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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Mark 1:28 - An interpolation, or moved from somewhere else?

Expand Messages
  • Stephen Carlson
    I would call Mark 1:28 a summary statement, where the author breaks the narrative flow to comment on the importance of what just happened. It is perfectly fine
    Message 1 of 4 , May 24 12:25 PM
      I would call Mark 1:28 a summary statement, where the author breaks the
      narrative flow to comment on the importance of what just happened. It is
      perfectly fine to me. Perhaps it's a little rough, but Mark's narrative is
      not the smoothest in the world.

      There no manuscript evidence for an interpolation and it is also found in
      Matthew and Luke, which makes detecting an interpolation based on external
      evidence pretty much impossible. This leaves only internal evidence but it
      has to be so clear and convincing that Mark could not have written the
      text. In my view, however, there is nothing un-Markan about the verse.

      Stephen Carlson

      On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 7:56 PM, David Inglis <davidinglis2@...>wrote:

      > **
      >
      >
      > Would anyone care to share their views on whether Mk 1:28 is an
      > interpolation? I keep going round in circles on this
      > one. Jesus deals with the unclean spirit while in the synagogue in
      > Capernaum, and then (apparently BEFORE he has even
      > left the synagogue), news (presumably of this event) spreads all over (the
      > region around) Galilee. Various things look
      > possible here:
      >
      > . Mk 1:28 is just an aside, simply indicating what happened as a result of
      > what happened in the synagogue, and
      > is not meant to indicate that the news spread before he left the synagogue.
      >
      > . Mk 1:28 is an interpolation, or perhaps was originally located after
      > some other noteworthy event.
      >
      > . Mk 1:29-31 (healing Simon's mother-in-law) is instead an interpolation,
      > or perhaps this healing was originally
      > somewhere else.
      >
      > Whether any of these are correct (and I'm sure other scenarios are
      > possible) Lk has exactly the same issue in the
      > parallel at v. 4:37. Because vv. 37 and 44 have adjacent doublets at vv.
      > 4:14b-15, perhaps this indicates that they were
      > also originally adjacent, i.e. Lk 4:37 was originally between vv. 43 and
      > 44, and that Mk 1:28 was originally between vv.
      > 1:38 and 1:39. Assistance on nailing down the most likely solution, as
      > always, welcome.
      >
      > David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
      >
      >



      --
      --
      Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D. (Duke)
      Post-Doctoral Fellow, Theology, Uppsala


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • David Inglis
      Stephen, thank you. Despite the initial impression that Mk 1:28 is out of place, given the lack of any variants in the synoptics suggesting that it was ever
      Message 2 of 4 , May 25 9:58 AM
        Stephen, thank you. Despite the initial impression that Mk 1:28 is 'out of place,' given the lack of any variants in the
        synoptics suggesting that it was ever anywhere else, or that it was not part of the original text of Mk, I have to agree
        with you. However, although I know the parallel at Lk 4:37, I don't see a parallel in Mt for any of Mk 1:23-29a, so
        please could you let me know what parallel you see.
        David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA

        -----Original Message-----
        From: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Synoptic@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Stephen Carlson
        Sent: Friday, May 24, 2013 12:25 PM
        To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Mark 1:28 - An interpolation, or moved from somewhere else?

        I would call Mark 1:28 a summary statement, where the author breaks the narrative flow to comment on the importance of
        what just happened. It is perfectly fine to me. Perhaps it's a little rough, but Mark's narrative is not the smoothest
        in the world.

        There no manuscript evidence for an interpolation and it is also found in Matthew and Luke, which makes detecting an
        interpolation based on external evidence pretty much impossible. This leaves only internal evidence but it has to be so
        clear and convincing that Mark could not have written the text. In my view, however, there is nothing un-Markan about
        the verse.

        Stephen Carlson

        On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 7:56 PM, David Inglis <davidinglis2@...>wrote:

