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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Mark 9.11-13, 14.72 reply to Matson

Expand Messages
  • Bob Schacht
    ... Stephanie, so far, so good. I appreciate your summary. However, the following sentence is entirely unnecessary and degrades the quality of your response.
    Message 1 of 5 , Jan 31, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      At 01:22 PM 1/31/2009, stephanie fisher wrote:
      >Mark Matson (Academic)
      >
      >
      >
      >I find it strange that you do not recall the main points of Casey's
      >discussion on Mark 9.11-13, since discussion of your first point is
      >conventional, and his second completely distinctive. His discussion is too
      >long to summarize in a comment of this length, and the best I can do is this.
      >
      >1. The conventional problems are that the passage appears to be
      >about John the Baptist = Elijah, but it shifts abruptly to Jesus in vs. 12
      >and then back again, and that scholars have had difficulty in finding the
      >passages which Jesus had in mind.
      >
      >2. Casey's solution is an Aramaic reconstruction of the whole
      >passage, in which the Aramaic term bar (e)nash(a), "son of man", has a
      >general level of meaning, and refers idiomatically to both John the
      >Baptist and Jesus in particular. The general level of meaning enables
      >Casey to find passages of Scripture which Jesus referred to, and which
      >commentators had not previously thought of.
      >
      >3. Since there is no such idiom in Greek, and Aramaic source could
      >not be translated straightforwardly into Greek which meant the same as the
      >original Aramaic. The translator therefore followed his strategy of using
      >the Greek ho huios tou anthropou whenever his Aramaic sources used bar
      >(e)nash(a), "son of man", with reference to Jesus, because this was the
      >most important level of meaning to him. This was not a mistranslation, nor
      >was the source clumsily handled.
      >
      >4. This could only happen with a written Aramaic source, because a
      >fluent speaker of Greek could express Jesus' original meaning in Greek in
      >a quite different way.

      Stephanie,
      so far, so good. I appreciate your summary. However, the following sentence
      is entirely unnecessary and degrades the quality of your response.

      >I do not see how anyone who has worked conscientiously through Aramaic
      >Sources of Mark's Gospel and The Solution of the 'Son of Man' Problem
      >could fail to remember these basic points just because they don't have
      >these two books in front of them.

      Please desist from such ad hominem characterizations in the future. It is
      entirely unnecessary to speculate about whether or not Matson was being
      "conscientious," and insulting to imply that he was not.

      Bob Schacht
      Assistant moderator




      >On Mark 14.72 I do not see why you imagine that none of us has noticed an
      >entry in LSJ. If epibalon simply meant falling down, and this was and is
      >obvious, rather than 'falling upon', so that you presumably mean that Mark
      >meant 'falling down, he wept', though you haven't made that clear enough
      >either, it is very strange that no-one from Theophylact onwards through
      >Allen, Taylor and other scholars who were learned in Greek has noticed,
      >nor BDAG, whose lengthy discussion correctly reports previous scholarship,
      >but can hardly be said to have reached a satisfactory conclusion. I cannot
      >see that any entry in LSJ justifies this, and how you know we could dig up
      >more from the TLG, which again not even BDAG has noticed, when you do not
      >seem to have consulted it, is also very strange. On the other hand,
      >Allen's suggestion, further developed by Casey, solves the problem, only
      >it demands a written Aramaic source. Why you find that problematic is also
      >mysterious.
      >
      >
      >
      >Stephanie Fisher
      >
      >Nottingham.
      >
      >
      >
      >Stephanie
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > ----- Original Message -----
      > From: Matson, Mark (Academic)
      > To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
      > Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2009 5:19 PM
      > Subject: RE: [Synoptic-L] Directionality in Mk 5:1-20 II
      >
      >
      > I don't have Casey in front of me. But what in Mark 9:11-13 does not
      > make sense as a Greek formulation? IN other words why a source? But
      > beyond even the comprehensibility of the Greek, we would assume Aramaic
      > as a background language, perhaps even the native language, of Mark. For
      > there to be Aramaicisms would be no surprise for anyone in the
      > Palestinian region. The question, though, is do you need a source?
      > And, following Casey, that the source was in some way mistranslated, or
      > at least clumsily handled?
      >
      > What I still don't see is the need for a written "source".
      >
      > Mark A. Matson
      > Academic Dean
      > Milligan College
      > http://www.milligan.edu/administrative/mmatson/personal.htm
      >
      > > -----Original Message-----
      > > From: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Synoptic@yahoogroups.com] On
      > > Behalf Of stephanie fisher
      > > Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2009 1:49 AM
      > > To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
      > > Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Directionality in Mk 5:1-20 II
      > >
      > > Mark Matson (Academic)
      > >
      > > Perhaps you would like to elaborate? I am not sure why you do not
      > find
      > > Casey's arguments convincing, particularly in Mark 9.11-13 which does
      > > not require a misreading, just a straight translation from Aramaic
      > > which makes more sense than the Greek. I don't find your brushing off
      > > dismissal of Casey's arguments very convincing supported only by a
      > > claim to "know Aramaic". Nor do I find your subtle personal swipe at
      > > me for finding "Casey's arguments terribly convincing".
      > >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      >
      >
      > No virus found in this incoming message.
      > Checked by AVG.
      > Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.10.13/1912 - Release Date:
      > 23/01/2009 6:54 p.m.
      >
      >
      >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
      >
      >------------------------------------
      >
      >Synoptic-L homepage: http://NTGateway.com/synoptic-lYahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • stephanie fisher
      I find it unnecessary to suggest that I find Casey s arguments terribly convincing and that they are clear is a stretch , and I find insulting the
      Message 2 of 5 , Feb 1, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        I find it unnecessary to suggest that I find Casey's arguments "terribly convincing" and that they are clear is a "stretch", and I find insulting the implication that they are pretty much disregarded by the "academy". I find it frustrating that a scholar can be dismissed so quickly without engaging with their arguments.

