Book Review of Mark 1:1-8:26 by James Voelz

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1121
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Book Review of Mark 1:1-8:26 by James Voelz

Post by JoeWallack » Sun Sep 16, 2018 12:52 pm

JW:
Book Review of Mark 1:1-8:26 by James Voelz:

Mark - Concordia Commentary

While Voelz is a Believer he accepts that GMark is sophisticated and has distinctive Literary techniques and grammatical usage that is relative to text location. I have faith that CBS (Christian Bible Scholarship) will continue to improve in these areas approaching the superior Markan scholarship that we Skeptics take for granted here.

Linguistic Characteristics of Mark's Gospel
d. Verb-subject (V-S) word order
JW:
Voelz observes, as has others, that the dominant such order in GMark is verb-subject, which is a Semitic characteristic, as opposed to subject-verb, which is a Greek characteristic. Voelz though notes that in the latter portion of GMark subject-verb increases significantly. Perhaps a literary technique indicating movement from Jewish to Greek.

Bonus material for Solo = who is famous for movement from Jewish to Greek?


Joseph

Skeptical Textual Criticism

rgprice
Posts: 23
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

Re: Book Review of Mark 1:1-8:26 by James Voelz

Post by rgprice » Mon Sep 17, 2018 12:19 am

I would argue that this is due to the writer's use of literary allusions to the Hebrew scriptures. I also note that the use of such literary references increases in the later portions of GMark. See my work on this subject here: https://www.amazon.com/Deciphering-Gosp ... 483487849/

It's the literary references that lead to this usage.

User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1121
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Asyndeton

Post by JoeWallack » Mon Sep 17, 2018 7:08 am

JW:
Book Review of Mark 1:1-8:26 by James Voelz:

Linguistic Characteristics of Mark's Gospel
f. Asyndeton (especially in discourse)[P. 4]


Asyndeton Examples
Asyndeton is a writing style where conjunctions are omitted in a series of words, phrases or clauses. It is used to shorten a sentence and focus on its meaning. For example, Julius Caesar leaving out the word "and" between the sentences "I came. I saw. I conquered" asserts the strength of his victory.

Joseph

Skeptical Textual Criticism

User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1121
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

"Mark's" Use of γάρ as Antapodosis

Post by JoeWallack » Thu Sep 20, 2018 7:02 am

JW:
Book Review of Mark 1:1-8:26 by James Voelz:

Distinctive Characteristics (ten to twenty occurrences in Mark)
c. γάρ used to introduce an aside [P. 5]

Mark has a number of uses of γάρ which are virtual asides and which could be rendered in idiomatic American English with "you know"..."
...18

18 This analysis is supported by the new research of Michael Rudolph, who, with the support of ancient authors, contends that γάρ is often used not to connect clauses, but to give the response to a question that is inescapable but as yet unformulated by the reader/hearer ("γάρ When δὲ Is Expected,"4). This phenomenon is known as antapodosis ("γάρ When δὲ Is Expected."24)
JW:
antapodosis
(an-tah-POE-doe-sis
The side-by-side figure. It compares two things that match in more than one way.
Rudolph's article is a paper presented at 2012 SBL which as far as I can tell has received no notice/publicity other than the above. Voelz does not list 16:8 as an example, presumably because γάρ is after and not before. But I have faith that KK would agree that "Mark" (author) may have intended a meaning to the reader at this point of "and as you should have expected by now they said nothing to no one because they were afraid (surprise)" γάρ reversing the word order one time at the end of GMark is just the type of thing you would expect "Mark" to do.



