Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

4779RE: [Synoptic-L] Re: Mk 2:27: A Western Non-Interpolation or not?

Expand Messages
  • David Inglis
    Jan 30, 2013
      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 anthrōpon) in Mk 2:27 and ‘the Son of man’ (ho huios tou anthrōpou) 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)

      legō de hymin, kyrios estin ho huios tou anthrōpou 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 “legō de hymin” in place of “kai elegen autois,” which is the usual beginning to Mk 2:27. Willker points out that: “legō 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 “legō 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]
    • Show all 16 messages in this topic