        Stephanie Fisher
        Nottingham
        ----- Original Message -----
        From: Bob Schacht
        To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2009 3:36 AM
        Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Mark 9.11-13, 14.72 reply to Matson


        At 01:22 PM 1/31/2009, stephanie fisher wrote:
        >Mark Matson (Academic)
        >
        >
        >
        >I find it strange that you do not recall the main points of Casey's
        >discussion on Mark 9.11-13, since discussion of your first point is
        >conventional, and his second completely distinctive. His discussion is too
        >long to summarize in a comment of this length, and the best I can do is this.
        >
        >1. The conventional problems are that the passage appears to be
        >about John the Baptist = Elijah, but it shifts abruptly to Jesus in vs. 12
        >and then back again, and that scholars have had difficulty in finding the
        >passages which Jesus had in mind.
        >
        >2. Casey's solution is an Aramaic reconstruction of the whole
        >passage, in which the Aramaic term bar (e)nash(a), "son of man", has a
        >general level of meaning, and refers idiomatically to both John the
        >Baptist and Jesus in particular. The general level of meaning enables
        >Casey to find passages of Scripture which Jesus referred to, and which
        >commentators had not previously thought of.
        >
        >3. Since there is no such idiom in Greek, and Aramaic source could
        >not be translated straightforwardly into Greek which meant the same as the
        >original Aramaic. The translator therefore followed his strategy of using
        >the Greek ho huios tou anthropou whenever his Aramaic sources used bar
        >(e)nash(a), "son of man", with reference to Jesus, because this was the
        >most important level of meaning to him. This was not a mistranslation, nor
        >was the source clumsily handled.
        >
        >4. This could only happen with a written Aramaic source, because a
        >fluent speaker of Greek could express Jesus' original meaning in Greek in
        >a quite different way.

        Stephanie,
        so far, so good. I appreciate your summary. However, the following sentence
        is entirely unnecessary and degrades the quality of your response.

        >I do not see how anyone who has worked conscientiously through Aramaic
        >Sources of Mark's Gospel and The Solution of the 'Son of Man' Problem
        >could fail to remember these basic points just because they don't have
        >these two books in front of them.

        Please desist from such ad hominem characterizations in the future. It is
        entirely unnecessary to speculate about whether or not Matson was being
        "conscientious," and insulting to imply that he was not.

