[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #739
b-greek-digest Tuesday, 6 June 1995 Volume 01 : Number 739
In this issue:
Re: Mark 16:8
Re: Mark 16:8
Re: Mark 16:8
[none]
Re: Text and Source Criticism
Let's make a critical apparatus (quickly)
Re: Let's make a critical apparatus (quickly)
Re: Mark 16:8
Re: Greek NT papyrus (sc)rolls
Re: Mark 16:8
Re: Mark 16:8
Re: Mark 16:8
Re: Mark 16:8
Proneia
Re: Mark 16:8
Re: Mark 16:8
Re: Mark 16:8
Re: Mark 16:8
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 1995 05:28:11 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Mark 16:8
On Mon, 5 Jun 1995, Gregory Jordan (ENG) wrote:
>
> Carl, let's put it this way: the "gar" comes second in the sentence even
> though it acts as a connective. It inverts its clause by coming second
> and placing another word/phrase in front of itself. Therefore, in the
> usual florid Greek, it is followed by several other words which connect
> with the word before it. As in Mark 16:8 itself, "eikhen gar autas
> tromos kai ekstasis" which has a nice balanced feel to it. To place it
> last by itself is awkward - like ending a sentence with _de_ or _men_) and
> even more so when it is preceded by nothing but a verb. It's true that phob-
> doesn't need an express object, let alone subject. But it's all these
> things *together*, all in one place, a multiple improbability, that makes
> myself and others suspicious. Add to that the *possible* content
> awkwardness (the abrupt ending), and it almost shifts the burden of proof
> to those who feel satisfied by it.
"It's true then." "Don't believe then." Greg, I think this is flogging a
dead horse and imagining that the postpositive nature of GAR is itself
some peculiar idiomatic feature of Greek, an "inversion," as you phrase
it, of natural order. But it's Indo-European (whoops, better stay away
from that one after my last generalization about genders in
Indo-European!), or at any rate, it's not just Greek. Latin ENIM, German
DENN, English THEN (when it means "after all," "as for that," or the
like) function just as does the Greek GAR. Although it is a connective,
to be sure, GAR is really adverbial. There's no inversion of natural
order here. I really can't see anything in these objections to EFOBOUNTO
GAR that is grounded in the linguistic structure and idiom. I think THEN
(OIMAI OUN ...) it is the expectation in terms of the CONTENT of the
narrative that leaves some readers feeling that this ending is abrupt. In
the end this may come down to a matter of characteristic Marcan style:
the "gotcha" quality or what is sometimes called PARA PROSDOKIAN.
Consider the parable chapter in Mark, where we confront the strange
phenomenon of disciples to whom is given the MUSTHRION THS BASILEIAS TOU
QEOU 4:11); 4:25 is rather jarring at the close of Jesus' remarks on
insight (presumably into parables): ... KAI hO EXEI ARQHSETAI AP' AUTOU.
Similarly at the end of the whole parable sequence, 4:34 expresses again
the mysterious opacity of the ears and understanding of the disciples:
KAT' IDIAN DE TOIS IDIOIS MAQHTAIS EPELUEN PANTA. Robert M. Fowler, who
has written a "Reader-Response" critical analysis of Mark [_Let the
Reader Understand: Reader-Response Criticism and the Gospel of Mark_.
Minneapolis:Fortress Press, 1991] has a nice short discussion of this
quality of Marcan narrative as one of the articles in Janice Capel
Anderson and Stephen D. Moore, _Mark & Method: New Approaches in Biblical
Studies_ (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992. I think these articles are
somewhat uneven, but Fowler's is very good, and includes a nice
discussion of the final pericope of the gospel (arguing, that is, that
16:1-8 really IS the final pericope of the gospel).
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: Tue, 6 Jun 1995 05:42:33 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Mark 16:8
On Mon, 5 Jun 1995, Larry Swain wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Jun 1995, Carl W Conrad wrote:
> > Quite frankly, the participle wasn't a problem to begin with. And now I
> > frankly don't understand what "expressed predicate" is still being sought
> > in 16:8. EFOBOUNTO is absolute: "they were afraid." There are plenty of
> > instances of FOBOUMAI used absolutely, e.g. Mk 10:32 (KAI EFOBOUNTO), in
> > the imperative twice in Lk 1:12 (MH FOBOU), Lk 12:32 (same). Schmoller's
> > Handkonkordanz cites numerous examples of the absolute use.
