[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #695
b-greek-digest Friday, 5 May 1995 Volume 01 : Number 695
In this issue:
Learning Greek "Solo"
Re: Jesus' death
Re: Contra NIV
Re: Translations
Re: Translations
He or It (fwd)
Re: Learning Greek "Solo"
historical present
Re: Translations
Re: historical present
Re: Translations (fwd)
Re: Translations
Re: historical present
Re: Learning Greek "Solo"
Gender [was Translations]
Re: Translations
Re: Translations sexist terms
Secret Mark, Neusner, Smith, etc.
Interpreting Manuscripts Web
Re: Mark 6:1-6
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Timster132@aol.com
Date: Fri, 5 May 1995 03:23:47 -0400
Subject: Learning Greek "Solo"
TO: B-GREEK@VIRGINIA.EDU
ab392@rgfn.epcc.edu asked...
>>Hello,
>> I was wondering if since I am fairly a new
>>Christian, but want to learn Greek because it
>>was the New Testament's language, if these books can get me >>started on my
way to learning Greek.
>>Are they comprehensive enough, and do they help one
>>learn Greek?
>>Jim
>>##3
>>
Edgar Krentz, emkrentz@mcs.com, replied....
>No, these books do not teach New Testament Greek. They
>give help to a student who has completed a basic Greek
>course and wants to increase his vocabulary stock in
>New Testament Greek. You can best learn Greek by
>registering for a course at a college, university, or seminary.
I agree, learning Greek is best done in a group, and it is very important
to have a teacher who can help you learn fundamentals,
to help you avoid major mistakes in pronounciation (esp. dipthongs),
understanding grammar (e.g. functions of the genitive), etc. And there are
those questions that come up that an experienced Greek Prof will be able to
answer where someone working one his or her own could not. And you will
learn 10 times faster with a teacher than by yourself.
I did notice in the latest CBD catalog, _Introduction to NT Greek VIDEO
Series_ that has six lessons by a professor on video tape. It comes with a
grammar and flashcards. CBD price is $150. I have NOT seen it (...has
anyone on the List seen this?), so this isn't a recommendation, just an
observation of what's available and maybe worth checking into IF you cannot
find a Greek teacher. INHO, tho, you'd be getting a better deal even if you
spent twice as much on a Greek course at a seminar.
Tim Staker
------------------------------
From: Timster132@aol.com
Date: Fri, 5 May 1995 03:23:43 -0400
Subject: Re: Jesus' death
TO: B-Greek@virginia.edu
Mr. D. Graham said....
>The sources for Jesus life in India have been in public print in >Europe and
the Americas for over a century.
And sightings of Elvis have been reported widely in all the tabloids in
America. :)
I think we are looking for something with a little more historicity.
Tim Staker
------------------------------
From: Timster132@aol.com
Date: Fri, 5 May 1995 03:23:50 -0400
Subject: Re: Contra NIV
TO: WINBROW@AOL.COM
CC: b-greek@virginia.edu
FROM: TIMSTER132@AOL.COM
CARLTON WINBROW observed correctly....
>I am sure you did not intend to leave the impression that
>Gene Nida had anything to do with the NIV! He was for
>many years Director of Translation for the ABS and was a
>prime mover in the TEV.
Yes. I was just trying to acknowledge Nida's influence "across the board" on
the Dynamic Equivalency method/style of translation, and that the NIV was
influenced to some degree by the method directly and by Nida indirectly.
>The NIV came from the old NYBS that became the
>International Bib. Soc. You also had to sign a statement
>of faith to work on the NIV but not the TEV.
I was aware of the NYBS/IBS connection, but hadn't heard
that the translators had to consent to a theological litmus
test!! Wow. That is kind of un-nerving. (I would love to see
the statement itself). They may have been international in
scope as far as where their translators were from, but the NIV sponsors
definitely had certain parameters in mind as to how
their translation was going to come out. Mmmmm.
Tim Staker
------------------------------
From: Timster132@aol.com
Date: Fri, 5 May 1995 03:23:54 -0400
Subject: Re: Translations
TO: B-Greek@virginia.edu
CC: cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu
From: Timster132@aol.com
Carl Conrad said regarding the NRSV...
