It's all yours (Was about a non-Nazareth indicator)

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
iskander
Posts: 2091
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:38 pm

Re: It's all yours (Was about a non-Nazareth indicator)

Post by iskander »

Steven Avery wrote: Fri Nov 17, 2017 4:01 am iskander
"and to give a clearer antecedent for αὐτῷ (him) in v. 30" - which was crystal clear anyway

Mark 1:25
And Jesus rebuked him, saying, Hold thy peace, and come out of him.
Mark 1:28
And immediately his fame spread abroad throughout all the region round about Galilee.

=================

The simple truth is that the singular is simply another ultra-minority corruption.

And in the verse 29 the singular is another ultra-minority corruption that is not even the NA-UBS choice.

Mark 1:29
http://www.laparola.net/greco/index.php ... &rif2=1:29

ἐκ τῆς συναγωγῆς ἐξελθόντες ἦλθον] ‭א A C E (F Δ al εἰσῆλθον) G H K L Π 0133 28 33 157 180 597 892 1006 1009 1010 1071 1079 1195 1216 1230 1241 1243 1253 1292 1344 1505 1546 1646 (2174 ἦλθεν) Byz (itl) syrh slav goth (Jerome) ς WH

ἐξελθόντες ἐκ τῆς συναγωγῆς ἦλθον] 31 435 vg (syrs syrp syrpal καὶ ἦλθον) copbo(pt) geo1

ἐκ τῆς συναγωγῆς ἐξελθὼν ἦλθεν] B (Θ 1424 ἐξελθὼν before ἐκ τῆς) f1 f13 22 205 565 579 700 1242 1342 1365 2148 2427 al (itf) (vgmss) (copbo(pt)) eth geo2

ἐξελθὼν δὲ ἐκ τῆς συναγωγῆς ἦλθεν and omit καὶ εὐθὺς at the beginning] D W (Σ εὐθύς for δέ) 349 517 954 1061 1065 1068 1675 1694 2220 2747 itaur itb itc itd ite itff2 itq itr1 vgmss arm

Even Metzger was right here, albeit for the wrong reasons.
"it is best to follow the majority of MSS that read ἐξελθόντες ἦλθον"

=================

iskander, if you use a modern seminarian commentary, where Vaticanus is the central ms of the ages, you are likely to get burned time and again.

Steven
Thank you, Steven
It makes no difference and it should not make any difference for a religious person. The word of God when translated into the Greek would have variations, but the meaning of the message remains invariant.


The text says that Jesus preached in Capernaum and also in the town of his birth.
One town is visited in chapter 6, the other town is visited in Chapter 2. Is there any confusion in the text as to which is which?
Steven Avery
Posts: 978
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

Re: It's all yours (Was about a non-Nazareth indicator)

Post by Steven Avery »

spin wrote: Fri Nov 17, 2017 4:24 am Could the moderatorial powers that be remove the Steven Avery material from this thread. He does not deal with the o.p. and is filling up the thread with his own interests. Perhaps you could collect it into another thread. Thanks.
I dealt with what I consider (and showed to be) an errant claim in this thread, that Jesus had his own home in Capernaum. If the moderators want to do what the old IIDB folks did, Toto and friends, and break it off to a new thread, I think that would be excellent, as long as the posts are brought over in full. And there is one pointer post on this thread.

Steven Avery
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: It's all yours (Was about a non-Nazareth indicator)

Post by neilgodfrey »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Thu Nov 16, 2017 7:24 am
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."

It is a duplication ("says to the paralytic") that gets the pericope back to its original state, after the business about sin and blasphemy has been inserted, but the duplication makes mince of the grammar.
Can you elaborate on this point? In what way does "duplication make mince of the grammar"?

