Descents into Hell of Grammar and Sense - Mark's constructed awkwardness

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

Would they "see" what I am seeing? With a project like mine, where I am looking at a whole pattern of grammatical changes, all of them surprisingly, theologically awkwardly connected with Hebrews as a reception of Galatians, I come up against the problem of whether such big name scholars would have the, I don't know, courage or recklessness to go public in support of the idea that is so DIFFERENT.
...
Your thoughts on this project?

I dedicate this thread to our own gryan. I am not entirely sure that he will completely achieve his goal, but I am convinced that on his way he will become (or already is) our leading expert in understanding of how Paul’s mystical union in Christ works. His project reminded me that I had long intended to take a closer look at some complicated grammatical constructions or constructions of meaning in GMark, yet I had always postponed it. I rightly feared that my limited Greek would not be able to properly understand some trickier grammatical constructions. But when you see how many text variants have emerged from some phrases, then you feel in good company with ancient scribes who also had their problems with GMark. Helpful corrections and critical comments are therefore very much appreciated.

I hope that this thread will give some smiles over what Mark was doing and the difficulties of dealing with it. I could begin anywhere, but it may be appropriate to start somehow with John the Baptist.

Mark 6:14-16	Matthew 14:1-2	Luke 9:7-9
14 King Herod heard of it, for Jesus’ name had become known.	1 At that time Herod the tetrarch heard about the fame of Jesus,	7 Now Herod the tetrarch heard about all that was happening, and he was perplexed,
Some said, “John the Baptist has been raised from the dead. That is why these miraculous powers are at work in him.”	2 and he said to his servants, “This is John the Baptist. He has been raised from the dead; that is why these miraculous powers are at work in him.”	because it was said by some that John had been raised from the dead,
15 But others said, “He is Elijah.”	X	8 by some that Elijah had appeared, and
And others said, “He is a prophet, like one of the prophets of old.”	X	by others that one of the prophets of old had risen.
16 But when Herod heard of it, he said, “John, whom I beheaded, has been raised.”	X	9 Herod said, “John I beheaded, but who is this about whom I hear such things?” And he sought to see him.

Of interest is the saying of Herod in Mark 6:16. It is literally

ὃν	ἐγὼ	ἀπεκεφάλισα	Ἰωάννην	οὗτος	ἠγέρθη
whom	I	beheaded	John	this one	has been raised

The phrase "John, this one has been raised" (Ἰωάννην, οὗτος ἠγέρθη) caused the following text variants according to laparola

Ἰωάννην, οὗτος ἠγέρθη] ‭א2 B L W Δ (33 1342 αὐτὸς for οὗτος) 372 892* 2427 2737 copbo WH NR CEI Riv TILC Nv NM
Ἰωάννην, οὗτος ἐστιν αὐτὸς ἠγέρθη ἐκ νεκρῶν] A (C N 1424 ἀπὸ τῶν νεκρῶν) 0269 579 Byz goth ς ND Dio
Ἰωάννην, οὗτος ἐστιν αὐτὸς ἐκ νεκρῶν ἠγέρθη] 124
οὗτος ἐστιν Ἰωάννην αὐτὸς ἐκ νεκρῶν ἠγέρθη] Θ (f1 ἠγέρθη ἐκ νεκρῶν) 565 700 pc it
Ἰωάννην, οὗτος ἐκ νεκρῶν ἠγέρθη] (D omit Ἰωάννην) f13 28 69 788 (892c οὗτος ἐστιν) pc vg copbo
οὗτος Ἰωάννην ἠγέρθη] ‭א*
οὗτος Ἰωάννην αὐτὸς ἠγέρθη] ‭א1
Ἰωάννην αὐτὸς ἠγέρθη] 33

Most translations do not translate the phrase "Whom I beheaded, John, this one has been raised" literally, but at least put the name "John" in front of the phrase "whom I beheaded". Luke in GLuke 9:9 and some textual variants of Mark 6:16 did it too.
.

ParTranslatMark6.16.jpg (87.08 KiB) Viewed 13574 times

Wieland Wilker wrote in his „Textual Commentary“.

It is clear that this large number of variants has its cause in a difficult original reading.

So what's going on here?