>
> Carl,
> What do you think of the translation "They were in awe" argued for by WC
> Allen?
Not much. I think the sense is better captured by Daryl Schmidt's, "Talk
about terrified!" Granted that awe is a possibility, it really doesn't
seem to be the sort of thing that would DETER the women from telling
others (IMHO). It also presupposes, I think, that the NEANISKOS is an
angel. Larry has said that angels are not uncommonly referred to as
NEANISKOI, but I'm not really convinced that this one is, beyond the fact
that he is in the literal sense an ANGELOS, a bringer of news. Maybe I'm
hedging on this, because I certainly don't mean to say that this pericope
is meant to be "naturalistic." An empty tomb with a young man inside
inviting visitors to come in and see the shroud is not your everyday
occurrence. It would terrify me, I think, rather than fill me with awe.
Am I alone? And I still think that there is an intended link between the
NEANISKOS who escapes from the arrest scene and leaves his shroud behind
him as he flees naked. Someone (was it Larry?) already suggested that the
NEANISKOS may in fact BE the risen Jesus, but that seems questionable in
view of the message, "He is not here."
Sorry, but I cannot escape the impression that people unsatisfied with
Mark 16:1-8 are looking for Mark's gospel to conform to expectations
aroused by Matthew's and Luke's about what a gospel is and how it should
tell "the good news."
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: "Gregory Jordan (ENG)" <jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu>
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 1995 08:51:08 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Mark 16:8
On Tue, 6 Jun 1995, Carl W Conrad wrote:
> "It's true then." "Don't believe then." Greg, I think this is flogging a
> dead horse and imagining that the postpositive nature of GAR is itself
> some peculiar idiomatic feature of Greek, an "inversion," as you phrase
> it, of natural order.
I *must* say that I at least am tired of being told I don't know that gar
is a postpositive, or being misunderstood to say that it is its secondary
position that I find suspicious. I think I and others have explained
ourselves enough to be beyond that. Either there is a *cloud* of
misunderstanding on this list, or people are reading and answering posts
too quickly and heatedly.
I think those who accept the ending of Mark as intentional 1) are
satisfied by the few and nonexact parallels in Greek elsewhere that this
sentence is perfectly ordinary; and 2) have developed an elaborate reading
of Mark to justify the abrupt ending, making the "cart" lead and even
define the "horse." I personally am willing to declare this horse and
cart dead since there doesn't seem to be any further illumination on the
subject developing here.
Greg Jordan
jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu
------------------------------
From: Mike Stallard <mdstheo@epix.net>
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 1995 09:50:18 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [none]
unsubscribe b-greek
------------------------------
From: "David B. Peabody" <dbp@hobbes.nebrwesleyan.edu>
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 1995 09:04:48 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Text and Source Criticism
Philip,
In addition to the work suggested by Larry Hurtado, might I add:
J. K. Elliott, "The Relevance of Textual Criticism to the Synoptic
Problem," in *The Interrelations of the Gospels,* ed. David L. Dungan
(Leuven: Peeters, 1990): 348-359.
Christopher M. Tuckett, "The Minor Agreements and Textual Criticism," in
*Minor Agreements. Symposium Goettingen 1991* ed. Georg Strecker,
Goettinger Theologische Arbeiten 50 (Goettingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht):
119-142.
David B. Peabody, "Chapters in the History of the Linguistic Argument for
Solving the Synoptic Problem. The Nineteenth Century in Context," in
*Jesus, the Gospels, and the Church* ed. E. P. Sanders (Macon GA: Mercer
University Press, 1987): 47-68.
The Fee article to which Larry refers, or at least a version of it, is
also found in *J. J. Griesbach: Synoptic and Text-Critical Studies.
1776-1976,* ed. Bernard Orchard and Thomas R. W. Longstaff, SNTS
Monograph Series 34 (Cambridge University Press, 1978): 154-169.
You may find other articles in these collections of some interest as well.
You will also find some other suggestions by checking the index under
"text criticism" in *The Synoptic Problem. A Bibliography, 1716-1988,*
ed. Thomas Richmond Willis Longstaff and Page A. Thomas, New Gospel
Studies 4 (Macon GA: Mercer University Press, 1988).
David B. Peabody
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.
