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

Re: [XTalk] Re: [Synoptic-L] Mark Used CG in 15:42-16:8, Pt. 2-Fatigue in 16:6

Expand Messages
  • Bob Schacht
    ... Mark, Thanks for your interesting comments. Alas, however, I haven t seen Stephen [Carlson?] s suggestions here on XTalk. It would have been helpful for
    Message 1 of 8 , Feb 1, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      At 10:50 AM 2/1/2002 +0000, Mark Goodacre wrote:
      >Thanks for the interesting discussion of this. I find Stephen's
      >suggestion that EQHKAN AUTON is effectively an impersonal passive
      >convincing. ...
      >For example, even if Stephen's suggestion were incorrect, the EQHKAN
      >could easily be explained by conflicting traditions. ...
      >
      >This thread seems to be going partially on three separate lists and I
      >don't recall which bits have been posted where, so I copy to Synoptic-
      >L, Kata Markan and Xtalk, with apologies to those subscribed to more
      >than one!
      >
      >Mark

      Mark,
      Thanks for your interesting comments. Alas, however, I haven't seen Stephen
      [Carlson?]'s suggestions here on XTalk.
      It would have been helpful for you to have quoted him in your reply.

      Lacking that, could Stephen's comments be posted here?

      Thanks,
      Bob


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Stephen C. Carlson
      ... My take on the plural verb in Mark 16:6 is that it is an instance of using a 3d person plural in an impersonal or indefinite construction. See BDF §
      Message 2 of 8 , Feb 1, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        At 09:24 PM 1/31/2002 -0600, Ted Weeden wrote:
        >John, I understand the argument you are making, namely, EQHKEN in EQHKEN AUTON
        >should be considered collectively and not individually. I, further, presume
        >that you would say that, when Mark cited the fact that Joseph EQHKEN AUTON, Mark
        >expected that his hearers/readers would know that he was speaking not of Joseph
        >burying Jesus by himself, but Joseph, with the assistance of his servants,
        >buried Jesus. If that is what Mark expected, then why did he shift from EQHKEN
        >AUTON to EQHKAN AUTON in 16:6. And following the logic of your argument, it
        >would be expected that Matthew and Luke, contemporaries of Mark, would have
        >recognized that when Mark wrote EQHKEN AUTON he was referring to a collective
        >burial.

        My take on the plural verb in Mark 16:6 is that it is an instance of
        using a 3d person plural in an impersonal or indefinite construction. See
        BDF § 130(2) "For 'one' it is much more customary to employ the 3rd plur.
        (without subject). The range of ideas expressed by verbs so used has been
        enlarged under the influence of Aramaic (which is not found of the passive...)."
        See also N. Turner, pp. 216-7, in Elliott, ed., THE LANGUAGE AND STYLE OF
        THE GOSPEL OF MARK (Brill, 1993). Therefore, the plurality of the subject
        is not really present here.

        >If that be the case, why did Matthew avoid rendering Mark's EQHKAN AUTON in his
        >version of Mk.16:6 and replace the Markan EQHKAN AUTON with EKEITO (Mt. 28:6)?
        >And why did Luke avoid using the section of the Markan text of 16:6 which
        >contains EQHKAN AUTON? Yet, each seem to be quite comfortable with adopting
        >the Markan EQHKEN of Mk.15:47: Mt.=EQHKEN AUTO; Lk.= EQHKEN AUTON. In fact,
        >consider the following parallel comparison of Mark, Matthew and Luke with
        >respect to the text at issue (Mk. 15:46/Mt. 27:59f./lk. 23:53), and note how
        >closely Matthew and Luke adhere to the Markan vocabulary and syntax in their
        >appropriation of the section of the text containing EQHKEN AUTON. And note how
        >they seem to exercise more variation in the rest of the text.

        If you look at the entire clause, IDE hO TOPOS hOPOU EQHKEN AUTON, there is
        little in it that commends itself as good high-register, literary Greek. For
        example, the singular IDE is applied to plural women, the nominative hO TOPOS
        follows where an accusative is more appropriate, and the verb EQHKAN functions
        as an impersonal passive. Matthew and Luke's aversion (on the assumption of
        Markan priority) is merely due to the colloquial nature of the entire clause:
        it is begging for a rewrite in more sophisiticated Greek. Given all these
        issues in the entire clause, I don't think is warranted to attribute the
        editorial behavior of Matthew and Luke strictly to a perceived narrative
        problem inferred from the 3d pers. plural EQHKAN.

