[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #733
b-greek-digest Saturday, 3 June 1995 Volume 01 : Number 733
In this issue:
Re: Dynamic Equivalence
Re: Mark 16:8 (and Mark 1:1)
Re: Dynamic Equivalence
Re: Dynamic Equivalence
Re: Let's make a critical apparatus (quickly)
Re: Mark 16:8
Re: Let's make a critical apparatus (quickly)
Re: Dynamic Equivalence
Re: Let's make a critical apparatus (quickly)
Re: Dynamic Equivalence
Re: Dynamic Equivalence
Re: Mark 16:8 (and Mark 1:1)
The IGNTP Project
Ph.D. Programs in Textual Criticism
Oh Sweet Potato of Life
Greek futures
Re: Ending of Mark
Re: Mark 16:8 (and Mark 1:1)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Philip L. Graber" <pgraber@emory.edu>
Date: Fri, 2 Jun 1995 15:16:29 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Dynamic Equivalence
On Fri, 2 Jun 1995, Carl W Conrad wrote:
> Is it really so clear and beyond all doubt that we can
> distinguish the words of God from the words of men/human beings? In my
> own denomination (PC{USA}) we say that Jesus, not the Bible, is the real
> "Word of God," while the Bible is "witness" to the "Word of God."
I am a little uncomfortable with this, Carl. For the record, The
Confession of 1967 (The Book of Confessions of the PCUSA 9.27) reads:
"The one sufficient revelation of God is Jesus Christ, the Word of God
incarnate, to whom the Holy Spirit bears unique and authoritative witness
through the Holy Scriptures, which are received and obeyed as the word of
God written. The Scriptures are not a witness among others, but the
witness without parallel."
In addition, many other constitutional references (especially chapter 3
of the Dirctory for Worship [Book of Order W-3.0000) refer to Scripture
as the Word (with upper case 'W') of God written, read, or heard.
Philip Graber
Member of the Presbytery of Greater Atlanta, PCUSA
Disclaimer: I do not speak for the PCUSA, the Presbytery of Greater
Atlanta, or anyone else, but only for myself. The Constitutional
documents (Book of Order and Book of Confessions), however, do speak for
the PCUSA.
------------------------------
From: "Marmorstein, Art" <marmorsa@wolf.northern.edu>
Date: Fri, 02 Jun 95 14:53:00 CDT
Subject: Re: Mark 16:8 (and Mark 1:1)
It seems to me that, in trying to make sense of the ending of Mark, it's
important to consider also the reasons for the abrupt beginning of the
Gospel. Other than Xenophon's Hellenica, is there any other classical or
Biblical work that contains so little to prepare the reader for what follows?
In my view, both the abrupt beginning and abrupt ending of Mark are explained
best by the assumption that Mark is at both these points dependent on one of
the other Gospels, most probably Matthew.
The actual beginning of Mark (the citation of Isaiah) would be an appropriate
introduction to the gospel only if Mark, like Matthew, placed a great deal of
emphasis on Jesus' fulfillment of OT prophecy as evidence that he was in fact
the Messiah. But this is not what Mark does--Mark places far more emphasis
on Jesus as a miracle worker.
All one has to do is look objectively at Mark 1 and the parallels in Matthew
and Luke to be convinced that the thesis of Marcan priority involves some
major difficulties. Consider, for instance, Mark 1:12-13, "And straightway
the spirit cast him into the wilderness. And he was in the wilderness forty
days tempted by Satan, and was with the wild beasts and the angels served
him."
The inclusion of these verses as an epitome of this portion of
Matthew's narrative is easy to understand. Mark includes the first words and
the last words of a rather long section in Matthew, and it's easy to see why
Mark (who, after all, wants to show Jesus as a wonder-worker) would leave out
material which shows Jesus deliberately not performing miracles. It is less
easy to understand what purpose these verses would serve in Mark's narrative
if he had not been following an earlier source.
