[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #737
b-greek-digest Monday, 5 June 1995 Volume 01 : Number 737
In this issue:
Re: Ending of Mark
Re: Mark 16:8
Re: Mark and Midrash
Re: Ending of Mark
PUGILLARIA, (was Ending of Mark)
Re: Mark 16:8
Text and Source Criticism
Re: Ph.D. Programs in Textual Criticism
Re: Mark 16:8
Re: Text and Source Criticism
Re: Mark and Midrash
Re: Ending of Mark
Re: Oh Sweet Potato of Life
Re: Ending of Mark
Re: Mark 16:8 (and Mark 1:1)
Re: Mark 16:8
Re: Ending of Mark
Re: Mark 16:8
unsubscribe
Re: Mark 16:8
Re: Ending of Mark
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Larry Swain <lswain@wln.com>
Date: Sun, 4 Jun 1995 23:44:36 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Ending of Mark
On Sat, 3 Jun 1995, Carl W Conrad wrote:
> The highly ironic thing about all this to me is the way our biases play
> into what we consider REALLY ponderable. I'm not really looking for an
> alternative to a Mark that begins at 1:1 and ends at 16:8; I'm satisfied
> that the MSS evidence PROBABLY gives us the authentic text. On the other
> hand, I find the Q hypothesis attractive and VERY ponderable. You and
> others, Larry, make it quite clear that you don't think so (and I really
> don't think anything's to be gained by repeating that thread). My feeling
> is that it's not altogether satisfactory but it explains more to me than
> it leaves unexplained.
I almost completely agree with you. I just have not found an entirely
satisfactory way of explaining the abrupt beginning and ending, but I
don't make much of the point.
>
> But, at any rate, I do agree that the codex form must begin somewhere
> with someone taking a decisive step. I just wonder how likely it is that
> gospel texts would be copied to papyrus AFTER and FROM a version written
> in codex form. And I admit, I just don't know enough about book
> production to hazard an opinion worth recording. Guess I'd better shut up!
Always possible especially within the first century if codices existed
but weren't that popular yet. THe thing to explain in that case though
is all the copies of the gospel were in codex form, all lost their first
and last leaves, and then were copied to papyrus?? That seems a stretch
to me, unless we posit that the original autograph was the one which lost
its leaves. SO while an intriguing suggestion and within the realms of
historical probability, I think the odds are stacked against it.
Larry Swain
lswain@wln.com
------------------------------
From: Timster132@aol.com
Date: Mon, 5 Jun 1995 03:52:00 -0400
Subject: Re: Mark 16:8
TO: B-GREEK@VIRGINIA.EDU
jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu, Gregory Jordan said...
>>I wouldn't think Paul is docetic here. He contradicts those who >>deny
Jesus's physical death (15:3) and resurrection (15:12 etc.)
and dvdmoore@ix.netcom.com, David Moore then said....
> These statements of his indicate that, as far as Paul's testi
>-mony is concerned, positing a purely subjective experience
>or some kind of purely spiritual communion on the part of the
>witnesses to the resurrection is not really an option.
My original post saw saying that Mark didn't _need_ a
resurrection pericope to be a meaningful witness to the
gospel or the resurrection, and my point was that Paul
could form a theological construct on the resurrection
w/o having a such a pericope/miracle story that presents
a bodily risen Jesus.
My understanding is that in 1 Cor 15, when Paul says
Jesus was raised "on the third day according to the Scripture"
he is speaking of the Jewish eschatological 3rd day after the
Judgment when God's kingdom comes in fullness. And he
doesn't say exactly what the witnesses saw.
Indeed, all of the witnesses experienced the resurrection of Jesus,
but no where does Paul say they experienced a resuscitated
corpse of Jesus, which is the literal misinterpretation of
the resurrection pericope (in my opinion).
Paul says "flesh and blood do not inherit the kingdom", and
that there is a spiritual body, not a resuscitated corpse.
I am NOT a docetist (that Jesus' death was not physically real) ,
nor am I suggesting the resurrection was "all in their heads".
What the essence of the risen Christ actually was is a mystery
(as well it probably should be), but if one reads Paul w/out the influence of
the gospels, it is clear that he is unaware of the
angel(s), the rich man's tomb, the guards, the stone.
All he says is that Christ was dead, was buried, and was raised by God.