        Stephen Carlson
        --
        Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
        Synoptic Problem Home Page http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/
        "Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35
      • Rikki E. Watts
        ... Mark, I¹m interested in your editorial fatigue. Could you provide, off list if deemed appropriate, one or two classic examples of this phenomenon? I
        Message 3 of 8 , Feb 1, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          on 1/2/2002 2:50 AM, Mark Goodacre at M.S.Goodacre@... wrote:

          > ... Editorial Fatigue, as
          > I attempt to define it, features an evangelist writing
          > characteristically at the beginning of a pericope and writing less
          > characteristically as he lapses into the wording of his source.
          >
          Mark, I¹m interested in your editorial fatigue. Could you provide, off list
          if deemed appropriate, one or two classic examples of this phenomenon? I
          think there might be another fascinating explanation but I¹d like to see
          what you mean first. (Sorry this sounds like a set-up. It¹s not. I just
          want to be sure that I know what you mean.)
          Every blessing,

          Rikk
          >

          Dr. Rikki E. Watts (Cantab) Ph. (604) 224 3245
          Associate Professor of NT Fax. (604) 224 3097
          Regent College
          5800 University Boulevard, Vancouver, V6T 2E4



          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Mark Goodacre
          ... The article was in NTS 1998, but you don t have to go to the library - - you re in luck : ) -- it s reproduced it on the web at:
          Message 4 of 8 , Feb 1, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            On 1 Feb 2002 at 7:30, Rikki E. Watts wrote:

            > Mark, I¹m interested in your editorial fatigue. Could you provide,
            > off list if deemed appropriate, one or two classic examples of this
            > phenomenon? I think there might be another fascinating explanation
            > but I¹d like to see what you mean first. (Sorry this sounds like a
            > set-up. It¹s not. I just want to be sure that I know what you mean.)

            The article was in NTS 1998, but you don't have to go to the library -
            - you're in luck : ) -- it's reproduced it on the web at:

            http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/q/fatigue.htm

            It's also summarised in _The Synoptic Problem: A Way Through the
            Maze_ (out last year), Chapter 3.

            All best
            Mark


            -----------------------------
            Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
            Dept of Theology tel: +44 121 414 7512
            University of Birmingham fax: +44 121 414 4381
            Birmingham B15 2TT UK

            http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre
            http://NTGateway.com
          • Stephen C. Carlson
            ... I m not surprised. Translations usually render Mark s 3d person impersonals with English 3d person they even though an English passive better captures
            Message 5 of 8 , Feb 2, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              At 12:35 AM 2/1/02 -0600, Ted Weeden wrote:
              >Stephen Carlson wrote on Thursday, January 31, 2002:
              >> My take on the plural verb in Mark 16:6 is that it is an instance of
              >> using a 3d person plural in an impersonal or indefinite construction.
              >> [Citations to BDF and Turner snipped]
              >
              >You are quite correct that EQHKAN could serve in 16:6 to refer to "one" and that
              >it is possible plurality with respect to subject is not intended here. But I
              >find it quite curious that no English translation that I am aware of, incuding
              >those in reputable scholarly commentaries, translate EQHKAN other than as third
              >person plural with unspecified subject, namely, "they laid.".

              I'm not surprised. Translations usually render Mark's 3d
              person impersonals with English 3d person "they" even though
              an English passive better captures the sense. This is
              particularly true because (1) the "formal equivalence"
              principle adopted by many translators would dictate the
              rendering "they laid"; (2) the passive voice is deprecated
              in good English narrative style, so it is unlikely translators
              would introduce a passive even if the sense is a slight
              improvement; and (3) the English 3d person "they" in many
              contexts also functions impersonally.

              Furthermore, translation is not exegesis. Many translations
              are made without a detailed exegesis, particularly when, as
              is the case here in Mark 16:6, that there is no critical or
              important issue at stake. Therefore, the appeal to the
              authority of English translators on this question is at best
              *obiter dictum*.

              What is important, however, is the view of an exegete who
              has taken the trouble to interpret the sense of EQHKAN in
              Mark 16:6. After looking at my commentaries and monographs
              on Mark, including Tayler, Hooker, and, yes, even your
              TRADITIONS IN CONFLICT, the issue of the plural subject
              of EQHKAN is neglected in favor of making the point that
              Jesus's body is no longer there.

              Gundry is one of the few commentators, however, who did
              address it:

              >For example, I quote Gundry_Mark_ (992): "'Look, the place where they put him!'
              >underscores Jesus' not being here, i.e underscores that the fullfilment of his
              >prediction in 14:28 has already started. The exclamatory use of 'look' (N.B.
              >that IDE is singular though the women are plural, and is not followed by an
              >accusative of direct object) and of 'the place where they put him' (N.B. that
              >the nominative hO TOPOS has no verb) and the asyndeton which introduces both
              >'look' and 'the place where they put him' intensify the emphasis. 'Here' and
              >'where they put him' hark back to the two Marys' 'observing where he was put'
              >(15:47). Mark likes indefinite third person plural verbs. Here, 'they'
              >betrays his hand; for though Joseph of Arimathea doubtless had help, 15:46
              >mentions only Joseph as putting Jesus in the tomb (15:46)."
              >
              >Now, several things I observe in Gundry's exposition on the grammatical and
              >stylistic character of Mark's rhetoric in 16:6. He notes the fact, as you note
              >also below, that Mark has used IDE (singular) when the young man is addressing
              >women (plural). He notes that hO TOPOS (nominative) lacks a verb, and that
              >Mark uses an asynedetic construction. He notes, further, that Mark has a liking
              >for verbs in the third person plural, of which EQHKAN is one. However, he
              >does not make any mention of the possibility that EQHKAN is to be understood as
              >refering to singular unspecified subject, namely, 'one.' In fact, Gundry
              >repeatedly through the paragraph cited translates EQHKAN as a referencing a
              >plural but unspecified subject, namely, "they." Moreover, he goes on to say
              >that Mark in using EQHKAN, meaning "'they' laid him," "*betrays* his hand"
              >because, if I am understanding him correctly, Mark in 15:46 referenced a
              >singular subject, Joseph, when he penned the third person singular EQHKEN, even
              >though "doubtless" Joseph must have had help (putting, thereby, a collective
              >spin on the meaning of EQHKEN) in bury Jesus.

