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

RE: [Synoptic-L] Re: Mk 2:27: A Western Non-Interpolation or not?

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 of 16 , Feb 3, 2013
          • 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 5 of 16 , Feb 4, 2013
            • 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 6 of 16 , Feb 4, 2013
              • 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 7 of 16 , Feb 6, 2013
                • 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 8 of 16 , Feb 7, 2013
                  • 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 9 of 16 , Feb 7, 2013
                    • 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 10 of 16 , Feb 7, 2013
                      • 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 11 of 16 , Feb 8, 2013
                        • 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.