neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Fri Nov 17, 2017 5:39 pm
I am handicapped by my very poor knowledge of Greek and Mark's Greek in particular. My questions relate as much to "syntactical awkwardness" as they did to the word "grammatical". How much of the Gospel of Mark is syntactically infelicitous and can we draw similar conclusions about sources from every or many or some other instances of syntactical clumsiness?
I think that Mark's poor grammar and syntax have been exaggerated in some circles. I would agree that Mark writes a very colloquial kind of Greek, using what we might today classify as slang, but that is not the same thing as actually getting the grammar incorrect. When R. H. Stein, for example, in his introduction to the synoptic problem uses it as an argument in favor of Marcan priority, with Matthew and Luke cleaning it up in their own gospels, he lists several examples, and each one, I think, misfires. One of them is Mark's use of κράβαττος in 2.4, 9, 11, 12; 6.55, a term which the Attic grammarians apparently condemned as a barbarism at some point. Yet the word appears four times in John (5.8-11, once per verse) and twice in Acts (5.15; 9.33). Just because some snobbish grammarians condemned the word does not mean that the common folk did not feel at ease with it. Mark 4.41 is another example commonly given, in which Mark employs a double subject (wind and sea) with a singular verb (obeys). Yet, if the double subject (not the same as a plural subject!) is viewed as a single entity, it is possible in Greek (again colloquially) to use a singular verb; this happens in James 5.3 (gold and silver are the double subject, "has rusted" the singular verb), for example, as well as in the better manuscripts of 1 Corinthians 15.50 (flesh and blood are the double subject, "cannot" the singular verb). So, again, writing colloquially or informally is not the same thing as writing awkwardly or ungrammatically.
The specific kind of awkwardness I am pinpointing here, which amounts to a syntactic tension between direct speech and narration (including indirect speech, which is a species of narration), or at least the locating of direct speech in between the verb of saying and the reason given for saying it, is not all that common in the gospels, and I am prepared to suggest that, when it does occur, it very frequently points to the use of a source or sources.
I have already given the following example:
Luke 5.14: 14 And he charged him to tell no one, but "go and show yourself to the priest, and make an offering for your cleansing, as Moses commanded, for a proof to them."
Mark 1.43-44: 43 And Jesus sternly charged him and sent him away at once, 44 and said to him, "See that you say nothing to anyone, but go, show yourself to the priest and offer for your cleansing what Moses commanded, for a proof to them."
I think that Luke, following Mark (or something very much like Mark), has changed the first part of the command into indirect discourse, in the process creating a syntactic rift between the narration (indirect speech in this case) and the direct speech.
Here is another possible Lucan example:
Luke 9.33: 33 And as these were leaving Him, Peter said to Jesus, "Master, it is good for us to be here; let us make three tabernacles: one for You, and one for Moses, and one for Elijah" — not realizing what he was saying.
Mark 9.5-6: 5 Peter says to Jesus, "Rabbi, it is good for us to be here; let us make three tabernacles, one for You, and one for Moses, and one for Elijah." 6 For he did not know what to answer; for they became terrified.
Mark has the reason for Peter's statement as a completely new sentence, which is syntactically very straightforward, while Luke has summarized Mark's sentence as a participial phrase which can link back only to the subject, Peter, thus using the direct dialogue to divide the subject from its modifying participle in such a way that the cleanest, most literal translations (like the NASB above, or the RSV) have to use an em dash to stop and restart the flow of the sentence.
Here is a similar example from Matthew:
Matthew 12.10: 10 And a man was there whose hand was withered. And they questioned Jesus, asking, "Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?" — so that they might accuse Him.
Mark 3.2: 2 They were watching Him to see if He would heal him on the Sabbath, so that they might accuse Him.
Here it is Matthew's changing of Mark's indirect discourse into direct discourse that thrusts the quote in between the verb of saying ("questioned... asking") and the reason for the asking ("so that they might accuse him").
The following example may prove controversial. For one thing, it is of a somewhat different nature, one involving only direct speech, though the end result is very similar. For another, it flows in a direction not consonant with a strict Marcan priority. But I was rather excited to find this example, truth be told, because I have long subscribed to John Dominic Crossan's view of the mission instructions in the synoptic gospels on page 330 of
The Birth of Christianity:
The final small change is the allowance of staff and sandals, two items so normally expected that their permission certifies an earlier negation.
He has already written on page 338 of
The Historical Jesus:
I take it for granted, by the way, that the move here is from negative and radical to positive and normal.
The passages to which Crossan is referring are:
Mark 6.8-9: 8 And He instructed them that they should take nothing for their journey, except a mere staff — no bread, no bag, no money in their belt — 9 but to wear sandals, and, "Do not put on two tunics."
Matthew 10.9-10: 9 Do not acquire gold, or silver, or copper for your money belts, 10 or a bag for your journey, or even two coats, or sandals, or a staff; for the worker is worthy of his support.
Luke 9.3: 3 And He said to them, "Take nothing for your journey, neither a staff, nor a bag, nor bread, nor money; and do not even have two tunics apiece."
Luke 10.4: 4 Carry no money belt, no bag, no shoes; and greet no one on the way.