        > Would anyone care to share their views on whether Mk 1:28 is an
        > interpolation? I keep going round in circles on this one. Jesus deals
        > with the unclean spirit while in the synagogue in Capernaum, and then
        > (apparently BEFORE he has even left the synagogue), news (presumably
        > of this event) spreads all over (the region around) Galilee. Various
        > things look possible here:
        >
        > . Mk 1:28 is just an aside, simply indicating what happened as a
        > result of what happened in the synagogue, and is not meant to indicate
        > that the news spread before he left the synagogue.
        >
        > . Mk 1:28 is an interpolation, or perhaps was originally located after
        > some other noteworthy event.
        >
        > . Mk 1:29-31 (healing Simon's mother-in-law) is instead an
        > interpolation, or perhaps this healing was originally somewhere else.
        >
        > Whether any of these are correct (and I'm sure other scenarios are
        > possible) Lk has exactly the same issue in the parallel at v. 4:37.
        > Because vv. 37 and 44 have adjacent doublets at vv.
        > 4:14b-15, perhaps this indicates that they were also originally
        > adjacent, i.e. Lk 4:37 was originally between vv. 43 and 44, and that
        > Mk 1:28 was originally between vv.
        > 1:38 and 1:39. Assistance on nailing down the most likely solution, as
        > always, welcome.
        >
        > David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        --
        Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D. (Duke)
        Post-Doctoral Fellow, Theology, Uppsala
      • Stephen Carlson
        Sorry, I was thinking of Matt 9:26, which is a similar summary statement but unfortunately at the end of a different pericope. Stephen ... -- -- Stephen C.
        Message 3 of 4 , May 25 11:15 AM
          Sorry, I was thinking of Matt 9:26, which is a similar summary statement
          but unfortunately at the end of a different pericope.

          Stephen


          On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 6:58 PM, David Inglis <davidinglis2@...>wrote:

          > **
          >
          >
          > Stephen, thank you. Despite the initial impression that Mk 1:28 is 'out of
          > place,' given the lack of any variants in the
          > synoptics suggesting that it was ever anywhere else, or that it was not
          > part of the original text of Mk, I have to agree
          > with you. However, although I know the parallel at Lk 4:37, I don't see a
          > parallel in Mt for any of Mk 1:23-29a, so
          > please could you let me know what parallel you see.
          >
          > David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA
          >
          > -----Original Message-----
          > From: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Synoptic@yahoogroups.com] On
          > Behalf Of Stephen Carlson
          > Sent: Friday, May 24, 2013 12:25 PM
          > To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
          > Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Mark 1:28 - An interpolation, or moved from
          > somewhere else?
          >
          > I would call Mark 1:28 a summary statement, where the author breaks the
          > narrative flow to comment on the importance of
          > what just happened. It is perfectly fine to me. Perhaps it's a little
          > rough, but Mark's narrative is not the smoothest
          > in the world.
          >
          > There no manuscript evidence for an interpolation and it is also found in
          > Matthew and Luke, which makes detecting an
          > interpolation based on external evidence pretty much impossible. This
          > leaves only internal evidence but it has to be so
          > clear and convincing that Mark could not have written the text. In my
          > view, however, there is nothing un-Markan about
          > the verse.
          >
          > Stephen Carlson
          >
          > On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 7:56 PM, David Inglis <davidinglis2@...
          > >wrote:
          >
          > > Would anyone care to share their views on whether Mk 1:28 is an
          > > interpolation? I keep going round in circles on this one. Jesus deals
          > > with the unclean spirit while in the synagogue in Capernaum, and then
          > > (apparently BEFORE he has even left the synagogue), news (presumably
          > > of this event) spreads all over (the region around) Galilee. Various
          > > things look possible here:
          > >
          > > . Mk 1:28 is just an aside, simply indicating what happened as a
          > > result of what happened in the synagogue, and is not meant to indicate
          > > that the news spread before he left the synagogue.
          > >
          > > . Mk 1:28 is an interpolation, or perhaps was originally located after
          > > some other noteworthy event.
          > >
          > > . Mk 1:29-31 (healing Simon's mother-in-law) is instead an
          > > interpolation, or perhaps this healing was originally somewhere else.
          > >
          > > Whether any of these are correct (and I'm sure other scenarios are
          > > possible) Lk has exactly the same issue in the parallel at v. 4:37.
          > > Because vv. 37 and 44 have adjacent doublets at vv.
          > > 4:14b-15, perhaps this indicates that they were also originally
          > > adjacent, i.e. Lk 4:37 was originally between vv. 43 and 44, and that
          > > Mk 1:28 was originally between vv.
          > > 1:38 and 1:39. Assistance on nailing down the most likely solution, as
          > > always, welcome.
          > >
          > > David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA
          > >
          > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          > --
          > Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D. (Duke)
          > Post-Doctoral Fellow, Theology, Uppsala
          >
          >
          >



          --
          --
          Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D. (Duke)
          Post-Doctoral Fellow, Theology, Uppsala


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.