        Bob Schacht
        Assistant moderator

        >On Mark 14.72 I do not see why you imagine that none of us has noticed an
        >entry in LSJ. If epibalon simply meant falling down, and this was and is
        >obvious, rather than 'falling upon', so that you presumably mean that Mark
        >meant 'falling down, he wept', though you haven't made that clear enough
        >either, it is very strange that no-one from Theophylact onwards through
        >Allen, Taylor and other scholars who were learned in Greek has noticed,
        >nor BDAG, whose lengthy discussion correctly reports previous scholarship,
        >but can hardly be said to have reached a satisfactory conclusion. I cannot
        >see that any entry in LSJ justifies this, and how you know we could dig up
        >more from the TLG, which again not even BDAG has noticed, when you do not
        >seem to have consulted it, is also very strange. On the other hand,
        >Allen's suggestion, further developed by Casey, solves the problem, only
        >it demands a written Aramaic source. Why you find that problematic is also
        >mysterious.
        >
        >
        >
        >Stephanie Fisher
        >
        >Nottingham.
        >
        >
        >
        >Stephanie
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > ----- Original Message -----
        > From: Matson, Mark (Academic)
        > To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
        > Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2009 5:19 PM
        > Subject: RE: [Synoptic-L] Directionality in Mk 5:1-20 II
        >
        >
        > I don't have Casey in front of me. But what in Mark 9:11-13 does not
        > make sense as a Greek formulation? IN other words why a source? But
        > beyond even the comprehensibility of the Greek, we would assume Aramaic
        > as a background language, perhaps even the native language, of Mark. For
        > there to be Aramaicisms would be no surprise for anyone in the
        > Palestinian region. The question, though, is do you need a source?
        > And, following Casey, that the source was in some way mistranslated, or
        > at least clumsily handled?
        >
        > What I still don't see is the need for a written "source".
        >
        > Mark A. Matson
        > Academic Dean
        > Milligan College
        > http://www.milligan.edu/administrative/mmatson/personal.htm
        >
        > > -----Original Message-----
        > > From: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Synoptic@yahoogroups.com] On
        > > Behalf Of stephanie fisher
        > > Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2009 1:49 AM
        > > To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
        > > Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Directionality in Mk 5:1-20 II
        > >
        > > Mark Matson (Academic)
        > >
        > > Perhaps you would like to elaborate? I am not sure why you do not
        > find
        > > Casey's arguments convincing, particularly in Mark 9.11-13 which does
        > > not require a misreading, just a straight translation from Aramaic
        > > which makes more sense than the Greek. I don't find your brushing off
        > > dismissal of Casey's arguments very convincing supported only by a
        > > claim to "know Aramaic". Nor do I find your subtle personal swipe at
        > > me for finding "Casey's arguments terribly convincing".
        > >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >----------------------------------------------------------
        >
        >
        > No virus found in this incoming message.
        > Checked by AVG.
        > Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.10.13/1912 - Release Date:
        > 23/01/2009 6:54 p.m.
        >
        >
        >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
        >
        >------------------------------------
        >
        >Synoptic-L homepage: http://NTGateway.com/synoptic-lYahoo! Groups Links
        >
        >
        >

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






        ------------------------------------------------------------------------------


        No virus found in this incoming message.
        Checked by AVG.
        Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.10.16/1926 - Release Date: 30/01/2009 5:31 p.m.


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Bob Schacht
        ... Engaging with their arguments is what we are here for. We are not the academy, and everyone here speaks only for himself/herself. Someone who says they
        Message 3 of 5 , Feb 1, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          At 02:23 PM 2/1/2009, stephanie fisher wrote:
          >I find it unnecessary to suggest that I find Casey's arguments "terribly
          >convincing" and that they are clear is a "stretch", and I find insulting
          >the implication that they are pretty much disregarded by the "academy". I
          >find it frustrating that a scholar can be dismissed so quickly without
          >engaging with their arguments.

          Engaging with their arguments is what we are here for. We are not "the
          academy," and everyone here speaks only for himself/herself. Someone who
          says they don't find Casey's arguments convincing speaks only for
          himself/herself and not for the rest of us. Be patient, and stick with
          "engaging" the arguments.