Also, those who insist on Marcan priority have a real difficulty trying to
explain how it is that, just at the point Mark leaves a "tatalizing" gap in
his narrative, Mattthew has a source which so well fills this gap. "Q" to
the rescue? That won't work very well, because Mattthew and Luke, while
similar in how they (allegedly) amplify the material in Mark, differ in
important details. So "Q" has to magically transform itself--and one gets
two "Q's", "Q1" and "Q2" to explain the differences. Good enough, but Ockham
wouldn't like this.
------------------------------
From: Jim Beale <jbeale@gdeb.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Jun 95 15:56:14 EDT
Subject: Re: Dynamic Equivalence
Tim McLay writes:
>
> I prepared this response before Nichael's excellent points, but I think my
> answer will suffice,
> David Moore wrote:
> > I've often wondered if Eskimo children who read in a radically
> >aculturated translation that Jesus is the "young seal of God" would not
> >ask, "But how did the people of Isreal know about seals in Jesus'
> >time?" We are now living in a world that has very few peoples who do
> >not have access to information about other cultures and times through
> >the press, television and radio.
> > I agree with G. Goolde that cultural differences are better
> >explained than translated away.
>
> I suppose we could start listing the various metaphors and how to
> treat them and the various problems involved, but ultimately it
> comes down to the translator(s)doing the best job s/he/they can do in a
> given circumstance (Besides, young Eskimo children would not know that
> there were not seals in Palestine). What we might belittle in our context
> might make the best sense in another. As Carl Conrad noted, metaphors and
> idioms are the most difficult linguistic elements to transfer from one
> language to another and I do agree that it does raise serious questions
> about what to do. Teaching and appropriate footnotes have their place, we
> all affirm that, but so does appropriate (dynamic) translation. The
> sweet pot. and seal examples remind me of a missionary film, though I
> forget the details. The crux of it was the use of the equivalent of
> "Peace Child" to translate some word in order to communicate the
> significance of Christ's death on the cross. Was this decision
> inappropriate when it made clear the meaning of the message in their
> context?
The point about the crucifixion is very interesting. I have never
witnessed anyone dying by this method, and really don't have any first-
hand knowledge about the agony that it must entail, so perhaps it would
be best to translate this archaic method of capital punishment into some
new paradigm that is more easily understood by the modern American? Like
death by car-bombing for example? :-)
> George Goolde asked whether it was because people were lazy
> that DE translations are popular. In some cases, perhaps, it is because
> the TVgeneration wants the answer given to them. But I don't think the
> reason can ever be that simple. Most readers just don't have access to
> the tools and it isn't because they are lazy. They are people
> of divergent intellectual abilities and access to tools. Furthermore,
> some tools they use we would scoff at (eg. a Schofield bible, my apologies
> to dispensationalists). In my experience as a pastor, being
> able to understand what they are reading is one of the greatest
> motivations for people to read their bibles more. How can I treat that
> negatively?
Perhaps modern Americans are lazy, and certainly anti-intellectualism has
swept through the culture leaving a "feel don't think" attitude in its wake.
But, really, I don't think that that is any reason to condone some of the
really poor renderings in the NIV, such as John 1:13, and 1 John 2:2 and
others, where the fundamental meaning of the underlying propositions have
been changed. Perhaps this is a case when "what you don't know CAN hurt you."
> All translations have difficulties. Should we translate
> literally "heap coals of fire on his head"? FE translations can have the
> same kinds of misleading effects as any example one could give of DE. But
> enough of trading problems. This is too long already. Sorry.
