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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Directionality in Mk 5:1-20 II

Expand Messages
  • Don T.
    ... Well, I haven t seen any evidence presented that it IS viable (for example, a citation from elsewhere in Greek literature of any period). Even if you gave
    Message 1 of 53 , Jan 29, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      Mark M. (A) wrote:
      >

      > Have you looked at the greek for epiballo with any full reading. While
      > it means "throw" it also has a range of good idiomatic readings,
      > including as a major subtype to "fall upon", to devote oneself to, to
      > follow a course of action... all of these make good idiomatic sense of
      > mark without resorting to a misreading from an Aramaic text. And in
      > fact the largest number of uses of epiballo range very widely from "he
      > threw".
      >
      > It is very helpful to explore the use of words outside of a supposed
      > simple meaning.
      >
      > So I would say strong evidence would need to show that the plain reading
      > is simply not viable. I don't find that here.
      >

      Well, I haven't seen any evidence presented that it IS viable (for example, a citation from elsewhere in Greek literature of any period). Even if you gave "epiballw" one of its extended meanings, the form "epibalwn" would not seem to fit the construction. The Greek text says "and throwing he wept." While you could conceivably say "he fell upon weeping," or "he fell to weeping," I don't believe you could grammatically say "falling upon he wept," or "falling to he wept." Is this not so?

      The Western (or better, Syro-Latin) text pretty universally has "and he began to weep" ("et coepit plorare/flere" etc.). Even the Greek of D has "KAI HRXATO KLAIEIN." It seems to me that the simplest solution is that the writer of Mark mistook the Aramaic word "$ry", meaning "he began" for "$d'" meaning "he threw." As you know, the chief difference is whether the resh/dalath dot is above or below the writing. (I don't know whether this is exactly how Casey explained it--I still haven't read his book.) In any case, this is a simpler and more elegant solution than invoking a Greek construction that seems to be nowhere else supported. The misreading of r/d is an easy mistake to make in several Semitic languages, and in the first century it's likely that there would not even have been a dot above or below to give guidance. It appears that the synopticists were as prone to this error as anyone else, and that implies written texts--even for Mark.

      Donald C. Traxler
      Martinez, CA
    • Chuck Jones
      ...contained in the book.   Rev. Chuck  Jones Atlanta, Georgia _________________________ David wrote: .and the evidence for this statement is? David Inglis
      Message 53 of 53 , Jan 30, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        ...contained in the book.
         
        Rev. Chuck  Jones
        Atlanta, Georgia
        _________________________

        David wrote:

        .and the evidence for this statement is?

        David Inglis

        Lafayette, CA

        _____

        From: Synoptic@yahoogroup s.com [mailto:Synoptic@yahoogroup s.com] On Behalf
        Of Chuck Jones
        Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2009 9:17 AM
        To: Synoptic@yahoogroup s.com
        Subject: RE: [Synoptic-L] Directionality in Mk 5:1-20 II

        In Who Wrote the Bible, Burton Mack states clearly several times that Mark
        used sources.

        Rev. Chuck Jones
        Atlanta, Georgia
        ____________ _________ _________ __

        Mark Matson wrote:

        "...the possibility the Mark created the gospel himself, de novo, based
        either on (a) oral sources and stories, or (b) his wild imagination (ala
        Burton Mack)."

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

        No virus found in this incoming message.
        Checked by AVG - http://www.avg com
        Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.10.9/1900 - Release Date: 1/29/2009
        7:13 AM

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


















        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.