Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

JoeWallack wrote: ↑Sat Oct 03, 2020 1:46 pm

Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Sat Oct 03, 2020 1:23 pm I see your double negative and raise you a triple negative:

Mark 5.3b: 3b καὶ οὐδὲ ἁλύσει οὐκέτι οὐδεὶς ἐδύνατο αὐτὸν δῆσαι. / 3b And no one was able to bind him anymore, not even with a chain.

JW:
Ben, it's generally thought that double negatives of the time were an acceptable idiom but wouldn't it more likely have been thought of as bad grammar?

The short answer is no; a double negative (or, better: an accumulation of negatives) is/was not considered bad grammar in ancient Greek. (Nor are they considered bad grammar in modern Spanish, which made the adjustment easier while I was learning Greek. "No tengo nada" = literally "I don't have nothing" = "I don't have anything" in good English.)

The long answer involves the two different kinds of negatives in Greek (οὐ versus μή), whether the negative is simple or compound (οὐ versus οὐδείς or μή versus μηδείς), and whether the negatives fall in the same clause or not. It is possible in Greek for two negatives to yield a positive, but they have to fall together in a certain way, across those three categories; and, to be frank, I do not have all of those rules memorized. If the situation were complicated, and if context did not clarify, I would have to look the rules up while translating. Fortunately, most of the time the situation is clear, and the accumulation of negatives simply produces a negative.

Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Fri Oct 02, 2020 11:36 am There is something to bear in mind with arguments based on an author's purported tendency to double things up. Take this doubling, for example:

Okay, so Mark 10.46-52 and Luke 18.35-43 each have only one blind man, named Bartimaeus, who is healed in this episode. Well, a Matthean desire to double things up would explain why Matthew has two blind men; but what would explain the floral Hawaiian shirt that the second blind man is wearing?

Interestingly, you're incorrect.
Mark has Bartimaeus, Luke has an anonymous blind man.
And that's not all, far from it

Mark 10:46 Then they came to Jericho. As Jesus and his disciples, together with a large crowd, were leaving the city, a blind man, Bartimaeus (which means "son of Timaeus"), was sitting by the roadside begging.

They come to Jericho, and leave the city - let's not dwell on that very odd piece of "information" - and there's uncle Bart, squatting on the shoulder

Luke 18:35 As Jesus approached Jericho, a blind man was sitting by the roadside begging.

They come to Jericho, and there's an anonymous blind man

Now, both stories are odd, of course, with the crowd coming from nowhere. Mark is full of details as usual, that are not being utilised in any way, as usual. Luke is treating Mark carelessly, as usual, leaving out the details that don't pertain to the core - and all that also as usual.
So, perhaps Matthew thought to himself "Sod it" and ended up with

Matthew 20:29-30 As Jesus and his disciples were leaving Jericho, a large crowd followed him. Two blind men were sitting by the roadside, and when they heard that Jesus was going by, they shouted, "Lord, Son of David, have mercy on us!"

Matthew has to pick either entering or leaving, if he read Luke. And naturally he has to fix either and explicitly state "when they heard". As much as I loathe Matthew's material and core thought, he shows a really phenomenal attention to detail that is consistent throughout, taking away most confusion and imperfections, in generally rendering the gospel toddler-proof - which is quite an achievement, given the remarkably contradictory inconsistencies that Mark left

mlinssen wrote: ↑Sun Oct 04, 2020 12:43 am

Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Fri Oct 02, 2020 11:36 amInterestingly, you're incorrect.
Mark has Bartimaeus, Luke has an anonymous blind man.

Yes, thanks, I phrased that incorrectly. Only Mark specifies Bartimaeus as his name.

mlinssen wrote: ↑Sun Oct 04, 2020 12:43 amThey come to Jericho, and leave the city - let's not dwell on that very odd piece of "information" ....

I once dwelt on that very odd piece of information for quite some time, and eventually came up with a conjecture that I believe to be completely original to me (for better or worse).

Look at how Levi is called in Mark:


He is teaching, and the multitudes are coming to him; what exactly is he "passing by?" If he is supposed to be teaching on the move, that notion is not clear. The transition is abrupt.

Now look at how Jesus goes through Jericho:


Nothing happens there? There is nothing quite like this in the rest of the gospel.

So there is nothing to pass by in Mark 2.14, and nothing to do in Jericho in Mark 10.46.

But what happens if we move the call of Levi away from Capernaum (which would have little need for a bunch of tax collectors) and into Jericho (which would have been simply teeming with tax collectors because of its lively balsam trade)?


Also, contextually it is clear now that this is Levi's house (whereas in the story's position in Mark 2 it is unclear), since Jesus is on the road and not in his hometown; the author flippantly referring to "his house" without specifically letting the reader know which house is in view is thus more understandable. Furthermore, the theme of following Jesus in the Levi story lines up with the theme of following Jesus in the Bartimaeus story immediately after Jericho. Jesus' words about "those who are sick" made sense in Mark 2 after the healing of the paralytic (2.1-12), but they also make sense here right before the healing of blind Bartimaeus.

I am not committed to the idea in any special way, and it is very conjectural, of course, but I do like the synchronicities which result and the difficulties which are assuaged when the move is made; and I have a lot more written up about it and related issues surrounding Matthew, Levi, and Zacchaeus in a thread from a couple of years ago.

Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Sun Oct 04, 2020 6:47 am

mlinssen wrote: ↑Sun Oct 04, 2020 12:43 amThey come to Jericho, and leave the city - let's not dwell on that very odd piece of "information" ....

A very interesting move! And indeed, the tax collectors have very little business in a wee little town. But ...

Mark 2:17 And hearing this, Jesus said to them, “It is not those who are healthy who need a physician, but those who are sick; I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”

This typically is a comment that has to be made in your hometown, or rather


Yes, him again.
Village? ϯⲙⲉ, https://coptic-dictionary.org/entry.cgi?tla=C4290 - village indeed. But the content of Thomas is clear: this is about your home village, with the physician healing people who know him, even though that particular word is not in Thomas.
The marvelous healing of the sick, hidden for all those decades under a consistently corrupt interpretation by ALL translators, including Michael Grondin... who just followed the lead of the leaders, by the way

So. Mark 2 starts in his home, and indeed him going out by the sea, the crowd meeting him, and then he sees someone by the roadside... it is awkward, but then much of Mark is

Yet chapter 2 ends there, it breaks there; it continues with the fasting and praying stuff, yet another pretext for yet another few Thomasine copies. But the scene with the tax collectors still is near his home town although it couldn't be any further

Thank you Ben, a very interesting relocation. It has my vote for sure, or at least reasonable doubt about its usual location