[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #730
b-greek-digest Thursday, 1 June 1995 Volume 01 : Number 730
In this issue:
Mark's Ending (was Mark 16:8)
Re: Translation, paraphrase, and dynamic equivalence
Re: Mark's Ending (was Mark 16:8)
Re: Mark's Ending
Re: Mark 16:8
Re: Mark 16:8
Re: Mark 16:8
Re: Mark 16:8
Ending of Mark
Re: Mark 16:8
Re: Mark 16:8
Re: Let's make a critical apparatus
Re: Mark 16:8
Re: Mark's Ending (was Mark 16:8)
Mark's ending
Re: Mark's ending
Mark 16:8
Re: Translation, paraphrase, and dynamic equivalence
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: David Last <D.Last@mmu.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 1995 11:00:41 GMT
Subject: Mark's Ending (was Mark 16:8)
[ I've changed the subject of this email so as to separate it from ]
[ Larry Hurtado's desire for discussion on the grammatical point. ]
Couldn't one of the points of ending at 16:8 be that it leaves
Jesus' disciples at exactly the same point as the reader? We are all
left with the promise of his reappearance and we have to take him at
his word. Mark has taken 16 chapters to reveal who Jesus is. Now
the call is to faith in an unseen Lord BUT who will ultimately
reappear.
David Last
Manchester, UK.
------------------------------
From: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 1995 06:06:52 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Translation, paraphrase, and dynamic equivalence
Micheal: I very much like your simplified and useful--I dare say
PRACTICAL--definitions of these terms. Dynamic equivalence in terms of
your definition is exactly what I endeavor to get my students in Greek
and Latin to do. In fact, at the intermediate level and above I ask my
students to do two versions: one showing through retention of formal
structural elements to the extent permissible in English that they
understand how the original text WORKS, a second one showing that they
have understood the CONTENT and endeavored to restate that in the best
English they can muster.
It seems to me that much of this discussion of these terms, with its
fine-tuning of the definitions of alternative practices, has only served
to make absolutely obvious that there can be no real translation at all
(unless it be at the concrete specific level of, e.g., "Give me some
water to drink.") that does not lose something from the original and
create, in the target language, something more than the original intended.
Incidentally, I think that this is also exactly what happened in the
carrying of the gospel from a Hellenistic Jewish environment to a
Hellenistic Gentile environment, and that this has a lot to do with the
conflicts within the church in the first century, insofar as we can see
them mirrored in Paul's letters, smoothed over somewhat in Acts and in
the gospels, and continuing on in the second and third centuries.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO, USA 63130
(314) 935-4018
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwc@oui.com
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
------------------------------
From: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 1995 06:18:11 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Mark's Ending (was Mark 16:8)
I like that and, for what it's worth, concur 100%. I've even thought
that the pointers to Galileee might be a Marcan literary device to tell
the reader to go back to the beginning of the gospel and read it anew in
the light of the news of the resurrection.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO, USA 63130
(314) 935-4018
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwc@oui.com
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
------------------------------
From: David Last <D.Last@mmu.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 1995 12:50:02 GMT
Subject: Re: Mark's Ending
Carl Conrad wrote:
> I like that and, for what it's worth, concur 100%. I've even thought
> that the pointers to Galileee might be a Marcan literary device to tell
> the reader to go back to the beginning of the gospel and read it anew in
> the light of the news of the resurrection.
Hmmm, interesting. I wonder if rather (or as well) the pointers are
the final correction to the misunderstanding of Jesus' followers. The
women came looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified: they
were expecting to find just a man, and a dead one at that! And the
link to Galilee takes us back to the start of Mark (1:9) and to the
baptism of Jesus: heaven opened; the dove descending; the voice
saying "You are my Son".
David Last
Manchester, UK.