>
> Philip Graber Graduate Division of Religion
> Graduate Student in New Testament 211 Bishops Hall, Emory University
> pgraber@emory.edu Atlanta, GA 30322 USA
>
------------------------------
From: "Edgar M. Krentz" <emkrentz@mcs.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 1995 09:11:09 -0600
Subject: Let's make a critical apparatus (quickly)
Larry Hurtado 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
**********************************
A respondent to Hurtado wrote:
>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 sent the following to a subscriber to <b-greek@virginia.edu> and thought
it might be of interest to others:
**********************************
An addendum to what Hurtado wrote about the difficulties one faces in
making a critical apparatus to the NT.
(1) People interested in tracking the work of the International Greek New
Testament Project should seek a library or a scholar who has the regular
reports of the Muenster Institute for Textual Research:
The institute published its first report in 1969: _Bericht der Stiftung zur
Foerderung der neutestamentlichn Textforschung fuer die Jahre 1967/1968 (at
least that is the first one I received). Ten reports have been published so
far, the last in 1992, covering the years 1988-1991.
The reports contain significant articles. The table of contents of the last
in English translation illustrates the depth of the work:
I. Barbara Aland: The Editio Critica Maior of the New Testament's goal and
structure. (37pp in length)
II. Klaus Wachtel: Problems in the documentation of the Byzantine text in a
major critical edition of the New Testament. (50 pp.)
IIIBoris L FDonkic: Palaeographic comments on the Greek MSS of the NT I: On
the transmission of the Catholic Epiostles. (3 pp.)
IV. The Publications and Wok of the Institute 1988-1991. (12pp.) Includes
reports on the IGNT, the 26th and 27th eds of the NA-GNT, the 4th ed of the
UBS-GNT, the newly edited Latin NT, The Synopsis Quattuor Evangeiorum, the
NT on Papyrus, vol 2, ther NTY in Syriac transmissionII: the Pauline
Letters 1: Rom and 1 Cor, List of the Coptic MSS of the NT 1: Sahidic MSS
of the Gospels, Text and Textual value of the GNT MSS II: the Pauline
letters vols 1-4, etc., etc.
There are numerous tables that give the results of the investigation: e.g.
p. 91 gives 9 variations for James 2:19 hOTI hEIS ESTIN hO THEOS. There is
a list of the manuscripts that vary more than 10% from the majority text on
p. 87.
One ought not criticize severly the work of the _Muenster Institut fuer
Textforschung_ until one has read these reports and seen the essays showing
their method, problematics, and the process of decision-making, and come to
realize the complexity of the editing of a comprehensive critical edition
of the Greek New Testament. The NA27 provides in an extremely compressed
apparatus massive documentation for the textual tradition of the GNT. Why
duplicate this effort?
(2) If one decides to limit one's efforts to the papyri and Uncial MSS,
plus a few cursives, that is already a critical decision that does not
solve the problems. The papyri vary in date from the second to the seventh
centuries; uncial MSS do not have a single text type, and who decides which
cursives to use?
(3) Finally, in my graduate studies I collated unpublished Greek papyri
[not of the NT] and Plutarch MSS for a course in palaeography. Collation is
not the simple matter you might think. It is laborious, requires immense
concentration, and easily leads to errors of transcription, unless one
double and triple checks--and then asks another set of eyes to validate the
transcription. That is being done at Muenster!
This is my first submission to this discussion, and will probably be my
last. But I will continue to follow the exchanges with interest--and may
well use some of the material in the course "New Testament: Methods of
Interpretation" next winter quarter.
Peace, Ed Krentz
*************************************
I later answered the following query:
>You wrote
>> People interested ...should seek a library or a scholar who has the regular
>> reports of the Muenster Institute
>
>Thanks for the suggestion; they look interesting.
>Unfortunately, these do not seem to be available in any library
>in the University of California system, even Berkeley.
>Any pointers where they can be found?
**********************************
My respnse:
Yes. Check in the journal _New Testament Studies_ for a recent membership
list of the Studiorum Novi Testament Societas and then contact one of the
members that is physically close to you. The Muenster Institute sends those
Berichte to all members of the SNTS--at least that's how I got mine.
The alternative would be to write to the Muenster Institute directly and
ask for them.
Cordially,
Edgar Krentz <emkrentz@mcs.com>
New Testament, Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago
1100 East 55th St., Chicago, IL 60615
(Voice) Home: 312/947-8105; Off.: 312-753-0752
------------------------------
From: "Edgar M. Krentz" <emkrentz@mcs.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 1995 09:11:02 -0600
Subject: Re: Let's make a critical apparatus (quickly)
>you wrote:
>> People interested ...should seek a library or a scholar who has the regular
>> reports of the Muenster Institute
>
>Thanks for the suggestion; they look interesting.
