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

Re: Mk 2:27: A Western Non-Interpolation or not?

Expand Messages
  • Wieland
    There are more like this: For Mk consider 5:21, 6:49-50, 9:35, 14:65 Hort just selected some important ones. His list is not exhaustive. Best wishes Wieland
    Message 1 of 16 , Jan 30, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      There are more like this:
      For Mk consider 5:21, 6:49-50, 9:35, 14:65

      Hort just selected some important ones.
      His list is not exhaustive.

      Best wishes
      Wieland
    • David Mealand
      With regard to Mark 2.27 Wieland wrote ... There are more like this: For Mk consider 5:21, 6:49-50, 9:35, 14:65 Hort just selected some important ones. His
      Message 2 of 16 , Jan 30, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        With regard to Mark 2.27 Wieland wrote
        ----------------
        There are more like this:
        For Mk consider 5:21, 6:49-50, 9:35, 14:65
        Hort just selected some important ones.
        His list is not exhaustive.
        ----------------

        If Mark 2.27 might have been interpolated into texts
        other than D and its allies then what becomes of
        arguments like this:

        Jesus of Nazareth: An independent historian's account of his life ...
        - Page 373 books.google.co.uk/books?isbn=0567645177
        Maurice Casey - 2010 - Preview - More editions

        "I have just pointed out that Mk 2.27-28 is a passage where bilingual
        translators could see the original Aramaic idiom with particular ease.
        Nonetheless, Mk 2.28 is a sound example of a passage in which monoglot
        speakers of Greek would see ..."

        I don't have the book to hand so only have the snippet not its context,
        but the implications might be interesting. If 2.27 is problematic
        how far is that taken into account in the long running bar nasha debates?

        David M.


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


        --
        The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
        Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
      • David Inglis
        David M, thanks for the comment. I also do not have the book, although the majority can be found here: http://books.google.com/books?id=lXK0auknD0YC
        Message 3 of 16 , Jan 30, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          David M, thanks for the comment. I also do not have the book, although the majority can be found here:
          http://books.google.com/books?id=lXK0auknD0YC <http://books.google.com/books?id=lXK0auknD0YC&pg=PA373&lpg=PA373>
          &pg=PA373&lpg=PA373. It would definitely be interesting to know what possible Western-Non-Interpolations there are
          (whether noted by Hort or not!) in which the text not present in the Western texts (I do not like saying 'omitted'
          because it is prejudicial) contains mention of 'the Son of man' in those mss in which it is present. I don't know
          whether such a list exists as such, but it ought to be possible to extract the information for Mk (for example) from
          Wieland's own excellent Textual Commentary on Mark. Thank you Wieland, yet one more task for me. J



          David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA

          https://sites.google.com/site/inglisonmarcion/



          From: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Synoptic@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of David Mealand
          Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 3:50 AM
          To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Re: Mk 2:27: A Western Non-Interpolation or not?

          With regard to Mark 2.27 Wieland wrote
          ----------------
          There are more like this:
          For Mk consider 5:21, 6:49-50, 9:35, 14:65
          Hort just selected some important ones.
          His list is not exhaustive.
          ----------------

          If Mark 2.27 might have been interpolated into texts
          other than D and its allies then what becomes of
          arguments like this:

          Jesus of Nazareth: An independent historian's account of his life ...
          - Page 373 books.google.co.uk/books?isbn=0567645177
          Maurice Casey - 2010 - Preview - More editions

          "I have just pointed out that Mk 2.27-28 is a passage where bilingual
          translators could see the original Aramaic idiom with particular ease.
          Nonetheless, Mk 2.28 is a sound example of a passage in which monoglot
          speakers of Greek would see ..."

          I don't have the book to hand so only have the snippet not its context,
          but the implications might be interesting. If 2.27 is problematic
          how far is that taken into account in the long running bar nasha debates?

          David M.

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

          --
          The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
          Scotland, with registration number SC005336.