Here it is Mark who exhibits the syntactic break vis-à-vis the other two synoptics: the exceptions (a staff and sandals) are interrupted by the prohibited items (bread, bag, and money). This latter phrase, marked off in the translation by em dashes, could be thought of as parenthetical, but it lacks a verb and relates, not to the immediately preceding clause (the permitted staff), but rather to the earlier prohibition ("take nothing"). I think, and have thought for two decades now, that Crossan's argument makes sense here: first came the prohibition; then came the permission (that is, the prohibition was tried by early missionaries, but it proved too difficult to maintain). If I am correct about syntactic interruptions of the kind we find in Mark here (ones which practically force the translators either to use em dashes or to content themselves with sentence fragments) being a plausible pointer to the use of a source, then Crossan's suggestion is correct, and Mark is secondary at this point to an earlier set of purely negative instructions for what to take on the journey.
There is one more somewhat similar example to be considered. Once again, this one is of a different nature, so feel free to ignore it, but the results are similar, so I present it here for the sake of completeness:
Isaiah 9.1-2: 1 But there will be no more gloom for her who was in anguish; in earlier times He treated the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali with contempt, but later on He shall make it glorious, by the way of the sea, on the other side of Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles. 2 The people who walk in darkness will see a great light; those who live in a dark land, the light will shine on them.
Matthew 4.14-16: 14 This was to fulfill what was spoken through Isaiah the prophet, saying, 15 "The land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, by the way of the sea, beyond the Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles — 16 the people who were sitting in darkness saw a great light, and to those who were sitting in the land and shadow of death, upon them a light dawned."
Isaiah's sentences flow naturally, for the most part; but Matthew seems to have picked out a line here (Zebulun and Naphtali) and a line there (the sea, the Jordan, and Galilee) in order to construct an enormously complicated compound subject, one so cumbersome that, once more, the translators (of the NASB above and also of the RSV) have resorted to an em dash to coordinate the parts. And there is no doubt here that Matthew is using a source: Isaiah.
This is not just about translators using em dashes, of course; and translators often resort to em dashes for reasons other than syntactic awkwardness. For instance, they often use dashes in cases of complex apposition, since English, which has no noun cases, can get sticky pretty quickly with apposition, whereas Greek, in which the apposite nouns or adjectives have to match the noun they modify in case and number, is much easier to keep straight. I have looked for examples of the above kinds of syntactic awkwardness in the gospels, and (really) I have not yet found any which do not point to sources as the above do. I imagine such examples do exist, and I have simply not found them yet, but there are enough of the above, I think, to make the argument that such examples of awkwardness are a pretty decent indicator of sourcing.
So back to the two cases I originally suggested:
Mark 2.1-12: 1 When He had come back to Capernaum several days afterward, it was heard that He was at home. 2 And many were gathered together, so that there was no longer room, not even near the door; and He was speaking the word to them. 3 And they come, bringing to Him a paralytic, carried by four men. 4 Being unable to get to Him because of the crowd, they removed the roof above Him; and when they had dug an opening, they let down the pallet on which the paralytic was lying. 5a And Jesus seeing their faith says to the paralytic [λέγει τῶ παραλυτικῶ], 5b "Son, your sins are forgiven." 6 But some of the scribes were sitting there and reasoning in their hearts, 7 "Why does this man speak that way? He is blaspheming; who can forgive sins but God alone?" 8 Immediately Jesus, aware in His spirit that they were reasoning that way within themselves, says to them, "Why are you reasoning about these things in your hearts? 9 Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven’; or to say, ‘Get up, and pick up your pallet and walk’? 10 But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins" — He says to the paralytic [λέγει τῶ παραλυτικῶ], 11 "I say to you, get up, pick up your pallet and go home." 12 And he got up and immediately picked up the pallet and went out in the sight of everyone, so that they were all amazed and were glorifying God, saying, "We have never seen anything like this."
Mark 3.20-35: 20 And He comes home, and the crowd gathers again, to such an extent that they could not even eat a meal. 21 When His own people heard of this, they went out to take custody of Him; for they were saying, "He has lost His senses." 22 The scribes who came down from Jerusalem were saying, "He is possessed by Beelzebul," and, "He casts out the demons by the ruler of the demons." 23 And He called them to Himself and began speaking to them in parables, "How can Satan cast out Satan? 24 If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. 25 If a house is divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand. 26 If Satan has risen up against himself and is divided, he cannot stand, but he is finished! 27 But no one can enter the strong man’s house and plunder his property unless he first binds the strong man, and then he will plunder his house. 28 Truly I say to you, all sins shall be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they utter; 29 but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin" — 30 since they were saying, "He has an unclean spirit [ὅτι ἔλεγον, πνεῦμα ἀκάθαρτον ἔχει]." 31 Then His mother and His brothers arrive, and standing outside they sent word to Him and called Him. 32 A crowd was sitting around Him, and they say to Him, "Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are outside looking for You." 33 Answering them, He says, "Who are My mother and My brothers?" 34 Looking about at those who were sitting around Him, He says, "Behold My mother and My brothers! 35 For whoever does the will of God, he is My brother and sister and mother."
My claim here is, not just that Mark used sources, but also that the red bits above were spliced into the pericope at some point. I believe that this extra step is justified for several reasons:
- There is the matter of the exact duplication in the first case, as if to return the flow of the story to the exact point where it departed.
- The red parts of both pericopes above can be cleanly removed from their surroundings, leaving a story which not only still works but indeed is also much more straightforward.
- The red parts of both pericopes above deal with essentially the same subject matter: sin, blasphemy, and forgiveness.
What reason could there be for a single author to line up these themes in two different chapters with the same sort of weird interchange between direct dialogue and narration? Is it just a coincidence? I think, rather, that the same hand inserted this material in basically the same way in both pericopes.