And this is enough for Paul to build his whole theology upon. And Mark
doesn't need a resurrection appearance pericope
to proclaim the resurrection. BLESSED ARE THOSE WHO HAVE
NOT SEEN AND YET BELIEVE.
Peace,
Tim Staker
------------------------------
From: Timster132@aol.com
Date: Mon, 5 Jun 1995 03:52:10 -0400
Subject: Re: Mark and Midrash
TO: B-GREEK@VIRGINIA.EDU
Paul Moser, PMOSER@cpua.it.luc.edu, on Jun 4 said...
>Tim Staker suggested that midrash, of some sort, occurs
>in Mark's gospel. I wonder, Tim, which of the various
>senses of "midrash" you had in mind, and what evidence
>you would offer in support of your claim
In my last post I mentioned several NT scholars (Hendrickx,
in particular) who believe they recognize in the gospels and
in parts of the OT a "narrative midrash", which has the
philosophical foundations of midrash practice, but instead
of exegeting the text in an indicative or dialogical fassion, the
interpretation of the OT text is put into narrative form.
But it does more than that. A second aspect of narrative
midrash is that it weaves the OT interpretation with new
content. The old narrative interprets the new content and
the new also interprets the old. It is very dynamic in that
sense.
It is more than a folklore tale; it is a scholarly interpretation
put into narrative which weaves old and new elements together
to create a new interpretation/presentation.
> It is arguable (following Gundry and others) that some midrashic
>tendencies occur in Matthew, given Matthew's embellishments
>of Mark and Q, and given Matthew's predisposed Jewish audience.
> The case for midrash in Mark, however, is more tenuous. One
>consideration is that Mark's sources are less transparent
>than Matthew's (e.g., Mark and Q).
The narrative midrash idea flies in the face of traditional source
criticism. Rather than suggesting that the gospel writers were
primarily compilers/redactors/editors of earlier material, that put
"pearls" on a string necklace, it is understood that the writers were
creating their own narative midrash by weaving OT stories with stories they
knew about Jesus, and thus writing an original narrative, not a patchwork of
earlier documents.
Yes there are some evidences of ealier, reworked material, particularly in
Luke's book of Acts.
In this process, consider that Mark as a whole work, and Matt expanding it
with a few of his own midrashim, and then comes Luke and his creative
genious.
[As you can tell, I don't believe in Q. I feel the main problem with
the Q theory is that it was born out of the indecision of scholars
as to whether Matt came first or Luke. So Q was born. But if you go ahead
and make a decision, such after Mark came Matt, then Luke, then you can say
that Luke simply copied from Matt what others have called the M source and
the Q source. M and Q are both Matthew. That is the easiest explanation.
If any real Q manuscripts ever arise, I might change my mind. But in view
of the lack of ANYexternal evidence, I believe the argument for Q's existence
is totally contrived.] PLEASE NO COMMENTS ON Q. THAT
THREAD IS DEAD!!!!
>Mark translates Aramaic phrases for his audience, and he explains >Greek
expressions by Latin parallels; in addition, he uses
>various Latin terms. We also have evidence from Clement
>of Alexandria and Irenaeus favoring a Roman audience
>for Mark's gospel.
Since Mark was written early (55-60 CE?), the Roman church was
probably very Jewish, or at least had a strong Jewish element that
would recognize midrash narrative. So I don't have a problem
with placing Mark at Rome, although, I don't think this is a given.
I appreciate the form theory that suggests that Mark originally preached a
sermon in midrash narrative style on the death of Jesus, (based primarily on
2nd Isaiah) and that this became Mark's passion narrative, which he built his
gospel around.
About what Larry thinks, you'll just have to ask him. I believe he
acknowledges the midrash presence in the gospels, but that's all I can
remember him saying.
Peace,
Tim Staker
Timster132@aol.com
------------------------------
From: Timster132@aol.com
Date: Mon, 5 Jun 1995 03:52:03 -0400
Subject: Re: Ending of Mark
TO: B-GREEK@VIRGINIA.EDU
Carl Conrad, cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu, said on 6/4...
>Despite your emoticon, Tim, lest anyone not fully realize you're >being
facetious, let me clarify the statement on which you >commented by adding
that I never supposed that it was the >PUGILLARIA, the wax-coated wooden
tablets, that Sato imagined >the Q materials were committed to, but rather
parchment pages >with holes tied together by thongs in a sort of loose-leaf
notebook.