> As I indicate, I don't think this is really a political-correctness
>issue at all (am I in a tiny minority?) but of translations with
>integrity for pedagogical purposes.... {Portions deleted}....
>At this rate, people may be forced to learn
>Greek just in order to find out what the NT actually says!
Hi Carl. Sounds like you are ready to come out with a new version yourself
:)
Seriously, tho., isn't the meaning of ANQROPOI "human beings" (males
and/or females)? And doesn't ADELPHOI mean (or possibly mean) "Siblings" (bro
thers and/or sisters)?
And then there is the Genitive Plural of such words as these that
ambiguously represent either masc or fem (or neuter).
So, while I agree that it is pedagogically more helpful (=easier) to have
a single word in English (eg "Brothers") represent a single word in Greek
(ADELPHOI), I think a translation that is read from the lecturn ought to have
the flexibility to communicate an inclusive sense if it is present in the
Greek (as in "Brothers and sisters").
At least the NRSV didn't inclusiviify God. Metzger commented
on this, saying the NRSV was not going to bow down to "fads"
in theology.
For good or ill, study Bibles will use popular translations that come
out. There may even be a Scoffield edition of the NRSV some day! <<Shudder>>
I do agree that the RSV was more literal, and thus stilted. The NRSV does
flow better, esp. for public reading, altho it loses some of that
literalness. The NRSV is STILL more literal than the NIV. But I understand
your sentiment.
BTW, have you ever heard of the Concordant Version? I ran across it about
20 years ago. It translated every Greek word with one corresponding English
word. It was very slavish to the Greek text. Simply amazing! And totally
bizarre and unintelligible.
Take care.
Peace,
Tim Staker
------------------------------
From: "Schumacher DW(Don)" <ADWSNC4@osispec.com>
Date: Fri, 05 May 95 08:40:00 PDT
Subject: Re: Translations
On Thurs., May 4, Micheal W. Palmer wrote
>{deletion}I feel compelled to add that the RSV was unecessarily sexist
>in that it often includes the English word "man" where there is
>absolutely no ground for it in the Greek text.
{deletion}
>It should also be noted
>that there are many places where ANTHRWPOS is used in Greek, but without
>restricting the meaning to males. In such cases it is better translated
>by the English word "person" than "man" since *man* has (at least for the
>vast majority of my female students!) lost its once inclusive sense in
>English.
If "man" in English once had an inclusive sense (perhaps at the time of the
translation of the RSV), it would be rather unfair to accuse it of being
sexist, a loaded term which implies that "man" was used deliberately in
place of "person" to exclude any reference to women.
Obviously language changes with culture, and "man" has lost its inclusive
reference for many English speakers, thus I agree with the NRSV in
principle. I would also have to state, in my opinion, that it is
occasionally clumsy in its attempts to be inclusive. I would also agree
that it makes teaching from the English Bible difficult when it does not
reflect the Greek.
Don Schumacher
ADWSNC4@osispec.com
------------------------------
From: "James D. Ernest" <ernest@mv.mv.com>
Date: Fri, 5 May 1995 09:23:11 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: He or It (fwd)
I am posting this to the list at the request of the person who
sent it to me--who will read replies sent to the list but
cannot post to it directly.
If I may presume to adopt a high moral tone for a moment:
shame on anyone of us who has sent such unkind personal
replies to postings on this list as to make anyone reluctant
to post directly for fear of getting hate-mail in response.
The question follows my signature below.
I will add my own reply here: The word for "spirit" in Greek,
which is also the word for "wind" or "breath," is grammatically
neuter. This no more tells us that the Spirit is an "it" than
the fact that the Latin words for pirate and farmer were
grammatically feminine tells us that Roman pirates and farmers
were "she's".
Your second line of thought--namely, seeing what the Scripture
says the Spirit does, and then deciding whether those are the
functions of an "it" or of a person--is more promising. You
should expect to find some variety, however, depending on
where you look in Scripture, since revelation (as believers
in the inspiration of Scripture would say) or the development of
doctrine (as anyone could say) was progressive. The doctrine
of the Trinity, while grounded in Scripture, was not elaborated
and established until several centuries after the NT books were
written.