          _____

          No virus found in this message.
          Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
          Version: 2013.0.2890 / Virus Database: 2639/6067 - Release Date: 01/29/13



          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • David Mealand
          Casey both in his Solution book, and in his Jesus book, argues that the Greek of Mk. 2.27-28 reflects the policy of a bilingual translator who is aware of
          Message 4 of 16 , Jan 30, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            Casey both in his Solution book, and in his Jesus book,
            argues that the Greek of Mk. 2.27-28 reflects the policy
            of a bilingual translator who is aware of Aramaic idiom.

            The absence of 2.27 in D and its allies suggests that 2.27
            may not have been an original part of the text of Greek Mark.

            My impression is that we could accept one of these inferences
            but not both of them, yet I can see that each of them has some
            force, and that it is not easy to resolve the resulting dilemma.
            Casey's argument on this point seems well founded, (though I do
            not agree with his early datings for some of the texts).

            The case for seeing D and allies as evidence for interpolation
            in other texts is not to be dismissed hastily. There is a problem
            here. Was the absence of 2.27 a later omission, or did an
            interpolator manage to introduce something which matched the translation
            policy which Casey detects?

            David M.

            PS Yes
            http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=lXK0auknD0YC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
            also brings up Casey, Jesus, p373 (and much else) if you scroll down


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


            --
            The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
            Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
          • David Inglis
            I’ve been working on this issue in relation to Marcion and Lk 6:5. Here is the relevant (unfinished) chunk of text (I am indebted to Wieland for a lot of
            Message 5 of 16 , Jan 30, 2013
            • 0 Attachment
              I’ve been working on this issue in relation to Marcion and Lk 6:5. Here is the relevant (unfinished) chunk of text (I am indebted to Wieland for a lot of this):



              *** In most mss Mk 2:27-28 read:



              And he said unto them, [2:27a] The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath: [2:27b]

              Therefore [2:28a] the Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath. [2:28b]



              As Willker indicates, the use of ‘man’ (ton anthrōpon) in Mk 2:27 and ‘the Son of man’ (ho huios tou anthrōpou) in Mk 2:28 creates a problem:



              The wording of v. 27-28 is somewhat redundant, typical for Mk. The story has one conclusion too many. Either Jesus is superior to the Sabbath, or everyone is... The previous context with Abiathar and David fits good to verse 28. On the other hand verse 27 fits good to verses 23-24, but perhaps these were already too remote and verse 27 was considered as interrupting the narrative.



              This problem seems to have been recognized in the Old Latin, as in D, a, c, d, e, ff2, and i, Mk 2:26 is followed by this text instead:



              Dico autem vobis, quoniam Dominus est filius hominis etiam sabbati (a, c, d, e, ff2, i)

              legō de hymin, kyrios estin ho huios tou anthrōpou kai tou sabbatou (D)



              I say unto you, the Son of Man is lord also of the Sabbath.



              This is a variant of Mk 2:27a, followed by Mk 2:28b, except that D has “legō de hymin” in place of “kai elegen autois,” which is the usual beginning to Mk 2:27. Willker points out that: “legō de hymin” is un-Markan, and also notes that:



              “it appears not in Mk, but 7 times in Mt and 5 times in Lk. Note that the parallel Mt 12:6 introduces Jesus' words with “legō de hymin”, which is also found in the Western text of Mk 2:28.”



              The use of these words in D may indicate that they are a translation from the Old Latin in d, rather than being taken from the Markan original. W and Sy-S also have a shorter form of these verses, omitting just the last part of Mk 2:27 (“and not man for the Sabbath”), while keeping the whole of Mk 2:28. Willker again:



              That other scribes found the doubling problematic can be seen in W and Sy-S, which both omit the second part of verse 27.



              Steven Ring suggested (tcg forum 2/2011), that perhaps the original meaning was:

              "The Sabbath was created for man, not man for the Sabbath, therefore man is lord of the Sabbath."

              This removes the difficulty of two different subjects.



              The absence of an equivalent to Mk 2:27 in both Mt and Lk may be considered to be a Minor Agreement of Mt and Lk against Mk. However, the omission of some or (nearly) all of Mk 2:27 in a significant portion of the Western tradition complicates the issue. ***



              This is where I am so far. As you can see, I’m not sure at all what to conclude from the above, so any thoughts would be appreciated.