> This would, presumably (it's not my theory), be an intermediate >stage
between the PUGILLARIA and the CODEX, wherein a
>whole bundle of parchment pages are permanently sewn together.
>
>"Vaporware," eh? So the computer metaphors have infected
>even our perspective on antiquity--well, of course. Keep your >interface
clean, Tim! ;-)
Oh, yes. I was just using your post to make a funny. Things need
to be lightened up here every now and then.
I must have missed the earlier post about the evolution theory of
PUGILLARIA and CODEX, so I mistakenly thought Sato meant
the wax tablets. I thought you would appreciate it, remembering
our earlier worn-out thread on the Q theory.
So would PUGILLARIA be like a floppy and CODEX be like a hard drive?
Peace,
Tim Staker
Timster132@aol.com
------------------------------
From: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Mon, 5 Jun 1995 05:53:58 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: PUGILLARIA, (was Ending of Mark)
On Mon, 5 Jun 1995 Timster132@aol.com wrote:
> So would PUGILLARIA be like a floppy and CODEX be like a hard drive?
I might compare PUGILLARIA (a neuter plural noun) to the ephemeral
messages on a list such as this, the CODEX to the Web site (such as the
one recently established by Ioudaios-L, the like of which I wish we had
for B-Greek) at which the archives may be consulted briefly or perused at
length.
And for the sake of lightening-up the list ("A little leavens the whole
loaf"?), I submit the following extract from recent correspondence on the
Classics list, where reminiscences of an erstwhile limerick thread have
brought to birth a marriage of a discussion on reasons for the sex appeal
of a rather homely Cleopatra with a discussion of the vagaries of actual
use of the words EROS and AGAPE in classical and Hellenistic Greek:
cited material
- --------------------------
>From DASVAR00@UKCC.uky.eduFri Jun 2 14:00:59 1995
Date: Fri, 02 Jun 95 13:12:49 EDT
To: classics-l <classics@u.washington.edu>
Subject: Tony and Cleo
Jenny S. CLay writes:
"Re: Antony and Cleopatra and Eros and agape threads:
I know I shouldn't do this and will doubtless have to pay;
But Tony and Cleo is my favorite play;
And t'will teach us all the difference
'tween eros and agapay.
JSC"
When Antony saw Cleo's shape
He had feelings he could not escape;
Who knows, on that day,
If he felt agape--
But surely the man was agape!
- --Diane Arnson Svarlien
- ------------------------------
end of cited material
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: Mon, 5 Jun 1995 05:59:12 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Mark 16:8
On Mon, 5 Jun 1995 Timster132@aol.com wrote:
> What the essence of the risen Christ actually was is a mystery
> (as well it probably should be), but if one reads Paul w/out the influence of
> the gospels, it is clear that he is unaware of the
> angel(s), the rich man's tomb, the guards, the stone.
Ah, but Tim, isn't the NT sense of MUSTHRION "a truth of old only now
revealed"? But I jest; you are NOT using it in the NT sense.
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: "Philip L. Graber" <pgraber@emory.edu>
Date: Mon, 5 Jun 1995 08:55:40 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Text and Source Criticism
Can anyone suggest one or two works I might read on the role of text
criticism in the formulation of hypotheses concerning Matthean or Markan
priority? I am primarily interested in learning something more about the
early periods of the "history of scholarship" of source criticism of the
synoptics.
Philip Graber Graduate Division of Religion
Graduate Student in New Testament 211 Bishops Hall, Emory University
pgraber@emory.edu Atlanta, GA 30322 USA
------------------------------
From: "Larry W. Hurtado" <hurtado@cc.umanitoba.ca>
Date: Mon, 5 Jun 1995 08:43:12 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Ph.D. Programs in Textual Criticism
yOn Fri, 2 Jun 1995, Bart D. Ehrman wrote:
> 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.
One minor note. Here at the Univ. of Manitoba we have a relatively
newly-authorized PhD program (opened '92), which includes three foci, one
of which is "New Testament and Christian Origins". And, though I've been
taken up with other topics more heavily in the last ten years or so, I do
have some experience and a strong continuing interest in text-critical
matters. (Also, Canadian tuition is very cheap by U. S. standards!!)
