Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

JoeWallack wrote:Every translation I've seen uses "some" as above yet the underlying Greek word is "οἱ" which is just the definite article.

The German DaBhaR, a literal and concordant translation, used "sie" (they - meaning all disciples), but used for the word "ἐδίστασαν" not "doubted" but "zaudern" (hesitate).

There are various comments on the Greek of Matthew 28:17 at
http://biblehub.com/commentaries/matthew/28-17.htm

Andrew Criddle

Charles Talbert (Paideia Commentary):

Tenorikuma wrote:Charles Talbert (Paideia Commentary):

Who doubts? (Do the Eleven worship and others doubt? Do the Eleven worship but some of them doubt? Do the Eleven worship and the Eleven doubt?) In Matthew, the particular phrase (hoi de + a verbal construction) always refers to the entire group of people mentioned previously or their spokesman (e.g., 2:9; 8:32; 9:31; 20:4–5; 22:5; 28:9; 28:15; etc.). The point of view of a subgroup is never set against the point of view of the whole body. In Matt. 28:17, therefore, they doubted refers to the whole group of the Eleven.

What that paragraph fails to mention is that in all of those cases οἱ δὲ also refers to a completely different subject than what came immediately before, taking advantage of the usual force of the δὲ.

Those who try to grant the δὲ its usual force will say that the doubters have to be miscellaneous others besides the Eleven. Those who try to grant the οἱ its usual force will say that the doubters have to be the Eleven. Those who want to try to do a little of both, but admittedly with some inadequacy on both counts, will say that the doubters have to be a subgroup of the Eleven.

Matthew has written confusingly here.

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote:

JoeWallack wrote:Every translation I've seen uses "some" as above yet the underlying Greek word is "οἱ" which is just the definite article.

The German DaBhaR, a literal and concordant translation, used "sie" (they - meaning all disciples), but used for the word "ἐδίστασαν" not "doubted" but "zaudern" (hesitate).

'Hesitate ' is also the translation of the apostolic bible polyglot translated by Charles VanderPool .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolic_Bible_Polyglot

Modern Greek
17 Και αφού τον είδαν, τον προσκύνησαν· μερικοί, όμως, δίστασαν.

iskander wrote:

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote:

JoeWallack wrote:Every translation I've seen uses "some" as above yet the underlying Greek word is "οἱ" which is just the definite article.

The German DaBhaR, a literal and concordant translation, used "sie" (they - meaning all disciples), but used for the word "ἐδίστασαν" not "doubted" but "zaudern" (hesitate).

'Hesitate ' is also the translation of the apostolic bible polyglot translated by Charles VanderPool .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolic_Bible_Polyglot

Modern Greek
17 Και αφού τον είδαν, τον προσκύνησαν· μερικοί, όμως, δίστασαν.

http://actsseventeen.gr/bible/book40/40-028/

If the grammar is confusing, perhaps that passage has been tampered with. There are numerous other problems with it, not least of which is the trinitarian baptismal formula.

gmx wrote:My understanding is that most scholars who regard the LE as "forgery or fabrication" also regard it as a very early remedy to the problematic ending of GMark. Are there any other medieval witnesses to the short ending? My understanding is that orthodoxy resolved the issue many centuries earlier...

The only reason that I can think why the AE is a problem is that - if true - it decimates the thesis of the early Christian community in Jerusalem that preached Christ crucified. The intent behind "καὶ οὐδενὶ οὐδὲν εἶπαν" ("did not say anything to anyone") in 16:8 is crystal clear: the annunciation did not reach the disciples. They do not understand and resist the idea of resurrection ever since Caesarea Philippi. They simply scatter in fulfilment of Jesus' prophecy (14:27). Peter did not even hear Jesus' saying he is going to "precede" them to Galilee that comes next. They did not "hear" the gospel (because they did not have faith), the women do not deliver the message to them, i.e. the news of resurrection finally arrives to them (or their disciples) only through Mark's writing. Any other "ending" of Mark argues with, and bastardizes the original plan of the narrative.

The fact of the matter is that Mark's text (even in the damaged form that reaches us) is an important historical witness that the coming together of the Paulines and Petrines, to borrow Baur's naming convention, did not happen until after the earliest canonical gospel was written. The "appearances" of Jesus post-mortem to disciples, date from Matthew, who in this wise sought (and succeeded in a spectacular fashion) to unseat Paul's supreme apostolic authority in the proto-Christian communities, and substitute it with the remake of the Mark's Twelve, headed by Peter. It was Matthew who de-gnosticized Mark.

Best,
Jiri

Solo wrote:

gmx wrote:My understanding is that most scholars who regard the LE as "forgery or fabrication" also regard it as a very early remedy to the problematic ending of GMark. Are there any other medieval witnesses to the short ending? My understanding is that orthodoxy resolved the issue many centuries earlier...

The only reason that I can think why the AE is a problem is that - if true - it decimates the thesis of the early Christian community in Jerusalem that preached Christ crucified.

The more I have considered the ending of Mark over the years, the more convinced I have become that the original ending has been lost to us, and that the abrupt ending is too abrupt to be the originally intended ending. And that judgment has nothing to do with anything you wrote in that sentence.

That "lost ending" is not lost to us if
IT'S JOHN 21! (Moat of it, the source under it.)