              Gundry's analysis on this point is somewhat incoherent. Gundry
              correctly recognized that "Mark likes *indefinite* third person
              plural verb" (emphasis added), but then he failed to realize that
              indefinite verbs, regardless of the actual grammatical number,
              also comprehend a singular subject or at the very least render
              the actual subject irrelevant.

              [Mark 15:46 states that Joseph rolled (PROSEKULISEN, singular)
              the stone. The sheer physics of the operation, as recognized
              by Mark's audience, implies that Joseph had help.]

              >Thus, in Gundry's mind, if I am understanding him correctly, and all English
              >translators that I know of take Mark literally in his use of EQHKAN. Third
              >person plural means third person plural: "EQHKAN ("'They' laid").

              Given Mark's proclivity for 3d person indefinite verbs, its
              grammatically plural number does not bear the semantic weight
              you are placing on it.

              >I agree that Mark's Greek is not sophisticated Greek and that Matthew and Luke
              >try to raise the level of Mark's Greek in appropriating his texts for their
              >compositions. I do not, however, think it is clear in this case that
              >dissatisfaction with Mark's pedestrian Greek is the primary reason for doing
              >surgery on Mark's use of EQHKAN in 16:6. Given some interesting correspondence
              >between the use of EQHKAN in the texts of CG as I have noted, I think Mark may
              >have inadvertently and under the influence of the CG text, penned EQHKAN when he
              >meant EQHKEN. And Matthew and Luke caught the error and, in the case of
              >Matthew, corrected it along with the other Markan stylistic weaknesses.

              Your position would be stronger if Matthew and Luke surgically
              corrected EQHKAN by a simple letter change, but Matthew and Luke's
              redaction was much more radical: Matthew rewrote the sentence,
              and Luke omitted it. This suggests the fault is elsewhere and
              the change of EQHKEN to a different verb EKEITO in Matthew and
              its omission in Luke is merely collateral damage. Furthermore,
              the fact that no scribe copying Mark changed EQHKAN to EQHKEN
              shows that, whatever narrative difficulty there was, it was not
              perceived before modern times.

              >My argument for my theory that Mark may well have used CG as a source for
              >composing his burial and empty-tomb stories is a cumulative one. I am not
              >placing all "my eggs" in the basket of a Markan error in 16:6. I am suggesting
              >it is plausible to see Mk. 16:6 as an error, and Gundry, for one, appears to
              >view it that way. CG offers an explanation for the error, and if additional
              >examples from CG account for other "odd" features of the Markan empty-tomb
              >story, in particular, then that gives more weight to the plausibility that 16:6
              >is an instance of Markan editorial fatigue.

              I've gone back over both your argument and the Gospel
              of Peter, and I just cannot see how the argument can
              be made to work.

              The plural EQHKAN, as you noted, occurs in two places.
              The first is GPt 6:21 KAI EQHKAN AUTON EPI THS GHS,
              where, after pulling nails from Jesus's hand, "they
              put him on the ground" and an earthquake ensued. There
              is no clear antecedent for "they" in 6:21, but it would
              have to be the the Jews (hOI IOUDAIOI) in 6:23, who
              rejoice and give the body to Joseph. After the body
              is turned over Joseph, the Gospel of Peter, like Mark,
              relates the events in the singular, including that
              Joseph brought the body to his own tomb (EISHGAGEN
              [sing.] EIS IDION TAFON). Mark does not relate anyone's
              putting Jesus on the ground, the earthquake, the rejoicing
              Jews, or any intermediary for Joseph. Matthew, however,
              does mention an earthquake.

              The second occurrence of the plural form EQHKAN is
              at 8:32 where the centurions and soldiers put a large
              stone at the entrance of the tomb (EQHKAN EPI THi QURAi
              TOU MNHMATOS). This instance of EQHKAN is not used of
              Jesus's body. Mark, of course, does not mention the
              guarding of the tomb, a detail present in Matthew.