Larry Hurtado, Religion,Univ. of Manitoba
------------------------------
From: David Moore <dvdmoore@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Jun 1995 06:45:33 -0700
Subject: Re: Mark 16:8
Tim Staker (Timster132@aol.com) wrote:
> I am NOT a docetist (that Jesus' death was not physically real) ,
>nor am I suggesting the resurrection was "all in their heads".
>What the essence of the risen Christ actually was is a mystery
>(as well it probably should be), but if one reads Paul w/out the
influence of
>the gospels, it is clear that he is unaware of the
>angel(s), the rich man's tomb, the guards, the stone.
> All he says is that Christ was dead, was buried, and was raised by
God.
In terms of what Paul was, or was not, aware of, isn't it
precarious to base conclusions in this matter on an argument from
silence?
If all Paul said were that Christ was dead, was buried, and was
raised by God (He says quite a bit more by the way.), does that mean,
or even imply, that nothing more than that happened?
David L. Moore Director of Education
Miami, FL, USA Southeastern Spanish District
Dvdmoore@ix.netcom.com of the Assemblies of God
------------------------------
From: "Larry W. Hurtado" <hurtado@cc.umanitoba.ca>
Date: Mon, 5 Jun 1995 09:10:27 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Text and Source Criticism
On Mon, 5 Jun 1995, Philip L. Graber wrote:
> Can anyone suggest one or two works I might read on the role of text
> criticism in the formulation of hypotheses concerning Matthean or Markan
> priority? I am primarily interested in learning something more about the
> early periods of the "history of scholarship" of source criticism of the
> synoptics.
Start with G. D. Fee's essay "Modern Textual Crit. and the Synoptic
Problem," in _Studies in the Theory and Method of NT Textual Criticism_,
E. J. Epp, G. D. Fee (Eerdmans 1993), 174-82, which also includes refs.
to two other publications by Fee with fuller discussion.
Larry Hurtado, Religion, Univ. of Manitoba
------------------------------
From: "Larry W. Hurtado" <hurtado@cc.umanitoba.ca>
Date: Mon, 5 Jun 1995 09:19:10 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Mark and Midrash
As I was asked to comment on the question of Mark and "midrash," a short
one. THe main problem is that "midrash/midrashic" has become something
of a wax nose. People use the term with little or no comment, as if the
term is expected to communicate something clear, but it doesn't.
"Midrash" *does* have a clear meaning in rabbinics, where it designates a
genre of writings. By extension, it can also refer to the handling of OT
exemplified in the midrashim. But when people use the term to describe
the Gospels, for example, they're stretching the term beyond all
recognition.
If what we mean is that the gospels seem to be narratives heavily
built of, and shaped by, OT materials--the answer is obviously (Oops. I
mean, obvious to many of us), "Yes, of course". But when does this
constitute "midrash"?
I prefer to keep "midrash" meaningful by keeping it as a
designation of something in particular. The gospels are not "midrash" in
any meaningful sense. They may well be narratives heavily patterned
after OT narratives and other material. I suggest that nothing is gained
by taking a perfectly clear and good term, Midrash, and then confusedly
using it for something other than a midrash, as if this advanced
anything, either in clarifying the nature of the Gospels or of midrash.
Larry Hurtado, Religion, Univ. of Manitoba
------------------------------
From: "Larry W. Hurtado" <hurtado@cc.umanitoba.ca>
Date: Mon, 5 Jun 1995 09:41:28 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Ending of Mark
On Sat, 3 Jun 1995, Carl W Conrad wrote:
> I don't think the codex appears regularly until the third or
> fourth century--although, of course, it presumably had to get started
> with someone making the inventive leap.
Per C. H. Roberts (_The Birth of the Codex_), among Christian mss
(biblical and non-biblical) prior to 400 CE, over 90% are codex-format;
cf. to almost opposite proportions among non-Christian mss.
And the exceptions someone else suggested (P12, P13, P22)--I
think this is likely an error, but I don't have Roberts' book in my
office just now. I could be wrong, but my recollection is that Christian
biblical mss. are *all* codex-format, except for a small handfull (ca.
8-10) that are opisthographs (i.e., Christian texts written over a
previously-used roll).
Interstingly enough, the preference for the codex goes back to
our very earliest Christian material, seems to have been esp.
consistent in biblical mss., with variations more in non-biblical
materials. It is esp. interesting to examine the use of codex & roll
for "apocryphal" works that were intended to "compete" with what became
canonical.