> Tim McLay
>
> >
> >regards,
> >
> >
> > David L. Moore Director of Education
> > Miami, Florida, USA Southeastern Spanish District of
> >Dvdmoore@ix.netcom.com the Assemblies of God
>
> --
> Tim McLay
> Halifax, NS
> nstn1533@fox.nstn.ca
>
In Christ,
Jim Beale
------------------------------
From: Nichael Lynn Cramer <nichael@sover.net>
Date: Fri, 2 Jun 1995 16:15:30 -0400
Subject: Re: Dynamic Equivalence
At 2:59 PM 02/06/95, Tim McLay wrote:
> David Moore wrote:
>> I've often wondered if Eskimo children who read in a radically
>>aculturated translation that Jesus is the "young seal of God" would not
>>ask, "But how did the people of Isreal know about seals in Jesus'
>>time?"
> ... (Besides, young Eskimo children would not know that
>there were not seals in Palestine). What we might belittle in our context
>might make the best sense in another.
This brings to mind a story Brother Lemuel told us in Sunday School --lo
these many years ago. When missionaries first approached the Inuit, they
began with the standard stories of the pit of eternal fire. To which the
listeners --quite reasonably IMnsHO-- responded "Great! What do we have to
do to get there??!?"
Now, this story is surely too pat to be anything but apocryphal, but
nonetheless I thing the basic point is critical here: That reading in the
absence of the original context can only lead to disaster. The only
reaonable way to proceed is to combine the text as delivered, unadorned,
with as complete an understanding of the original context as possible.
The point has been rightly made that for many[most?] people this is simply
not feasible, for any number of reasons. But translation must never be
presented as anything other than what it is: a glimpse of the back of the
tapestry.
Nichael -- Do not trust in these deceptive
nichael@sover.net words: "This is the
temple of the
Paradise Farm Lord, the temple of the Lord, the
Brattleboro VT temple of the Lord".
------------------------------
From: "Larry W. Hurtado" <hurtado@cc.umanitoba.ca>
Date: Fri, 2 Jun 1995 15:48:06 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Let's make a critical apparatus (quickly)
Not to be too much of wet-blanket, but I do think the IGNTP people should
be given a bit of a break, at least they should be treated fairly. If we
can't get a member on-line here, then at least let me point out another
factor in the time it has taken to publish their work.
- --Citation of patristic evidence. Here, as with the methodological
problem of the Medieval text-mass, we have had a *major* problem. On the
one hand the patristic material is in principal extremely valuable, esp.
as it promises a potential dating and locating of text-types based on
when/who/where the Father is citing the NT. On the other hand, two major
problems render this "in principle" thing difficult: (1) the citation
practices of the Fathers vary greatly, and not every citation can be
taken as a quote of the actual wording of a ms. (more often than not the
FAthers cite from memory or freely paraphrase, but not always, so you
can't write them off); (2) the use of the Fathers depends upon good
critical editions of them, before you can use them as evidence for
text-critical questions on the NT.
Consequently, years ago Fee agreed to take on the Fathers for the
IGNTP and has done some major theoretical/methodological work that is
absolutely essential for all future use of patristics evidence. But that
methodological work took an expert with a lively brain and good
analytical skills. And I don't see that a computer program can solve
either of the problems I've listed above.
- --But another major problem has been the fact that there have been so
very few scholars able and willing to take on the necessary work for the
IGNTP to proceed more rapidly. How many can read Armenian, or Georgian,
or Gothic, let alone Coptic? But versional evidence has to be analyzed
properly and its evidence presented.
How many NT scholars have even been exposed much to textual
criticism, let alone actually trained in it, over the last 20 yrs. or
so? At present, for example where can one go to do PhD work with a
recognized NT text critic in N. America? (Bart Ehrman--do you have a PhD
program? I suppose I could qualify in a pinch here at U Manitoba. Where
else?)
So let's recongize the enormous obstacles the IGNTP committee has had to
deal with over the years, be grateful they didn't give up, and be
thankful that the work is still on track. It may be that techno-fixes
will speed up things now that they may *finally* be getting developed.
But the delay in the work of the IGNTP has nothing blameworthy about
it--it's all the result of a big big job with inadequate resources.