>Unfortunately, these do not seem to be available in any library
>in the University of California system, even Berkeley.
>Any pointers where they can be found?
>
>
>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
**********************************
Yes. Check in the journal _New Testament Studies_ for a recent membership
list of the Studiorum Novi Testament Societas and then contact one of the
members that is physically close to you. The Muenster Institute sends those
Berichte to all members of the SNTS, at least that's how I got mine.
The alternative would be to write to the Muenster Institute directly and
ask for them.
Cordially,
Edgar Krentz <emkrentz@mcs.com>
New Testament, Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago
1100 East 55th St., Chicago, IL 60615
(Voice) Home: 312/947-8105; Off.: 312-753-0752
------------------------------
From: "Larry W. Hurtado" <hurtado@cc.umanitoba.ca>
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 1995 09:21:49 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Mark 16:8
Am I incorrect if I suggest that the discussion of the syntactical fine
points of Mark 16:8 may not be doing justice to the role of the final two
words as *a verbal clause explaining the preceding main clause* -- "they
said nothing to anyone"? That is, the book doesn't end with "they were
afraid" but "And they spoke to no one for they were frightened".
Further, "phobeo" in Mark is usually used with reference to
people being what we mean by "frightened". But the terms "tromos" and
"ekstasis" seem to carry more of a connotation of "awe" or emotional
transport occasioned by a strange or eerie experience.
Larry Hurtado,
Religion, Univ. of Manitoba
------------------------------
From: "Larry W. Hurtado" <hurtado@cc.umanitoba.ca>
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 1995 09:33:19 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Greek NT papyrus (sc)rolls
On Tue, 6 Jun 1995, Timothy John Finney wrote:
>
> P13 (about 300 AD) is a roll. There are one or two others among the Greek
> NT papyri. See the latest edition of Aland's Kurzegefastliste.
Yup. P12, P13, P18 and P22 are from scrolls--but, N.B. (1) these are the
*only* cases of scrolls for NT papyri, and (2) these cases are *all*
"either opisthographs or written on reused material" (Aland, _The Text of
the NT_, 1987, p. 102).
Consequently, as such, these do *not* serve to show *preferred*
format for transmission of NT writings (i.e., when you have to resort to
reusing a writing surface, you probably are not exercising your
preference which would be for fresh writing material), which is consistently
shown to be the codex.
Larry Hurtado, Religion, Univ. of Manitoba
------------------------------
From: "Philip L. Graber" <pgraber@emory.edu>
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 1995 10:53:05 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Mark 16:8
On Tue, 6 Jun 1995, Gregory Jordan (ENG) wrote:
> I think those who accept the ending of Mark as intentional 1) are
> satisfied by the few and nonexact parallels in Greek elsewhere that this
> sentence is perfectly ordinary; and 2) have developed an elaborate reading
> of Mark to justify the abrupt ending, making the "cart" lead and even
> define the "horse." I personally am willing to declare this horse and
> cart dead since there doesn't seem to be any further illumination on the
> subject developing here.
This, I believe, is the source of the "cloud of misunderstanding" hanging
over the discussion. I accept the ending of Mark as intentional, but
accept neither 1) nor 2) above. Why should a work be expected to end with
a perfectly ordinary sentence? People say and do many extraordinary
things. Do their hearers/observers bear any burden of proof as to whether
they really did say or do it, or even whether they meant it? It seems to
me that, ordinarily, we are more inclined to ask why than whether.*
Philip Graber Graduate Division of Religion
Graduate Student in New Testament 211 Bishops Hall, Emory University
pgraber@emory.edu Atlanta, GA 30322 USA
*That was unusual! How many English sentences (let alone e-mail messages)
end with "whether", and without a question mark?
------------------------------
From: Kenneth Litwak <kenneth@sybase.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 95 09:09:40 PDT
Subject: Re: Mark 16:8
> Sorry, but I cannot escape the impression that people unsatisfied with
> Mark 16:1-8 are looking for Mark's gospel to conform to expectations
> aroused by Matthew's and Luke's about what a gospel is and how it should
> tell "the good news."
Carl,
Well, maybe that's the case, but for me I really think the issue is
that an announcement by some young man (as opposed to an angel) that
someone rose from the dead and an empty tomb lends credibiltiy to
Jesus as risen, but not much. Without an appearance, Mark provides
no basis, to my mind, for not being an agnostic regarding the
resurrection. There is a clear distinction, IMO, between saying,
"Be a committed disciple of Jesus in the face of all that he did and
the validation of his claims by his resurrection, as witnessed by
those who told me these stories" and "Be a committed disciple of Jesus
based on his non-validated pre-death assertions and the claims about
what he did from this early followers who never saw him after his death."