              David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA

              https://sites.google.com/site/inglisonmarcion/



              From: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Synoptic@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of David Mealand
              Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 11:19 AM
              To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: RE: [Synoptic-L] Re: Mk 2:27: A Western Non-Interpolation or not?

              Casey both in his Solution book, and in his Jesus book, argues that the Greek of Mk. 2.27-28 reflects the policy of a bilingual translator who is aware of Aramaic idiom.

              The absence of 2.27 in D and its allies suggests that 2.27 may not have been an original part of the text of Greek Mark.

              My impression is that we could accept one of these inferences but not both of them, yet I can see that each of them has some force, and that it is not easy to resolve the resulting dilemma. Casey's argument on this point seems well founded, (though I do not agree with his early datings for some of the texts).

              The case for seeing D and allies as evidence for interpolation in other texts is not to be dismissed hastily. There is a problem here. Was the absence of 2.27 a later omission, or did an interpolator manage to introduce something which matched the translation policy which Casey detects?

              David M.

              PS Yes
              http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=lXK0auknD0YC <http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=lXK0auknD0YC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false> &printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
              also brings up Casey, Jesus, p373 (and much else) if you scroll down

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



              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • David Inglis
              This review http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/1999/1999-12-03.html#n3 Of Casey’s “Aramaic Sources of Mark s Gospel” looks to be helpful re. ‘the ‘son of
              Message 6 of 16 , Jan 31, 2013
              • 0 Attachment
                This review http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/1999/1999-12-03.html#n3 Of Casey’s “Aramaic Sources of Mark's Gospel” looks to be helpful re. ‘the ‘son of man’ issue in Mk 2:28.



                David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA

                https://sites.google.com/site/inglisonmarcion/





                From: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Synoptic@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of David Mealand
                Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 11:19 AM
                To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
                Subject: RE: [Synoptic-L] Re: Mk 2:27: A Western Non-Interpolation or not?

                Casey both in his Solution book, and in his Jesus book, argues that the Greek of Mk. 2.27-28 reflects the policy of a bilingual translator who is aware of Aramaic idiom.

                The absence of 2.27 in D and its allies suggests that 2.27 may not have been an original part of the text of Greek Mark.

                My impression is that we could accept one of these inferences but not both of them, yet I can see that each of them has some force, and that it is not easy to resolve the resulting dilemma. Casey's argument on this point seems well founded, (though I do not agree with his early datings for some of the texts).

                The case for seeing D and allies as evidence for interpolation in other texts is not to be dismissed hastily. There is a problem here. Was the absence of 2.27 a later omission, or did an interpolator manage to introduce something which matched the translation policy which Casey detects?

                David M.

                PS Yes
                http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=lXK0auknD0YC <http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=lXK0auknD0YC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false> &printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
                also brings up Casey, Jesus, p373 (and much else) if you scroll down

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



                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • David Mealand
                Either Mk 2.27 is an interpolation absent in D and some of its allies, or it is a relic of pre-Markan polemic in Aramaic with which later tradition was less
                Message 7 of 16 , Jan 31, 2013
                • 0 Attachment
                  Either Mk 2.27 is an interpolation absent in D and some of
                  its allies, or it is a relic of pre-Markan polemic in Aramaic
                  with which later tradition was less comfortable. But which?

                  Some or all of Mark 2.27 is absent from a) Matthew b) Luke
                  c) the text of Mark in W, D and some allies of D.

                  Luke does share _kai e)legen autois_ with Mark 2.27 though,
                  so doesn't lack all of Mk 2.27. But the D text of Luke lacks
                  what survives of Mk 2.27-28 in Luke at this point and offers
                  it 5 verses later! That fact also needs to be weighed.

                  Further in Mark 2.27a W D etc use what is considered a non-Markan
                  idiom (But I say to you) before either the first clause of 2.27
                  (the sabbath came about for man) or to run straight into 2.28b.

                  What all of these have in common is an absence of the proposition
                  in 2.27b that "man" did not come into existence for the sake of
                  the sabbath. They don't all lack all of Mk. 2.27

                  2.27b therefore seems to be a sentiment that was just a bit too radical
                  for Matthew, Luke and some tradents of Mark. In some cases almost
                  the whole verse is missing, in others just the second half of it.

