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 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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.