Larry Hurtado, Religion, Univ. of Manitoba
------------------------------
From: "Larry W. Hurtado" <hurtado@cc.umanitoba.ca>
Date: Fri, 2 Jun 1995 16:01:01 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Mark 16:8
On Fri, 2 Jun 1995, Vincent Broman wrote:
> Elsewhere in the NT, Hort and others have conjectured that in some
> few verses the original text is no longer extant in any witness because of a
> very ancient error. I'd have to look that up in W-H if more details
> are needed for discussion.
Vincent, The textual history of the books of the NT is *not* uniform.
Some books were treated as authoritative much earlier than others, so
some have a much wider early distribution pattern. Among the Gospels
Mark has probably suffered comparatively more textual "corruption" than
the other gospels, largely through harmonization with one or another of
the others, esp. Matt.
So, assessing the likelihood of a significant portion of a given
NT book being now permanently lost to us depends upon the plenitude,
date, distribution, of the mss., and in the case of the four gospels,
we're dealing with works that obviously were quickly catapulted into
fairly wide usage and circulation. This I take to = that any accidental
loss of some major portion would be more difficult, and if it happened at
all would have to have happened almost in the first copying stage, from
the autograph.
Larry Hurtado, Religion, Univ. of Manitoba
------------------------------
From: Vincent Broman <broman@np.nosc.mil>
Date: Fri, 2 Jun 95 14:10:48 PDT
Subject: Re: Let's make a critical apparatus (quickly)
hurtado@cc.UManitoba.CA wrote:
> So let's recongize the enormous obstacles the IGNTP committee has had to
> deal with over the years, be grateful they didn't give up, and be
> thankful that the work is still on track.
Hear, hear.
I guess my main source of anxiety for the project stems from not knowing
what has been done so far, beyond the proximate publication of the papyri that
Ehrman mentioned. Any parchment uncial collations? any profiling?
any versions started? Is there a grand plan?
Vincent Broman, code 572 Bayside Email: broman@nosc.mil
Naval Command Control and Ocean Surveillance Center, RDT&E Div.
San Diego, CA 92152-6147, USA Phone: +1 619 553 1641
------------------------------
From: Kenneth Litwak <kenneth@sybase.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Jun 95 14:28:03 PDT
Subject: Re: Dynamic Equivalence
Nichael wrote on 6/2/95:
> But isn't this exactly the problem: i.e. the presupposition that, indeed,
> this _is_ "the meaning of the passage"?
>
> Suppose, for a moment, that in addition to the supplying of sustenance that
> other meanings in the text --perhaps even the "real" meaning-- had to do
> specifically with the nature of bread. For example, the inclusion of
> leaven (and by extension all that this implies wrt purity laws); that the
> existence of the bread presupposes the efforts of a baker; that the unbaked
> dough has gone through the process of rising; that the bread has passed
> through the fire of the oven... etc. etc. The translation "Yam of Life"
> would supply none of these resonances[*].
>
> I certainly wouldn't argue that this is necessarily the case in the present
> instance but a serious problem, it would seem to me, in many D-E
> translations is that often exactly this sort of presuppostion gets imposed
> on the text. This is particularly problematic when the presuppositions are
> theological in nature, resulting in "translations" as "In the beginning was
> Christ" or passages from the Hebrew Scriptures that are made to refer
> explicitly to Christ.
>
> Such problems are certainly not unique to D-E; nonetheless it would appear
> that such shortcomings are all but unavoidable given the nature the
> technique.
>
> [* Or more to the point, it could supply resonances never intended <insert
> your favorite vegatative metaphor here>.]
>
>
> Nichael -- Do not trust in these deceptive
> nichael@sover.net words: "This is the
> temple of the
> Paradise Farm Lord, the temple of the Lord, the
> Brattleboro VT temple of the Lord".
>
WHile I think you have a valid point, there are two consequences that
seem to come to mind. First, if we translate it as "bread of life",
even into receptor languages that do not have a word for bread, what
would one put in a footnote to explain what bread is? That is, if the
figure of bread is chosen based on some particular meaning, and we who
are accustomed to bread cannot agree on what this metaphor signifies,
how can we ever hope to explain to anyone else the use of this symbolism?