              Furthermore, in the place where Mark does use the
              grammatically plural EQHKAN, i.e. 16:6, the Gospel
              of Peter follows Matthew instead: "KAI IDETE TON
              TOPON ENQA EKEITO, hOTI OUK ESTIN" (13:56). The
              GPt agrees with Matthew against Mark in: (1) the
              plural IDETE versus Mark's sing. IDE, (2) the
              accusative TON TOPON versus Mark's nominative
              hO TOPOS, and (3) replacement of Mark's EQHKAN
              AUTO with EKEITO. Both the additional ENQA and
              hOTI OUK ESTIN look like explanatory glosses
              on a Matthean base.

              The fatigue argument cannot stand up. If Mark
              were fatigued and lapsed into the wording of
              his source at 16:6, there is no EQHKAN in the
              corresponding place in the Cross Gospel (as
              known via GPt) to use. In fact, the parallel
              to Mark 16:6 is virtually identical to Matthew's
              text at 28:6. So, Mark would have to have
              rewritten a literary sentence in more colloquial
              terms. While not impossible, it is important
              to realize that the Mark 16:6 // Matthew 28:6
              parallel is viewed as one of the strongest
              indications of Mark's priority over Matthew!
              (e.g., Stein, SYNOPTIC PROBLEM, p. 53)

              Neither occurrence of EQHKAN in the Gospel of
              Peter relates to putting Jesus's body in the
              tomb. The first occurrence involves putting
              Jesus's body on the ground near the cross,
              and the second pertains to the rock over the
              entrance to the tomb. The closest GPt gets
              to relating the act of putting Jesus's body
              in the tomb is that Joseph "brought" (sing.
              EISHGAGEN at 6:23) it there.

              Furthermore, there is considerable doubt in
              my mind whether either instance of EQHKAN
              should belong in the Cross Gospel in the
              first place. The first occurrence of EQHKAN
              in GPt is in a passage that includes Matthean
              redaction (the earthquake) and an anti-Semitic
              polemic. Both these elements are later than
              Mark. The second occurrence of EQHKAN also
              occurs in the material that Matthew added to
              Mark, viz. the guarding of the tomb, which
              also includes an anti-Semitic bias. Since
              both occurrences of EQHKAN parallel Matthew's
              redaction of Mark and caught up in an anti-
              Semitic polemic, their presence in one of
              Mark's sources is difficult to fathom.

              The most relevant parallels to Mark 16:6
              lack the plural EQHKAN. Although more
              remote passages of GPt do include the plural
              EQHKAN, the demonstratably late elements
              in these passages (Matthean redaction and
              increased anti-Semiticism) refutes the idea
              that Mark could be dependent on such passages.
              If such secondary passages were to be factored
              out of the GPt in reconstructing the Cross
              Gospel, there would nothing left to base a
              case of Markan dependence upon.

              Stephen Carlson

              --
              Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
              Synoptic Problem Home Page http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/
              "Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35
            • Ted Weeden
              ... Stephen, my apologies for not responding to your very incisive critique to my post. I am behind in responding to many posts because of the number I have
              Message 6 of 8 , Feb 7, 2002
              • 0 Attachment
                Stephen Carlson wrote on Saturday, February 02, 2002:

                > What is important, however, is the view of an exegete who
                > has taken the trouble to interpret the sense of EQHKAN in
                > Mark 16:6. After looking at my commentaries and monographs
                > on Mark, including Tayler, Hooker, and, yes, even your
                > TRADITIONS IN CONFLICT, the issue of the plural subject
                > of EQHKAN is neglected in favor of making the point that
                > Jesus's body is no longer there.

                Stephen, my apologies for not responding to your very incisive critique to my
                post. I am behind in responding to many posts because of the number I have
                received, for which I am appreciative, and because I decided what I really
                needed to do is to set forth my methodological presuppositions which I have used
                in working out my thesis. As you probably have noted I posted those
                presuppositions in a post, "Mark and CG: Methodological Presuppositions,"
                yesterday afternoon (2/6/02), and now I am trying to catch up.

                With regard to the commentaries: that has been my experience. Commentators have
                neglected to note what I now describe as a compositional error on Mark's part
                due to editorial fatigue. You are correct that I did not see "the error"
                myself when I wrote _Mark-Traditions_ in 1971, nor when I developed my original
                thesis on Mark for my 1964 Claremont dissertation, "The Heresy That Necessitated
                Mark's Gospel," which became, as a result of a radical rewrite, my book. It
                was not until four years ago, when I was asked to write a commentary on Mark
                that I returned to a serious relook at Mark, except for a piece I did for
                _Chicago Studies_ in 1995, after being away from Markan studies for many years.
                I had a lot of catching up to do. In the course of that catching up, I reread
                Crossan's _The Cross That Spoke_ and saw some interesting elements in the texts
                to which I have given my attention in the thesis I am now presenting.

