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
    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 1 of 16 , Feb 7, 2013
    View Source
    • 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 2 of 16 , Feb 7, 2013
      View Source
      • 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 3 of 16 , Feb 7, 2013
        View Source
        • 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 4 of 16 , Feb 8, 2013
          View Source
          • 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.