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
    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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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.