                It was at that point, because I began to compare the Greek text of Mark with the
                Greek text of Crossan's reconstructed CG (Crossan does not provide the Greek
                text itself), that I spotted what I had not seen before, EQHKAN in 16:6, an
                occurrence which did not comport in my thinking with EQHKEN in 15:46, though
                EQHKAN was to be found in the initial statement regarding what I presumed to be
                the beginning of the burial process in CG 6:21. That is when I began to wonder
                if Mark had mistakenly copied CG's EQHKAN in composing 16:6. I did not know
                quite what to call the compositional error until I read Mark Goodacre's
                editorial-fatigue theory. By then I had put aside an unfinished draft of my
                thesis, which I now am trying to finish and update and present as a result of
                Karel Hanhart's post that prompted me to do so. I share this only to set the
                record straight with regard to the hermeneutical path I have followed, lest it
                should be misunderstood that I spotted the Markan "error" in 16:6 and then went
                searching for some source to explain the error; and viola: CG. I began with
                CG and comparing its Greek text with Mark, and then saw for the first time
                EQHKAN..

                [snip]

                > Gundry's analysis on this point is somewhat incoherent. Gundry
                > correctly recognized that "Mark likes *indefinite* third person
                > plural verb" (emphasis added), but then he failed to realize that
                > indefinite verbs, regardless of the actual grammatical number,
                > also comprehend a singular subject or at the very least render
                > the actual subject irrelevant.

                Gundry is a very careful writer. I have not found him to be incoherent. That
                is why I am wondering if he had a certain ambivalence over how one explicates
                EQHKAN in 16:6. You mention again the use of a verb in third person plural with
                reference to a singular subject. In your previous post on this you drew my
                attention to BDF #130 in which this compositional practice is discussed, and
                particularly to #130.2 where Markan texts are cited in which this particular
                rhetorical use of the verb in the third person plural can be found. BDF (#130.
                2) offers two examples of such Markan use of the verb (10:13 and 15:27). In
                10:13 the verb is PROSEFERON ("they brought"). However I cannot find the
                EPOUSIN BDF claims is an example of such a use in 15:27; moreover I cannot find
                it in Mt. 5:15; Lk. 12:20 and other texts cited there, with the exception of
                17:23. Am I misreading or misunderstanding BDF at this point? Am I losing it?

                But back to PROSEFERON in Mk. 10:13. It strikes me that PROSEFERON in 10:13
                could be read either as an aggregate of people (thus: "they" ) or as a
                collective, and thus referring to the singular "one." It is not clear to me in
                this case which is meant. Moreover, I have yet another probing question.
                When the use of the third person plural is used with the singular meaning
                understood, I understand how that could be the intended meaning when the subject
                of the verb has not been previously identified and thus is left unspecified.
                But what about the case of an act, such as burial which has been described with
                a specified singular subject, Joseph in Mk.15:46, followed by the reference back
                to that act performed by that specificed singular subject, shortly thereafter,
                in which the subject of the verb referring to that act, burial, is in the third
                person plural? In other words is not the subject of EQHKAN in 16:6 really
                understood to be Joseph? Now you can argue that the EQHKEN in 15:46 is really
                a collective use of the third person singular, meaning Joseph and his serviants.
                If that be the case and the intent, then why not use EQHKEN again with the same
                collective meaning in 16:6? At best there seems to be an inconsistency in my
                mind in the use of "person" in the verbal form as it is represented in 15:47 and
                16:6. Of course, one way to check out what Mark's stylistic practice is would
                be to check the entire Markan Gospel to see what he does in other cases in which
                an act is ascribed to a singular individual and is referred back to later as an
                act ascribed to "they." I do not have time to do that kind of tedious work
                now. Perhaps you have some insights regarding the questions I pose.

                > [Mark 15:46 states that Joseph rolled (PROSEKULISEN, singular)
                > the stone. The sheer physics of the operation, as recognized
                > by Mark's audience, implies that Joseph had help.]

                Agreed the physics of the matter does suggest Joseph must have had help. That
                is certainly an issue in the real world of the "Einsteinian" space-time
                continuum, but I do not find either the laws of Newtonian or Einsteinian physics
                to be operative in the narrative world Mark has created. In that world, Newton
                and Einstein to the contrary, Jesus walks on water (see my post on
                methodological presuppositions).

                [snip]

                > Your position would be stronger if Matthew and Luke surgically
                > corrected EQHKAN by a simple letter change, but Matthew and Luke's
                > redaction was much more radical: Matthew rewrote the sentence,
                > and Luke omitted it. This suggests the fault is elsewhere and
                > the change of EQHKEN to a different verb EKEITO in Matthew and
                > its omission in Luke is merely collateral damage.

                You are correct. It could suggest that; yet it could also suggest that they
                recognized an error and chose to correct it, each in his respective way.

                > Furthermore,
                > the fact that no scribe copying Mark changed EQHKAN to EQHKEN
                > shows that, whatever narrative difficulty there was, it was not
                > perceived before modern times.