------------------------------
From: "Larry W. Hurtado" <hurtado@cc.umanitoba.ca>
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 1995 09:38:43 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Mark 16:8
On Wed, 31 May 1995, Kenneth Litwak wrote:
> If mark ends at 16:8,
> then it lacks a resurrection. Some unknown individual, whom some deny
> is an angel (why I don't know) announces the resurrection but that's
> all. We don't know who he is or why we should believe him. And that's
> it. No risen Jesus. No validation of Jesus' message (no resurrection,
> why believe anything Jesus or Mark has to say theologically, no reason
> to remain/become a follower of Jesus). Furthermore, there's no
> commissioning really in Mark under this scenario. The disciples can
> just as easily go back to what they were doing as remain in Jerusalem to
> await the giving of the Holy Spirit. It's like ending the movie
> Star Wars with the Rebels attacking the Death Star but never showing if
> they are successful or not. That's okay in a weekly serial television
> show, but Mark doesn't end with a "To be continued". This is it:
> a dead Jesus, frightened women, failed disciples, and some unknown
> person who says Jesus is risen. That doesn't call _me_ to
> decision. It calls me to _derision_ of whomever would think that such
> a story would sway me at all. I do feel Gundry has a strong case,
> apart from my own "gut feeling", but that's another subject.
With some adjustments for modern refs. above, Ken has helpfully
illustrated how some early Christians may have felt about Mark, with
adjustments also for varying levels of intensity. Thus (if commonly
accepted Synoptic theory is correct), even with Mark the authors of Matt
& Luke felt it necessary to produce their works. Thus, at least 4
endings for Mark were produced to "supplement" or "complete" it beyond
16:8.
But, N.B., the earliest and best mss. (from a text-critical
viewpoint) support the ending at 16:8, at the least indicating that some
Christians were prepared to deal with Mark 16:8 as the ending. (But does
the abrupt ending at 16:8 help explain the epithet attached to the author
in early trad. = "stumpfinger" "Kolobodaktylos"?? BTW, on the traditions
about the author, see now the excellent study by C. C. Black, _Mark:
Images of an Apostolic Interpreter_ [Univ. of South Carolina Press, 1994]).
I suggest that a careful reading of Mark (the kind that ancient
Christians would have given the book), will justify *much* more sanguine
views than Ken broadside above. As I've written a commentary length
study myself, I won't take up bandspace here to try to deal with the
material. I will, however, point out that on the basis of several
dominical predictions and the announcement of the neaniskos at the tomb
("neaniskos" is a term used in ancient Jewish sources for angelic
messengers, BTW, but there is also an allusion/contrast to the neaniskos
who flees in 14:51 [see the scribal flights taken at this verse
shown in the textual apparatus!!]), and, most importantly, the early
kerygma, which the Christian reades would certainly have known--all this
means that Mark *has* to be seen as affirming Jesus' resurrection, Ken,
with or without anything beyond 16:8. (Too-clever-by-half assertions by,
inter alia, Kelber, Koester, Weeden, etc., tell us little about Mark but
perhaps something about . . . well, other things.)
Larry Hurtado, Religion, Univ. of Manitoba
------------------------------
From: Kenneth Litwak <kenneth@sybase.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 95 09:39:13 PDT
Subject: Re: Mark 16:8
Dear Larry,
Thanks for your additional input on this topic. I would point out
something, however, regarding the dominical predictions about a
resurrection. Since Mark, if he originally stopped at 16:8, says nothing
about the nature of the Resurrection, no bodily appearances or validation,
then if I had just the Gospel of Mark, there's no difference between
arguing for a bodily resurrection that really happened and arguing for
Jesus rising in the Kerygma, a la Bultmann. The reason is that without
anything but dominical predictions, and the announcement of the
neaniskos, "rise again" could mean anything. So I would still argue that
Mark leaves us clueless about the Resurrection, and leaves us without
any validation of the message of Jesus. That, in my judgment, is what
the post-resurrection appearances serve to do in the other Gospels.
They say "Jesus claimed a lot of stuff about himself. Here's proof that
it's true, becuase Jesus, unlike 100% of everyone else, rose from the
dead." Mark has nothing comparable. Furthermore, that means that
Mark would have been writing for just one specific set of people, and
never intended his Gospel to be read by anyone else, since he couldn't
assume anyone else would know what his original audience did. Should
I remove Mark from my Bible, as I have no idea what Mark thought his
audience knew, or what he might have meant by resurrection? That's
not a rhetorical question. If we take interpreting the NT seriously,
but an author has made it 100% impossible to have any idea what he is
talking about, then that makes exegesis a fairly useless exercise.
