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

E.C.Maloney on Mark

Expand Messages
  • David Mealand
    Long ago in 1981 E.C.Maloney produced a study with the title Semitic Interference in Markan Syntax . Maloney carefully identified each of some 150 probable
    Message 1 of 4 , Jan 3, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      Long ago in 1981 E.C.Maloney produced a study with the title
      'Semitic Interference in Markan Syntax'. Maloney carefully
      identified each of some 150 probable semitisms in Mark. Of
      that 150 a high proportion (80) were instances of initial
      paratactic kai. But that still left 70 other more varied examples.
      Maloney was particularly interested in assessing which of these
      could or could not be due to the Old Greek (40 could but 30
      could not), or could or could not be Hebraisms (58 could but
      12 could not), or could or could not be Aramaisms (64 could
      but 6 could not).

      Another way of considering Maloney's very carefully analysed
      evidence would be to plot each semitism sequentially through Mark.
      Here one probably should include all those 80 examples of paratactic
      kai. But if one were to start just with the other 70 semitisms
      then it would seem to be the case that there are some quite long
      sequences of verses in Mark without one of these. On a quick look
      I estimate at least 30 in Ch. 6, over 25 in Chapters 8 and 15,
      and 20 or more in Chapters 1, 11 and 12. (These numbers are for
      sequences of verses without one of these 70 semitisms.)

      This apparent variation goes against other evidence in Mark which
      tends to show that while there are stylistic differences between
      the Greek of the text's sayings and that of its narratives, there
      seem to be few obvious differences of style attributable to something
      other than these genre differences. (Mk 13.18-24 is far out even for
      sayings, while 10.35-39 and 15.10-16 use kai less and de more than is
      usual in the rest of Mark).

      So my question is whether anyone is aware of a study which makes
      serious use of Maloney's results to explore further which specific
      sections of Mark show the semitic influence on their Greek syntax,
      and which do not, and whether any clear pattern can or cannot be found
      in the text as a result. (Casey's work is more recent but not
      specifically focused on this issue).

      David M.

      ---------
      David Mealand, University of Edinburgh








      ---

      --
      The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
      Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
    • Stephen Carlson
      ... According to Google Scholar, Maloney s has hardly been cited, much less engaged. It has been cited by you, Porter & Pitts in CBR, Llewelyn & Horsley s New
      Message 2 of 4 , Jan 3, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 8:45 PM, David Mealand <D.Mealand@...> wrote:

        > **
        >
        > So my question is whether anyone is aware of a study which makes
        > serious use of Maloney's results to explore further which specific
        > sections of Mark show the semitic influence on their Greek syntax,
        > and which do not, and whether any clear pattern can or cannot be found
        > in the text as a result. (Casey's work is more recent but not
        > specifically focused on this issue)
        >
        According to Google Scholar, Maloney's has hardly been cited, much less
        engaged. It has been cited by you, Porter & Pitts in CBR, Llewelyn &
        Horsley's New Documents, and a French article, F. Manns, "Le milieu
        sémitique de l'Èvangile de Marc", LA 48 (1998) 125-142, which is available
        on-line.
        --
        Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D. (Duke)
        Post-Doctoral Fellow, Theology, Uppsala


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Dennis Goffin
        What I would find interesting is how much of this corresponds to the theory of the Great Omission in Luke, but could equally well be the Great Insertion in
        Message 3 of 4 , Jan 4, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          What I would find interesting is how much of this corresponds to the theory of the "Great Omission" in Luke, but could equally well be the "Great Insertion" in a later version of Mark than the one Luke saw.Dennis GoffinChorleywood UK

          To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
          From: D.Mealand@...
          Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2013 19:45:32 +0000
          Subject: [Synoptic-L] E.C.Maloney on Mark




























          Long ago in 1981 E.C.Maloney produced a study with the title

          'Semitic Interference in Markan Syntax'. Maloney carefully

          identified each of some 150 probable semitisms in Mark. Of

          that 150 a high proportion (80) were instances of initial

          paratactic kai. But that still left 70 other more varied examples.

          Maloney was particularly interested in assessing which of these

          could or could not be due to the Old Greek (40 could but 30

          could not), or could or could not be Hebraisms (58 could but

          12 could not), or could or could not be Aramaisms (64 could

          but 6 could not).



          Another way of considering Maloney's very carefully analysed

          evidence would be to plot each semitism sequentially through Mark.

          Here one probably should include all those 80 examples of paratactic

          kai. But if one were to start just with the other 70 semitisms

          then it would seem to be the case that there are some quite long

          sequences of verses in Mark without one of these. On a quick look

          I estimate at least 30 in Ch. 6, over 25 in Chapters 8 and 15,

          and 20 or more in Chapters 1, 11 and 12. (These numbers are for

          sequences of verses without one of these 70 semitisms.)



          This apparent variation goes against other evidence in Mark which

          tends to show that while there are stylistic differences between

          the Greek of the text's sayings and that of its narratives, there

          seem to be few obvious differences of style attributable to something

          other than these genre differences. (Mk 13.18-24 is far out even for

          sayings, while 10.35-39 and 15.10-16 use kai less and de more than is

          usual in the rest of Mark).



          So my question is whether anyone is aware of a study which makes

          serious use of Maloney's results to explore further which specific

          sections of Mark show the semitic influence on their Greek syntax,

          and which do not, and whether any clear pattern can or cannot be found

          in the text as a result. (Casey's work is more recent but not

          specifically focused on this issue).



          David M.



          ---------

          David Mealand, University of Edinburgh



          ---



          --

          The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in

          Scotland, with registration number SC005336.


















          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • David Mealand
          Dennis asked ... What I would find interesting is how much of this corresponds to the theory of the Great Omission in Luke, but could equally well be the
          Message 4 of 4 , Jan 4, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            Dennis asked
            -------------------
            What I would find interesting is how much of this corresponds
            to the theory of the "Great Omission" in Luke, but could equally
            well be the "Great Insertion" in a later version of Mark than
            the one Luke saw. Dennis Goffin Chorleywood UK
            -------------------

            Interesting question. Given the complexities one can point
            to those places where Maloney identified specific Semitisms.
            It is much harder to be confident about absence of Semitisms.
            - Looking again at his list he puts "passim" in places where
            something is possible in Greek but not rare i.e. his G2 G3 and G4
            categories (attested but infrequent, frequent, or normal in Greek).
            Some of the G2 items (attested but infrequent in Greek) might be
            deemed to be Semitisms or near Semitisms by some scholars. Maloney
            himself lists some G2 and G3 items as being more frequent due
            to Hebrew, Aramaic, or OG influence.

            However in the case of Luke's "Great Omission", equivalent to Mark
            6.45-8.26, one can find in Maloney's lists (pp.246-252) specific
            Semitisms at 7.10, 11, 12, 25 and 8.2. I use the adjective specific
            meaning that Maloney gives a specific category of Semitism for each
            of these items.

            I would not argue that this proves the passage to be in Mark prior to
            Luke's work, but it does seem to point in that direction. (The issue is
            less acute of course if one thinks Matthew prior to Luke.)

            But it is quite a while since I read through all this in proper detail
            and my notes are not complete.

            David M.

            ---------
            David Mealand, University of Edinburgh


            --
            The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
            Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.