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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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.