4780RE: [Synoptic-L] Re: Mk 2:27: A Western Non-Interpolation or not?
- Jan 31, 2013This 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
From: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Synoptic@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of David Mealand
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 11:19 AM
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?
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]
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>