Okay, I have now searched more thoroughly, and after finding a few more potential examples remembered that John C. Hawkins might have a list in Horae Synopticae, which he did, on pages 135-136 (only for the gospel of Mark). Not all of the examples I am going to list here are of the same kind as the ones listed in the other post.Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Fri Nov 17, 2017 9:45 pmI 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.
I am listing the passages only in Greek (at least for now), since some of the issues are not all that apparent in English. I am hoping that Kunigunde can chime in on these examples, as well:
Mark 3.7-8: 7 Καὶ ὁ Ἰησοῦς μετὰ τῶν μαθητῶν αὐτοῦ ἀνεχώρησεν πρὸς τὴν θάλασσαν, καὶ πολὺ πλῆθος ἀπὸ τῆς Γαλιλαίας [ἠκολούθησεν], καὶ ἀπὸ τῆς Ἰουδαίας 8 καὶ ἀπὸ Ἱεροσολύμων καὶ ἀπὸ τῆς Ἰδουμαίας καὶ πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου καὶ περὶ Τύρον καὶ Σιδῶνα πλῆθος πολὺ ἀκούοντες ὅσα ἐποίει ἦλθον πρὸς αὐτόν. [Hawkins allows that this example does not quite amount to anacoluthon. The listing of all the place names has the effect of making the sentence cumbersome, and without the ἠκολούθησεν variant it is not obvious where to mark the divide between the first πολὺ πλῆθος and the second πλῆθος πολὺ, but there are several places where it could fall.]
Mark 3.14-19: 14 καὶ ἐποίησεν δώδεκα [οὓς καὶ ἀποστόλους ὠνόμασεν] ἵνα ὦσιν μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἵνα ἀποστέλλῃ αὐτοὺς κηρύσσειν 15 καὶ ἔχειν ἐξουσίαν [θεραπεύειν τὰς νόσους καὶ] ἐκβάλλειν τὰ δαιμόνια· 16 [καὶ ἐποίησεν τοὺς δώδεκα,] καὶ ἐπέθηκεν ὄνομα τῷ Σίμωνι Πέτρον, 17 καὶ Ἰάκωβον τὸν τοῦ Ζεβεδαίου καὶ Ἰωάννην τὸν ἀδελφὸν τοῦ Ἰακώβου καὶ ἐπέθηκεν αὐτοῖς ὀνόμα[τα] βοανηργές, ὅ ἐστιν υἱοὶ βροντῆς· 18 καὶ Ἀνδρέαν καὶ Φίλιππον καὶ Βαρθολομαῖον καὶ Μαθθαῖον καὶ Θωμᾶν καὶ Ἰάκωβον τὸν τοῦ Ἁλφαίου καὶ Θαδδαῖον καὶ Σίμωνα τὸν Καναναῖον 19 καὶ Ἰούδαν Ἰσκαριώθ, ὃς καὶ παρέδωκεν αὐτόν. [This one is a veritable disaster zone, honestly, with lots of variants among the manuscripts, some of which are included in brackets above. That bit about Jesus giving Simon the name Peter, in the accusative, and then the list of other disciples, also in the accusative, following on as if their names also belonged to Simon, is pretty jarring.]
Mark 4.8: 8 καὶ ἄλλα ἔπεσεν εἰς τὴν γῆν τὴν καλὴν καὶ ἐδίδου καρπὸν ἀναβαίνοντα καὶ αὐξανόμενα καὶ ἔφερεν ἓν τριάκοντα καὶ ἓν ἑξήκοντα καὶ ἓν ἑκατόν. [Hawkins includes this example only because Westcott and Hort have εἰς for the first ἓν, but quite arbitrarily, as Hawkins allows. This one should not count at all.]
Mark 4.31-32: 31 ὡς κόκκῳ σινάπεως, ὃς ὅταν σπαρῇ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, μικρότερον ὂν πάντων τῶν σπερμάτων τῶν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, 32 καὶ ὅταν σπαρῇ, ἀναβαίνει καὶ γίνεται μεῖζον πάντων τῶν λαχάνων καὶ ποιεῖ κλάδους μεγάλους, ὥστε δύνασθαι ὑπὸ τὴν σκιὰν αὐτοῦ τὰ πετεινὰ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ κατασκηνοῦν. [The participle, which would be literally translated as "being," should be a finite verb like ἐστὶν. The second "when it is sown" actually resets the sentence as if the participle had not just led it into a dead end. The repeated "upon the ground/land" is not very elegant, but is not a failure syntax or grammar. Quite a few variants here in the manuscripts.]