James
- -----------------------------------------------------------------
James D. Ernest Joint Doctoral Program
Manchester, New Hampshire, USA Andover-Newton/Boston College
Internet: ernest@mv.mv.com Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts
- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 5 May 1995 06:51:38 -0600
From: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To: ernest@mv.MV.COM
Subject: He or It
...
In the New World Translation vs the NASB/NIV the description
of the Holy Spirit is It vs HE.
I was hoping for the actual Greek articles that personify,
and masculinate the Spirit of God, and is there any
presidence for "IT" in the Greek.
Basically every use of the Holy Spirit is holy spirit
in the NWT because JWs believe that the Holy Spirit is
just an "active force".
Lastly the argument is simple...
If I can demonstrate that the Spirit of God has a Mind, will
and emotions then He is certainly a person(personality).
And if the orig Greek clearly describes the Holy Spirit as
"HE" then this would be one step closer to forming doubt
in their beliefs.
[signature deleted]
------------------------------
From: GGoolde@aol.com
Date: Fri, 5 May 1995 09:39:17 -0400
Subject: Re: Learning Greek "Solo"
I agree Greek is best learned in a class. But if you are unable to be in a
class I recommend a for-credit correspondence course by Moody Bible Institute
in Chicago. It uses taped lectures by Don Wise, the Summers text book which
I like for beginning Greek (it's 8 case). and is well put together for a
dedicated, disciplined student. I have personally gone through that course
and have sent a handful of students through it also with good results.
George
------------------------------
From: Mari Olsen <molsen@astrid.ling.nwu.edu>
Date: Fri, 5 May 1995 08:41:33 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: historical present
> I think the NASB indicates the historical present routinely in its
text.
Right--via an asterisk next to a past form. I'd like to see it AS a
historical present. It's doubtful whether the 'ordinary' reader even
checks (or remembers when s/he does) what the asterisk stands for.
By the way, I noticed the historical present on CNN last night,
routinely (e.g. "survivors gather by the rubble of the federal office
building..."). Certainly not colloquial or lower class, CNN ;-)
Mari Broman Olsen
Northwestern University
Department of Linguistics
2016 Sheridan Road
Evanston, IL 60208
molsen@astrid.ling.nwu.edu
molsen@babel.ling.nwu.edu
------------------------------
From: Tom Blake <tblake@bingsuns.cc.binghamton.edu>
Date: Fri, 5 May 1995 11:26:27 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Translations
On Fri, 5 May 1995, Schumacher DW(Don) wrote:
> If "man" in English once had an inclusive sense (perhaps at the time of the
> translation of the RSV), it would be rather unfair to accuse it of being
> sexist, a loaded term which implies that "man" was used deliberately in
> place of "person" to exclude any reference to women.
A little time spent with an OED can be quite educational in this matter.
As I recall, in olden days, man meant basically person. There were
prefixes used to describe the sex of the man in question.
wifman - A female man
werman - A male man (not to be confused with a mailman.)
Wifman obviously is wife-man, but at that time, no differentiation was
made between married and unmarried women. With time, the "f" went away,
and the i became an "o", under the influence of the "w" "wu", (however,
the plural form of the word, still retains the "i-sound".)
Werman has been largely lost over time, although the "wer" may still be
found in "werewolf" (a man-wolf). As time went on, man changed meaning,
gaining more and more of a gender-bias. However, when I went to grade
school (I started kindergarten in '67), I was taught that "Man" only meant
"male person" in context. (All people are men, but sometimes we specify
that one or more are women.)
The English language I was taught was structured around the (if you will)
"neutered man" ;-). It seems to me that it is only in the last decades
that we have decided that "man" exclusively means "male", and as a result
we have gone about systematically trying to root out the syllables "man"
and "men". Personally, I would prefer to re-institute "wer", but I realize
that languages evolve under the influence of their users.
Tom Blake
------------------------------
From: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Fri, 5 May 1995 10:41:42 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: historical present
On Fri, 5 May 1995, Mari Olsen wrote:
> > I think the NASB indicates the historical present routinely in its
> text.
