Just ran into this while looking for something differentJoeWallack wrote: ↑Fri Mar 06, 2015 9:11 am JW:
What exactly does "Mark" (author) report that could support his presentation of Jesus crucified having a source of historical witness that was before Paul? From The Skeptical Critical Commentary:
15:39
And when the centurion, who stood by over against him, saw that he so gave up the ghost, he said, Truly this man was the Son of God. (ASV)
Strong's Transliteration Greek English Morphology 3708 [e] Idōn [1]Ἰδὼν [1]having seen V-APA-NMS 1161 [e] de δὲ moreover, Conj 3588 [e] ho ὁ the Art-NMS 2760 [e] kentyriōn [2]κεντυρίων [2]centurion N-NMS 3588 [e] ho ὁ - Art-NMS 3936 [e] parestēkōs παρεστηκὼς standing V-RPA-NMS 1537 [e] ex ἐξ from Prep 1727 [e] enantias [3]ἐναντίας [3]opposite of Adj-GFS 846 [e] autou αὐτοῦ him, PPro-GM3S 3754 [e] hoti ὅτι that Conj 3779 [e] houtōs οὕτως thus Adv 1606 [e] exepneusen ἐξέπνευσεν, he breathed his last, V-AIA-3S 3004 [e] eipen εἶπεν said, V-AIA-3S 230 [e] Alēthōs Ἀληθῶς Truly Adv 3778 [e] houtos οὗτος this DPro-NMS 3588 [e] ho ὁ - Art-NMS 444 [e] anthrōpos ἄνθρωπος man N-NMS 5207 [e] Huios Υἱὸς Son N-NMS 2316 [e] Theou Θεοῦ of God N-GMS 1510 [e] ēn [4]ἦν. [4]was! V-IIA-3S
Commentary:
[1]The offending word is "see" often with a figurative meaning = perceived/understood.
http://biblehub.com/greek/3708.htm
Note the same word is used in the Parable of the Sower which provides the key to the entire Gospel (I know this is sow because "Mark" (author) says sow):
4:12
"Mark's" point is that people see literally but they do not see figuratively (understand). "Mark's" primary theme is illustrating this with the supposed disciples. They see literally but do not understand and the related failure is directly proportional to the quantity of literal seeing. The closer they are literally/physically to Jesus, the less they understand (Peter/Simon). This point is contrasted with the opposite relationship. Those not literally/physically close to Jesus do "see" (understand). They may be far away or opposite as opposed to with.that seeing they may see, and not perceive
[2]"Mark" uses a Latin word for the centurion. Strange/bizarre/macabre that a Greek work about an Aramaic setting would throw in a Latin word. The other Gospellers thought so as no one else used it. Further support that the equally strange identification of one of the sons of replacement Simon having a Latin name within the Passion (try to find a Latin name before the Passion) is a Literary touch.
[3]Another word, often with a figurative meaning ("Mark" uses a lot of those) = Opposed.
Here the only properly placed witness to Jesus' crucifixion is someone who had never literally seen Jesus before or at least before he took his vow of silence back when Jesus was a Talker (I don't think The Hound would have liked Jesus very much).
[4]Hmm, so Jesus spends his entire career (so to speak) trying to convince those that literally are with him and physically see everything, to understand, and fails. In contrast, the opposition, Latin, never saw any Teaching & Healing Ministry but is placed to understand the significance of the supposed crucifixion. Unlike the Disciples who literally/physically heard (repeatedly, so to speak) Jesus' instruction to proclaim him after the crucifixion, the Latin from SonofManHatin, without ever literally/physically hearing Jesus' instructions, proclaims Jesus as Son of God after the crucifixion.
Sadly a portion of CBS (Christian Bible Scholarship) postures that the Centurion is being sarcastic and the Christian translations mistranslate the offending word as "see" instead of "perceive"/"understand". Obviously they want the Disciples to be the supposed first historical witness here and not an unidentified Latin crucifier. But the specific word used and "Mark's" theme support that the Centurion is truly serious.
Finally (so to speak), the last word is in imperfect form and I wonder if it should be translated as "is", "this man is son of God"? Truly that would fit Paul's theology.
Bonus material for Solo. "Mark" is careful to only use "ἐναντίας" one other time in a very critical passage (so to speak). Start with the conclusion that it supports this post and than tell us how.
