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

RE: [Synoptic-L] Mark's language, again

Expand Messages
  • Bob Schacht
    ... Thanks for these references. As for the papyri, I seem to recall that Dominic Crossan, in The Birth of Christianity, emphasizes that the Greek of the
    Message 1 of 47 , Jul 3, 2011
      At 10:40 AM 7/3/2011, E Bruce Brooks wrote:
      >To: Synoptic / GPG (to David Inglis) on: Awkward Greek in Mark. One standard
      >place to check out the general perception is Hawkins, Horae Synopticae (2ed
      >131f, the shorter list in the 1ed is at 106f). There are also several
      >monographs, eg Doudna, The Greek of the Gospel of Mark (SBL 1961), which
      >separates usages in which Mark is paralleled by the papyri, and is thus
      >contemporary unlearned Greek, and usages unique to Mark.

      Thanks for these references. As for the papyri, I seem to recall that
      Dominic Crossan, in The Birth of Christianity, emphasizes that the
      Greek of the papyri was the Greek of the marketplace-- i.e., papyri
      were well suited to the commerce of the times, in terms of
      availability, cost, and suitability.

      >The question of
      >Semitic influence (and the possible translation theory) is also included,
      >and Doudna finds, as have others before him, that Semitic interference (or
      >"Biblicism") is higher in the sayings material than in the narrative
      >material.

      Thanks for relaying this important observation.

      >Doudna at the end leaves certain questions (specifically, the
      >translation question) open. If part of the roughness of Markan Greek is due
      >to its contemporary colloquial quality, and hence its divergence from the
      >educated Attic standard, then it is intelligible that the later Gospel
      >writers, concerned for the good opinion of their readers, would pull Mark
      >back to a more Attic standard (it is also to be noticed that they reduce or
      >eliminate the Aramaic words given as such in Mark). We may recall that
      >scribes in handing on all the Gospels tend to make Atticizing corrections,
      >so this is a very plausible directionality. What strikes me as distinctly
      >less plausible is that Mark, writing after Matthew and Luke, would move in
      >the reverse direction: from a largely presentable Attic-standard Greek to a
      >more colloquial, and even a more idiosyncratic, Greek.

      The question always to be kept in mind on this issue, is "Who was the
      audience?" It is possible that Mark's audience was different from
      Matthew and Luke's. Maluf was making a similar point in a very recent
      message a few minutes ago.

      My hypothesis-of-the-moment is that Mark was a native Aramaic speaker
      who learned Greek in the marketplace (Sepphoris & Tiberias) in the
      course of doing whatever his business was. For example, he might have
      been a marketing agent for Peter's and the Boanerges family's fishing
      businesses. His audience was Palestinian (Galilean?) Jews, perhaps
      including the Ebionites.

      The audience of Matthew and Luke, however, was more Hellenized Jews
      of the Diaspora, perhaps especially Paul's Greek churches, who were
      expecting a more polished gospel.

      How does that work?

      Bob Schacht



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • David Inglis
      David Mealand wrote: So for instance to step aside from Q and M, let us consider the special Lukan material. It would be useful there to review and update
      Message 47 of 47 , Jul 26, 2011
        David Mealand wrote:

        So for instance to step aside from Q and M, let us consider the special Lukan material. It would be useful there to review and update existing studies to see if the "L" material is a) internally consistent or not and b) differs from the editorial style of the author of Gospel number 3. Could this be an issue on which 2SH and FGT adherents might proceed in unison? Or am I being unduly optimistic here?

        David, some information can be gleaned from the stylistic analyses of the categories in the HHB concordance performed by both Dave Gentile and myself. The following 4 collections of words (HHB categories) are useful here, I think:

        · 002 – Words used in passages unique to gLk (i.e. sondergut Lk)

        · 012 – Words used in gLk in passages shared with gMk but not gMt, where the words are not in gMk

        · 102 – Words used in gLk in passages shared with gMt but not gMk, where the words are not in gMt (i.e. double tradition words not in gMt)

        · 112 – Words used in gLk in passage shared with both gMt and gMk, where the words are not in either gMt or gMk (i.e. triple tradition words not in gMt or gMk)

        Both Dave G and I have similar findings: The frequencies with which specific words are used (profiles) are similar in 002, 012, and 112, while the profile of 102 is different. In particular, I find that the similarity between the profiles of 002 and 112 is one of the greatest in my analysis, i.e. sondergut Lk is stylistically similar (at least, so far as word frequencies are concerned) to the unique Lukan parts of the triple tradition. From this I infer that 002 is unlikely to contain passages from different sources, or, if it does, that aLk has generally ‘massaged’ the text from the different sources into his own style.

        David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA



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