no sign?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
moses
Posts: 60
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2017 1:34 am

no sign?

Post by moses »

is marks use of conditional wording evidence that really no sign was given and mark ended the way it did because no sign was given?
moses
Posts: 60
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2017 1:34 am

Re: no sign?

Post by moses »

Image
Paul the Uncertain
Posts: 994
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:25 am
Contact:

Re: no sign?

Post by Paul the Uncertain »

While the denial interpretation is common in English translations of gMark (no sign will be given), all that is on the page is an ellipsis (without the modern punctuation). "If you don't clean your room, ..." What might happen is left to the hearer's imagination.

Yes, the suggestion is "something negative," but this is not necessarily a curse, much less a curse on the speaker. The ellipsis is an expressive act in itself. It may convey exasperation: "I have told you so many times to clean your room that I am not going to waste my breath asking you again, but know that I am dissatisfied with your performance."

In that interpretation (itself not a unique alternative to a "silent imprecation"), I would be communicating a present-tense situation (my dissatisfaction being so keenly felt as to render me literally speechless), and not a prediction of the future at all. (Even if there is a veiled invitation for the listener to reflect on what might happen if my dissatisfaction persists.)

The context in gMark is that Jesus has just fed thousands for the second time. There's a lot of comedy in gMark, and the incongruously timed request may elicit a chuckle at the Pharisees' cluelessness. While I appreciate the dramatic potential of Jesus's sigh as a possible magical practice, sighing is also something that many people spontaneously do when they are exasperated. It is a physical action that can reinforce the words that follow.

Impatience is an appropriate response in and of itself to a stupid ill-intended request from mortal enemies. Plus, Jesus's emotional state here establishes a "baseline" of exasperation for the action which immediately follows to build upon. His dim-bulb disciples interpret his remark about the yeast of the Pharisees as referring to how little bread they've got. Jesus is surrounded by morons, foe and friend alike.

I don't think it's controversial that Matthew tweaked and revised what he received from gMark and then passed on. "Contradictions" will predictably abound between different versions of the "same" story, especially intentionally different versions. However, since I rarely engage with literalists, I have no comment about the rhetorical importance of the difference between Mark's and Matthew's versions of this pericope when debating those who would try to harmonize them at any cost.
Post Reply