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
    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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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.