Ken Litwak
Emeryville, CA
------------------------------
From: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 1995 12:27:17 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Mark 16:8
On Thu, 1 Jun 1995, Kenneth Litwak wrote:
> Dear Larry,
>
> Thanks for your additional input on this topic. I would point out
> something, however, regarding the dominical predictions about a
> resurrection. Since Mark, if he originally stopped at 16:8, says nothing
> about the nature of the Resurrection, no bodily appearances or validation,
> then if I had just the Gospel of Mark, there's no difference between
> arguing for a bodily resurrection that really happened and arguing for
> Jesus rising in the Kerygma, a la Bultmann. The reason is that without
> anything but dominical predictions, and the announcement of the
> neaniskos, "rise again" could mean anything. So I would still argue that
> Mark leaves us clueless about the Resurrection, and leaves us without
> any validation of the message of Jesus. That, in my judgment, is what
> the post-resurrection appearances serve to do in the other Gospels.
> They say "Jesus claimed a lot of stuff about himself. Here's proof that
> it's true, becuase Jesus, unlike 100% of everyone else, rose from the
> dead." Mark has nothing comparable. Furthermore, that means that
> Mark would have been writing for just one specific set of people, and
> never intended his Gospel to be read by anyone else, since he couldn't
> assume anyone else would know what his original audience did. Should
> I remove Mark from my Bible, as I have no idea what Mark thought his
> audience knew, or what he might have meant by resurrection? That's
> not a rhetorical question. If we take interpreting the NT seriously,
> but an author has made it 100% impossible to have any idea what he is
> talking about, then that makes exegesis a fairly useless exercise.
Inasmuch as Ken expressed briefly much the same concerns in an earlier
note to me off the list, I thought it might not be inappropriate to share
part of my response to him with the list.
forwarded message
- -------------------------------------------
OK, Ken, now I see your point. It's a "bodily" resurrection that you want
some sort of testimony to ...
My understanding of the early traditions is that Jesus was raised into an
"age-to-come" body, not a body such as the descendants of Adam have. What
that is supposed to mean is something that perhaps is meant to be
indicated in these uncanny appearances and disappearances in Luke and
John. Insofar as there is any intelligible discussion of this issue,
however, it is to be found in 1 Cor 15 where Paul talks about a
"spiritual body" (SWMA PNEUMATIKON) as opposed to the "body of flesh." He
speaks of it in metaphorical terms of seed and mature plant and affirms
only one or two fundamental features: indestructibility and continuity of
selfhood with the self of the person who has died and been buried.
You are clearly dissatisfied with Bultmann's notion of Jesus being
"raised into the kerygma." So am I. But what are you really looking for?
What sort of resurrection of the body, or rather, what sort of body? I
think that what the gospels (including Mark, IMHO) affirm is Jesus'
transcendance of death and his "accessibility" to believers in a mode
that has clear continuity with the Jesus of history. Believers will "see"
him in Galilee, says Mark. Paul talks about possessing the Spirit of the
risen Christ and being in communion with him. He is not dead. The tomb in
which he was laid is empty. That much Mark tells us.
You say that the difference between the hypothesis of Q and the
hypothesis of a lost ending of Mark is that the latter is a "necessary"
hypothesis--necessary for exegesis as the Q hypothesis is not. I submit
that you have a preconceived notion of what the gospel must include and
you find Mark unsatisfactory in terms of that preconceived notion. I
suspect that Carlton Winbery is right: you judge Mark as deficient in
terms of what you have come to expect from Matthew and Luke. It may well
be that Matthew and Luke found him deficient and that the absence of a
birth narrative and of a resurrection epiphany are two essentials they
felt obliged to supply, building upon traditions available to them but
either not known to Mark or not employed by him. But Mark is a canonical
gospel, and very likely (although obviously this cannot be proved
absolutely and apodictically) the first of the canonical gospels. It
ought to be dealt with on its own terms and not be subjected to a more
satisfactory definition of a gospel which you find authentically
represented by Matthew and Luke.
You may not need the Q hypothesis and I certainly don't think the Q
hypothesis is necessary for interpretation of the gospels, although I
think it helps. But you say that you NEED the hypothesis of a lost ending
of Mark, and this really seems to me like a demand that the text conform
to YOUR definition.
I would say that the four gospels complement each other; they do not
agree in many respects, although they certainly do tell a common story.
To me that means that Matthew, Luke, and John give us something that Mark
does not give us and that we are better off for having. Conversely, I
think that in terms of a canon that includes FOUR gospels, we ought to
ask why we cannot dispense with Mark? What does it give us that we don't
find in Matthew and Luke and John? Or is that question worth asking?
In sum, I think that the way you are going about hypothesizing a lost
ending of the gospel of Mark amounts to a petitio principii, a begging of
the question. You define the terms "gospel," "resurrection," and "body"
and demand that Mark's text conform to your definition. Is that really
reasonable?