Second, recognizing the validity of your point (and BTW, I'm
not trying to take sides in this discussion -- I remain unsure as to
what the best approach, if there is a best approach, might be), it makes
me despair of trying to translate at all because it would mean that even
translating it as bread may be incorect based on what the metaphor is
meant to suggest -- we may mislead all readers by using bread. What you
have observed makes me feel like the problem of the Two Horizons is
unsolvable and all attempts at translation are doomed to end in
inaccuracy. Can someone save me from this despair?
Ken Litwak
Emeryville, CA
------------------------------
From: "Larry W. Hurtado" <hurtado@cc.umanitoba.ca>
Date: Fri, 2 Jun 1995 17:14:19 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Let's make a critical apparatus (quickly)
On Fri, 2 Jun 1995, Vincent Broman wrote:
RE: the IGNT project:
> I guess my main source of anxiety for the project stems from not knowing
> what has been done so far, beyond the proximate publication of the papyri that
> Ehrman mentioned. Any parchment uncial collations? any profiling?
> any versions started? Is there a grand plan?
I don't have up-to-date info, but as of the SBL meeting of '94 Carroll
Osborn was urgently asking for collators of mss. and was asking faculty
members at the Text-criticism seminar who had interested students or
other volunteers to contact him. They have training materials ready.
I also know that Michael Holmes and others (Bart Ehrman et alia)
just received news of another unsuccessful grant application to the NEH
for funding to facilitate the testing and analysis of sample passages in
all Greek minuscule mss. of John, with a view toward the selection,
collation and analysis of representative mss. and compilation & editing
of the data for inclusion in the IGNTP vol. 4, Gospel of John, to be
published both in paper & electronic forms.
This is a sad setback not to have been given the funding. I've
seen the proposal and it was most impressive, complete with special
software to assist the collation and data entry.
So, work is proceeding, but it requires funding, hours & hours,
training, etc.
Larry Hurtado, Religion, Univ. of Manitoba
------------------------------
From: WINBROW@aol.com
Date: Fri, 2 Jun 1995 18:22:14 -0400
Subject: Re: Dynamic Equivalence
I would like to agree with Carl Conrad's reply to George Golde.
He asks, "Is it really so clear and beyond all doubt that we can
distinguish the words of God from the words of men/human beings?"
I would add to that the fact that any language is a human phenomena,
developed among human beings, and having meaning in human contexts. Does God
speak Hebrew? Greek? All his speaking seems to me to come through the human
medium. We should never make the medium sacrosant.
Carlton Winbery
Chair Religion Dept.
La College, Pineville, LA
------------------------------
From: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Fri, 2 Jun 1995 17:30:51 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Dynamic Equivalence
Inasmuch as Phil Graber has raised issues regarding my reference this
morning to the confessional statement of the PCUSA, I have responded to
him off the list, feeling very strongly that the list is not the place to
discuss sectarian or denominational stances on anything. I would just
say, however, that I'd be willing to share my response to Phil off the
list with any who are really interested. Please excuse my intrusion of
the matter into discussions here in the first place.
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: WINBROW@aol.com
Date: Fri, 2 Jun 1995 18:44:40 -0400
Subject: Re: Mark 16:8 (and Mark 1:1)
Marmorstein wrote,
"In my view, both the abrupt beginning and abrupt ending of Mark are
explained best by the assumption that Mark is at both these points dependent
on one of the other Gospels, most probably Matthew."
As I recall Bishop Steven Neil (I think that's the way he spells his name.)
suggests that the beginning of Mark is lost as well as the end. 1:1 is
either a title or a sentence fragment. He suggests that is page one is lost
from a codex made in folio form the last page would also be lost.
Interesting.