Reaction of ancient witness:
Matthew 27:54
Matthew 27:54Now the centurion, and they that were with him watching Jesus, when they saw the earthquake, and the things that were done, feared exceedingly, saying, Truly this was the Son of God. (ASV)
Strong's Transliteration Greek English Morphology 3588 [e] HO [1]Ὁ - Art-NMS 1161 [e] de δὲ moreover Conj 1543 [e] hekatontarchos [2]ἑκατόνταρχος [2][the] centurion N-NMS 2532 [e] kai καὶ and Conj 3588 [e] hoi [3]οἱ [3]those Art-NMP 3326 [e] met’ μετ’ with Prep 846 [e] autou αὐτοῦ him PPro-GM3S 5083 [e] tērountes [4]τηροῦντες [4]keeping guard over V-PPA-NMP 3588 [e] ton τὸν - Art-AMS 2424 [e] Iēsoun Ἰησοῦν [6]Jesus, N-AMS 3708 [e] idontes [7]ἰδόντες [7]having seen V-APA-NMP 3588 [e] ton τὸν the Art-AMS 4578 [e] seismon σεισμὸν earthquake N-AMS 2532 [e] kai καὶ and Conj 3588 [e] ta τὰ the things Art-ANP 1096 [e] genomena γενόμενα* taking place, V-APM/P-ANP 5399 [e] ephobēthēsan [8]ἐφοβήθησαν [8]feared V-AIP-3P 4970 [e] sphodra σφόδρα, greatly, Adv 3004 [e] legontes λέγοντες saying, V-PPA-NMP 230 [e] Alēthōs Ἀληθῶς Truly Adv 2316 [e] Theou Θεοῦ God's N-GMS 5207 [e] Huios Υἱὸς Son N-NMS 1510 [e] ēn ἦν was V-IIA-3S 3778 [e] houtos οὗτος. this. DPro-NMS
Commentary:
[1]"Matthew" starts the offending verse with the definite article and noun. "Mark" starts the verse with a verb and ends with a verb = "Understood, is! (son of God)". Bad grammar or style?
[2]"Matthew" uses the Greek word for "centurion". "Mark's" word sounds more like "Kyrēnaion" and "Kurious".
[3]"Matthew" has incarnated multiple guards (witnesses).
[4]Witnesses is not the only thing expanding here. The word has a primary meaning of "guard" and in the context of a centurion and crucifixion, must mean "guard". Some Christian translations try to expand the meaning to non-guards also "watching" (up close).
[5]"Matthew" exorcises the figurative "opposite".
[6]"Mark" does not want "Jesus" in his Passion (he wants "that man"). "Matthew" wants Jesus in his Passion.
[7]"Matthew" uses the offending source word but changes the meaning via context from "Mark's" figurative usage (understood) to a literal one (saw).
[8]"Matthew" goes Old Testament School here by adding "feared" which in The Jewish Bible is a sign of respect for God. A major part of "Mark's" irony though is that he uses it as the sign of a lack of faith. Hence, for the Centurion's confession of faith, "Mark" exorcised "fear".
We can see above "Matthew's" attempt to edit his source into a more historical sounding affair with better potential supposed historical witness.
Joseph
ErrancyWiki
We have the typical example of Luke disagreeing with Mark and Matthew which could point to him being original and the latter two mere redactions, as is the case in the parable of the lamp where they prefer the loanword modius over Luke's vague skeue.
But in this case, where Mark uses κεντυρίων whereas Luke and Matthew both use ἑκατόνταρχος we seem to have the exact opposite: Mark is the source here and the other two decide to deviate.
There are great differences of course given the fact that Mark as source in this case betrays his being an obvious redaction / creation himself, with the Roman loanword being a dead giveaway. Likewise for the actual flogging scene where φραγελλώσας is used (flagellum) by Mark and Matthew while John (!) uses the native Greek ἐμαστίγωσεν - and all the predictions of Jesus being flogged also use the native Greek. So while Roman loanwords denote obvious redactions, it may very well be that native Greek comes later and serves to cover up the fact that this obvious redaction was the "original source", exactly because it points to fiction
As would be the case in this case
The scene is unattested to for Marcion so this is a done deal, and there are no variants for either one here - so how on earth can Luke and Matthew agree here? This clearly got copied from Mark, CORRECTED TO PROPER GREEK, and then assimilated into both Luke as well as Matthew - but this is evidence of Markan redaction being the source to both Luke as Matthew