From: Edgar M. Krentz (emkrentz@mcs.com)
Date: Tue Dec 05 1995 - 22:35:33 EST
I have been reading the submissions on Mark's Greek with some interest. The
judgment about his stylistic and linguistic level is not a judgment about
the content of his gospel, but about his own linguistic background and,
perhaps, about that of his original readers. Hence this submission.
Rodney Decker wrote:
>I think it is an overstatement to view Mark's style as "so bad" (comparing
>it with substandard English) as to contain "ignorance or careless lapses."
>There is certainly a wide range of style in the NT. Hebrews is prob. on the
>"upper end" and Mark and John on the "lower end." Yet all the NT writers
>communicate in relatively clear, idiomatic Greek--not at all like some of
>the papyri. The Greek of the NT has been described as conversational Greek
>(in contrast to literary and vernacular Greek).
This is a generally helpful evaluation. I agree with Rod Decker that one
should compare Mark to writers of Greek in the early Roman empire, not to
English style. But that is the very reason for commenting that Mark is, as
Rod says, not literary in style.
>I doubt very many on this
>list are qualified to judge much beyond that. What may appear to be poor
>Greek may as often as not be the judge's problem! (I note that my students
>find all sorts of "problems" with what they read--but those problems seem
>to disappear as their proficiency increases.)
Here I differ with Rod. Carl Conrad has read a good bit of Greek
literature, as have Fred Danker and I [sometimes in the same graduate
seminar]. And that includes reading ancient grammarians, literary critics,
and teachers of rhetoric. That makes it poossible to pass some more
informed judgments on Mark's styhle, without it being "the judge's
problem"! Mark writes a simple, generally correct Greek, but with stylistic
features that would not pass muster in a class in Greek prose composition
today or the criteria of Greek literary critics and teachers of grammar in
his own time--to say nothing of those who wrote literary Greek in the Roman
world.
What are those marks? 1. paratactic, rather than hypotactic, style. The use
of a limited range of particles and conjunctions, hence his ubiquitous KAI
and EUQUS.
2. Redundancy in expression: let me give an example from Mark 9:21. The
little phrase EK PAIDIOQEN is redundant. The suffix *-QEN already indicates
motion away from, hence source. Either the EK is redundant, the *-QEN
unnecessary, or Mark simply is unaware of the significance of the suffix.
3. His vocabulary is limited and at times reflects popular speech, not
literary language. E.g., Mark 2:4 uses the term KRABBATON, "pallet," for
which Matthew and Luke use the term KLINH. Phrynichos, in his lexicon of
words unsuitable for litrary composition, athetizes the former, recommends
the latter.
In comparison to the non-literary papyri Mark stands out as one who [at
least in the text we have] spells correctly [little evidence of itacism].
He does not write a Greek as complicated syntactically as that of official
documents, e.g. the letter of Claudius to the Alexandrians [Hunt-Edgar,
II.212]. His Greek is much simpler than that of Strabo, who does *not*
write a high literary style. Mark does not write a literary Greek close to
that of Lukian and Plutarch. His word order is closer to that of Epiktetos.
In short, as Rod Decker says, conversational Greek, usually correct, but
not always, with folk idioms.
IMHO, one ought not pass judgment on Mark's literary ability unless one has
read extensively in later Greek literature, Greek inscriptions, and papyri.
If one does, one will never think Mark wrote a literary Greek. He does
communicate well to his intended audience. And that utilitarian criterion
is finally, perhaps, the most applicable.
Now, if you want to read a NT Greek author who does, as Dionysios of
Alexandria said in the third century, write Greek full of "barbarisms and
solecisms," read the Apocalypse of John. Try to account for the Greek of
Rev. 1:4-6, where APO governs the nominative, where HN becomes a noun, etc.
Powerful Greek, but not always "correct."
It's the very variety of the Greek in the NT that is a part of its
linguistic fascination.
And that is -30-
Edgar Krentz, New Testament
Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago
Tel.: 312-256-0752; (H) 312-947-8105
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:33 EDT