                  That is slightly odd as the line of argument that the Torah came into
                  existence for humanity and not the other way round is not too distant
                  from some lines of Rabbinic debate. All the same it is a combative
                  response to a criticism, and could have left some readers of Mark
                  uncomfortable with a sharp and radical logion. An added factor in
                  the loss of part or all of 2.27 might well be a distinct preference
                  for the proposition in 2.28 once the Greek that goes into Mark has
                  replaced _bar nasha_ with _ho huios tou anthrwpou_ . For what
                  Casey calls "monoglot speakers of Greek" the phrase is understood
                  as a title which refers to a unique individual. That obviously
                  did appeal to the subsequent tradition, and gets greater prominence,
                  with less chance of being understood in a general sense, when some
                  or all of 2.27 is absent.

                  So I think I am now tending to favour the antiquity of what underlies
                  Mk.2.27, and _not_ to see its full or partial absence in some texts of
                  Mark as indicating 2.27 might be an interpolation. (I might well see
                  other absences in D as pointing to interpolation in other manuscripts
                  but I am less convinced about this one.)

                  David M.


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



                  ---

                  --
                  The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
                  Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
                • David Inglis
                  David, I’m afraid I can’t agree with you re. Mk 2:27. As I see it, there are just too many ‘oddities’ surrounding this verse for it to be part of the
                  Message 8 of 16 , Feb 3 4:12 PM
                  • 0 Attachment
                    David, I’m afraid I can’t agree with you re. Mk 2:27. As I see it, there are just too many ‘oddities’ surrounding this verse for it to be part of the original Greek of Mk:

                    1) The verse is not present in either Mt or Lk.

                    2) Either aMt didn’t know Mk 2:27, or he did but chose to replace it with Mt 12:5-7 (No extant mss of Mt omit these verses, and they have no variants that I know of).

                    3) Either aLk didn’t know Mk 2:27, or he did but chose to omit it. However, someone else (who we assume knew about Mt 12:5-7?) then added Lk 6:5D to Bezae (both D and d).

                    4) Mk 2:27 and 28 do not fit well together, with v. 27 NOT leading to the conclusion in v. 28.

                    5) D, a, c, d, e, ff2, i contain a severely shortened variant of Mk 2:27-28, reading: ‘I say unto you, the Son of Man is lord also of the Sabbath.’ This avoids the problem noted above by essentially omitting Mk 2:27, but beginning with a phrase that is non-Markan, and appears to be taken from Lk 6:5a instead.

                    6) W and Sy-c also contain shorter variants of Mk 2:27, with W also beginning with: ‘I say unto you.’



                    Casey suggests (insists?) that v. 28 originally contained ‘man’ instead of ‘Son of man.’ Casey’s argument here, if not circular, at least contains a U-turn: He uses the Greek of Mk and his understanding regarding ‘bar nasha’ to re-construct an Aramaic text, and then turns round and uses that re-construction to hypothesize a Greek text for which we have no mss evidence, in which a perfectly understandable translation of Mk 2:27-28 from the Aramaic was changed into one that was so problematic that Mk 2:27 was omitted from both Mt and Lk, and significantly changed in several Western mss of Mk itself.



                    The only way I could see this working would be if Mk 2:27 WAS original, but got omitted very early when Mk 2:28 was changed, and was then re-instated (sometimes with changes to try to avoid the problem) after Mt and Lk were written. This just seems too complicated for me, with the suggestion that Mk 2:27 was just not in the original Greek of Mk seeming much simpler, and leading to the same situation we see today.



                    David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA

                    https://sites.google.com/site/inglisonmarcion/



                    From: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Synoptic@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of David Mealand
                    Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 11:53 AM
                    To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
                    Subject: RE: [Synoptic-L] Re: Mk 2:27: A Western Non-Interpolation or not?

                    Either Mk 2.27 is an interpolation absent in D and some of its allies, or it is a relic of pre-Markan polemic in Aramaic with which later tradition was less comfortable. But which?