                That is a good point. However, Nestle does not give all the variant readings
                of a text in all the manuscripts. It does look like there was some scribal
                redaction of the portion of 16:6 that leads into EQHKAN AUTON in the textual
                apparatus cited in the eighth revised edition of Nestle. It is not clear to me
                whether those variant readings omitted EQHKAN AUTON altogether and thus those
                readings did not refer back to the burial itself.

                > >My argument for my theory that Mark may well have used CG as a source for
                > >composing his burial and empty-tomb stories is a cumulative one. I am not
                > >placing all "my eggs" in the basket of a Markan error in 16:6. I am
                suggesting
                > >it is plausible to see Mk. 16:6 as an error, and Gundry, for one, appears to
                > >view it that way. CG offers an explanation for the error, and if additional
                > >examples from CG account for other "odd" features of the Markan empty-tomb
                > >story, in particular, then that gives more weight to the plausibility that
                16:6
                > >is an instance of Markan editorial fatigue.
                >
                > I've gone back over both your argument and the Gospel
                > of Peter, and I just cannot see how the argument can
                > be made to work.

                It may not work, but I ask you to reserve judgment until I have presented my
                entire argument. The editorial fatigue, if that is what it is finally, is only
                a small part of my thesis. Again the argument in support of the thesis is
                cumulative.

                > The plural EQHKAN, as you noted, occurs in two places.
                > The first is GPt 6:21 KAI EQHKAN AUTON EPI THS GHS,
                > where, after pulling nails from Jesus's hand, "they
                > put him on the ground" and an earthquake ensued. There
                > is no clear antecedent for "they" in 6:21, but it would
                > have to be the the Jews (hOI IOUDAIOI) in 6:23, who
                > rejoice and give the body to Joseph.

                I think the antecedent is expressed in CG 2:5a: namely hO LAOS.

                > After the body
                > is turned over Joseph, the Gospel of Peter, like Mark,
                > relates the events in the singular, including that
                > Joseph brought the body to his own tomb (EISHGAGEN
                > [sing.] EIS IDION TAFON). Mark does not relate anyone's
                > putting Jesus on the ground, the earthquake, the rejoicing
                > Jews, or any intermediary for Joseph. Matthew, however,
                > does mention an earthquake.
                >
                > The second occurrence of the plural form EQHKAN is
                > at 8:32 where the centurions and soldiers put a large
                > stone at the entrance of the tomb (EQHKAN EPI THi QURAi
                > TOU MNHMATOS). This instance of EQHKAN is not used of
                > Jesus's body. Mark, of course, does not mention the
                > guarding of the tomb, a detail present in Matthew.
                >
                > Furthermore, in the place where Mark does use the
                > grammatically plural EQHKAN, i.e. 16:6, the Gospel
                > of Peter follows Matthew instead: "KAI IDETE TON
                > TOPON ENQA EKEITO, hOTI OUK ESTIN" (13:56). The
                > GPt agrees with Matthew against Mark in: (1) the
                > plural IDETE versus Mark's sing. IDE, (2) the
                > accusative TON TOPON versus Mark's nominative
                > hO TOPOS, and (3) replacement of Mark's EQHKAN
                > AUTO with EKEITO. Both the additional ENQA and
                > hOTI OUK ESTIN look like explanatory glosses
                > on a Matthean base.

                But I agree with Crossan and Brown that the author of the Gospel of Peter itself
                also drew upon Matthew (Brown=from memory), while at the same time incorporating
                "the guard-at-the-tomb story" as it has been, from my view, too narrowly dubbed.

                >
                > The fatigue argument cannot stand up. If Mark
                > were fatigued and lapsed into the wording of
                > his source at 16:6, there is no EQHKAN in the
                > corresponding place in the Cross Gospel (as
                > known via GPt) to use. In fact, the parallel
                > to Mark 16:6 is virtually identical to Matthew's
                > text at 28:6. So, Mark would have to have
                > rewritten a literary sentence in more colloquial
                > terms. While not impossible, it is important
                > to realize that the Mark 16:6 // Matthew 28:6
                > parallel is viewed as one of the strongest
                > indications of Mark's priority over Matthew!
                > (e.g., Stein, SYNOPTIC PROBLEM, p. 53).

                My position is that the parallels between Mark and CG are not verbatim use of
                terminology or even common terminiology found in the same structural location in
                the respective narratives, but parallels lie rather in the ideational
                relationships and the necessary cause for the creation of an burial-empty tomb
                story in the first place. I have referred briefly to these factors in my post
                on presuppositions. I will articulate them in detail in the next portions of my
                thesis.

                [snip]

                Thanks, Stephen, for engaging me on this thesis and for your usual penetrating
                critique in response to what I have proposed.