As for Mark 1:1 being better understood if Mark is dependent on Matthew. I
can't fathom that. Mark's double quote as though from one prophet is
corrected by Matthew as well as some other problems in Mark. I have worked
my way through C.S. Mann who tries to write a commentary on Mark from that
perspective and in my opinion fails completely.
Carlton Winbery
Chair Religion
La College, Pineville, LA
------------------------------
From: "Bart D. Ehrman" <BARTUNC@uncmvs.oit.unc.edu>
Date: Fri, 02 Jun 95 19:11 EDT
Subject: The IGNTP Project
I've been very interested in hearing the conversation
back and forth about the IGNTP committee, and have wanted
to join the fray, but am just too swamped to write the
lengthy kinds of memos that the topic deserves. Thanks
to Larry Hurtado for going to bat for the committee and its
work; it is indeed painstaking and difficult, and the principal
difficulties are not technology and willpower but funding and
time.
Several persons have mentioned Carroll Osburn as a contact
person for the committee. Carroll is indeed the vice-chair
(Gordon Fee is the chair); but anyone interested in performing
the work of collation should instead contact Paul McReynolds of
Pacific Christian College (he's in the SBL directory, of course)
who is responsible for assigning mss for collation and for
coordinating efforts for selecting minuscule mss for the apparatus,
using quantitative and profile methods in their newer computerized
format.
The committee is indeed using computer technology for its
collations, specifically the MANUSCRIPT program written by
a programmer named Jerry Lewis and maintained and updated by
a member of the committee, Bruce Morrill. It is sophisticated
and impressive. As others have here noted, I believe, it is
capable (naturally, I suppose) of reconstituting any ms the
data of which have been entered into it, with the touch of a
button.
The committee is proceeding in its plans to publish an
apparatus in both hard copy and electronically. Mike Holmes,
the American editor (there are both American and British committees,
again; Mike's counterpart is David Parker), is coordinating this
effort. Brill will be publishing the papyri volume, as I've
previously indicated; there are no commitments on either side,
as of yet, concernng the rights to the final product, either
electronic or paper. One option being explored is the serial
publication of the electronic format, to allow access to the
material as soon as it is available.
The committee meets annually at the SBL. I will be happy to
put forward any concerns that any of you has to the rest of the
committee at our meeting this November. Our major needs as I've
indicated but can't stress enough involve person-hours. We need
competent collators and they don't just come out of the woodwork.
If there are other questions, I'll be happy to address them
on the list.
Bart D. Ehrman, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
------------------------------
From: "Bart D. Ehrman" <BARTUNC@uncmvs.oit.unc.edu>
Date: Fri, 02 Jun 95 19:20 EDT
Subject: Ph.D. Programs in Textual Criticism
Larry Hurtado asks about doctoral programs in NT textual
criticism. We do indeed have a Ph.D. program at UNC-Chapel Hill
in Religious Studies. My own field here is defined as
Ancient Mediterranean Religions, which is characterized as a
rigorously comparative program, in which the NT and early
Christianity are studied in relationship to Judaism and other
religions of the Greco-Roman world. Probably the majority of
the students in the field work on early Christianity (first
and second centuries); it is absolutely possible for someone
to study textual criticism here. I have and/or am directing
three dissertations in the field, one of which is actually
a Duke student (we have an arrangement that allows me to serve
on Duke committees and for their NT and early Christianity faculty
- -- Ed Sanders, Moody Smith, Richard Hays, Dale Martin, and
Liz Clark, e.g. -- to serve on ours).
To the best of my knowledge, I'm the only active member of the
SBL textual criticism section (actually, the only member active
or inactive, to my knowledge) who teaches in a school with
a PHD program in the area. Other options for students are to
study in Muenster with Barbara Aland or in England, e.g., with
Keith Elliot, or to work in Classics, e.g., at Michigan with
Ludwig Koenen, and to pick up textual criticism on the side.