[rgprice]

You may want to look at David Oliver Smith's Unlocking the Puzzle: The Keys to the Christology and Structure of the Original Gospel of Mark.

I don't go along with everything he says there. For one thing, I think he thinks that that the killing of JtB was a later addition to the text and not part of original Mark. I don't agree with that. But anyway, some of his analysis is still quite useful for understanding the structure and working of Mark. A lot of it builds on Michael Turton, so you could start there: http://www.michaelturton.com/Mark/GMark ... #6.p.14.29

Turton's commentary doesn't appear too helpful, but nevertheless.

I think the main point is, Mark is of course very concerned about the structure of his words. That's why Mark appears to use poor grammar and be inelegant. Mark doesn't write prose, he's creating literary references and patterns. When I see these things, I always look to see if there is a literary reference being used, because the pattern of his words may relate to the subtext he is referencing.

[Secret Alias]

I still wonder if the whole "whom I beheaded" thing was secondary. To me the whole 'resurrection of John" might go back to John Hyrcanus.

[rgprice]

Yeah, I used to not give much credence to that, but I'm increasingly convinced that JtB is really based on "John" Hyrcanus II. Whatever the case, I think that Mark's JtB link to Jesus was something he invented. Maybe there was a real JtB, but the real JtB had no knowledge of Jesus. Mark's story is like taking a fictional character and then claiming that he met George Washington. I guess you can think of it as like a Forrest Gump type effect, where the fictional character in placed in among actual important people. At any rate, its certainly some kind of appropriation of a separate tradition.

[Paul the Uncertain]

Most translations do not translate the phrase "Whom I beheaded, John, this one has been raised" literally, but at least put the name "John" in front of the phrase "whom I beheaded". Luke in GLuke 9:9 and some textual variants of Mark 6:16 did it too.

A similar relative clause construction in Greek at gMark 14:44 is often translated into English as "the one I kiss" or "the man I kiss." In other words, subsituting a noun phrase for the relative pronoun whom.

https://www.biblestudytools.com/mark/14-44-compare.html

Back to Herod, translating his 6:16 speech to parallel how 14:44 is often translated:

The man I beheaded, John, is risen.

That has the same meaning as

John, whom I beheaded, is risen.

If I were writing an English-language stage adaptation of Mark, then I'd choose the former over the latter. The audience has already just heard that some people think John has come back through Jesus. The new element introduced through Herod's speech is that Herod killed John. More subtle: Herod takes responsibility for what he did, an interesting character point in its own right. It is appropriate for the dramatist to lead with the novel and interesting.

X Whom I beheaded, John, is risen.

is awkward in English. Of the three English versions, it is by far the least attractive.

I suspect Mark's thinking was closer to the dramatist's than an expository prose writer's.

IMO, then: what's going on is that Mark went for the better reading-aloud presentation. The expository prose oriented translator can't count on the reader having just read that others have already floated the revenant idea, sees the awkward but literal third version immediately, realizes it can be transformed into good English by changing the word order slightly (unlike 14:44), and moves on to 6:17.

[gryan]

The phrase "John, this one has been raised" (Ἰωάννην, οὗτος ἠγέρθη) caused the following text variants according to laparola

Ἰωάννην, οὗτος ἠγέρθη] ‭א2 B L W Δ (33 1342 αὐτὸς for οὗτος) 372 892* 2427 2737 copbo WH NR CEI Riv TILC Nv NM
Ἰωάννην, οὗτος ἐστιν αὐτὸς ἠγέρθη ἐκ νεκρῶν] A (C N 1424 ἀπὸ τῶν νεκρῶν) 0269 579 Byz goth ς ND Dio
Ἰωάννην, οὗτος ἐστιν αὐτὸς ἐκ νεκρῶν ἠγέρθη] 124
οὗτος ἐστιν Ἰωάννην αὐτὸς ἐκ νεκρῶν ἠγέρθη] Θ (f1 ἠγέρθη ἐκ νεκρῶν) 565 700 pc it
Ἰωάννην, οὗτος ἐκ νεκρῶν ἠγέρθη] (D omit Ἰωάννην) f13 28 69 788 (892c οὗτος ἐστιν) pc vg copbo
οὗτος Ἰωάννην ἠγέρθη] ‭א*
οὗτος Ἰωάννην αὐτὸς ἠγέρθη] ‭א1
Ἰωάννην αὐτὸς ἠγέρθη] 33

Wieland Wilker wrote in his „Textual Commentary“.

