7766[Synoptic-L] Re: Mark Used CG in 15:42-16:8, Pt. 2-Fatigue in 16:6
- Jan 31, 2002Synoptic-L@...
Re: Mark Used CG in 15:42-16:8, Pt. 2-Fatigue in 16:6
Ted Weeden wrote:
>If that is what Mark expected, then why did he shift fromEQHKEN AUTON to >EQHKAN AUTON in 16:6.
Stephen Carlson has aptly pointed out that the 3rd person plural
can be construed to not signify plurality. If this were indeed the
case then the continuity maintaining the emphasis of Joseph of
Arimathea's role as the principle character would be in keeping
with appropriate cultural custom of honoring Joseph of
Arimathea for his generosity for the various expenses of the
burial, which I pointed out in my original response to you.
Furthermore, the fact that he was a prominent member of the
"BOULEUTHS" was very important and had a persuasive impact
since it showed that not all of the Jewish élite were opposed to
Jesus, but rather, that even among the cognoscenti key men
recognized Jesus as the Messiah and were his disciples. This
was an artful manner to balance out the picture as a whole
showing that Jews from all classes were drawn to him, not just
simple folk that might not have known better and were easily
duped. This would be true even if EQHKAN did not convey
singularity but plurality. Therefore, I would like to examine this in
the other direction of plurality. For even when "synecdoche of the
part" is employed reversion to the plural is often used. Again, an
example: "Germanicus conquered the Gauls, and "they"
But, your question to me here still begs the question regarding
(1) the high improbability of Joseph of Arimathea accomplishing
all of these things in such a brief period of time singlehanded,
as Lane, whom you cited has made as a valid point. (2)
summarily dismissing out of hand the use of "synecdoche of the
part" and reading the text anachronistically without giving ancient
literary forms any consideration. (3) summarily dismissing out of
hand that Jewish burial was always understood as a communal
responsibility, not that of a single individual, since you make no
reply in any of these regards.
Ted Weeden wrote:
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.
To this I must say that it is evident you have assumed Marcan
priority without giving any solid evidence to support this claim.
Even if proponents of this assumption could somehow muster
one shred of evidence to support it the answer would be "yes"
they would have recognized that Mark was referring to a collective
A second underlying assumption of your question is that neither
Matthew nor Luke had any knowledge about these events nor the
details of the circumstances other than what they had learned
from Mark, an assumption that has absolutely no evidence to
Ted Weeden wrote:
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)?
Now you have taken your assumptions of Markan priority to the
point of risibility, asserting them dogmatically, again without the
slightest shred of evidence. Once more, even if this could be
proved to be true, I am not a psychiatrist nor a mind reader as to
why any author adapts their material the way they do from the
genius of their artistic creative individuality. "Ludwig Richter
together with three other oil painters while at Tivoli set out to
paint a landscape where each resolved not to deviate a
hair's-breadth from nature but render it in verisimilitude; and
although the subject was the same, each creditably reproducing
what their eyes have seen, the result was four totally different
pictures." (see Heinrich Wölfflin, Principles of Art History, any
edition, taken from the opening paragraph.). How striking this is
to the four Gospels!
Yet, I suppose one could attempt to evaluate the author's style
and argue from there, but we would still be only second
guessing; unless we had sufficient evidence from an extensive
corpus of the author's material to make weightier claims.
Unfortunately, neither Matthew nor Luke produced as much as
Seneca, Dante or Shakespeare.
However, your question regarding EKEITO I fail to grasp.
EKEITO is the imperfect of CEIMAI, used as the perfect passive
of TIQHMI, where "he was laid" (see Max Zerwick, SJ, A
Grammatical Analysis of the Greek New Testament, 5th ed.
(Rome, 1996):98). I cannot see what it is you are asking. I can
only assume that you might be thinking about translations that
read: "where they laid him", but this is not the import of EKEITO,
since it only points to "place" and does not involve any of the
details as to how he got to lay there, which is what I think you are
John N. Lupia
501 North Avenue B-1
Elizabeth, New Jersey 07208-1731 USA
Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>