>
> Right--via an asterisk next to a past form. I'd like to see it AS a
> historical present. It's doubtful whether the 'ordinary' reader even
> checks (or remembers when s/he does) what the asterisk stands for.
>
> By the way, I noticed the historical present on CNN last night,
> routinely (e.g. "survivors gather by the rubble of the federal office
> building..."). Certainly not colloquial or lower class, CNN ;-)
I may have mentioned this before (perhaps not on the list?) but it's
worth noting, I think, that the Jesus Seminar version consistently
translates Mark's historical presents in the English present tense. This
may not be a version fit for liturgical use, but I think it nicely
represents the flavor of the Greek--if we are allowed to say that Greek
speaks in flavors! ;-)
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO 63130, USA
(314) 935-4018
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwc@oui.com
------------------------------
From: "Rex A. Koivisto" <rexk@teleport.com>
Date: Fri, 5 May 1995 08:44:17 -0700
Subject: Re: Translations (fwd)
>I wonder if there are any places where it is clear that the Greek text
>refers exclusively to males, yet the NRSV has rendered an inclusive
>translation. Do any of you know of one? (Notice that I am not denying
>that they exist. I'm simply saying that I am ignorant of them.)
>
>Micheal W. Palmer
>Mellon Research Fellow
>Department of Linguistics
>University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Micheal:
While generally favorable to the NRSV's removal of unnecessarily
sexist language, one place where it seems to me to be referring
specifically to males and where it is wrongly neutralized is actually in
the OT rather than the NT. I am referring to the use of "my child" in
Proverbs rather than "my son." It certainly appears to me that the Wise
Man is instructing his male child in wisdom rather than all of his children
(male and female) in view of the warning about responding to sexually loose
women in chapter 7. And, in a patriarchal society, I would expect that
training one's male children in these things was the actual practice. Am I
wrong here?
Rex Koivisto
*********************************************
Rex A. Koivisto Email: rexk@teleport.com
Dept. of Bible and Theology Voice: 503/255-0332x415
Multnomah Bible College, Portland, OR FAX: 503/254-1268
*********************************************
------------------------------
From: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Fri, 5 May 1995 10:50:58 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Translations
I am omitting the text I'm responding to for reasons of length.
But to continue with the background of the use of "man" originally as
"person" and attaching it to terms to produce an agent noun, as
"husbandman," "handyman," and the like, I was quite surprised just a
couple years ago, upon looking up the etymology of the word, that "man"
derives from the Indo-European word for "hand." If Latin "manus" is any
guide, the word was FEMININE, of all things. It is seen in some of our
colloquial expressions, "an extra hand," a "hired hand," and the like. Of
course all this is irrelevant to the discussion of inclusive language,
except as a footnote.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO 63130, USA
(314) 935-4018
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwc@oui.com
------------------------------
From: "Rex A. Koivisto" <rexk@teleport.com>
Date: Fri, 5 May 1995 08:51:44 -0700
Subject: Re: historical present
>
>By the way, I noticed the historical present on CNN last night,
>routinely (e.g. "survivors gather by the rubble of the federal office
>building..."). Certainly not colloquial or lower class, CNN ;-)
>
>Mari Broman Olsen
>Northwestern University
>Department of Linguistics
>2016 Sheridan Road
>Evanston, IL 60208
>
>molsen@astrid.ling.nwu.edu
>molsen@babel.ling.nwu.edu
Ah, Mari, but CNN brings the past to the present as it uses this language
via video tape, does it not? ;-).
I still think the English historical present used in printed literature
such as the NT would confuse the English reader into wondering what was
going on. And an explanatory footnote might help, but I am not convinced
they are equivalent in English as they are in Greek.
Rex K.
*********************************************
Rex A. Koivisto Email: rexk@teleport.com
Dept. of Bible and Theology Voice: 503/255-0332x415
Multnomah Bible College, Portland, OR FAX: 503/254-1268
*********************************************
------------------------------
From: Dennis Williams <1286@mn.lawson.lawson.com>
Date: Fri, 05 May 95 10:06:00 CDT
Subject: Re: Learning Greek "Solo"
ab392@rgfn.epcc.edu asked...
