4787RE: [Synoptic-L] Re: Mk 2:27: A Western Non-Interpolation or not?
- Feb 7, 2013David 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
From: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Synoptic@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of David Mealand
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 11:34 AM
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]
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>