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

4782RE: [Synoptic-L] Re: Mk 2:27: A Western Non-Interpolation or not?

Expand Messages
  • David Inglis
    Feb 3, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      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]
    • Show all 16 messages in this topic