                    Some or all of Mark 2.27 is absent from a) Matthew b) Luke c) the text of Mark in W, D and some allies of D.

                    Luke does share _kai e)legen autois_ with Mark 2.27 though, so doesn't lack all of Mk 2.27. But the D text of Luke lacks what survives of Mk 2.27-28 in Luke at this point and offers it 5 verses later! That fact also needs to be weighed.

                    Further in Mark 2.27a W D etc use what is considered a non-Markan idiom (But I say to you) before either the first clause of 2.27 (the sabbath came about for man) or to run straight into 2.28b.

                    What all of these have in common is an absence of the proposition in 2.27b that "man" did not come into existence for the sake of the sabbath. They don't all lack all of Mk. 2.27

                    2.27b therefore seems to be a sentiment that was just a bit too radical for Matthew, Luke and some tradents of Mark. In some cases almost the whole verse is missing, in others just the second half of it.

                    That is slightly odd as the line of argument that the Torah came into existence for humanity and not the other way round is not too distant from some lines of Rabbinic debate. All the same it is a combative response to a criticism, and could have left some readers of Mark uncomfortable with a sharp and radical logion. An added factor in the loss of part or all of 2.27 might well be a distinct preference for the proposition in 2.28 once the Greek that goes into Mark has replaced _bar nasha_ with _ho huios tou anthrwpou_ . For what Casey calls "monoglot speakers of Greek" the phrase is understood as a title which refers to a unique individual. That obviously did appeal to the subsequent tradition, and gets greater prominence, with less chance of being understood in a general sense, when some or all of 2.27 is absent.

                    So I think I am now tending to favour the antiquity of what underlies Mk.2.27, and _not_ to see its full or partial absence in some texts of Mark as indicating 2.27 might be an interpolation. (I might well ee
                    other absences in D as pointing to interpolation in other manuscripts but I am less convinced about this one.)

                    David M.

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



                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • E Bruce Brooks
                    To: Synoptic On: Mk 2:27 From: Bruce I can only agree with David Inglis on the secondarity of Mk 2:27, not least because I have previously expounded much the
                    Message 9 of 16 , Feb 4 12:33 AM
                    • 0 Attachment
                      To: Synoptic
                      On: Mk 2:27
                      From: Bruce

                      I can only agree with David Inglis on the secondarity of Mk 2:27, not least
                      because I have previously expounded much the same position some years ago on
                      this list, and in one or another SBL meeting. His point #4 is a higher
                      critical argument that I would prefer to state this way: 2:27 and 2:28 give
                      different reasons why it is OK for Jesus and his followers to pluck grain on
                      the Sabbath. Logically, we do not need two reasons; one is plenty. Of the
                      two presently available in Mark, 2:27 is universalist, and in effect
                      abrogates Sabbath observance for everyone, at all times. 2:28 is specific,
                      it applies only to Jesus, and only to the present occasion, and only it
                      relates to the Davidic tone of his previous discourse (2:25-26, the
                      reference to David in scripture). Jesus has the same privileges as David
                      once had.

                      And for the same reason.

                      2:28 belongs rather to the time when Christianity had divorced itself from
                      Jewish usages, and had become an interculturally focused movement. Mark, on
                      evidence repeatedly presented, some of it by myself, is an accretional text,
                      and in such a text, the early layers are earlier than the later layers. In
                      cultural history terms, as also in philological terms, Mk 2:27 belongs to a
                      later layer, whereas Mk 2:28 belongs to a later one. That is to say, Jesus's
                      exceptionalism is earlier, historically, than is Paul's ethical
                      universalism. There is nothing very surprising about this conclusion; what
                      is interesting is to find both ends of it present in Mark.

                      Another late passage, showing an more extreme divorce from Jewish ways, and
                      even from knowledge of what those ways are, is the notorious Mk 7:3-4, where
                      those listening to Mark's story of Jesus have to be taken aside and
                      instructed about Jewish customs, so that they will know what the story is
                      ABOUT.