- ---------------------------------------
end of forwarded text
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO, USA 63130
(314) 935-4018
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwc@oui.com
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
------------------------------
From: Stephen Carlson <scc@reston.icl.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 95 13:23:34 EDT
Subject: Re: Mark 16:8
Kenneth Litwak wrote:
> So I would still argue that
> Mark leaves us clueless about the Resurrection, and leaves us without
> any validation of the message of Jesus. That, in my judgment, is what
> the post-resurrection appearances serve to do in the other Gospels.
> They say "Jesus claimed a lot of stuff about himself. Here's proof that
> it's true, becuase Jesus, unlike 100% of everyone else, rose from the
> dead." Mark has nothing comparable.
I've noticed that a lot of this discussion relies on the assumption that
Mark was the first Gospel. Does Ken's objections to the short ending of
Mark vanish if one assumes that (Proto-)Matthew was already current?
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
------------------------------
From: Kenneth Litwak <kenneth@sybase.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 95 12:59:20 PDT
Subject: Ending of Mark
Dear Carl,
I hope you won't mind if I respond publicly?
I'll try briefly to extend what I said, so as not to just repeat the
same mantra over and over. First, and this is just my own pet theory,
I tend to think that the appearance and disappearance from locked rooms
may best be understood as a stepping by Jesus from the/one of the
heavenly dimensions into our four dimensions. That's just my own idea,
but I think that if Paul were alive today, he might express the notion of
the world being filled with principalities and powers as existing in a
parallel, spiritual dimension, or at least he might not object to that
idea.
What I'm looking for is a bodily resurrection or at least a visible
resurrection, some kind of resurrection or resurrection appearance that
is inconsistent with later Gnostic ideas of the Christ being only
spirit. Since Mark has the messenger announce that Jesus would go
to Galilee and meet the disciples there, as in the other Synoptics,
what is the meaning, if the text ends at 16:8, of that promise being
apparently unfulfilled? Does it mean we should believe Jesus rose on
the strength of this unknown heralds testimony _alone_? Does it mean
that Jesus was mistaken, that there was no such meeting? Or does it
mean there is no corroboration because Mark doesn't know of one, that in
fact he's afraid to tell the facts because they leave the promise
unfulfilled and Jesus still in the tomb?
I'm willing to grant that I may be asking more of Mark than is
appropriate, so I will drop the topic. I do think, however, that if all
there is is Mark 1:1-16:8, it is perfectly proper to say Mark's
Jesus never rose from the dead, for lack of evidence of it. At least
Mark makes no real effort to make me think otherwise, and given that
people don't rise from the dead, such a claim would benefit from a little
effort at evidence, I would think. As it is, how is Mark's claim for
Jesus' being risen any different than Joseph Smith maintaining he had
gold plates no one ever saw?
Blessings,
Ken Litwak
------------------------------
From: "Gregory Jordan (ENG)" <jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu>
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 1995 16:25:56 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Mark 16:8
On Thu, 1 Jun 1995, Larry W. Hurtado wrote:
> adjustments also for varying levels of intensity. Thus (if commonly
> accepted Synoptic theory is correct), even with Mark the authors of Matt
> & Luke felt it necessary to produce their works. Thus, at least 4
> endings for Mark were produced to "supplement" or "complete" it beyond
> 16:8.
> But, N.B., the earliest and best mss. (from a text-critical
> viewpoint) support the ending at 16:8, at the least indicating that some
> Christians were prepared to deal with Mark 16:8 as the ending. (But does
> the abrupt ending at 16:8 help explain the epithet attached to the author
> in early trad. = "stumpfinger" "Kolobodaktylos"??
Even if the manuscripts support the ending at 16:8, that doesn't mean the
ending was the ending intended. It could also mean that all the existing
manuscripts derived from an exemplar that ended there for other reasons:
copyist ran out of materials, copyist got thrown to the lions, copyist's
stooge assistant grabbed the wrong stack, etc. It happens all the time
in medieval manuscripts, and the preservation can represent an honesty in
the tradition, or even an ignorant/superstitious approach to the
incomplete text. To my mind, the possibilities here are endless. But
I'm sure this is all well-tread ground.