>>Hello,
>> I was wondering if since I am fairly a new
>>Christian, but want to learn Greek because it
>>was the New Testament's language, if these books can get me >>started on
my
way to learning Greek.
>>Are they comprehensive enough, and do they help one
>>learn Greek?
>>Jim
>>##3
>>
Edgar Krentz, emkrentz@mcs.com, replied....
>No, these books do not teach New Testament Greek. They
>give help to a student who has completed a basic Greek
>course and wants to increase his vocabulary stock in
>New Testament Greek. You can best learn Greek by
>registering for a course at a college, university, or seminary.
I very much agree with the comments so far. If you just want to get a feel
for Greek, without a large investment, or do not have access to a class,
try:
Basic Greek in 30 Minutes a Day (New Testament Greek for Laymen)
by Jim Found
published by Bethany House Publishers
My copy was $11.95. If your Christian bookstore can't order it, you might
write to Bethany
at 6820 Auto Club Road, Minneapolis, MN 55438
------------------------------
From: Nichael Lynn Cramer <nichael@sover.net>
Date: Fri, 5 May 1995 13:44:49 -0400
Subject: Gender [was Translations]
At 10:50 AM 05/05/95 -0500, Carl W Conrad wrote:
> ... I was quite surprised just a
>couple years ago, upon looking up the etymology of the word, that "man"
>derives from the Indo-European word for "hand." If Latin "manus" is any
>guide, the word was FEMININE, of all things.
If you'll forgive a amateur's linguistic but non-strictly-Greek question:
Something I've often wondered, how universal (presumably among IE
languages) is the practice of associating --at least at the level of
terminology-- grammatical gender with sexual gender?
That is to say, a language that had more than one gender, could quite
validly call one "black" and one "white", or "up"/"down" or <insert your
favorite contrasting pair here>. Do all languages follow this convention?
Or is such "confusion" as in the example above (i.e. "man" ==> "feminine")
peculiar to English and nearby languages?
Nichael __
nichael@sover.net Be as passers-by -- IC
Paradise Farm
Brattleboro VT
------------------------------
From: Nichael Lynn Cramer <nichael@sover.net>
Date: Fri, 5 May 1995 13:44:34 -0400
Subject: Re: Translations
At 11:26 AM 05/05/95 -0400, Tom Blake wrote:
>Wifman obviously is wife-man, but at that time, no differentiation was
>made between married and unmarried women.
OTOH, as it was explained to us (lo, these many semesters ago...) was that
a girl remained a girl until she took a husband --i.e. until she became the
wife-of-a-man. So, rather than being a neutral term. it actively _defined_
woman-hood in terms of her relationship to a man.
>Werman has been largely lost over time, although the "wer" may still be
>found in "werewolf" (a man-wolf)...
Moreover, cognate with the latinate "vir" ("virile", "virtuous", etc.)
Nichael __
nichael@sover.net Be as passers-by -- IC
Paradise Farm
Brattleboro VT
------------------------------
From: WINBROW@aol.com
Date: Fri, 5 May 1995 13:45:43 -0400
Subject: Re: Translations sexist terms
Michael,
I have checked quite a few places where the NRSV might have used inclusive
language when the original referred to only to males, but I have not yet
found an instance of such use. They were evidently very careful in that
regard.
Carlton Winbery
LA College Rel. Dept.
------------------------------
From: Paul Moser <PMOSER@cpua.it.luc.edu>
Date: Fri, 05 May 95 13:32 CDT
Subject: Secret Mark, Neusner, Smith, etc.
I wonder if any listmember knows of a careful review of
Jacob Neusner, *Are There Really Tannaitic Parallels to
the Gospels?* (Scholars Press, 1993). The book is a
vigorous criticism of Morton Smith's *Tannaitic Parallels
to the Gospels*. In addition, Neusner announces that Smith's
proposed evidence for the so-called Secret Gospel of Mark
"must now be declared the forgery of the century" (p. 28).
