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

Re: [Synoptic-L] E.C.Maloney on Mark

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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.