I don't accept the idea that you can read into Mark 16:1-8 what Mark's
alleged community knew to be true. Otherwise, Matt 28, Lk 24, and
John 20-21 are largely redundant because I can assume the same thing
for their alleged communities. Note: I only used alleged because I
don't think one can recover much about the original recipients of
any of the canonical Gospels, except probably that Matthew wrote to
Jewish Christians. Beyond that, everything seems to me to be pretty
speculative. I think one that thinks Mark ends at v.8 needs to take
seriously the issue of why Mark's Jesus would be more compelling to a
1st cent. audience that any other religious figure, without the
validation of the neaniskos's claim.
Cheers,
Ken
kenneth@sybase.com
------------------------------
From: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 1995 10:11:36 -0600 (GMT-0600)
Subject: Re: Mark 16:8
On Tue, 6 Jun 1995, Gregory Jordan (ENG) wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Jun 1995, Carl W Conrad wrote:
>
> > "It's true then." "Don't believe then." Greg, I think this is flogging a
> > dead horse and imagining that the postpositive nature of GAR is itself
> > some peculiar idiomatic feature of Greek, an "inversion," as you phrase
> > it, of natural order.
>
> I *must* say that I at least am tired of being told I don't know that gar
> is a postpositive, or being misunderstood to say that it is its secondary
> position that I find suspicious. I think I and others have explained
> ourselves enough to be beyond that. Either there is a *cloud* of
> misunderstanding on this list, or people are reading and answering posts
> too quickly and heatedly.
>
> I think those who accept the ending of Mark as intentional 1) are
> satisfied by the few and nonexact parallels in Greek elsewhere that this
> sentence is perfectly ordinary; and 2) have developed an elaborate reading
> of Mark to justify the abrupt ending, making the "cart" lead and even
> define the "horse." I personally am willing to declare this horse and
> cart dead since there doesn't seem to be any further illumination on the
> subject developing here.
Honestly, Greg, I'm sorry if I haven't understood what you meant by
referring to this sentence as an "inversion." I grant that we seem to
have reached an impasse, in that some, including you, find the phrasing
of EFOBOUNTO GAR as abnormal and/or without adequate parallels, while
others, including myself, cannot see what is problematic about it.
Evidently your objection really is a linguistic one that I haven't
understood, rather than a matter of interpretation of what Mark may mean.
I apologize sincerely for misreading your intention and for contributing
to a failure of communication.
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: Tue, 6 Jun 1995 10:18:15 -0600 (GMT-0600)
Subject: Re: Mark 16:8
On Tue, 6 Jun 1995, Larry W. Hurtado wrote:
..........[omission]
> Further, "phobeo" in Mark is usually used with reference to
> people being what we mean by "frightened". But the terms "tromos" and
> "ekstasis" seem to carry more of a connotation of "awe" or emotional
> transport occasioned by a strange or eerie experience.
Yes, the word EKSTASIS is particularly interesting, as it could in fact
refer to a sense of awe; in earlier Greek it was commonly enough used of
religious experience, although in itself it means simply being "outside
of oneself." And I think this is the right sense: they didn't tell anyone
because they were scared out of their wits.
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: GAlanC@aol.com
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 1995 12:45:31 -0400
Subject: Proneia
I need some help from the persons on this list who are much more
knowledgeable than I in trying to ascertain the range of meaning in the word
PORNEIA (and related terms) (1 Cor 6:13; Eph 5:3; et. al.). The problem is
with the very vague term with which it is usually translated, "sexual
immorality."
What I need to know is whether or not this term includes to idea of
fornication, or premarital sex. There are some who want to say that this
only includes the breaking of a betrothal agreement and that the Bible no
where condemns the practice of premarital sex.
With the limited resources at my disposal I can not understand where some one
could come up with that interpretation without an _a priori_ understanding in
which premarital sex is acceptable.
My understanding of Paul's contemporary society was that it condoned
prostitution, homosexuality, and practically any sex outside of marriage,
that is what made Paul's view so radical.