Joseph

Skeptical Textual Criticism

User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1121
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

"Mark's" Use of Anacoluthon

Post by JoeWallack » Sun Sep 23, 2018 4:13 pm

JW:
Book Review of Mark 1:1-8:26 by James Voelz:

Distinctive Characteristics (ten to twenty occurrences in Mark)
d. Awkward constructions [P. 5]

Mark has a great number of constructions which are awkward, compared to normal Greek syntax. Anacoluthon may be present.
JW:
Anacoluthon
An anacoluthon (/ænəkəˈljuːθɒn/ AN-ə-kə-LEW-thon; from the Greek anakolouthon, from an-: "not" and ἀκόλουθος akólouthos: "following") is an unexpected discontinuity in the expression of ideas within a sentence, leading to a form of words in which there is logical incoherence of thought. Anacolutha are often sentences interrupted midway, where there is a change in the syntactical structure of the sentence and of intended meaning following the interruption.[1] An example is the Italian proverb "The good stuff – think about it."[2] This proverb urges people to make the best choice. When anacoluthon occurs unintentionally it is considered to be an error in sentence structure, and results in incoherent nonsense. However, it can be used as a rhetorical technique to challenge the reader to think more deeply, or in "stream of consciousness" literature to represent the disjointed nature of associative thought.
7:19
because it goeth not into his heart, but into his belly, and goeth out into the draught? [This he said], making all meats clean.
As it is written "goeth out into the draught? making all meats clean." would get the grammatical attention of a native Greek. Note the great literary contrast between the most unclean thing, the "draught", and what is clean. Perhaps it is intended to make the hearer consider how this saying effects them.



Joseph

Skeptical Textual Criticism

User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1121
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

GMark's Avoidance of Use of "Going To".

Post by JoeWallack » Tue Sep 25, 2018 7:21 am

JW:
Book Review of Mark 1:1-8:26 by James Voelz:

Independent but noticeable characteristics (five to ten occurrences in Mark)
e. Words and constructions notable by their absence ...
ii. πορεύομαι alone (not in compounds)
This common verb has no generally attested occurrences in Mark [P. 7]
JW:
πορεύομαι
4198 poreúomai (from poros, "passageway") – properly, to transport, moving something from one destination (port) to another; (figuratively) to go or depart, emphasizing the personal meaning which is attached to reaching the particular destination.
"Go to". Note that the emphasis is reaching a destination. A very common word in general and used many times by GMatthew/GLuke which both used GMark as a base. But never used by GMark. GMark instead generally uses words with an emphasis on changing direction/moving such as "depart", "going" and "on the way". The maximum literary avoidance suggests using grammar to support [KK]the Markan theme that what is important is the way/journey and not the destination.[/KK] Sounds sophisticated. Who ever did this?


Joseph

Skeptical Textual Criticism

User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1121
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Lack of Subject for Verb in Teaching & Healing Ministry

Post by JoeWallack » Wed Sep 26, 2018 7:34 am

JW:
Book Review of Mark 1:1-8:26 by James Voelz:

Restricted distribution characteristics

1. Prominent characteristics (twenty or more occurences in Mark)

b. Lack of express subjects for finite verbs
Especially in early chapters [P. 7]
JW:
Example:

1:21
And they go into Capernaum; and straightway on the sabbath day he entered into the synagogue and taught.
Note that we have the what, "taught", but not the who, "them". The next verse supplies the who but still the use of the verb without subject ain't good grammar. GMatthew/GLuke both add subject even though GMark was their base. Perhaps the emphasis of GMark Teaching & Healing Ministry was the action and not the subject. GMark gave a stylish literary touch.


Joseph

Skeptical Textual Criticism

andrewcriddle
Posts: 1664
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: GMark's Avoidance of Use of "Going To".

Post by andrewcriddle » Thu Sep 27, 2018 10:22 am

JoeWallack wrote:
Tue Sep 25, 2018 7:21 am
JW:
Book Review of Mark 1:1-8:26 by James Voelz:

Independent but noticeable characteristics (five to ten occurrences in Mark)
e. Words and constructions notable by their absence ...
ii. πορεύομαι alone (not in compounds)
This common verb has no generally attested occurrences in Mark [P. 7]
JW:
πορεύομαι
4198 poreúomai (from poros, "passageway") – properly, to transport, moving something from one destination (port) to another; (figuratively) to go or depart, emphasizing the personal meaning which is attached to reaching the particular destination.
"Go to". Note that the emphasis is reaching a destination. A very common word in general and used many times by GMatthew/GLuke which both used GMark as a base. But never used by GMark. GMark instead generally uses words with an emphasis on changing direction/moving such as "depart", "going" and "on the way". The maximum literary avoidance suggests using grammar to support [KK]the Markan theme that what is important is the way/journey and not the destination.[/KK] Sounds sophisticated. Who ever did this?


