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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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.