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

RE: [Synoptic-L] Mark and Jesus

Expand Messages
  • David Inglis
    LEONARD: It is also possible that Mark speaks his own Greek, as it were, when he is writing his Gospel, and that he did not know Greek well, did not have
    Message 1 of 47 , Jul 3, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      LEONARD: It is also possible that Mark speaks his own Greek, as it were,
      when he is writing his Gospel, and that he did not know Greek well, did not
      have proper Greek usage at his disposal, likely because it was not his first
      language. It can not be assumed that just because Mark would have had
      "better" Greek before him in the texts of Matthew and Luke, that he would
      never have altered their Greek to produce what some 21st-century analysts
      would describe as "lousy' Greek. He was undoubtedly more interested in
      absorbing, appropriating, and communicating the Gospel message to a
      particular audience than he was in preserving a high level of Greek in its
      expression. Or at least it is a reasonable hypothesis to assume that he was.

      DAVID I: I do not agree that it is a reasonable hypothesis to believe that
      someone who did not know Greek well would (or could) convert "better" Greek
      into more colloquial, idiomatic, or even "lousy" Greek. Surely only someone
      highly familiar with the local form of the language would even begin to
      attempt this.

      David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA



      From: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Synoptic@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
      Of Maluflen@...
      Sent: Sunday, July 03, 2011 10:54 AM
      To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: RE: [Synoptic-L] Mark and Jesus






      DAVID I: The KJV is only 'highly literary' in comparison with modern
      English
      usage - at the time it was just as 'modern' as the 'modern'
      translations you
      commented on, and was itself an attempt to 'popularize' the bible (i.e.
      not
      using old English), and avoid the literary (i.e. Latin, or Greek)
      versions
      that preceded it. Typically, each 're-writing' of the bible (or biblical
      stories) tends to be done in the language of the region and time in
      which it
      is created. So, in my opinion, before we can say that the Greek of Mt
      and Lk
      'corrects' the Greek of Mk, we need to know that the 'lousy Markan
      Greek'
      really is 'lousy,' and not just a result of chronological or regional
      variation. Has this been conclusively shown to be the case?

      LEONARD: You raise an interesting point here about the KJV, David,
      though I am not sure it is correct. Certainly, if one limits oneself to
      a discussion of 20th century English Bible translations, there is a
      distinction between those that aim at some level of literary elegance
      and those that aim at popular appeal. And it would be difficult to
      relatively date these versions on the basis of a comparison of the
      language they use, thus confirming my point.

      Your final question is even more interesting (has it conclusively been
      shown that Mark's Greek is bad in ways that are unrelated to chronology
      or regional variation?). I'm not sure it has. But I would offer one
      other theoretical possibility that should be entertained, beyond my own
      theory (and it is only an hypothesis) that Mark is self-consciously
      aimed at a non-literary, popular audience. (I should perhaps say "in
      addition" to my own theory -- which attempts to salvage, if not to
      demonstrate a late Mark in view of the linguistic evidence.) It is also
      possible that Mark speaks his own Greek, as it were, when he is writing
      his Gospel, and that he did not know Greek well, did not have proper
      Greek usage at his disposal, likely because it was not his first
      language. These two theories are obviously compatible with each other,
      and are also compatible with Markan priority, of course. The point I
      would urge is that even these two theories together are likewise
      compatible with a late Mark. It can not be assumed that just because
      Mark would have had "better" Greek before him in the texts of Matthew
      and Luke, that he would never have altered their Greek to produce what
      some 21st-century analysts would describe as "lousy' Greek. He was
      undoubtedly more interested in absorbing, appropriating, and
      communicating the Gospel message to a particular audience than he was
      in preserving a high level of Greek in its expression. Or at least it
      is a reasonable hypothesis to assume that he was..

      Leonard Maluf





      [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
      • 0 Attachment
        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.