spin

Legion is only one example of the many. Divide and conquer as I told you simply doesn't work. There are a number of aspects that combine to give a fuller picture and separating them is simply arbitrary. Numerous lexical items, idioms literally translated into Greek, Latin syntax in various places, a Roman geographical perspective all work together. You need to see the forest and not just one tree.

When you say this Latinism is in this layer and another Latinism is in another layer, etc., you are not doing anything other than trying to massage the evidence to suit your a priori beliefs.

The originator is someone none of us can talk about. We can only deal with the possibility that material was collected (others will add "and some invented"). The sandwiching is widespread. It reflects a large perspective over the text and suggests an editor who had a lot of stories to work with. The simplest situation is that the collector was responsible for both the inner and outer stories, applying a perspective that allowed the interaction between the two. You may choose to identify two or more separate editors, all doing the same thing, but Occam's razor is sharp.

Your thesis is based on an assertion regarding eye witnesses, one that you have no way of verifying and, worse, no way of falsifying. It's marginally safer to talk about layers. You are working with text.

The ο εστιν (=hoc est) in Mk 5:41 (your second layer), in Mk 3:17 (your third layer), in Mk 12:42 (your second layer) are all before your fourth layer. The denarius (Mk 6:37) is in your first layer. The Roman tribute money (κηνσος) is in your third layer. Legion is your second layer. All the Roman words are essential to their narratives. Remember, Roman words, Roman idioms, Roman syntax all point to a strong Roman influence. Divide and conquer won't help.

stephan huller

I have often wondered about this. What is the likely profile of the individual who wrote in this Latinized Greek? Latin was his native tongue presumably. Likely a resident of Italy? Wealthy? Do we have other literary examples of this sort of Greek?

spin

All good questions that I don't know the answer to. There's no reason for most things written by Latin-speaking Greek writers, but perhaps there might be some hope of finding examples among the Oxyrhynchus administrative materials. Writing in Greek in Rome might suggest someone who needed to use Greek, such as a slave, given the great mass of Greek speaking slaves in Rome. As the Marcan writer was dealing with Jewish materials, it would suggest someone who wasn't Roman. We have a lot of evidence for a Roman disinclination towards gods other than their own. (Josephus was trying to write an apologetic history for Roman consumption in his Jewish Greek, so there was a market in Rome for such stuff. Makes one wonder about linguistic studies of his Greek.)

stephan huller

I think it would be better to break the problem into small questions. The first would be other examples of Latinized Greek. Just to develop a possible profile of the author/editor/whatever he was. Maybe Vork has some ideas. Harris and Vogels claimed that Codex Bezae represented a Latinized Greek text. Niemirska-Pliszczynska notes that Pliny uses Latinized Greek words mostly for describing villas and literary studies.

Adam

Where's the "a priori"? As you admit, my exegesis of 6 layers is very complex, and certainly based on a lot of thought, not just presupposed or taking some authority for granted.
I have explained the comparative analysis that gives me the layers. Must I explain it again in every post? Your Occam's Razor does not explain the linguistic differences and likenesses. It's hairy.
You acknowledge that layers are admissible. By means of Streeter's Proto-Luke I can explain Latinisms when found in both gMark and gLuke in all the layers except Layer 3 (Twelve-Source independently translated from Aramaic). Thus you showed me that Mark 3:10 should be Layer 2, not Layer 3.
I learned from the Archives on Joe Atwill's Caesar Messiah that you're ruthless on the attack, so I answer all your questions. I did not realize, however, that I would need to answer the same questions twice. I guess that parallels your refusal to accept Joe's questions to you. You refuse to accept my answers. I disposed in my Post #262 with the many hoc est instances (your Post #258 table) as merely late (probably 5th Layer) translation-to-Romans related, your Mark 3:17, 5:41, and 12:42 above. Most were not even copied into Matthew. Mark 6:37 is in 1st Layer material, but the reference to denarii is not in Luke, so not necessarily before 5th Layer (my Post #267).

spin

Your layers to me are ad hoc and your use of them in dealing with the Latinisms also seems ad hoc. They are there and you will distort everything through them. That makes them an a priori imposition.

