Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote:You seems to assume that the pre-Markan passion narrative was a rational and senseful text in good Koine Greek and that Mark’s main work was to add puzzling comments and to rewrite some verses into a bad Greek, so that these things are the obvious signs of Markan redaction.
I think you have misunderstood my position. I think it is unlikely that Mark would change good Greek into bad Greek. Therefore if you point out something that Mark has which is in bad Greek which is normal Marcan Greek then could be evidence that that section is not part of a pre-Marcan narrative. If you can point out enough of them then the pre-Marcan passion narrative theory becomes harder to agree with.
Ulan wrote:Did anyone ever check whether the "bad Greek" is some attempt at further imitation? We still get the old chestnut brought up that the use of “καὶ” is an example for bad Greek, colloquial Greek, and similar ideas, even if it's obvious what Mark is doing here just by looking further back in the Greek Bible, like the beginning of 1Sam
I hadn’t thought that the use of “καὶ” just reflects the Septuagint. Therefore its use in this section of Mark may not mean Mark has added them, but makes it possible that the author of the pre-Marcan narrative already had them.
Ben C. Smith wrote:I am not sure I have ever seen a serious discussion of Mark's use of καί as bad Greek; if I have, I have forgotten it.
I have a memory that I read this idea somewhere, but it could have been decades ago, and I can’t remember where I read it.
Ben C. Smith wrote:Michael BG wrote:In verse 1 the end of the sentence could be translated as “buy spices that coming they-anointing him”
Would I be correct that “ἀρώματα ἵνα ἐλθοῦσαι ἀλείψωσιν αὐτόν” is bad Greek?
I myself would not call it bad Greek; in fact, to me, it comes across as rather elegant. But it is a rare construction. I think Mark is the only evangelist who uses it (as in Mark 4.12, ἵνα βλέποντες βλέπωσιν), though even he probably does not use it all that often.
For me the question is – is this construction one that has to be seen as Marcan or is it just as likely that Mark inherited it from his source?
Ben C. Smith wrote:Michael BG wrote:In verse 2 the Greek word is ἔρχονται my interlinear translates it as “they-are-coming”. Matthew has ἦλθεν – “came”. Is Matthews Greek better? Is there another word that Mark should have used instead of ἔρχονται?
It is not a matter of finding a better word here; it is a matter of tense. To use the historic present is simply to use a present tense for a past event in a spot where we would expect the past tense. In English we can make a story (or especially a joke) more vivid by relating it in the present tense ("so a rabbi walks into a bar and says..."). It is similar in Greek, but there is a difference; I have noticed that in English we generally relate the entire story, or at least an entire portion of a story, in the present tense, whereas in Greek the narrator will often use the present tense just for one or two words in the story.
Again you are making the case that Marcan use is normal and therefore we might find the same thing in Mark’s source.
Ben C. Smith wrote:Michael BG wrote:In verse 6 the Greek word is λεγει – he-is-saying. Matthew uses the word 53 times. I don’t understand why you think this likely to be Marcan redaction and not the expected word.
This is just another example of the historic present. As Hawkins says on page 150, "The two most constantly recurring causes of the agreement of Matthew and Luke against Mark are two preferences of Mark, viz. (i) for λεγείν instead of εἰπεῖν, as referred to in the last section, and (ii) for καί instead of δέ" (λεγείν instead of εἰπεῖν = historic present). It is a style preference of Mark's. Matthew uses 78 historic presents in his gospel (21 of which overlap with Mark's), while Mark, despite being much shorter, uses 151 historic presents. Luke uses only 4 throughout his entire gospel (and 13 in Acts).
Again it seems it is possible that Mark has just copied it from his source as changed it, in the same way that Matthew sometimes uses it without it being copied from Mark.
Ben C. Smith wrote:I would add that the asyndeton in verse 6 (ἠγέρθη· οὐκ ἔστιν ὧδε· ἴδε ὁ τόπος ὅπου ἔθηκαν αὐτόν) is characteristically Marcan. (Compare ἀπέχει· ἦλθεν ἡ ὥρα· ἰδού, παραδίδοται ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου in Mark 14.41, for example.)
I think there is another one in verse 6 -
“the Nazarean, the crucified”.
“He-was-resurrected, he-is not here, see the place where they-put him” could be a reflection of a speech pattern. Is it possible it reflects an Aramaic speech pattern?
Mk 14:41 cannot be used as an example of Marcan usage against Mark’s use of a source beginning at 14:1. Both could be the style of the source.
Ben C. Smith wrote:For my part, overall, finding (or not finding) characteristic words and phrases is the wrong way to demonstrate that an author used a source. In fact, this method practically assumes that a source exists and then uses characteristic or noncharacteristic words and phrases to determine what comes from the source and what does not.
There is little doubt in my mind that Mark was aware of a passion narrative (in some form) before putting plume to parchment; but this conclusion is the result of looking, not for characteristic words and phrases, but rather for inconcinnities and seams.
I was not making a case for a pre-Marcan source; I have already assumed it.
I am trying to identify what Mark has added to the source (I remember when I was a student having a comment on one of my essays that I hadn’t identified what was redaction and what was part of the source).