The argument which I have encountered goes something like this:
In Jesus' and Paul's day puberty and marriage happened at about the time so
they did not have the problem of people remaining unmarried for long periods
of time as we do today. Therefore the admonitions a against _PORNEIA_ only
related to betrothed couples. With the current practice of waiting for
marriage today this practice does not apply today.
I personally think this is a bunch of garbage. And the IVP Bible Background
Commentary says as much in its treatment of 1 Cor 6:12-20 and Eph 5:3.
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Grace and Peace,
Alan Cassady
AOL - GAlanC@aol.com
Montgomery, AL
June 6, 1995
11:36 am
------------------------------
From: "Gregory Jordan (ENG)" <jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu>
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 1995 13:04:36 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Mark 16:8
On Tue, 6 Jun 1995, Carl W Conrad wrote:
> Honestly, Greg, I'm sorry if I haven't understood what you meant by
> referring to this sentence as an "inversion."
Carl,
Not to "resurrect" the point, but by my probably poor choice of term I
meant that "gar" like any postpositive separates what comes before from
what comes after, even if they are closly related grammatically (cf.
the use of _de_ between an article and its noun), and that this is a
natural part of usual Greek style: to let the particle momentarily pause a
clause after its first word. For this reason it is usually necessary to
have something to say after the first word (one-word sentences are rare after
all).
If I can summarize my position, it is that 1) for no certain grammatical
reason, but for a variety of stylistic reasons, the final clause in 16:8
strikes me as "funny"; 2) I do see the ending as abortive. One reason is
my low opinion of the redactor's ability/intention to create "irony" and
so on from what is mostly a jumble of traditional fragments. If nothing
else, I see a meeting with Peter being set up in Mark 14.28-31 and raised
again in 16.7 with no resolution (and I think Mark didn't expect the
audience to be as imaginative as 20th century Biblical scholars :). So I
assume Mark's ending is incomplete and unrecoverable, and it may never
have existed in written form.
No need to apologize, I was just feeling frustrated about being
misunderstood. Just imagine being Mark right now!
Greg Jordan
jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu
------------------------------
From: "Gregory Jordan (ENG)" <jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu>
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 1995 13:13:38 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Mark 16:8
On Tue, 6 Jun 1995, Larry W. Hurtado wrote:
> Further, "phobeo" in Mark is usually used with reference to
> people being what we mean by "frightened". But the terms "tromos" and
> "ekstasis" seem to carry more of a connotation of "awe" or emotional
> transport occasioned by a strange or eerie experience.
I would just add that it is unlikely that the experience was positive in
a religious sense, since the neaniskos (esp. if he is meant to represent
God's intention) tells them to stop doing it (Mark 16.6 mE
ekthambeisthe). This is the usual request for a "stiff upper lip" from
an apparition.
Greg Jordan
jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu
------------------------------
From: "Gregory Jordan (ENG)" <jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu>
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 1995 13:17:19 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Mark 16:8
On Tue, 6 Jun 1995, Carl W Conrad wrote:
> others (IMHO). It also presupposes, I think, that the NEANISKOS is an
> angel. Larry has said that angels are not uncommonly referred to as
> NEANISKOI, but I'm not really convinced that this one is, beyond the fact
> that he is in the literal sense an ANGELOS, a bringer of news.
Carl,
Several times you have stressed the _neaniskos_. Do you have an opinion
on him? Is he the same neaniskos as the one in the _Secret Gospel of
Mark_? And if so, what does his presence in the tomb mean?
Greg Jordan
jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu
------------------------------
From: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 1995 13:02:17 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Mark 16:8
Thanks, Greg, at last I think I understand you. In fact, it may have
something to do with something that has always (or long and often)
puzzled me about English punctuation: When we say: "This then is what I
meant all the time," we do pause, I think, however briefly, before and
after 'then.' My own tendency is to want to punctuate the sentence:
"This, then, is what I meant all the time," in order to indicate the
brief pause in enunciation. Standard English grammar does not permit this
punctuation, perhaps recognizing that 'then' is "simply" a postpositive
that doesn't really interrupt the structure of the sentence.
I this this exchange has been helpful and, yes, I think we come at this
text from different assumptions about Marks as a redactor. In fact, some
of us who really think highly of Marcan composition would probably prefer
not to use the term, "redactor," for one who seems more creative than an
editor. It seems to me that we can bring closure to this matter now by
recognizing the assumptions on which we differ fundamentally, BOTH about
(1) whether the grammar is exceptional, AND about (2) whether the ending
at 16:8 is an accident or the author's intention.
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/
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #739
*****************************
** 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