                Ted
              • Stephen C. Carlson
                ... Thanks for your comments and other posts. I ll try to just address some of the questions you ve had. ... Just so you know where I m coming from, I require
                Message 7 of 8 , Feb 7, 2002
                • 0 Attachment
                  At 03:46 PM 2/7/02 -0600, Ted Weeden wrote:
                  >Stephen, my apologies for not responding to your very incisive critique to my
                  >post. I am behind in responding to many posts because of the number I have
                  >received, for which I am appreciative, and because I decided what I really
                  >needed to do is to set forth my methodological presuppositions which I have used
                  >in working out my thesis. As you probably have noted I posted those
                  >presuppositions in a post, "Mark and CG: Methodological Presuppositions,"
                  >yesterday afternoon (2/6/02), and now I am trying to catch up.

                  Thanks for your comments and other posts. I'll try to just
                  address some of the questions you've had.

                  >It was at that point, because I began to compare the Greek text of Mark with the
                  >Greek text of Crossan's reconstructed CG (Crossan does not provide the Greek
                  >text itself), that I spotted what I had not seen before, EQHKAN in 16:6, an
                  >occurrence which did not comport in my thinking with EQHKEN in 15:46, though
                  >EQHKAN was to be found in the initial statement regarding what I presumed to be
                  >the beginning of the burial process in CG 6:21. That is when I began to wonder
                  >if Mark had mistakenly copied CG's EQHKAN in composing 16:6. I did not know
                  >quite what to call the compositional error until I read Mark Goodacre's
                  >editorial-fatigue theory.

                  Just so you know where I'm coming from, I require a fairly
                  strict set of criteria (which was outlined in Goodacre's
                  article) to be present before I'll conclude that a particular
                  case is an instance of "fatigue" sensu strictu. If, on
                  the other hand, you want to call the EQHKAN in Mark 16:6
                  (assuming the rest of the argument holds up) an editorial
                  lapse I would not object.

                  >> Gundry's analysis on this point is somewhat incoherent. Gundry
                  >> correctly recognized that "Mark likes *indefinite* third person
                  >> plural verb" (emphasis added), but then he failed to realize that
                  >> indefinite verbs, regardless of the actual grammatical number,
                  >> also comprehend a singular subject or at the very least render
                  >> the actual subject irrelevant.
                  >
                  >Gundry is a very careful writer. I have not found him to be incoherent. That
                  >is why I am wondering if he had a certain ambivalence over how one explicates
                  >EQHKAN in 16:6. You mention again the use of a verb in third person plural with
                  >reference to a singular subject. In your previous post on this you drew my
                  >attention to BDF #130 in which this compositional practice is discussed, and
                  >particularly to #130.2 where Markan texts are cited in which this particular
                  >rhetorical use of the verb in the third person plural can be found. BDF (#130.
                  >2) offers two examples of such Markan use of the verb (10:13 and 15:27). In
                  >10:13 the verb is PROSEFERON ("they brought"). However I cannot find the
                  >EPOUSIN BDF claims is an example of such a use in 15:27; moreover I cannot find
                  >it in Mt. 5:15; Lk. 12:20 and other texts cited there, with the exception of
                  >17:23. Am I misreading or misunderstanding BDF at this point? Am I losing it?

                  I'll admit that the citation list is misleading, but the EROUSIN
                  is meant to apply to Luke 17:23 only. The remaining verses feature
                  other 3d pers. pl. verbs, some of which I agree with and some I
                  do not.

                  Matt 5:15 OUDE KAIOUSIN LUCNON ("neither do they light a candle").
                  The referent of the "they" is unclear and the NRSV translates it
                  with an indefinite pronoun ("No one after lighting a candle").

                  Mark 15:27 recites STAUROUSIN ("they crucify"). A rather poor
                  example in my opinion since plural soldiers are clearly in view.

                  Luke 12:20 THN YUCHN SOU APAITOUSIN APO SOU ("they demand your
                  life from you"). The NRSV, NIV, NASB, NAB, and AV all employ
                  the English passive here. The Amplified Bible actually says
                  "they" but then footnotes Marvin Vincent, WORD STUDIES as
                  saying "The indefiniteness is impressive."

                  Luke 14:35 EXW BALLOUSIN AUTO ("they throw it out"). The referent
                  for "they" is unclear and the NIV, NASB, NAB, and Rheims use the
                  passive.

                  John 15:6 KAI SUNAGOUSIN AUTA KAI EIS TO PUR BALLOUSIN ("They
                  gather and throw them into the fire"). The NRSV and NIV use
                  the passive here.

                  John 20:2 HRAN TON KURION EK TOU MNHMEIOU KAI OUK OIDAMEN POU
                  EQHKAN AUTON ("They have taken the Lord from the tomb, and we
                  don't know where they put him.") The referent of "they" is
                  unclear and not important. Also a good parallel to Mark 16:6.

                  Acts 3:2 hON ETIQOUN ("whom they put"). The NIV and NAB used
                  the passive voice.

                  Rev 12:6 hINA EKEI TREFWSIN AUTHN ("so that there they may
                  feed her"). Passive in NRSV, NIV, NAB, and NASB.