Neusner suggests that Smith himself forged the Clement
of Alexandria fragment that allegedly surfaced in a library
in Sinai in 1958, giving evidence of the Secret Gospel. As
one might have expected, Helmut Koester and J.D. Crossan
regard canonical Mark as postdating Secret Mark. For
overwhelming evidence against the latter view, see
Robert Gundry, *Mark* (Eerdmans, 1993); cf. F.F. Bruce,
*The Canon of Scripture*, and J.H. Charlesworth &
C.A. Evans, in *Studying the Historical Jesus* (Brill,
1994), pp. 526-32. Neusner, in any case, clearly has
higher standards for authenticity than Koester or
Crossan. Neusner suggests that Smith presented only
photographs, not the actual MS, of the Clement fragment.--
Paul Moser, Loyola University of Chicago.
------------------------------
From: Tim Seid <timseid@brownvm.brown.edu>
Date: 5 May 1995 18:49:19 GMT
Subject: Interpreting Manuscripts Web
WORLD WIDE WEB ANNOUNCEMENT
(cross posted)
My Interpreting Ancient Manuscripts material -- formerly available in
HyperCard -- has been adapted and revised for the World Wide Web. The URL
is
http://www.stg.brown.edu/projects/mss/overview.html
I have tried to cover the basic, introductory material regarding
paleography and textual criticism with an example of the latter (following
Finegan's example) and a simulated exercise in English.
The goal is for students in Intro. to New Testament courses to be able to
get a feel for what is involved in getting from the ancient manuscripts to
the modern critical text. This also is a good foundation for students to
continue study by reading Metzger, Aland, Finegan, etc.
Almost everything was done from b&w low resolution scans years ago. If you
know where I can get access to this material in full blazing color to scan,
please let me know.
I would also appreciate any information on how this material has been used
for classes. I will be presenting a paper on the project at the
International Medieval Congress in July so I would appreciate evaluative
information.
This project has taken a lot of work -- my reward is your feedback.
Tim Seid
Timothy_Seid@Brown.edu
- --
Timothy W. Seid HOME: WORK:
Graduate Student 74 Clyde St. DTP Asst.
Dept. of Religious Studies West Warwick, RI Kinko's of RI
Brown University 02893-3525 Warwick, RI
Providence, RI 02912 (401)828-5485 (401) 826-0808
------------------------------
From: Stephen Carlson <scc@reston.icl.com>
Date: Fri, 5 May 95 14:35:41 EDT
Subject: Re: Mark 6:1-6
SMurray417@aol.com wrote:
>I could possibly use this groups help in attempting to do a microstudy of
>this particular pericope. I feel like the statement in verse 4 may have been
>from a sayings or possibly just a common proverb-type statement, but cannot
>find the basis of the rest of this particular text. I would sure appreciate
>any help related to this little section dealing with Jesus' rejection at his
>hometown as to where the rest of this story might have come from. Thanks in
>advance to anyone who wishes to respond.
I haven't seen anyone respond in a couple days, so I'll give it a shot.
I. Content
Mk6:1-6 is paralleled fairly closely with Mt13:54-58, and much less closely
with Lk4:16-30. In fact, the Lukan parallel is so different that only
vv16,22,24 have any contact in content with Mark and Matthew. And in terms
of wording, only Lk4:24 is verbally close to Mk6:4=Mt13:57 as well. So,
unless one wishes to grant Luke considerable freedom in rewriting Mark
(or Matthew, depending on your synoptic theory), it really looks like Luke
has another source.
II. Context/Order
The Lukan pericope is in a different context as well. Luke places this
event early in Jesus' ministry in the same place in the gospel where
Mark and Matthew tell the call of the apostles (Mt4:12-20=Mk1:14-18),
which Luke puts it at Lk5:1-11.
It's not easy to determine whether this pericope is in or out of
sequence for Mark and Matthew relative to each other. If you follow
Markan priority, then this is found right after where Matthew must
have moved a chuck of material Mk4:35-5:43 into Mt8:23-34 & 9:18-26,
and replaced it with a lot of "M" material (Mt13:36-52). And that is
just the content before Mark's pericope. Matthew also moved the next
Markan pericope (Mission of the Twelve, Mk6:7-13) to chapter 10, before
the sequence really begins to settle down again.
