From: Bob Schacht (Robert.Schacht@NAU.EDU)
Date: Fri Dec 19 1997 - 09:08:50 EST
>Date: Fri, 19 Dec 1997 08:51:19 +0000
>From: "Stephen C. Carlson" <scarlson@mindspring.com>
>Subject: Re: Mark 7:19
>Sender: owner-crosstalk@info.harpercollins.com
>X-Sender: scarlson@pop.mindspring.com
>To: CrossTalk@info.harpercollins.com
>X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (16)
>
>This was my reply to Mahlon's response:
>
>Stephen Carlson
>
>>Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 21:26:20
>>To: mahlonh.smith@worldnet.att.net
>>From: "Stephen C. Carlson" <scarlson@mindspring.com>
>>Subject: Re: Mark 7:19
>>In-Reply-To: <34951477.3F07D46B@worldnet.att.net>
>>References: <3.0.1.16.19971214214234.47d77ecc@pop.mindspring.com>
>>
>>At 06:28 12/15/97 -0500, Mahlon H. Smith wrote:
>>>Stephen C. Carlson wrote:
>>>> Perhaps Mark was not a *knowledgeable* Jew; in that case, what
>>>> evidence is there left (besides Colossians) to distinguish a not-so-
>>>> knowledgeable Jew and a Gentile?
>>
>>>So, the question of whether
>>>Mark or Jesus was "Jewish" cannot be determined by degree of agreement
>>>with Pharisaic halakha.
>>
>>Okay, I'll bite. What particular evidence is there that the author of
>>Mark belongs to anyone of these multi-faceted forms of Judaism -- when
>>he does not seem sensitive to the issue of what time of day the Sabbath
>>begins? I suggest that when the Sabbath begins is not merely a
>>question of Pharisaic halakha.
>>
>>>But you seem to mistake my argument on Mark 7:19 & you misrepresent
>>>(unintentionally I'm sure) Carl's analysis. HE says that the
>>>construction is so odd that the participle is less likely to be from
>>>Mark than a later scribe. I agee, IF the participle is interpreted
>>
>>I think that you are (unintentionally I'm sure) misremembering Tom
>>Kopecek's point as Carl's. According to my mail messages, Tom stated:
>>"An anacoluthon IS a possibility, but it is a really, really odd
>>construction. Scribe looks best to me right now." When I voiced my
>>support of Carl's position, I was refering to the following statement
>>of Carl's: "I think it quite possible that Mark may have been following
>>a tradition here and have APPENDED the phrase KAQARIZWN PANTA TA BRWMATA."
>>Thus, I submit that I have not misrepresented Carl's analysis.
>>
>>>I agee, IF the participle is interpreted
>>>grammatically. If someone can produce a parallel construction in Mark
>>>for this logion, I will concede that Mark might have created such a gosh
>>>awful grammatical construction as this & still remembered to make
>>>participle agree with subject. But my argument hinges on the LOGIC of
>>>the whole pericope rather than just grammar. Jesus' questions presuppose
>>>that the disciples (& Mark's readers) should have known that what is
>>>consumed is passed out of the body without him having to explain it.
>>>This is not presented as novel information. Therefore, the logic of the
>>>sentence makes it improbable that KAQARIZWN modifies LEGEI. If MARK
>>>wanted to say that he would probably have written KAQARIZEI PANTA TA
>>>BRWMATA LEGWN (by analogy with his regular style elsewhere). The only
>>>way to make KAQARIZWN refer to LEGEI is to treat it as Carl suggests: a
>>>scribal addition. So, in that case, this verse provides no evidence
>>>that MARK thought Jesus declared all foods clean.
>>
>>In my scenario, Mark writes KAQARIZWN PANTA TO BRWMATA as an after-
>>thought. Presumably, Mark had a (oral?) tradition available to him,
>>perhaps in a Matthean form, as Thomas 14:5 might attest ("For what goes
>>into your mouth will not defile you, but what comes out of your
>>mouth, that is what will defile you."). Midway through writing this
>>logion of Jesus' with his characteristic wordiness, Mark gets a flash
>>of inspiration that Jesus' statement has an application beyond the
>>pericope at hand: the kosher laws. Thus, Mark writes his comment in
>>correct grammar but not in strict conformance to his regular style since
>>he did not plan it from the beginning. This scenario also address
>>your comment about the logic of the whole pericope. Authors can and
>>do digress.
>>
>>I'm skeptical that it is a scribal gloss, interpolated into Mark's
>>original manuscript, because some version of the phrase is found in
>>all extant manuscripts. True, there is some variation in the form
>>of the verb KAQARIZW, but these are readily explainable by the original
>>form KAQARIZWN, whose implied antecedant is so far removed. I can't
>>see how this particular phrase could get interpolated into all MSS of
>>Mark but not a single MS of the more popular Matthew. Modern textual
>>criticism of the New Testament for good reason is quite hostile to
>>conjectural emendation.
>>
>>Stephen Carlson
>--
>Stephen C. Carlson : Poetry speaks of aspirations,
>scarlson@mindspring.com : and songs chant the words.
>http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/ : -- Shujing 2.35
>
Robert M. Schacht, Ph.D., Director of Research
American Indian Rehabilitation Research & Training Center
Institute for Human Development, University Affiliated Program
P.O.Box 5630
Northern Arizona University
Flagstaff, AZ 86011-5630
phone 520-523-1342; FAX 520-523-9127
http://www.nau.edu/~ihd/airrtc.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:39 EDT