          Bob Schacht
          University of Hawaii


          >Stephanie Fisher
          >Nottingham
          > ----- Original Message -----
          > From: Bob Schacht
          > To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
          > Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2009 3:36 AM
          > Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Mark 9.11-13, 14.72 reply to Matson
          >
          >
          > At 01:22 PM 1/31/2009, stephanie fisher wrote:
          > >Mark Matson (Academic)
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >I find it strange that you do not recall the main points of Casey's
          > >discussion on Mark 9.11-13, since discussion of your first point is
          > >conventional, and his second completely distinctive. His discussion is
          > too
          > >long to summarize in a comment of this length, and the best I can do
          > is this.
          > >
          > >1. The conventional problems are that the passage appears to be
          > >about John the Baptist = Elijah, but it shifts abruptly to Jesus in
          > vs. 12
          > >and then back again, and that scholars have had difficulty in finding the
          > >passages which Jesus had in mind.
          > >
          > >2. Casey's solution is an Aramaic reconstruction of the whole
          > >passage, in which the Aramaic term bar (e)nash(a), "son of man", has a
          > >general level of meaning, and refers idiomatically to both John the
          > >Baptist and Jesus in particular. The general level of meaning enables
          > >Casey to find passages of Scripture which Jesus referred to, and which
          > >commentators had not previously thought of.
          > >
          > >3. Since there is no such idiom in Greek, and Aramaic source could
          > >not be translated straightforwardly into Greek which meant the same as
          > the
          > >original Aramaic. The translator therefore followed his strategy of using
          > >the Greek ho huios tou anthropou whenever his Aramaic sources used bar
          > >(e)nash(a), "son of man", with reference to Jesus, because this was the
          > >most important level of meaning to him. This was not a mistranslation,
          > nor
          > >was the source clumsily handled.
          > >
          > >4. This could only happen with a written Aramaic source, because a
          > >fluent speaker of Greek could express Jesus' original meaning in Greek in
          > >a quite different way.
          >
          > Stephanie,
          > so far, so good. I appreciate your summary. However, the following
          > sentence
          > is entirely unnecessary and degrades the quality of your response.
          >
          > >I do not see how anyone who has worked conscientiously through Aramaic
          > >Sources of Mark's Gospel and The Solution of the 'Son of Man' Problem
          > >could fail to remember these basic points just because they don't have
          > >these two books in front of them.
          >
          > Please desist from such ad hominem characterizations in the future. It is
          > entirely unnecessary to speculate about whether or not Matson was being
          > "conscientious," and insulting to imply that he was not.
          >
          > Bob Schacht
          > Assistant moderator
          >
          > >On Mark 14.72 I do not see why you imagine that none of us has noticed an
          > >entry in LSJ. If epibalon simply meant falling down, and this was and is
          > >obvious, rather than 'falling upon', so that you presumably mean that
          > Mark
          > >meant 'falling down, he wept', though you haven't made that clear enough
          > >either, it is very strange that no-one from Theophylact onwards through
          > >Allen, Taylor and other scholars who were learned in Greek has noticed,
          > >nor BDAG, whose lengthy discussion correctly reports previous
          > scholarship,
          > >but can hardly be said to have reached a satisfactory conclusion. I
          > cannot
          > >see that any entry in LSJ justifies this, and how you know we could
          > dig up
          > >more from the TLG, which again not even BDAG has noticed, when you do not
          > >seem to have consulted it, is also very strange. On the other hand,
          > >Allen's suggestion, further developed by Casey, solves the problem, only
          > >it demands a written Aramaic source. Why you find that problematic is
          > also
          > >mysterious.
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >Stephanie Fisher
          > >
          > >Nottingham.
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >Stephanie
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > > ----- Original Message -----
          > > From: Matson, Mark (Academic)
          > > To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
          > > Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2009 5:19 PM
          > > Subject: RE: [Synoptic-L] Directionality in Mk 5:1-20 II
          > >
          > >
          > > I don't have Casey in front of me. But what in Mark 9:11-13 does not
          > > make sense as a Greek formulation? IN other words why a source? But
          > > beyond even the comprehensibility of the Greek, we would assume Aramaic
          > > as a background language, perhaps even the native language, of Mark. For
          > > there to be Aramaicisms would be no surprise for anyone in the
          > > Palestinian region. The question, though, is do you need a source?
          > > And, following Casey, that the source was in some way mistranslated, or
          > > at least clumsily handled?
          > >
          > > What I still don't see is the need for a written "source".
          > >
          > > Mark A. Matson
          > > Academic Dean
          > > Milligan College
          > > http://www.milligan.edu/administrative/mmatson/personal.htm
          > >
          > > > -----Original Message-----
          > > > From: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Synoptic@yahoogroups.com] On
          > > > Behalf Of stephanie fisher
          > > > Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2009 1:49 AM
          > > > To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
          > > > Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Directionality in Mk 5:1-20 II
          > > >
          > > > Mark Matson (Academic)
          > > >
          > > > Perhaps you would like to elaborate? I am not sure why you do not
          > > find
          > > > Casey's arguments convincing, particularly in Mark 9.11-13 which does
          > > > not require a misreading, just a straight translation from Aramaic
          > > > which makes more sense than the Greek. I don't find your brushing off
          > > > dismissal of Casey's arguments very convincing supported only by a
          > > > claim to "know Aramaic". Nor do I find your subtle personal swipe at
          > > > me for finding "Casey's arguments terribly convincing".
          > > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >----------------------------------------------------------
          > >
          > >
          > > No virus found in this incoming message.
          > > Checked by AVG.
          > > Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.10.13/1912 - Release Date:
          > > 23/01/2009 6:54 p.m.
          > >
          > >
          > >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          > >
          > >
          > >------------------------------------
          > >
          > >Synoptic-L homepage: http://NTGateway.com/synoptic-lYahoo! Groups Links
          > >
          > >
          > >
          >
          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          >
          >
          > No virus found in this incoming message.
          > Checked by AVG.
          > Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.10.16/1926 - Release Date:
          > 30/01/2009 5:31 p.m.
          >
          >
          >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          >
          >
          >------------------------------------
          >
          >Synoptic-L homepage: http://NTGateway.com/synoptic-lYahoo! Groups Links
          >
          >
          >