Mark 5.22-23: 22 Καὶ ἔρχεται εἷς τῶν ἀρχισυναγώγων, ὀνόματι Ἰάϊρος, καὶ ἰδὼν αὐτὸν πίπτει πρὸς τοὺς πόδας αὐτοῦ 23 καὶ παρακαλεῖ αὐτὸν πολλὰ λέγων ὅτι τὸ θυγάτριόν μου ἐσχάτως ἔχει, ἵνα ἐλθὼν ἐπιθῇς τὰς χεῖρας αὐτῇ ἵνα σωθῇ καὶ ζήσῃ. [Jairus says, "My daughter is at death's door," so that "you might come and lay hands on her," and so on. This one is somewhat similar to the ones I have listed in the other post which have to do with the syntax between narration and dialogue.]
Mark 7.18-19: 18 καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς· οὕτως καὶ ὑμεῖς ἀσύνετοί ἐστε; οὐ νοεῖτε ὅτι πᾶν τὸ ἔξωθεν εἰσπορευόμενον εἰς τὸν ἄνθρωπον οὐ δύναται αὐτὸν κοινῶσαι 19 ὅτι οὐκ εἰσπορεύεται αὐτοῦ εἰς τὴν καρδίαν ἀλλ᾽ εἰς τὴν κοιλίαν, καὶ εἰς τὸν ἀφεδρῶνα ἐκπορεύεται, καθαρίζων πάντα τὰ βρώματα; [This is a famous one. The final participial phrase in verse 19, with a masculine participle, must attach itself to the understood "he" (Jesus) in verse 18. The Byzantine tradition makes the participle neuter so that it can agree with the neuter "all/everything" within the dominical saying, thus drawing the participial phrase into the saying, as well. But the best manuscripts have the masculine.]
Mark 11.31-32: 31 καὶ διελογίζοντο πρὸς ἑαυτοὺς λέγοντες· ἐὰν εἴπωμεν· ἐξ οὐρανοῦ, ἐρεῖ· διὰ τί [οὖν] οὐκ ἐπιστεύσατε αὐτῷ; 32 ἀλλὰ εἴπωμεν· ἐξ ἀνθρώπων; ἐφοβοῦντο τὸν ὄχλον· ἅπαντες γὰρ εἶχον τὸν Ἰωάννην ὄντως ὅτι προφήτης ἦν. [The asyndeton between "But shall we say, 'From humans?'" and "They feared the crowd" is pretty stark, but hardly ungrammatical or whatnot. The syntax is not really broken here; nor is the grammar.]
Mark 12.19: 19 διδάσκαλε, Μωϋσῆς ἔγραψεν ἡμῖν ὅτι ἐάν τινος ἀδελφὸς ἀποθάνῃ καὶ καταλίπῃ γυναῖκα καὶ μὴ ἀφῇ τέκνον, ἵνα λάβῃ ὁ ἀδελφὸς αὐτοῦ τὴν γυναῖκα καὶ ἐξαναστήσῃ σπέρμα τῷ ἀδελφῷ αὐτοῦ. [Using ἵνα to introduce what ought to be an apodosis after the protasis marked off by ἐάν is weird. The sense of the first clause is that "Moses wrote... that if someone's brother dies," and the sense of the second is that "Moses wrote... in order that the brother might" marry the widow. The verb ("wrote") is taking both an indirect clause with ὅτι and a result clause with ἵνα.]