Greg Jordan
jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu
------------------------------
From: "Larry W. Hurtado" <hurtado@cc.umanitoba.ca>
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 1995 16:34:59 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Mark 16:8
On Thu, 1 Jun 1995, Kenneth Litwak wrote:
> Since Mark, if he originally stopped at 16:8, says nothing
> about the nature of the Resurrection, no bodily appearances or validation,
> then if I had just the Gospel of Mark, there's no difference between
> arguing for a bodily resurrection that really happened and arguing for
> Jesus rising in the Kerygma, a la Bultmann.
Problem here, Ken. You're overlooking something *very* important in
Mark's material on Jesus' resurrection: (1) the Markan emphasis on the
tomb and its being *empty* (15:42-47 the burial details, esp. v. 47
indicating the women *saw* where Jesus was buried [so no mistake]; also
16:4-6, the women enter the empty tomb and are invited to "see" the
vacant spot). This all surely = a "real" resurrection, something that
happened to Jesus and not merely to the disciples. (2) The dominical
promise that Jesus will *himself* "go before you to Galilee", which
surely = a "real" presence of Jesus to be encountered.
So, Ken, Mark in fact *does* give info to "flesh out" (ooops
sorry for the pun) a resurrected Jesus!
But, again, Ken, your *theological* anxieties for appearances
probably reflect some of the reasons why Matt & Luke extended/modified
the "shape" of Mark to include traditions about appearances, for just the
sort of apologetic concerns you yourself feel. The question is, however,
whether you are bringing your own theol. concerns and demands to Mark
instead of trying to get inside the author and the text to try to pick up
on what concerns he/it might reflect.
Larry Hurtado, Religion, Univ. of Manitoba
------------------------------
From: Bruce Terry <terry@bible.acu.edu>
Date: Thu, 01 Jun 1995 16:39:20 CST
Subject: Re: Let's make a critical apparatus
On Tue, 23 May 1995, Larry W. Hurtado wrote:
>Does Mr. Finney (and others on the list) know of the International Greek
>NT Project, which for several decades has been working toward the rather
>more complete crit. apparatus he aspires to contribute to? Their work on
>Luke has appeared (Oxford Univ. Press), and they are now working on
>John. I seriously recommend that all interested contact Prof. Carroll D.
>Osburn, Abilene Christian University, Abilene, Texas, who is urgently
>looking for reliable, committed people to help in the enormous task of
>collation of mss. for their work.
If you are interested in contacting Carroll about this, his e-mail address is:
osburn@bible.acu.edu
********************************************************************************
Bruce Terry E-MAIL: terry@bible.acu.edu
Box 8426, ACU Station Phone: 915/674-3759
Abilene, Texas 79699 Fax: 915/674-3769
********************************************************************************
------------------------------
From: WINBROW@aol.com
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 1995 18:16:39 -0400
Subject: Re: Mark 16:8
Ken Litwak wrote,
"It seems completely irrelevant to mark if he is not prepared to authenticate
it. Mark is asking his audience to commit to something that has no basis:
follow Jesus and be a disciple like him; it's immaterial whether he's alive
or dead, as shown
by my choice to not provide evidence for either. Is that not the case?"
But Mark did authenticate the resurrection before hand! As Carl Conrad
pointed out, he predicted the cross/resurrection three times, Peter's denial,
the destruction of the temple, and the falling away of the disciples. Every
prediction came true and Mark's readers would already that the resurrection
came true even before they read the announcement to the women. He had
already provided all the evidence they needed.
Carlton Winbery
La College Pineville, LA
------------------------------
From: WINBROW@aol.com
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 1995 18:27:20 -0400
Subject: Re: Mark's Ending (was Mark 16:8)
David Last wrote,
"Couldn't one of the points of ending at 16:8 be that it leaves
Jesus' disciples at exactly the same point as the reader?"
This very point is argued by Ernest Best in several articles that he wrote
back in the late 70's and also a book, the title of which I think is
Following Jesus, Discipleship in Mark. (My books are packed and I can't get
to it. New carpet in my office.) He also argues that Mark exagerates the
failures of the disciples so that they become foils for Jesus' teaching on
discipleship. Werner Kelber and others of the Chicago School have argued
that Mark deliberately made the disciples look bad because he wanted to
present a different Christology or was opposed to the Jerusalem Church which
claimed the authority of the twelve (+ James).
I think there is adequate evidence that Mark has a very dramatic ending at
16:8 that would have been a powerful call to true discipleship near the time
of Jewish/Roman war and its aftermath.
