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

7766[Synoptic-L] Re: Mark Used CG in 15:42-16:8, Pt. 2-Fatigue in 16:6

Expand Messages
  • jlupia2
    Jan 31, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Synoptic-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 from
      EQHKEN 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"
      slaughtered 30,000.

      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
      burial.

      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
      support it.

      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
      driving at.


      Cordially,
      John

      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@...
    • Show all 4 messages in this topic