It is clear that this large number of variants has its cause in a difficult original reading.

So what's going on here?

I had not thought about that text. It is interesting and disturbing.

What I notice is a version of resurrection belief supposedly held by a politically oppressive and corrupt leader. In this belief, the resurrection of one opposition leader (John) gives special powers to his followers who then become spiritual leaders, healers and exorcists (Jesus and those he sends out with nothing but the clothes on their back).

[Charles Wilson]

Can we come closer to understanding this if we acknowledge Matthew, Luke and John for supplementary material?:

John 1: 31 - 32 (RSV):

[30] This is he of whom I said, `After me comes a man who ranks before me, for he was before me.'
[31] I myself did not know him; but for this I came baptizing with water, that he might be revealed to Israel."

This is only one example. I have others, especially from Matthew.

"I myself did not know him..."

This is astounding material - We are halfway to a "Two John" Theory. John the First is the Greatest Prophet and yet the Least in the Realm of Heaven is greater than John:

Matthew 11: 11 (RSV):

[11] Truly, I say to you, among those born of women there has risen no one greater than John the Baptist; yet he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.

Why is the least greater than than John, the Greatest? I've always thought that John didn't make it into the realm of Heaven. He was killed. If a "Second John" came but was "telescoped" into a single story, it would make sense.

The Mark 6 material concerning Herod and Herodias should probably then be seen as Symbolic. Herod would "Know" that a beheaded person could not be brought back to life and the Lukan language reflects that:

Luke 9: 9 (RSV):

[9] Herod said, "John I beheaded; but who is this about whom I hear such things?" And he sought to see him.

Compare with "The Spurious Alexander" in Josephus, where an observant Caesar could tell the difference between the original person and the counterfeit. Luke gives Herod a more sophisticated air than the fearful Herod of the other Gospels. The first John was killed - "Who is this second guy? Lemme see him..."

CW

[davidmartin]

Stephen's speech in Acts deserves a look
"It remained in the land until the time of David, who enjoyed God’s favor and asked that he might provide a dwelling place for the God of Jacob. But it was Solomon who built a house for him"
John models Jesus on David (brook of Kadroon etc), thus Jesus as David "provides a dwelling place" for God in his body
But it was Solomon (Salome) who "built a house", ie the virgin birth, his body
This same Salome appears as the pharaoh's daughter who adopts a boy of unknown parentage named in Christian tradition as Mari/Merris/Merrhoe
There's a ton of interesting parallels in what looks like a boring retelling of Israelite history

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

I think the main point is, Mark is of course very concerned about the structure of his words. That's why Mark appears to use poor grammar and be inelegant. Mark doesn't write prose, he's creating literary references and patterns. When I see these things, I always look to see if there is a literary reference being used, because the pattern of his words may relate to the subtext he is referencing.

Very nicely said. There is no better way to express it. That's what I meant by the term „constructed awkwardness“.

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

I still wonder if the whole "whom I beheaded" thing was secondary.

imho, not related to GMark

I think that Mark 6:14-15 is part of the recurring theme „Where did this man get these things?“, that begins in Mark 3:22 (“by the prince of demons he casts out the demons”) and at least continues until Mark 11:28 („… and they said to him, ‚By what authority are you doing these things, or who gave you this authority to do them?”). In Mark 6:2 the people of Jesus' hometown rise the questions “Where did this man get these things? …. How are such mighty works done by his hands?“ and in Mark 6:14 initial answers to this question have been formed („Some said, ‚John the Baptist has been raised from the dead. That is why these miraculous powers are at work in him.”)

The threefold answer of the people with the final statement of Herod in Mark 6:14-16 has a nice parallel to the threefold answer with the final confession of Peter in Mark 8:27-29.

Finally, Mark 16:6 is also a nice parallel to Mark 6:16. In both cases there is an emphasis on the form of the execution and the resurrection statement („John, whom I beheaded, has been raised“ - „You seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has risen.“)