                      Reflecting on these and similar examples, we may moved to think about Mark
                      as a book composed within memory of the agenda of the historical Jesus, but
                      also affected here and there by passages belonging to a substantially later
                      period, and addressing a culturally different audience. This would be a dark
                      and permanent perplexity, did not Luke's biography of Mark give us some
                      clues about how such differences in one man's text might have come about.

                      Bruce

                      E Bruce Brooks
                      Warring States Project
                      University of Massachusetts at Amherst
                    • David Mealand
                      David Inglis wrote ... Mk 2:27 and 28 do not fit well together, with v. 27 NOT leading to the conclusion in v. 28. ... Compare A2.27 the sabbath was made for
                      Message 10 of 16 , Feb 4 11:02 AM
                      • 0 Attachment
                        David Inglis wrote
                        -----------
                        Mk 2:27 and 28 do not fit well together, with v. 27 NOT leading to the
                        conclusion in v. 28.
                        -----------

                        Compare

                        A2.27 the sabbath was made for man not man for the sabbath
                        A2.28 so (a/the) son of man is lord even over the sabbath

                        with
                        G2.27 the sabbath was made for man and not man for the sabbath
                        G2.28 so THE SON of MAN (title) is Lord even over the sabbath

                        A2.27 leads to A2.28 much better than G2.27 leads to G2.28

                        hence the problem.

                        I have, of course, over-emphasized, but have done so in order
                        to try to indicate the point at issue.

                        Matthew does indeed not like Mark 2.27 at all, but he is
                        prepared to accept that special cases: priests doing duty
                        in the temple, or "THE SON of MAN", can override normal prohibitions
                        on shabbat, but this is not the case for just any member of the
                        human race according to Matthew. Note also the latter's alteration
                        to the Markan Apocalypse at Matt.24.20 versus Mk. 13.18.

                        The shift from Aramaic to Greek translation, and then to people who
                        use the Greek translation but are losing, or have lost, touch with
                        the Aramaic gradually cranks up a problem. A crucial ambiguity
                        has now been lost in 2.28. So 2.27 is now problematic. The solution
                        was to dump some or all of Mark 2.27.

                        But the passage is a splendid mix of linguistic and text-critical
                        complications, quite enough to keep people busy for a long time.

                        David M.





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


                        --
                        The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
                        Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
                      • David Inglis
                        I have just added to my website a page detailing my thoughts on this issue, with a slightly modified version of the text below as the conclusion. If anyone is
                        Message 11 of 16 , Feb 6 9:40 AM
                        • 0 Attachment
                          I have just added to my website a page detailing my thoughts on this issue, with a slightly modified version of the text below as the conclusion. If anyone is interested the link to this page is given below, and I welcome all comments, corrections, etc., either on-list or off. Thanks to Wieland Willker for his TC Mark page, which I quote in a number of places.



                          David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA

                          https://sites.google.com/site/inglisonmarcion/Home/mark-2-27-28



                          From: David Inglis [mailto:davidinglis2@...]
                          Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2013 4:12 PM
                          To: 'Synoptic@yahoogroups.com'
                          Subject: RE: [Synoptic-L] Re: Mk 2:27: A Western Non-Interpolation or not?



                          David, I’m afraid I can’t agree with you re. Mk 2:27. As I see it, there are just too many ‘oddities’ surrounding this verse for it to be part of the original Greek of Mk:

                          1) The verse is not present in either Mt or Lk.

                          2) Either aMt didn’t know Mk 2:27, or he did but chose to replace it with Mt 12:5-7 (No extant mss of Mt omit these verses, and they have no variants that I know of).

                          3) Either aLk didn’t know Mk 2:27, or he did but chose to omit it. However, someone else (who we assume knew about Mt 12:5-7?) then added Lk 6:5D to Bezae (both D and d).

                          4) Mk 2:27 and 28 do not fit well together, with v. 27 NOT leading to the conclusion in v. 28.

                          5) D, a, c, d, e, ff2, i contain a severely shortened variant of Mk 2:27-28, reading: ‘I say unto you, the Son of Man is lord also of the Sabbath.’ This avoids the problem noted above by essentially omitting Mk 2:27, but beginning with a phrase that is non-Markan, and appears to be taken from Lk 6:5a instead.