Larry Hurtado, Religion, Univ. of Manitoba
------------------------------
From: Stephen Carlson <scc@reston.icl.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Jun 95 10:43:51 EDT
Subject: Re: Oh Sweet Potato of Life
DDDJ@aol.com wrote:
> 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!
I remember reading about this on sci.lang. The dispute is over how to
translate "bread" into Klingon. As Klingon has no native word for
"bread," one group rendered it as "grain-food"; the other as "blood-pie."
I also remember hearing a story, perhaps apocryphal, about the translation
of the phrase "the Lamb of God" into a language of a culture which never
heard of lambs. It turned out that in that culture a young pig had the
similar sacrificial connotations and was thus used by the translator.
Needless to say, the phrase "the Young Pig of God" would have been very
shocking in Jesus' cultural milieu.
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: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Mon, 5 Jun 1995 09:23:21 -0600 (GMT-0600)
Subject: Re: Ending of Mark
This is very interesting. Thanks, Larry, for the bibliographical rfc
also. And, by the way, the term "opisthograph" is new to me (but I really
haven't dealt with textual tradition questions--as should be obvious from
my ill-placed comments on this subject on this list), but does this mean
something different from what "palimpsest" means?
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 <ropes!scc@uu3.psi.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Jun 95 11:15:51 EDT
Subject: Re: Mark 16:8 (and Mark 1:1)
WINBROW@aol.com wrote:
> 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.
Prescinding from source critical theories, I don't think that a double
quotation attributed to one prophet would have been a problem for
Matthew. After all, Mt27:9-10 (thirty pieces of silver for a potter's
field) cites a blend of Zc11:12-13 and Je18:1-3 as from Jeremiah.
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: Stephen Carlson <scc@reston.icl.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Jun 95 11:44:14 EDT
Subject: Re: Mark 16:8
Timster132@aol.com wrote:
> Although I am a little frustrated with the book ending with GAR, I have
> noticed that PHOBONTES GAR is the standard reaction in Mark to miracles. And
> while we usually translate PHOBOUNTO as they were afraid, there is also a
> sense of "awe" at the miraculous in Mark. I think the ending "for they were
> in awe" is appropriate for the gospel of Mark. It is a definite pointer to
> the resurrection.
Are you perhaps thinking of a different verb? I can't find the phrase
"FOBONTES GAR" in the entire New Testament.
I did a search and found six instances of FOBW/FOBOUMAI + GAR in the NT:
Mk11:18 EFOBOUNTO GAR AUTON
16: 8 EFOBOUNTO GAR.
Lk19:21 EFOBOUMHN GAR SE hOTI ...
22: 2 EFOBOUNTO GAR TON LAON
Ac 5:26 EFOBOUNTO GAR TON LAON
2Co12:20 FOBOUMAI GAR MH ...
Only Mk16:8 lacks a predicate, though predicates are not required with
this verb (cf. Lk1:30).
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: Vincent Broman <broman@np.nosc.mil>
Date: Mon, 5 Jun 95 09:03:29 PDT
Subject: Re: Ending of Mark
lswain@wln.com wrote:
> The thing to explain in that case though
> is all the copies of the gospel were in codex form, all lost their first
> and last leaves, and then were copied to papyrus??
(In case there is a misunderstanding here, papyrus material is used
for both scrolls and codices, christians generally using papyrus _codices_.)
The scenario being discussed here is that one very early manuscript of Mark,
a first or second generation copy, lost a leaf, and that all or most
surviving copies of Mark descend from this damaged exemplar.
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: Mon, 5 Jun 95 09:52:06 PDT
Subject: Re: Mark 16:8
Tim Staker wrote:
Indeed, all of the witnesses experienced the resurrection of Jesus,
> but no where does Paul say they experienced a resuscitated
> corpse of Jesus, which is the literal misinterpretation of
> the resurrection pericope (in my opinion).
> Paul says "flesh and blood do not inherit the kingdom", and
> that there is a spiritual body, not a resuscitated corpse.
> I am NOT a docetist (that Jesus' death was not physically real) ,
> nor am I suggesting the resurrection was "all in their heads".