Mark 12.38-40: 38 Καὶ ἐν τῇ διδαχῇ αὐτοῦ ἔλεγεν· βλέπετε ἀπὸ τῶν γραμματέων τῶν θελόντων ἐν στολαῖς περιπατεῖν καὶ ἀσπασμοὺς ἐν ταῖς ἀγοραῖς 39 καὶ πρωτοκαθεδρίας ἐν ταῖς συναγωγαῖς καὶ πρωτοκλισίας ἐν τοῖς δείπνοις, 40 οἱ κατεσθίοντες τὰς οἰκίας τῶν χηρῶν καὶ προφάσει μακρὰ προσευχόμενοι· οὗτοι λήμψονται περισσότερον κρίμα. [Here the participle κατεσθίοντες should be a finite verb, making οἱ a relative pronoun. As it stands, the nominative participle finds nothing to agree with grammatically in the sentence. It is a dangling participle, essentially. Some manuscripts, like Bezae, fix the problem.]
Mark 13.14: 14 Ὅταν δὲ ἴδητε τὸ βδέλυγμα τῆς ἐρημώσεως ἑστηκότα ὅπου οὐ δεῖ, ὁ ἀναγινώσκων νοείτω, τότε οἱ ἐν τῇ Ἰουδαίᾳ φευγέτωσαν εἰς τὰ ὄρη.... [The issue is that "abomination" is neuter but the participle which modifies it, "standing," is masculine. This is all grammar, not syntax. But Hawkins allows that it is probably a constructio ad sensum; that is, the abomination is in some way seen as a person, and not just as an object.]
Mark 14.3: 3 Καὶ ὄντος αὐτοῦ ἐν Βηθανίᾳ ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ Σίμωνος τοῦ λεπροῦ, κατακειμένου αὐτοῦ ἦλθεν γυνὴ ἔχουσα ἀλάβαστρον μύρου νάρδου πιστικῆς πολυτελοῦς, συντρίψασα τὴν ἀλάβαστρον κατέχεεν αὐτοῦ τῆς κεφαλῆς. [I agree with Kunigunde here; this construction can be seen as quite elegant. I would not fault it.]
Mark 14.49: 49 καθ᾽ ἡμέραν ἤμην πρὸς ὑμᾶς ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ διδάσκων καὶ οὐκ ἐκρατήσατέ με· ἀλλ᾽ ἵνα πληρωθῶσιν αἱ γραφαί. [An additional phrase is needed in order to complete the sense. I vote for a simple "it is," since it is fine to omit verbs of being from a sentence where they are clear; this one might be a bit strained, but I think it would work. Matthew 26.56 opts for the more complicated but fitting τοῦτο δὲ ὅλον γέγονεν.]
Mark 3.14-19: 14 καὶ ἐποίησεν δώδεκα [οὓς καὶ ἀποστόλους ὠνόμασεν] ἵνα ὦσιν μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἵνα ἀποστέλλῃ αὐτοὺς κηρύσσειν 15 καὶ ἔχειν ἐξουσίαν [θεραπεύειν τὰς νόσους καὶ] ἐκβάλλειν τὰ δαιμόνια· 16 [καὶ ἐποίησεν τοὺς δώδεκα,] καὶ ἐπέθηκεν ὄνομα τῷ Σίμωνι Πέτρον, 17 καὶ Ἰάκωβον τὸν τοῦ Ζεβεδαίου καὶ Ἰωάννην τὸν ἀδελφὸν τοῦ Ἰακώβου καὶ ἐπέθηκεν αὐτοῖς ὀνόμα[τα] βοανηργές, ὅ ἐστιν υἱοὶ βροντῆς· 18 καὶ Ἀνδρέαν καὶ Φίλιππον καὶ Βαρθολομαῖον καὶ Μαθθαῖον καὶ Θωμᾶν καὶ Ἰάκωβον τὸν τοῦ Ἁλφαίου καὶ Θαδδαῖον καὶ Σίμωνα τὸν Καναναῖον 19 καὶ Ἰούδαν Ἰσκαριώθ, ὃς καὶ παρέδωκεν αὐτόν. [This one is a veritable disaster zone, honestly, with lots of variants among the manuscripts, some of which are included in brackets above. That bit about Jesus giving Simon the name Peter, in the accusative, and then the list of other disciples, also in the accusative, following on as if their names also belonged to Simon, is pretty jarring.]