Ben C. Smith wrote: Thu Nov 16, 2017 7:24 am
We can tell that the use of sources is one very plausible way to account for this kind of grammatical stumble between narration and direct dialogue from how Luke treats Mark here:

Mark 1.40-45
Luke 5.12-16
40 And a leper came to him, imploring him, and kneeling said to him, "If you will, you can make me clean." 41 Moved with pity, he stretched out his hand and touched him and said to him, "I will; be clean." 42 And immediately the leprosy left him, and he was made clean. 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 [σεαυτὸν δεῖξον τῶ ἱερεῖ] and offer for your cleansing what Moses commanded, for a proof to them." 45 But he went out and began to talk freely about it, and to spread the news, so that Jesus could no longer openly enter a town, but was out in desolate places, and people were coming to him from every quarter.12 While he was in one of the cities, there came a man full of leprosy. And when he saw Jesus, he fell on his face and begged him, "Lord, if you will, you can make me clean." 13 And Jesus stretched out his hand and touched him, saying, "I will; be clean." And immediately the leprosy left him. 14 And he charged him to tell no one, but "go and show yourself to the priest [δεῖξον σεαυτὸν τῶ ἱερεῖ], and make an offering for your cleansing, as Moses commanded, for a proof to them." 15 But now even more the report about him went abroad, and great crowds gathered to hear him and to be healed of their infirmities. 16 But he would withdraw to desolate places and pray.

In this case, Luke has changed part of Mark's direct address to indirect address, but has then lapsed back into direct address, creating (once more) an awkward grammatical link between dialogue and narration.
It's not clear to me how the Luke parallel is a further illustration of the previous "grammatical stumble". Is the earlier example also an indication of some awkwardness between narrative flow and direct dialogue? Was not the initial "stumble" merely a repetition of a phrase?
Ben C. Smith wrote: Thu Nov 16, 2017 7:24 am Something similar happens in another Marcan pericope:

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."

In this case, the explanatory phrase ("since they were saying, 'He has an unclean spirit'") is again ungrammatical and actually backtracks to fill in details that should have happened earlier in the story.
This is another point that is not clear to me, sorry. Can you clarify why the phrase is ungrammatical? But further, my reading of the passage leads to a different conclusion from your point about the verse "they were saying 'He has an unclean spirit'" backtracking to details that "should have happened earlier in the story. Does not the verse actually refer to details that did indeed happen earlier in the story?

So we have verse 22
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."
being referred to later in verse 30
30 since they were saying, "He has an unclean spirit
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: It's all yours (Was about a non-Nazareth indicator)

Post by neilgodfrey »

spin wrote: Thu Nov 16, 2017 4:33 am
neilgodfrey wrote: Thu Nov 16, 2017 2:34 am
spin wrote: Wed Nov 15, 2017 4:19 amThe fact that a tradent used Capernaum for the hometown strongly suggests that Nazareth was not in the earliest Jesus tradition.
The question that comes to me is, On what basis do we couch "Capernaum" and "Nazareth" as tradents or pre-gospel traditions as distinct from creations (ideological / literary / other) of the respective authors?
Tradents are those who take a tradition and pass it on (somewhat like a person in a chain of Chinese whispers).
Thanks for filling in that gap in my head.
spin wrote: Thu Nov 16, 2017 4:33 am Do you think the writer who incorporated the two synagogue stories chose to call the setting of one "his home country" and the other "Capernaum"?
I think it is possible. (I can't say what he definitely did, though.)

The reason I think it is possible:

My understanding of the Gospel of Mark is that its first half is composed as an almost slap-dash presentation of a series of episodes that indicate little interest in literary polish and flow. The primary focus seems to me to be more on highlighting a series of symbolic and theological points than on constructing a stylish narrative.

In that context, there appears to be a strong reason for the author of the Mark 6 episode to have focussed on the location being exclusively the "home country" of Jesus. The point of the story is to illustrate the proverb about a prophet not being accepted by his "hometown".
spin wrote: Thu Nov 16, 2017 4:33 amA close reading of the two brief narratives shows that they are rather close in content, pointing to a single source, though they have enough different to indicate that they had lives of their own.
True, that is one possible explanation of the similarities and differences in the two narratives. It naturally follows from the assumption that the author is pulling together different pre-existing stories.

But do the types of differences and similarities we see in those two narratives lend themselves uniquely to the explanation that they existed in their different forms before the Marcan author penned them?
spin wrote: Thu Nov 16, 2017 4:33 amThey were whole brief stories when the Marcan writer decided to wedge another separate story of an unclean spirit (1:23-26) into 1:21-27, wedging or sandwiching as the writer frequently did.
That may have been the case. I rule very little out when it comes to possibilities relating to the second gospel.

