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

Re: Bruce RE: [Synoptic-L] Mark's Greek

Expand Messages
  • Jack Kilmon
    ... From: Bob Schacht Sent: Sunday, July 03, 2011 12:07 PM To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com Subject: Bruce RE: [Synoptic-L] Mark s Greek ... To turn the question
    Message 1 of 47 , Jul 3, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      -----Original Message-----
      From: Bob Schacht
      Sent: Sunday, July 03, 2011 12:07 PM
      To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Bruce RE: [Synoptic-L] Mark's Greek

      At 07:56 AM 7/3/2011, E Bruce Brooks wrote:
      >... the opinion of those who seem qualified to form a judgement in
      >the matter[:] Their verdict (including
      >Catholic opinion, see Raymond Brown's Introduction, p115, who notes Mark's
      >"awkward Greek") seems to be unanimous. At least I know of no informed
      >opinion to the contrary, and note that the epithet "stumpy fingered" early
      >applied to Mark may well be a jab at his written style. That Matthew and
      >Luke are both in their way more elegant than Mark may be thus taken (from
      >uncontradicted expert opinion) as given. But as for Mark being a "street"
      >version of Matthew, who else thinks so, and why?

      To turn the question another way, has a case been made that Greek is
      not Mark's first language, and the Greek he learned was the Greek of
      the marketplace ("street")?

      If so, what was Mark's first language deemed to be? Aramaic? Latin?

      Bob Schacht

      Mark is written by someone whose first language was Aramaic. We had a
      colloquium on Bib-studies in October with Maurice Casey if you recall. His
      "Aramaic Sources of Mark's Gospel" is a masterpiece, IMO.

      Jack

      Jack Kilmon
    • 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.