Joseph

Skeptical Textual Criticism
Note that πορεύομαι occurs 3 times in Mark 16:9-20 bur nowhere else in the standard text of Mark.

Andrew Criddle

User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1121
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

It's Go (To) Time

Post by JoeWallack » Tue Oct 02, 2018 6:27 am

JoeWallack wrote:
Tue Sep 25, 2018 7:21 am
JW:
Book Review of Mark 1:1-8:26 by James Voelz:

Independent but noticeable characteristics (five to ten occurrences in Mark)
e. Words and constructions notable by their absence ...
ii. πορεύομαι alone (not in compounds)
This common verb has no generally attested occurrences in Mark [P. 7]
JW:
πορεύομαι
4198 poreúomai (from poros, "passageway") – properly, to transport, moving something from one destination (port) to another; (figuratively) to go or depart, emphasizing the personal meaning which is attached to reaching the particular destination.
"Go to". Note that the emphasis is reaching a destination. A very common word in general and used many times by GMatthew/GLuke which both used GMark as a base. But never used by GMark. GMark instead generally uses words with an emphasis on changing direction/moving such as "depart", "going" and "on the way". The maximum literary avoidance suggests using grammar to support [KK]the Markan theme that what is important is the way/journey and not the destination.[/KK] Sounds sophisticated. Who ever did this?


Joseph

Skeptical Textual Criticism
Note that πορεύομαι occurs 3 times in Mark 16:9-20 bur nowhere else in the standard text of Mark.

Andrew Criddle
JW:
Good one Andrew but I fear it's even worse than that. The three forged uses of the offending word in the Fake Good News at the end of GMark all parallel reMarkably well to their likely sources:

Mark 16:10
She went and told them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept.
verses

John 20:17
Jesus saith to her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended unto the Father: but go unto my brethren, and say to them, I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and my God and your God.
and
Mark 16:12 And after these things he was manifested in another form unto two of them, as they walked, on their way into the country.
verses

Luke 24
Luke 24:28 And they drew nigh unto the village, whither they were going: and he made as though he would go further.
and (as you Brits say, "The Cruncher")
Mark 16:15 And he said unto them,Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to the whole creation.
verses

Matthew 28
Matthew 28:19 Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit:
It looks like the Fake Good News at the end of GMark developed as follows:
  • 1) "Mark", the original author, following Paul, the only known significant Christian author before him, ended his Gospel to be consistent with the rest of his Gospel. Belief in Jesus' resurrection is to be believed on faith and not supposed historical witness.

    2) Subsequent Christianity converted from faith based to supposed historical evidence based and subsequent Gospels added supposed historical witness to Jesus' supposed resurrection.

    3) A harmony of the three post resurrection stories was created and added to GMark which lacked any.

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

Charles Wilson
Posts: 1189
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: It's Go (To) Time

Post by Charles Wilson » Tue Oct 02, 2018 8:36 am

JoeWallack wrote:
Tue Oct 02, 2018 6:27 am
...A harmony of the three post resurrection stories was created and added to GMark which lacked any.
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2207&hilit=empty+tomb

Did this do anything for you? Perhaps this is simple semantic difference but it appears to several of us that there was a single Empty Tomb Story that was divided into four parts and grafted to the four Gospel Stories. Evidence for this might come from your linguistic analysis applied to all four Stories. It's above my pay grade right now. As a new soldier once said, "Don't shoot me. I just joined for the benefits".

Thnx, as always,

CW

Post Reply