But is it necessarily the case that every or any sandwiched pair of narratives indicates narratives that had separate prior existences before our author decided to pick them up and put them together? On what basis do we think that the two parts of 1:21-27 must have existed prior to the gospel of Mark and that an original composition by "Mark" must be ruled out?
spin wrote: Thu Nov 16, 2017 4:33 amSo we have four chronological steps:

1. story develops (Jesus arrives, goes into a synagogue on the sabbath, preaches, people are astonished, ask what's going on where he got his power);
2. two versions are developed through telling, one defining the hometown location as Capernaum;
3. Marcan redactor collects the two;
4. incorporates them as though they were different stories

The significant issue for my purposes is that Nazareth has nothing to do with the process. It isn't in the pre-Marcan phase.

Of course one can try to put these developments onto the one scribe, but they won't make sense . . .
I think the developments you set out are actually re-stating one explanation or interpretation of how the data came to be in its present state rather than setting out the data that has to be explained.

My question is about whether those "developments" are the only plausible explanation of what we find in the gospel, not how to explain those developments.
spin wrote: Thu Nov 16, 2017 4:33 amWe see a more sophisticated version of such proceedings with the French troubadours who presented versions of stories they received and passed on to others each as tradents to traditions such as the Arthurian cycle. And before them Geoffrey of Monmouth was a tradent.
I would be more swayed by this analogy if the Gospel of Mark contained the same sort of literary interests as the medieval writers.
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: It's all yours (Was about a non-Nazareth indicator)

Post by Ben C. Smith »

neilgodfrey wrote: Fri Nov 17, 2017 3:34 pmCan you elaborate on this point? In what way does "duplication make mince of the grammar"?
Not "duplication" in general, as its own phenomenon, but rather "the duplication" — that is, this particular duplication, which creates an awkward syntax between the direct dialogue and the narration. (Just replace my term "ungrammatical" with "syntactically awkward" and hopefully it becomes clearer. I should have written about the syntax, not the grammar.)
It's not clear to me how the Luke parallel is a further illustration of the previous "grammatical stumble". Is the earlier example also an indication of some awkwardness between narrative flow and direct dialogue?
Yes, exactly so.
This is another point that is not clear to me, sorry. Can you clarify why the phrase is ungrammatical?
Same response as above. Replace my term "ungrammatical" with "syntactically awkward," another stilted transition from direct dialogue to narration.
But further, my reading of the passage leads to a different conclusion from your point about the verse "they were saying 'He has an unclean spirit'" backtracking to details that "should have happened earlier in the story. Does not the verse actually refer to details that did indeed happen earlier in the story?
Fair point, but this is a secondary observation on my part. The catch is that the phrase is in direct dialogue, which nominally purports to give exact wording, whereas indirect dialogue (in Greek as in English) can easily give just the gist of a comment. But the direct dialogue here (πνεῦμα ἀκάθαρτον ἔχει) only approximates the previous accusation; it is not a direct quote. Perhaps it is for this very reason that codex Washingtonianus does in fact put Mark 3.30 into indirect dialogue instead (πνεῦμα ἀκάθαρτον ἔχειν αὐτόν), which is more appropriate for summarizing rather than quoting exactly. If the exact words (πνεῦμα ἀκάθαρτον ἔχει) do not appear earlier in the narration (and they do not), then the effect is that of a backtracking to fill in a different version of the accusation. But again, this point is secondary for me; the primary observation is that the seam between the dialogue and the narration is syntactically awkward. That the backtracking itself happens at that same exact seam is just a bonus, so to speak, and adds to the overall awkardness.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: It's all yours (Was about a non-Nazareth indicator)

Post by neilgodfrey »

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?
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: It's all yours (Was about a non-Nazareth indicator)

Post by Ben C. Smith »

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:
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
Last edited by Ben C. Smith on Mon Sep 09, 2019 6:10 pm, edited 2 times in total.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Steven Avery
Posts: 978
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

Re: It's all yours (Was about a non-Nazareth indicator)

Post by Steven Avery »

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?
Neil, you are well aware that there are significant theories about Mark being written in Latin (or a Graeco-Latin dialect, or two editions). And also in Aramaic (far less likely). This has to be given a prime consideration anytime you are talking about the Markan grammar. A translation Mark can easily maintain hallmarks of the source language syntax.