          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • stephanie fisher
          I was quoting Matson and the academy was his term. Stephanie Fisher Nottingham ... From: Bob Schacht To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, February 02,
          Message 4 of 5 , Feb 1, 2009
          • 0 Attachment
            I was quoting Matson and the "academy" was his term.

            Stephanie Fisher
            Nottingham
            ----- Original Message -----
            From: Bob Schacht
            To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
            Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 1:04 AM
            Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Mark 9.11-13, 14.72 reply to Matson


            At 02:23 PM 2/1/2009, stephanie fisher wrote:
            >I find it unnecessary to suggest that I find Casey's arguments "terribly
            >convincing" and that they are clear is a "stretch", and I find insulting
            >the implication that they are pretty much disregarded by the "academy". I
            >find it frustrating that a scholar can be dismissed so quickly without
            >engaging with their arguments.

            Engaging with their arguments is what we are here for. We are not "the
            academy," and everyone here speaks only for himself/herself. Someone who
            says they don't find Casey's arguments convincing speaks only for
            himself/herself and not for the rest of us. Be patient, and stick with
            "engaging" the arguments.

            Bob Schacht
            University of Hawaii

            >Stephanie Fisher
            >Nottingham
            > ----- Original Message -----
            > From: Bob Schacht
            > To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
            > Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2009 3:36 AM
            > Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Mark 9.11-13, 14.72 reply to Matson
            >
            >
            > At 01:22 PM 1/31/2009, stephanie fisher wrote:
            > >Mark Matson (Academic)
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >I find it strange that you do not recall the main points of Casey's
            > >discussion on Mark 9.11-13, since discussion of your first point is
            > >conventional, and his second completely distinctive. His discussion is
            > too
            > >long to summarize in a comment of this length, and the best I can do
            > is this.
            > >
            > >1. The conventional problems are that the passage appears to be
            > >about John the Baptist = Elijah, but it shifts abruptly to Jesus in
            > vs. 12
            > >and then back again, and that scholars have had difficulty in finding the
            > >passages which Jesus had in mind.
            > >
            > >2. Casey's solution is an Aramaic reconstruction of the whole
            > >passage, in which the Aramaic term bar (e)nash(a), "son of man", has a
            > >general level of meaning, and refers idiomatically to both John the
            > >Baptist and Jesus in particular. The general level of meaning enables
            > >Casey to find passages of Scripture which Jesus referred to, and which
            > >commentators had not previously thought of.
            > >
            > >3. Since there is no such idiom in Greek, and Aramaic source could
            > >not be translated straightforwardly into Greek which meant the same as
            > the
            > >original Aramaic. The translator therefore followed his strategy of using
            > >the Greek ho huios tou anthropou whenever his Aramaic sources used bar
            > >(e)nash(a), "son of man", with reference to Jesus, because this was the
            > >most important level of meaning to him. This was not a mistranslation,
            > nor
            > >was the source clumsily handled.
            > >
            > >4. This could only happen with a written Aramaic source, because a
            > >fluent speaker of Greek could express Jesus' original meaning in Greek in
            > >a quite different way.
            >
            > Stephanie,
            > so far, so good. I appreciate your summary. However, the following
            > sentence
            > is entirely unnecessary and degrades the quality of your response.
            >
            > >I do not see how anyone who has worked conscientiously through Aramaic
            > >Sources of Mark's Gospel and The Solution of the 'Son of Man' Problem
            > >could fail to remember these basic points just because they don't have
            > >these two books in front of them.
            >
            > Please desist from such ad hominem characterizations in the future. It is
            > entirely unnecessary to speculate about whether or not Matson was being
            > "conscientious," and insulting to imply that he was not.
            >
            > Bob Schacht
            > Assistant moderator
            >
            > >On Mark 14.72 I do not see why you imagine that none of us has noticed an
            > >entry in LSJ. If epibalon simply meant falling down, and this was and is
            > >obvious, rather than 'falling upon', so that you presumably mean that
            > Mark