                  >But back to PROSEFERON in Mk. 10:13. It strikes me that PROSEFERON in 10:13
                  >could be read either as an aggregate of people (thus: "they" ) or as a
                  >collective, and thus referring to the singular "one." It is not clear to me in
                  >this case which is meant. Moreover, I have yet another probing question.
                  >When the use of the third person plural is used with the singular meaning
                  >understood, I understand how that could be the intended meaning when the subject
                  >of the verb has not been previously identified and thus is left unspecified.
                  >But what about the case of an act, such as burial which has been described with
                  >a specified singular subject, Joseph in Mk.15:46, followed by the reference back
                  >to that act performed by that specificed singular subject, shortly thereafter,
                  >in which the subject of the verb referring to that act, burial, is in the third
                  >person plural? In other words is not the subject of EQHKAN in 16:6 really
                  >understood to be Joseph? Now you can argue that the EQHKEN in 15:46 is really
                  >a collective use of the third person singular, meaning Joseph and his serviants.
                  >If that be the case and the intent, then why not use EQHKEN again with the same
                  >collective meaning in 16:6? At best there seems to be an inconsistency in my
                  >mind in the use of "person" in the verbal form as it is represented in 15:47 and
                  >16:6. Of course, one way to check out what Mark's stylistic practice is would
                  >be to check the entire Markan Gospel to see what he does in other cases in which
                  >an act is ascribed to a singular individual and is referred back to later as an
                  >act ascribed to "they." I do not have time to do that kind of tedious work
                  >now. Perhaps you have some insights regarding the questions I pose.

                  Two studied treatments of impersonal plurals in Mark are C.H.Turner
                  in J.K.Elliott, THE LANGUAGE & STYLE OF MARK (Brill, 1993): 4-12 and
                  39-45 and E.J.Pryke, REDACTIONAL STYLE IN THE MARCAN GOSPEL (Cambridge,
                  1978): 107-115. Turner gave lots of examples where Mark seems to go
                  back and forth between the singular and plural, with Matt. and Luke
                  often correcting Mark. I suggest now that you may have discovered
                  another example.

                  >> [Mark 15:46 states that Joseph rolled (PROSEKULISEN, singular)
                  >> the stone. The sheer physics of the operation, as recognized
                  >> by Mark's audience, implies that Joseph had help.]
                  >
                  >Agreed the physics of the matter does suggest Joseph must have had help. That
                  >is certainly an issue in the real world of the "Einsteinian" space-time
                  >continuum, but I do not find either the laws of Newtonian or Einsteinian physics
                  >to be operative in the narrative world Mark has created. In that world, Newton
                  >and Einstein to the contrary, Jesus walks on water (see my post on
                  >methodological presuppositions).

                  How about Aristotelian physics? ;-) It is true that our physical
                  rules are violated when certain miracles are narrated, but it
                  does not seem to me that Joseph's rolling the stone is intended to
                  be a miracle story.

                  >> Your position would be stronger if Matthew and Luke surgically
                  >> corrected EQHKAN by a simple letter change, but Matthew and Luke's
                  >> redaction was much more radical: Matthew rewrote the sentence,
                  >> and Luke omitted it. This suggests the fault is elsewhere and
                  >> the change of EQHKEN to a different verb EKEITO in Matthew and
                  >> its omission in Luke is merely collateral damage.
                  >
                  >You are correct. It could suggest that; yet it could also suggest that they
                  >recognized an error and chose to correct it, each in his respective way.

                  You could be right. C.H.Turner has many examples of Matthew
                  and Luke correcting Mark's number usage.

                  >> Furthermore,
                  >> the fact that no scribe copying Mark changed EQHKAN to EQHKEN
                  >> shows that, whatever narrative difficulty there was, it was not
                  >> perceived before modern times.
                  >
                  >That is a good point. However, Nestle does not give all the variant readings
                  >of a text in all the manuscripts. It does look like there was some scribal
                  >redaction of the portion of 16:6 that leads into EQHKAN AUTON in the textual
                  >apparatus cited in the eighth revised edition of Nestle. It is not clear to me
                  >whether those variant readings omitted EQHKAN AUTON altogether and thus those
                  >readings did not refer back to the burial itself.

                  You are right about Nestle, which is why I looked at Tischendorf's
                  8th ed. and Swanson. No variants are cited.

                  >It may not work, but I ask you to reserve judgment until I have presented my
                  >entire argument. The editorial fatigue, if that is what it is finally, is only
                  >a small part of my thesis. Again the argument in support of the thesis is
                  >cumulative.

                  Please note that my comments presumed the strict fatigue
                  criteria from Goodacre's article. If you had a broader
                  understanding editorial lapses in mind, then your milage
                  my vary. However, looking over at Turner's notes on
                  Markan usage, it appears that mixing up singular and
                  plural is so pervasive that it would be unnecessary
                  to invoke dependent on a source to explain only one of
                  them.

                  Stephen Carlson


                  --
                  Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
                  Synoptic Problem Home Page http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/
                  "Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.