Also, there are many problems caused by the minority Critical Text corruptions, that likely occurred in Egyptian copying. At a time when that land had a major gnostic element (see Kurt Aland) and the scribes had a mediocre background with the text and lands. These corruptions would not be so much syntax as things like gender discordance and misplaced geography.

Steven
Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 2110
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: It's all yours (Was about a non-Nazareth indicator)

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin »

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?
From the little I know I would say that there are many legends about the writing style of the Evangelists. To me the greatest myth is the „elegant“ style of Luke.

I think overall there are no great differences. All Gospels were written in a simple Koine Greek. It does not mean poor or awkward, but simple. In the eyes of Ben's ancient „snobbish grammarians“ (who prefer Homer) all Gospels would be rated as „not so high“ literature and examined as a bit exotic writings with some interesting points. In comparison, Josephus would ranked clearly higher, even in his retellings of biblical stories in Antiquities (If I remember correct, he wrote in War that he had help from professional scribes).

The same applies to Mark's „awkward“ style. I think in 98-99 percent of Mark's text is nothing incorrect. The first impression you get from Mark could be an „inelastic“ style with frequent repetitions of same words and phrases. Perhaps the second thing is that Mark has some „quirks“, for example Mark's doublings:

Mark 1:32 And at even, when the sun did set, they brought unto him all that were diseased

Matthew and Luke shortened here
Matthew 8:16 When the even was come, they brought unto him many that were possessed with devils
Luke 4:40 Now when the sun was setting, all they that had any sick with divers diseases brought them unto him

Compare with:
Mark 1:35 And in the morning, rising up a great while before day, he went out, and departed into a solitary place
Mark 16:2 And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun.

and
Mark 3:28 Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme
Mark 4:30 And he said, Whereunto shall we liken the kingdom of God? or with what comparison shall we compare it?
Mark 7:13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered
Mark 10:19 For in those days shall be affliction, such as was not from the beginning of the creation which God created unto this time
Mark 13:20 but for the elect's sake, whom he hath chosen, he hath shortened the days
Mark 14:46 And they laid their hands on him, and took him.

At the end there are few sentences in the whole Gospel which look in fact completely unusual, maybe awkward. But often it may be a question of point of view. For example: some would think that the verse Mark 14:3 is a little masterpiece, others that it is awkward.
User avatar
spin
Posts: 2146
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 10:44 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: It's all yours (Was about a non-Nazareth indicator)

Post by spin »

neilgodfrey wrote: Fri Nov 17, 2017 4:29 pm
spin wrote: Thu Nov 16, 2017 4:33 am Do you think the writer who incorporated the two synagogue stories chose to call the setting of one "his home country" and the other "Capernaum"?
I think it is possible. (I can't say what he definitely did, though.)

The reason I think it is possible:

My understanding of the Gospel of Mark is that its first half is composed as an almost slap-dash presentation of a series of episodes that indicate little interest in literary polish and flow. The primary focus seems to me to be more on highlighting a series of symbolic and theological points than on constructing a stylish narrative.

In that context, there appears to be a strong reason for the author of the Mark 6 episode to have focussed on the location being exclusively the "home country" of Jesus. The point of the story is to illustrate the proverb about a prophet not being accepted by his "hometown".
Mark is deceptive. It shows signs of structural intent. The sequences starting with the feedings (another pair of texts with a common source that have drifted apart) show parallel sequencing including material related to the Pharisees and healings (of a deaf man & a blind man). But not only narrative sequencing, Mark also features narrative disruption with material inserted into stories. This phenomenon is an editorial policy, so when we come to the synagogue teaching in 1:21ff with its sandwich involving the unclean spirit, we should conclude the inclusion belongs to the editorial policy. We should therefore have at least two separate moments in time: 1) the formulation of the synagogue story (1:21ff) and 2) the insertion of the unclean spirit. These sandwiches certainly disturb the flow. The lack of literary polish seems to reflect the writer's (writers') poor control of the Greek, having to use very simple syntax. But there is a narrative notion in the text as shown by the sequences and the sandwiches, as well as another narrative feature, the chiasmus, frequently found in Mark.