Carlton Winbery
LA College, Pineville, LA
------------------------------
From: WINBROW@aol.com
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 1995 18:45:34 -0400
Subject: Mark's ending
Ken,
Blessed are you because you have read Luke and believe. Blessed also are all
those who read Mark and belive.
Carlton Winbery
La College, Pineville, La
------------------------------
From: Kenneth Litwak <kenneth@sybase.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 95 16:02:48 PDT
Subject: Re: Mark's ending
Dear Carlton,
In response to your recent post, I totally disagree that Mark has
already shown the Resurrection to have happened, that Mark has in fact
validated it. An announcement is NOT validation, any more than a
politician claiming that when s/he's elected, great things will happen.
Mark never gives his readers the proof of those great things. Other
promises may have been fulfilled, but they are not at all of the same
magnitude as rising from the dead. Do not get me wrong. I am not
suggesting that Jesus made lucky guesses on other matters. What I am
saying is look at the text. If Mark had any thought whatsoever that
anyone but his original audience would ever read his account, he has
left them with no substantial reason to believe that something which
NEVER occurs has in fact happened. That's what the other three
canonical Gospels do, and it seem wholly reasonable that if you are
going to ask someone to commit to following Jesus, risking your
eternal destiny and temporal existence on someone who supposedly rose
from the dead, it might be nice to provide some evidence for that.
Larry's point about the empty tomb is well taken and I do believe the
empty tomb is an important piece of evidence, BUT, it is just like
the physical cross. It points to something, but needs something else
to give it the NT interpretation. That's what post-resurrection
appearances do. Otherwise, Mark is asking future readers to take a
flying leap of faith in the face of ZERO anything to explain the
empty tomb other than some unnamed indivudual's claim. I wouldn't
swallow that, any more than I believe Joseph Smith had gold tablets
with a special, unknown language on them or that Elvis was spotted
in Las Vegas last week. I can't believe that a 1st cent. reader
would be any different in wanting a basis for believing in the
resurrection of Jesus beyond just the assertion of the Neaniskos to
explain the empty tomb. That's why I think Mark must have included
more, which is now lost for whatever reason. I can't prove it, but
I would never try to use Mark 1:1-16:8 to proclaim a risen Jesus, because
the evidence is just not there. Can it really be the case that this is
the way Mark ended originally and no one before now has had trouble with
it? No. That's why there are alternate, secondary endings. People
in the Early Church clearly saw that their version of Mark was
seriously defective.
Here endeth the soapbox preaching on this topic.
Ken Litwak
Emeryville, CA
------------------------------
From: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 1995 18:43:02 -0600 (GMT-0600)
Subject: Mark 16:8
Briefly a propos Greg Jordan's earlier post regarding the possibility
that all our MSS showing the gospel ending at 16:8 are copies of a
corrupt exemplar. I don't really believe (and wonder whether he does
either!) BUT, since he points to this happening in medieval MSS, I just
thought I'd note (as a Classicist) that this is exactly the situation
with the text of Catullus, the Roman lyric poet of the mid first-century
B.C.E. Although "we" have a piece of one poem from an anthology
otherwise, all extant MSS of the rather slender corpus Catullan poems we
know to be derivative from a single lost MS (it's also interesting that
almost all of the sure emendations in the text were made during the
Renaissance). SO: as I said at the outset, I think the probability
that this is explains the ending of Mark at 16:8 in the early MSS is not
very great, it is certainly possible.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO, USA 63130
(314) 935-4018
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwc@oui.com
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
------------------------------
From: Micheal Palmer <mpalmes@email.unc.edu>
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 1995 22:27:02 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Translation, paraphrase, and dynamic equivalence
On Thu, 1 Jun 1995, Carl W Conrad wrote:
> Micheal: I very much like your simplified and useful--I dare say
> PRACTICAL--definitions of these terms. Dynamic equivalence in terms of
> your definition is exactly what I endeavor to get my students in Greek
> and Latin to do. In fact, at the intermediate level and above I ask my
> students to do two versions: one showing through retention of formal
> structural elements to the extent permissible in English that they
> understand how the original text WORKS, a second one showing that they
> have understood the CONTENT and endeavored to restate that in the best
> English they can muster.
This sounds like a great idea. I will adopt it for my Greek classes this
Fall.
Micheal W. Palmer
Mellon Research Fellow
Department of Linguistics
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #730
*****************************
** 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