- -- Bart D. Ehrman, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
------------------------------
From: DDDJ@aol.com
Date: Fri, 2 Jun 1995 21:35:39 -0400
Subject: Oh Sweet Potato of Life
Personally I like "I am the sweet Potato of Life."
TIm said
<<I guess that I would have to say (yet again) that there is a place for a
translation which would use "sweet potatoe" because it would convey the
meaning
of the passage to its hearers>>
Tim have you ever meet Dan " potatoe" Quayle?
I understand that those translating the Bible into Klingon have split into
Dynamic and Literal translation groups. So soon the Bible will be translated
into Klingon Twice!
Dennis
------------------------------
From: Vincent DeCaen <decaen@epas.utoronto.ca>
Date: Fri, 2 Jun 1995 21:55:45 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Greek futures
forgive a naive question from a nonspecialist in Greek:
lu-s-o: ("future") vs. lu-o: (present)
lu-s-ein (fut inf) vs. lu-ein (inf)
lu-s-oimi (fut optative) vs. lu-oimi (opt)
lu-s-o:n (fut part) vs. lu-o:n (part)
is there not a systematic, formal relation? and should that not be
captured by isolating -s- as contributing to the difference? and
should not that -s- be related to that in the so-called aorist forms?
i.e., is there not a correspondence,
luo: is to eluon as luso: is to elusa ??
what then would be wrong with a perfective non-past: luso: ??
after all, cross-linguistically, similar systems (Georgian, Russian,
Hungarian, even Chadic Mofu-Gudur in the Cameroon) combine non-past
with perfective aspect (aorist) and get a systematic future reading
(although that's not its only use [ditto Greek future??]).
------------------------------
From: PaleoBill@aol.com
Date: Fri, 2 Jun 1995 22:11:07 -0400
Subject: Re: Ending of Mark
Entering into the question of the ending of Mark somewhat late I was
wondering if anyone has broached the possibility that Mark was originally
penned in codex form (as Sato has postulated for Q) and thus the ending would
be on the outside of the codex--possibly on its own sheet of papyrus.
Accordingly, I was wondering about the possibility that the external portion
of the codex (ie the beginning and the end of the manuscript) would be liable
to tearing and fragmentation due to human error or wear. If so, then the
ending of the Markan exemplar of the earliest manuscripts may have simply had
this portion removed. The consequences would be of some import, viz. that the
use of the codex begin at the most seminal stages of Christianity and that
Mark did in fact originally have a more elaborate resurrection narrative.
Does anybody have any reflections that they would wish to share with the list
about this possibility?
Best Regards
Bill Parkinson
------------------------------
From: Larry Swain <lswain@wln.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Jun 1995 21:37:06 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Mark 16:8 (and Mark 1:1)
On Fri, 2 Jun 1995 WINBROW@aol.com wrote:
> Marmorstein wrote,
> "In my view, both the abrupt beginning and abrupt ending of Mark are
> explained best by the assumption that Mark is at both these points dependent
> on one of the other Gospels, most probably Matthew."
>
> As I recall Bishop Steven Neil (I think that's the way he spells his name.)
> suggests that the beginning of Mark is lost as well as the end. 1:1 is
> either a title or a sentence fragment. He suggests that is page one is lost
> from a codex made in folio form the last page would also be lost.
That is correct on both counts, seems as plausible a theory as any out there.
> As for Mark 1:1 being better understood if Mark is dependent on Matthew. I
> can't fathom that. Mark's double quote as though from one prophet is
> corrected by Matthew as well as some other problems in Mark. I have worked
> my way through C.S. Mann who tries to write a commentary on Mark from that
> perspective and in my opinion fails completely.
We've had the debate about Q and the 2 Source Hypothesis, and I pretty
much come down on the anti-2 Source side. So I would point out the
methodogical assumption you make here. Mark's double quote as though
from one prophet is not "corrected" by Matthew. A more NEUTRAL way of
expressing it would be appreciated.
Larry Swain
lswain@wln.com
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #733
*****************************
** 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