            > >meant 'falling down, he wept', though you haven't made that clear enough
            > >either, it is very strange that no-one from Theophylact onwards through
            > >Allen, Taylor and other scholars who were learned in Greek has noticed,
            > >nor BDAG, whose lengthy discussion correctly reports previous
            > scholarship,
            > >but can hardly be said to have reached a satisfactory conclusion. I
            > cannot
            > >see that any entry in LSJ justifies this, and how you know we could
            > dig up
            > >more from the TLG, which again not even BDAG has noticed, when you do not
            > >seem to have consulted it, is also very strange. On the other hand,
            > >Allen's suggestion, further developed by Casey, solves the problem, only
            > >it demands a written Aramaic source. Why you find that problematic is
            > also
            > >mysterious.
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >Stephanie Fisher
            > >
            > >Nottingham.
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >Stephanie
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > ----- Original Message -----
            > > From: Matson, Mark (Academic)
            > > To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
            > > Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2009 5:19 PM
            > > Subject: RE: [Synoptic-L] Directionality in Mk 5:1-20 II
            > >
            > >
            > > I don't have Casey in front of me. But what in Mark 9:11-13 does not
            > > make sense as a Greek formulation? IN other words why a source? But
            > > beyond even the comprehensibility of the Greek, we would assume Aramaic
            > > as a background language, perhaps even the native language, of Mark. For
            > > there to be Aramaicisms would be no surprise for anyone in the
            > > Palestinian region. The question, though, is do you need a source?
            > > And, following Casey, that the source was in some way mistranslated, or
            > > at least clumsily handled?
            > >
            > > What I still don't see is the need for a written "source".
            > >
            > > Mark A. Matson
            > > Academic Dean
            > > Milligan College
            > > http://www.milligan.edu/administrative/mmatson/personal.htm
            > >
            > > > -----Original Message-----
            > > > From: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Synoptic@yahoogroups.com] On
            > > > Behalf Of stephanie fisher
            > > > Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2009 1:49 AM
            > > > To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
            > > > Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Directionality in Mk 5:1-20 II
            > > >
            > > > Mark Matson (Academic)
            > > >
            > > > Perhaps you would like to elaborate? I am not sure why you do not
            > > find
            > > > Casey's arguments convincing, particularly in Mark 9.11-13 which does
            > > > not require a misreading, just a straight translation from Aramaic
            > > > which makes more sense than the Greek. I don't find your brushing off
            > > > dismissal of Casey's arguments very convincing supported only by a
            > > > claim to "know Aramaic". Nor do I find your subtle personal swipe at
            > > > me for finding "Casey's arguments terribly convincing".
            > > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >----------------------------------------------------------
            > >
            > >
            > > No virus found in this incoming message.
            > > Checked by AVG.
            > > Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.10.13/1912 - Release Date:
            > > 23/01/2009 6:54 p.m.
            > >
            > >
            > >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            > >
            > >
            > >------------------------------------
            > >
            > >Synoptic-L homepage: http://NTGateway.com/synoptic-lYahoo! Groups Links
            > >
            > >
            > >
            >
            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >----------------------------------------------------------
            >
            >
            > No virus found in this incoming message.
            > Checked by AVG.
            > Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.10.16/1926 - Release Date:
            > 30/01/2009 5:31 p.m.
            >
            >
            >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            >
            >
            >------------------------------------
            >
            >Synoptic-L homepage: http://NTGateway.com/synoptic-lYahoo! Groups Links
            >
            >
            >

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






            ------------------------------------------------------------------------------


            No virus found in this incoming message.
            Checked by AVG.
            Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.10.16/1926 - Release Date: 30/01/2009 5:31 p.m.


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