> What the essence of the risen Christ actually was is a mystery
> (as well it probably should be), but if one reads Paul w/out the influence of
> the gospels, it is clear that he is unaware of the
> angel(s), the rich man's tomb, the guards, the stone.
> All he says is that Christ was dead, was buried, and was raised by God.
> And this is enough for Paul to build his whole theology upon. And Mark
> doesn't need a resurrection appearance pericope
> to proclaim the resurrection. BLESSED ARE THOSE WHO HAVE
> NOT SEEN AND YET BELIEVE.
>
> Peace,
> Tim Staker
This seems to have the same assumption that reading a belief into
Mark's alleged community does. It assumes what Paul was and was not
aware of and what he had/had not told his audience. If Mark does not
need a resurrection because his community believes in it already,
why is it assumed that Paul is unaware of the full story of the
resurrection, which he clearly thought was bodily (though you seem to
be suggesting otherwise)? As for being blessed for believing without
seeing, it seems clear to me from the other canonical Gospels that
Jesus apparently felt it necessary to show himself after the
Resurrection to multiple individuals. We are believe without sight
their testimony and via their testimony, believe in the risen Jesus.
The original disciples were NOT called to believe without seeing,
except of course in the current form of Mark, however valid it is.
Ken Litwak
Emeryville, CA
------------------------------
From: thompson@bible.acu.edu
Date: Mon, 05 Jun 1995 11:43:58 CST
Subject: unsubscribe
unsubscribe b-greek
------------------------------
From: Stephen Carlson <scc@reston.icl.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Jun 95 12:38:49 EDT
Subject: Re: Mark 16:8
Carl W Conrad wrote:
> I will comment only on this last paragraph of Tim's characterization of
> Mark's gospel, with which I generally concur. I think I have commented
> on-list previously about this GAR and the objection that a Greek sentence
> cannot end with a GAR and therefore 16:8 cannot be the original ending of
> Mark. Such an assertion betrays an ignorance of Greek or at least a want
> of appreciation of the working of postpositives. GAR can never be the
> first element in a statement;it is regularly placed AFTER the first word
> of a statement to indicate that the statement is an explanation of what
> was previously stated. Inasmuch as the one word EFOBOUNTO includes both
> subject and predicate, it is a complete clause--except for the fact that
> the Greek language abhors a sentence or clause without a connective just
> about as surely as nature abhors a vacuum. The only place for the GAR is
> after EFOBOUNTO; EFOBOUNTO GAR is a complete sentence, calling for no
> further narrative explanation because it is itself the explanation for
> why the women didn't tell anyone what they had seen and heard. Q.E.D.
This analysis is exactly correct, but I don't think that the usual
objection is that it is impossible for a Greek sentence to end with
GAR. John 13:13 is a well-known example. The usual objection is
that (a) such constructs are extremely rare and (b) that EFOBOUNTO
commonly takes an object. This calls for suspicion.
My own feeling is that if EFOBOUNTO is to meant to be a complete
clause, I would have rather expected a participle. Perhaps, Mark is
being emphatic here, and that could also account for the rarity of
GAR with a bare verb. John 13:13 is certainly emphatic. For this
reason, I doubt that the other alternative endings were original.
None of them supply an object for EFOBOUNTO, which would counter
the aforementioned objection.
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: Larry Swain <lswain@wln.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Jun 1995 10:17:12 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Ending of Mark
On Mon, 5 Jun 1995, Vincent Broman wrote:
> lswain@wln.com wrote:
> > The thing to explain in that case though
> > is all the copies of the gospel were in codex form, all lost their first
> > and last leaves, and then were copied to papyrus??
>
> (In case there is a misunderstanding here, papyrus material is used
> for both scrolls and codices, christians generally using papyrus _codices_.)
> The scenario being discussed here is that one very early manuscript of Mark,
> a first or second generation copy, lost a leaf, and that all or most
> surviving copies of Mark descend from this damaged exemplar.
Thank you for pointing out my error, I made the mistake of writing after
midnight when the old gray matter is not always operating at optimum.
What I meant to say is that I find it unlikely, possible but unlikely,
that a first generation copy lost the leaf and that all surviving copies
descend from this one-and that it should have left no trace at all in the
literature anywhere, and that all other copies save this damaged one were
lost etc seems to me to be unlikely.
Larry Swain
lswain@wln.com
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #737
*****************************
** 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