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

RE: [Synoptic-L] Mark's Greek

Expand Messages
  • Maluflen@aol.com
    I had written: 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
      I had written: 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.

      LEONARD: I'm not sure I understand your response, David. I did not
      intend to deny that Mark was familiar with some form of the Greek
      language -- just not a highly (or even moderately) literary form. Which
      is perfectly compatible with Greek being Mark's second language. It
      also leaves unresolved the question as to whether Matthew and Luke used
      and corrected Mark, or Mark drew from Matt and Lk, appropriating the
      language in the process to his own relatively unlettered idiom. If this
      was more or less a level of Greek spoken by Mark's intended audience,
      then that is reason enough for Mark to have made a conscious conversion
      from a more literary to a more colloquial Greek. But the conversion,
      where it occurred (and it does not occur everywhere) could also have
      resulted from less conscious procedures of appropriation. Of course the
      hypothesis of Mark's Gospel Greek being the original, and Matthew's and
      Luke's a correction and elevation is also consistent with the data. As
      I read the evidence, however, it seems quite clear that in places Mark
      also picks up elements of Luke's rather advanced, or at least
      Septuagint-influenced re-writings of Matthean texts.

      Leonard Maluf
    • 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.