Mark 4.8: 8 καὶ ἄλλα ἔπεσεν εἰς τὴν γῆν τὴν καλὴν καὶ ἐδίδου καρπὸν ἀναβαίνοντα καὶ αὐξανόμενα καὶ ἔφερεν ἓν τριάκοντα καὶ ἓν ἑξήκοντα καὶ ἓν ἑκατόν. [Hawkins includes this example only because Westcott and Hort have εἰς for the first ἓν, but quite arbitrarily, as Hawkins allows. This one should not count at all.]
Mark 4.31-32: 31 ὡς κόκκῳ σινάπεως, ὃς ὅταν σπαρῇ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, μικρότερον ὂν πάντων τῶν σπερμάτων τῶν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, 32 καὶ ὅταν σπαρῇ, ἀναβαίνει καὶ γίνεται μεῖζον πάντων τῶν λαχάνων καὶ ποιεῖ κλάδους μεγάλους, ὥστε δύνασθαι ὑπὸ τὴν σκιὰν αὐτοῦ τὰ πετεινὰ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ κατασκηνοῦν. [The participle, which would be literally translated as "being," should be a finite verb like ἐστὶν. The second "when it is sown" actually resets the sentence as if the participle had not just led it into a dead end. The repeated "upon the ground/land" is not very elegant, but is not a failure syntax or grammar. Quite a few variants here in the manuscripts.]
Mark 5.22-23: 22 Καὶ ἔρχεται εἷς τῶν ἀρχισυναγώγων, ὀνόματι Ἰάϊρος, καὶ ἰδὼν αὐτὸν πίπτει πρὸς τοὺς πόδας αὐτοῦ 23 καὶ παρακαλεῖ αὐτὸν πολλὰ λέγων ὅτι τὸ θυγάτριόν μου ἐσχάτως ἔχει, ἵνα ἐλθὼν ἐπιθῇς τὰς χεῖρας αὐτῇ ἵνα σωθῇ καὶ ζήσῃ. [Jairus says, "My daughter is at death's door," so that "you might come and lay hands on her," and so on. This one is somewhat similar to the ones I have listed in the other post which have to do with the syntax between narration and dialogue.]
Mark 7.18-19: 18 καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς· οὕτως καὶ ὑμεῖς ἀσύνετοί ἐστε; οὐ νοεῖτε ὅτι πᾶν τὸ ἔξωθεν εἰσπορευόμενον εἰς τὸν ἄνθρωπον οὐ δύναται αὐτὸν κοινῶσαι 19 ὅτι οὐκ εἰσπορεύεται αὐτοῦ εἰς τὴν καρδίαν ἀλλ᾽ εἰς τὴν κοιλίαν, καὶ εἰς τὸν ἀφεδρῶνα ἐκπορεύεται, καθαρίζων πάντα τὰ βρώματα; [This is a famous one. The final participial phrase in verse 19, with a masculine participle, must attach itself to the understood "he" (Jesus) in verse 18. The Byzantine tradition makes the participle neuter so that it can agree with the neuter "all/everything" within the dominical saying, thus drawing the participial phrase into the saying, as well. But the best manuscripts have the masculine.]
Mark 11.31-32: 31 καὶ διελογίζοντο πρὸς ἑαυτοὺς λέγοντες· ἐὰν εἴπωμεν· ἐξ οὐρανοῦ, ἐρεῖ· διὰ τί [οὖν] οὐκ ἐπιστεύσατε αὐτῷ; 32 ἀλλὰ εἴπωμεν· ἐξ ἀνθρώπων; ἐφοβοῦντο τὸν ὄχλον· ἅπαντες γὰρ εἶχον τὸν Ἰωάννην ὄντως ὅτι προφήτης ἦν. [The asyndeton between "But shall we say, 'From humans?'" and "They feared the crowd" is pretty stark, but hardly ungrammatical or whatnot. The syntax is not really broken here; nor is the grammar.]
Mark 12.19: 19 διδάσκαλε, Μωϋσῆς ἔγραψεν ἡμῖν ὅτι ἐάν τινος ἀδελφὸς ἀποθάνῃ καὶ καταλίπῃ γυναῖκα καὶ μὴ ἀφῇ τέκνον, ἵνα λάβῃ ὁ ἀδελφὸς αὐτοῦ τὴν γυναῖκα καὶ ἐξαναστήσῃ σπέρμα τῷ ἀδελφῷ αὐτοῦ. [Using ἵνα to introduce what ought to be an apodosis after the protasis marked off by ἐάν is weird. The sense of the first clause is that "Moses wrote... that if someone's brother dies," and the sense of the second is that "Moses wrote... in order that the brother might" marry the widow. The verb ("wrote") is taking both an indirect clause with ὅτι and a result clause with ἵνα.]