For the less accepted synoptic theories, the explanation for the
ordering seems less forced if one accepts Matthean priority. In the
Augustinian theory, it looks like Mark condensed Matthew's teaching in
Mt13 (cf. Mk4:2 EDIDASKEN "he taught", an editorial remark?), and
concentrated material in Matthew 8 & 9 right around the rejection at
Nazareth.
In Farmer-Griesbach, where Mark is based on both Matthew and Luke, it
looks like a place Mark where switched from following Luke 8 to Matthew
14. Therefore, since Mark is following Matthew for this pericope, it
is not surprising that Mark's wording matches Matthew more closely than
Luke.
III. Wording
As I said earlier, the only verse were Luke even comes close in wording
is Mt13:57=Mk6:4=Lk4:24. A synopsis will help:
Mt13:57 ... (O DE IHSOUS EIPEN AUTOIS
Mk 6: 4 KAI ELEGEN AUTOIS (O IHSOUS (OTI
Lk 4:24 EIPEN DE AMHN LEGW (UMIN (OTI
Mt13 OUK ESTIN PROFHTHS ATIMOS EI MH EN THi PATRIDI
Mk 6 OUK ESTIN PROFHTHS ATIMOS EI MH EN THi PATRIDI AUTOU
Lk 4 OUDEIS PROFHTHS DEKTOS ESTIN EN THi PATRIDI AUTOU
Mt13 KAI EN THi OIKIA AUTOU
Mk 6 KAI EN TOIS SUGGENEUSIN AUTOU KAI EN THi OIKIA AUTOU
Lk 4
Luke's use of AMHN LEGW is very curious. Could this indicate the use of
of Q? I'm not so sure. Luke uses AMHN LEGW very sparingly indeed. In
fact, of the five Luke times uses it: 3 of them have Markan parallels
(Lk18:17=Mk10:15=Mt18:3 Lk18:29=Mk10:29=Mt19:28a Lk21:32=Mk12:30=Mt24:34);
once in the Double Tradition (Lk12:37=Mt24:47); and this case here. But
Matthew uses it 27 times and Mark a dozen times. Moreover, the Lukan
pericope contains much additional matter, a lot of it is narrative in
character, which does not suggest Q at all. Given Matthew's alleged
habit of conflating Q and Mark, the almost complete lack of minor
anti-Markan agreements argue against Q being a source.
IV. Conclusion
As far as Luke is concerned, given the great differences in content (3
verses out of fifteen), context, and wording, it is best to conclude
that Luke betrays no literary dependence on either Matthew or Mark. It
really does look like Luke is following his own source here, whether it
is oral or written. That is source is more likely to belong to "L"
rather than Q. To the extent that Luke is directly dependent on either
Mark or Matthew or both, Luke chose his version over theirs.
As far as Matthew and Mark is concerned, there is a strong case for a
literary dependence. The content is substantially similar; they are
found in roughly the same sequence; and the wording is very similar.
Which one is prior is a difficult question, but the majority of
scholars favor Mark.
Therefore, although it appears that there are two separate Synoptic
sources for the saying, the direct source for Mk6:4 appears to be no
different than the source for the most of the rest of Mark. The
ultimate source, of the course, is the mouth of Jesus, and I would
argue that this saying ought to be raised from its Jesus Seminar "pink
letter" status to "red letter" according to their own methodology,
being attested in Thomas, John, Mark, *and* Luke.
Stephen Carlson
- --
Stephen Carlson : Poetry speaks of aspirations, : ICL, Inc.
scc@reston.icl.com : and songs chant the words. : 11490 Commerce Park Dr.
(703) 648-3330 : Shujing 2:35 : Reston, VA 22091 USA
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #695
*****************************
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
To unsubscribe from this list write
majordomo@virginia.edu
with "unsubscribe b-greek-digest" as your message content. For other
automated services write to the above address with the message content
"help".
For further information, you can write the owner of the list at
owner-b-greek@virginia.edu
You can send mail to the entire list via the address:
b-greek@virginia.edu