Lk 11:5-8 and 11:11-13 both involve asking and giving, and Lk 11:9-10 appears as
though it would fit better after both
passages, i.e. after 11:13 instead of 11:8. Interestingly, Tertullian refers to
the verses in this order in Adv Marcion
IV. Does anyone know of any other support for such a revised verse order?



David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA

https://sites.google.com/site/inglisonmarcion/Home/marcion/marcion-s-gospel-comp\
ared-verse-by-verse-with-luke/lk-11



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 11:59 PM, David Inglis <davidinglis2@...>wrote:
>
>   Lk 11:5-8 and 11:11-13 both involve asking and giving, and Lk 11:9-10
> appears as though it would fit better after both
> passages, i.e. after 11:13 instead of 11:8. Interestingly, Tertullian
> refers to the verses in this order in Adv Marcion
> IV. Does anyone know of any other support for such a revised verse order?
>

I'm a little confused. Your page (that you link too) indicates that Luke
11:9-10 came before vv.5-8 and 11-13 in Tertullian's treatment of Marcion,
but your question here seems to place vv.9-10 after them.  What's going on?

Stephen
--
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D. (Duke)
Post-Doctoral Fellow, Theology, Uppsala


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Stephen, my apologies. The only excuse I can give is that our heating is
currently on the fritz, and so my brain was too
cold for cogent thought last night! In Adv. Marcion IV.26 Tertullian does indeed
refer to Lk 11:9-10 immediately after
the LP, and thus before either 5-8 or 11-13. So, is this just a device of
Tertullian's, or is there any support for a
revised order here (although different to the one I asked in the previous
email).



David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA

https://sites.google.com/site/inglisonmarcion/Home/marcion/marcion-s-gospel-comp\
ared-verse-by-verse-with-luke/lk-11



From: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Synoptic@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
Stephen Carlson
Sent: Monday, February 11, 2013 4:24 AM
To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Should Lk 11:9-10 follow 11:13?





On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 11:59 PM, David Inglis davidinglis2@...
<mailto:davidinglis2%40comcast.net> >wrote:
>
> Lk 11:5-8 and 11:11-13 both involve asking and giving, and Lk 11:9-10
> appears as though it would fit better after both
> passages, i.e. after 11:13 instead of 11:8. Interestingly, Tertullian
> refers to the verses in this order in Adv Marcion
> IV. Does anyone know of any other support for such a revised verse order?
>

I'm a little confused. Your page (that you link too) indicates that Luke
11:9-10 came before vv.5-8 and 11-13 in Tertullian's treatment of Marcion,
but your question here seems to place vv.9-10 after them. What's going on?

Stephen
--
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D. (Duke)
Post-Doctoral Fellow, Theology, Uppsala

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



   _____

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.2897 / Virus Database: 2639/6095 - Release Date: 02/10/13



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]