Mark 12.38-40: 38 Καὶ ἐν τῇ διδαχῇ αὐτοῦ ἔλεγεν· βλέπετε ἀπὸ τῶν γραμματέων τῶν θελόντων ἐν στολαῖς περιπατεῖν καὶ ἀσπασμοὺς ἐν ταῖς ἀγοραῖς 39 καὶ πρωτοκαθεδρίας ἐν ταῖς συναγωγαῖς καὶ πρωτοκλισίας ἐν τοῖς δείπνοις, 40 οἱ κατεσθίοντες τὰς οἰκίας τῶν χηρῶν καὶ προφάσει μακρὰ προσευχόμενοι· οὗτοι λήμψονται περισσότερον κρίμα. [Here the participle κατεσθίοντες should be a finite verb, making οἱ a relative pronoun. As it stands, the nominative participle finds nothing to agree with grammatically in the sentence. It is a dangling participle, essentially. Some manuscripts, like Bezae, fix the problem.]
Mark 13.14: 14 Ὅταν δὲ ἴδητε τὸ βδέλυγμα τῆς ἐρημώσεως ἑστηκότα ὅπου οὐ δεῖ, ὁ ἀναγινώσκων νοείτω, τότε οἱ ἐν τῇ Ἰουδαίᾳ φευγέτωσαν εἰς τὰ ὄρη.... [The issue is that "abomination" is neuter but the participle which modifies it, "standing," is masculine. This is all grammar, not syntax. But Hawkins allows that it is probably a constructio ad sensum; that is, the abomination is in some way seen as a person, and not just as an object.]
Mark 14.3: 3 Καὶ ὄντος αὐτοῦ ἐν Βηθανίᾳ ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ Σίμωνος τοῦ λεπροῦ, κατακειμένου αὐτοῦ ἦλθεν γυνὴ ἔχουσα ἀλάβαστρον μύρου νάρδου πιστικῆς πολυτελοῦς, συντρίψασα τὴν ἀλάβαστρον κατέχεεν αὐτοῦ τῆς κεφαλῆς. [I agree with Kunigunde here; this construction can be seen as quite elegant. I would not fault it.]
Mark 14.49: 49 καθ᾽ ἡμέραν ἤμην πρὸς ὑμᾶς ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ διδάσκων καὶ οὐκ ἐκρατήσατέ με· ἀλλ᾽ ἵνα πληρωθῶσιν αἱ γραφαί. [An additional phrase is needed in order to complete the sense. I vote for a simple "it is," since it is fine to omit verbs of being from a sentence where they are clear; this one might be a bit strained, but I think it would work. Matthew 26.56 opts for the more complicated but fitting τοῦτο δὲ ὅλον γέγονεν.]
The instances which seem to be most relevant to the examples I gave in the other thread are: Mark 3.14-19; Mark 5.22-23; Mark 7.18-19. The other examples are not really of the same kind, to my eye; they generally involve a questionable choice in the case of a single word, rather than an entire clause slipped into an unexpected place or wielded in an unexpected way (involving phrases rather than words). If we think that Mark himself is responsible for the infelicities in all three of these passages, then I would have to downgrade my confidence in this sort of syntactic break to "merely plausible," down from "a pretty decent indicator." I also would probably wish to withdraw my tentative example of Matthew 4.14-16. However, I think these residual cases ought to be examined more carefully, and I intend to do so at some point. It is hardly beyond the realm of possibility that Mark 3.14-19 got the apostles' names from a source, for example, and bungled the syntax while inserting the datum that Jesus changed Simon's name to Peter. And the participial phrase at the end of Mark 7.18-19 has always read like an editorial comment slipped in from the margin by a scribe or some such. I have no special insights into the Jairus example in Mark 5.22-23 yet.
At any rate, my list of syntactic anomalies in Mark is now closer to complete.
Ben.