                          6) W and Sy-c also contain shorter variants of Mk 2:27, with W also beginning with: ‘I say unto you.’



                          Casey suggests (insists?) that v. 28 originally contained ‘man’ instead of ‘Son of man.’ Casey’s argument here, if not circular, at least contains a U-turn: He uses the Greek of Mk and his understanding regarding ‘bar nasha’ to re-construct an Aramaic text, and then turns round and uses that re-construction to hypothesize a Greek text for which we have no mss evidence, in which a perfectly understandable translation of Mk 2:27-28 from the Aramaic was changed into one that was so problematic that Mk 2:27 was omitted from both Mt and Lk, and significantly changed in several Western mss of Mk itself.



                          The only way I could see this working would be if Mk 2:27 WAS original, but got omitted very early when Mk 2:28 was changed, and was then re-instated (sometimes with changes to try to avoid the problem) after Mt and Lk were written. This just seems too complicated for me, with the suggestion that Mk 2:27 was just not in the original Greek of Mk seeming much simpler, and leading to the same situation we see today.



                          David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA

                          https://sites.google.com/site/inglisonmarcion/



                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        • David Mealand
                          I am hesitant to repeat a point but I would recommend re-reading at least Casey, Solution, 19 & 262-263, and Casey, Jesus, 370-374. ... David Mealand,
                          Message 12 of 16 , Feb 7 11:33 AM
                          • 0 Attachment
                            I am hesitant to repeat a point but
                            I would recommend re-reading at least
                            Casey, Solution, 19 & 262-263, and
                            Casey, Jesus, 370-374.




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


                            --
                            The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
                            Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
                          • David Inglis
                            David M, I apologize if I am failing to understand which point you are referring to, so perhaps I can re-state some things: 1) Casey makes it clear that
                            Message 13 of 16 , Feb 7 7:13 PM
                            • 0 Attachment
                              David M, I apologize if I am failing to understand which point you are referring to, so perhaps I can re-state some things:

                              1) Casey makes it clear that ‘bar nasha’ is a normal term for the generic ‘man’ (or perhaps ‘people’) (and by the way is quite happy to berate others for failing to understand this);

                              2) Assuming that Mk 2:28 had an Aramaic original (which I am quite happy with as a possibility) then the original Greek translation was either ‘man’ (generic) or ‘the Son of man’ (Christological), with the translation decision basically resting on the translators familiarity with Aramaic.

                              As we don’t know whether aMk was bilingual or not (or is this where there are points I haven’t appreciated?) then we have to examine the mss evidence of the variants of Mk 2:27 (and the verses in the equivalent places in Mt and Lk) in the light of both translations, and see if using that we can determine the probable history of Mk 2:27. Other than pointing out that we need to allow for both translations, I’m not sure how Casey figures in this process. Is there something I’m missing?

                              David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA

                              https://sites.google.com/site/inglisonmarcion/



                              From: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Synoptic@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of David Mealand
                              Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 11:34 AM
                              To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
                              Subject: RE: [Synoptic-L] Re: Mk 2:27: A Western Non-Interpolation or not?

                              I am hesitant to repeat a point but I would recommend re-reading at least Casey, Solution, 19 & 262-263, and Casey, Jesus, 370-374.
                              ---------
                              David Mealand, University of Edinburgh



                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            • E Bruce Brooks
                              To: Synoptic In Response To: David Inglis On: Mark From: Bruce David: As we don t know whether aMk was bilingual or not . . . Bruce: Of course not. But are we
                              Message 14 of 16 , Feb 7 11:48 PM
                              • 0 Attachment
                                To: Synoptic
                                In Response To: David Inglis
                                On: Mark
                                From: Bruce

                                David: As we don't know whether aMk was bilingual or not . . .

                                Bruce: Of course not. But are we really entirely in the dark?