Back to our parallel synagogue stories: the have strong similarities but they certainly are not the same brief story in the telling. If the Marcan writer provided both synagogue stories, why not just copy one from the other? When did the sandwich get inserted, when the stories were collected or later when they were in situ? The differences in the two stories are most easily explained as having had separate "lives". If that is true then it is also more likely that "hometown" and "Capernaum" belong to the separation.

I don't know why you'd see that the hometown reference was caused by the attachment of the "proverb". In Matt there are "prophecies" used dictated by the context. The proverb could get associated because of related subject ("hometown"), which might be what is behind the family material inserted in the 6:1ff version of the synagogue story. The proverb doesn't reasonably explain why version one has Capernaum, but version two has "hometown", when you consider that places of origin are quite significant in the gospels, so removing a name is a highly unlikely process in the storytelling.
neilgodfrey wrote: Fri Nov 17, 2017 4:29 pm
spin wrote: Thu Nov 16, 2017 4:33 amA close reading of the two brief narratives shows that they are rather close in content, pointing to a single source, though they have enough different to indicate that they had lives of their own.
True, that is one possible explanation of the similarities and differences in the two narratives. It naturally follows from the assumption that the author is pulling together different pre-existing stories.
It is not so much an assumption as a conclusion drawn from the options and their probabilities regarding story production as evinced in the synoptic gospels, the parallels between them and the differences.
neilgodfrey wrote: Fri Nov 17, 2017 4:29 pmBut do the types of differences and similarities we see in those two narratives lend themselves uniquely to the explanation that they existed in their different forms before the Marcan author penned them?
You'd have to formulate the alternative hypotheses to evaluate them.
neilgodfrey wrote: Fri Nov 17, 2017 4:29 pm
spin wrote: Thu Nov 16, 2017 4:33 amThey were whole brief stories when the Marcan writer decided to wedge another separate story of an unclean spirit (1:23-26) into 1:21-27, wedging or sandwiching as the writer frequently did.
That may have been the case. I rule very little out when it comes to possibilities relating to the second gospel.

But is it necessarily the case that every or any sandwiched pair of narratives indicates narratives that had separate prior existences before our author decided to pick them up and put them together? On what basis do we think that the two parts of 1:21-27 must have existed prior to the gospel of Mark and that an original composition by "Mark" must be ruled out?
As I said above the sandwiching is certainly an editorial policy, making it more likely that the housing story had a life before the sandwich.
neilgodfrey wrote: Fri Nov 17, 2017 4:29 pm
spin wrote: Thu Nov 16, 2017 4:33 amSo we have four chronological steps:

1. story develops (Jesus arrives, goes into a synagogue on the sabbath, preaches, people are astonished, ask what's going on where he got his power);
2. two versions are developed through telling, one defining the hometown location as Capernaum;
3. Marcan redactor collects the two;
4. incorporates them as though they were different stories

The significant issue for my purposes is that Nazareth has nothing to do with the process. It isn't in the pre-Marcan phase.

Of course one can try to put these developments onto the one scribe, but they won't make sense . . .
I think the developments you set out are actually re-stating one explanation or interpretation of how the data came to be in its present state rather than setting out the data that has to be explained.

My question is about whether those "developments" are the only plausible explanation of what we find in the gospel, not how to explain those developments.
I tend to find Occam's razor is a good guide for what to choose in the range of possible scenarios. Keep it as simple as you can, no simpler, is basically Einstein's version of Occam.
neilgodfrey wrote: Fri Nov 17, 2017 4:29 pm
spin wrote: Thu Nov 16, 2017 4:33 amWe see a more sophisticated version of such proceedings with the French troubadours who presented versions of stories they received and passed on to others each as tradents to traditions such as the Arthurian cycle. And before them Geoffrey of Monmouth was a tradent.
I would be more swayed by this analogy if the Gospel of Mark contained the same sort of literary interests as the medieval writers.
Narrative traditions have the odd habit of reflecting things across hundred and even thousands of years. The rule of three so frequently found in the Marcan passion narrative is found in many other narrative traditions, probably unrelated by dependence. The process of stories being encrusted with add-on content via a sequence of tradents can be seen over and over again from Mesopotamia to Medaieval France.
Dysexlia lures • ⅔ of what we see is behind our eyes
Post Reply