                                1. Mark knew some Greek because he wrote in Greek. His Greek has been
                                faulted, but I have seen arguments that some of the supposed solecisms may
                                after all not be that bad; though perhaps not of academic level. It is at
                                least presentable Greek. Perhaps: provincial Greek. When he gives the name
                                of Jesus' first-called disciple, he uses the Greek form Peter, not (as Paul
                                invariably does) the Aramaic equivalent Cephas. In at least this instance,
                                where a choice offers between Aramaic and Greek, Mark's language of
                                preference is Greek. In Mark's own household, the maid's name was Rhoda (so
                                says Luke), a Greek name which implies an affectation of Greek culture.

                                I am reminded of the cultured Berlin households of the 19c, say that of
                                Mendelssohn, or of von Ranke (whose wife was Irish; some of his collected
                                letters are in English), where English as well as German was the medium of
                                interchange and cultural enjoyment. Or French at the 19c Russian court.

                                2. Mark seems to have known a number of people fin Jerusalem, possibly
                                including Simon of Cyrene and his two sons, who are important in the
                                narrative because at least Simon was an eyewitness to the Crucifixion. If
                                Simon was a Jew of Cyrene (north Africa), he may not have been a fluent
                                speaker of Aramaic, and if Mark's circle included people not that fluent in
                                Aramaic, his own basic language need not have been Aramaic, though
                                undoubtedly he knew enough Aramaic to get around. The Aramaisms in Mark have
                                been variously assessed; some who should know find them not always precise.
                                Mark himself, in giving Aramaisms, invariably translates them for his
                                readers. Then his expected readers were not assuredly Aramaic-fluent. This
                                would be another hint that Mark's own circle were not, or not all, or not
                                all that, fluent in Aramaic. The only parts of the Jesus story that Mark
                                really knows up close, as it were, are the Jerusalem parts; for the Galilee
                                parts, where these are not simply invented, he seems (on the evidence of the
                                shape these things have within the overall story of Mark) to have relied on
                                the reports of others. It is likely enough that one of these informants was
                                Peter (though not, I should think, Peter in Rome; that is taking things too
                                far in a deuteroPauline direction; far more likely, as Luke suggests, Peter
                                in Jerusalem). The only person Mark describes physically is John the
                                Baptist, and John was a popular revivalist preacher in the vicinity of,
                                again, Jerusalem. For a convinced and early believer in Jesus not ever to
                                have visited Galilee, or to have heard Jesus preach there firsthand, argues
                                a lack of comfort in a more exclusively Aramaic-speaking area. Of course the
                                dialect there was crude, but still.

                                3. Mk, alone of the Gospels, includes some easy Latinisms, which would have
                                been natural enough for anyone living in Jerusalem, where there was a strong
                                Roman military and economic presence. He does not translate these Latinisms;
                                he expects them to be understood. Then for his intended audience, and
                                conceivably for himself, Latin (a certain amount of contact Latin) was a
                                given. His own name (Mark) is Latin, and not Greek (like the non-Aramaic
                                names of many of his contemporaries).

                                Not to run this too far, I come up with at least trilingual, taking
                                "lingual" in a somewhat wide and forgiving sense. Or to put it in a phrase:
                                a cosmopolitan Jew of Jerusalem.

                                Bruce

                                E Bruce Brooks
                                Warring States Project
                                University of Massachusetts at Amherst
                              • Ronald Price
                                As far as the phrase Son of man is concerned, it seems to me likely that the great majority of Markan occurrences are in passages created by Mark (the
                                Message 15 of 16 , Feb 8 2:44 AM
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  As far as the phrase 'Son of man' is concerned, it seems to me likely that
                                  the great majority of Markan occurrences are in passages created by Mark
                                  (the exceptions being in 8:38 and 13:26, loosely based on the logia, and
                                  9:12 and 14:62, both part of late interpolations). This assessment of the
                                  majority of the Markan Son of man passages is based on seeing how well they
                                  match the perceived purpose of the author, and on how anomalous they would
                                  be in various ways if taken as pure historical accounts.

                                  Thus I see 2:27b-28 not as a translation, but as a Markan creation. The
                                  question of whether verse 28 is translated correctly is surely based on the
                                  flawed assumption of Markan lack of creativity.

                                  Ron Price,

                                  Derbyshire, UK

                                  http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/syno_home.html



                                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.