You haven't provided any linguistic analysis, but hinted at exegesis.

Layers are possible, though I can't see how solid specifics can get past the suggestive stage. And it only seems to need one casual datum to make you change the content of a layer.

You're getting repetitive. That all the issues I've been talking about are Latin + Roman issues should tell you that they represent a single widespread phenomenon. I warned you against your attempts at divide and conquer twice before. "Well, this bit Latinism is later and this bit isn't quite so late and this bit is relatively early." Would that convince you? I hope not.

After making a mess of the Latinisms let's look at another issue that should give pause to random divisions of text. You mark Mk 3:20-21 as part of your sixth layer, but 3:22ff as part of your third layer. Verses 20-21 are part of a complex chiasm extending to the end of the chapter.

[t2]A 20 And He came home, and the multitude gathered again, to such an extent that they could not even eat a meal.

B 21 And when his family heard it, they went out to seize him, for people were saying, "He is beside himself."

C 22 And the scribes who came down from Jerusalem said, "He is possessed by Beelzebul,

D and by the prince of demons he casts out the demons."

E 23 And he called them to him, and said to them in parables, "How can Satan cast out Satan?

F 24 If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand.
F' 25 And if a house is divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand.

E' 26 And if Satan has risen up against himself and is divided, he cannot stand, but is coming to an end. 27 But no one can enter a strong man's house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man; then indeed he may plunder his house.

D' 28 "Truly, I say to you,

[t2="bg=#F0F0FF;bdr=1,solid,black"]a all sins

b will be forgiven the sons of men,

c and whatever blasphemies they utter;
c' 29 but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit

b' never has forgiveness,

a' but is guilty of an eternal sin" --[/t2]

C' 30 for they had said, "He has an unclean spirit."

B' 31 And his mother and his brothers came; and standing outside they sent to him and called him.

A' 32 And a multitude was sitting about him; and they said to him, "Your mother and your brothers are outside, asking for you." 33 And he replied, "Who are my mother and my brothers?" 34 And looking about on those who were sitting around Him, He said,

[t2="bg=#F0F0FF;bdr=1,solid,black"]a "Behold, My mother

b and My brothers!

c 35 For whoever does the will of God,

b' he is My brother and sister

a' and mother."[/t2]

[/t2]
The overall structure deals with family, family division and true family. It functions with the insertion of the discussion about why Jesus could not have had an unclean spirit: a house divided against itself cannot stand.

Hopefully, you can see how v.21 relates to v.31 and v.20 relates to vv.32. Mark is filled with chiasms, but how many of those are cut up by your layers?

Vorkosigan

That is a nice breakout of the chiasm there.

Adam

As I said, they are neither a priori nor an appeal to authority. Is the word "hypothesis" acceptable to you? Perhaps not, as hypotheses are subject to modification, and you don't allow that. Before you got involved, I presented in my #245 a list of exactitudes between Mark and Luke. That defined Layers 1 and 2 as against Layers 3 and 4 that gLuke already had. To disitinguish Layer 4 from Layer 3 consider the following. These draw from a Greek text that would not likely have been Greek scattered among the original text mostly in Aramaic. A separate later Q2 in Greek makes better sense to explain about a dozen sequences. These include Lk. 3:7-9, 16-17; 6:36-42, 7:1-23; 9:57-10:24; 11:1-4, 9-32; 12:2-7; 12:22-31,39-46; 13:34-35; 17:1-2. Corresponding passages in gMatthew are 3:7-10, 11-12; 7:1-5; 8:5-10,13 &11:2-15 (exactnesses at Lk.7:8, 19, 22-23) and so on for the other. These passages are disproportionately about John the Baptist and apocalypticism. These could come from someone who remained a follower of John the Baptist even after Jesus’s ministry began.Now we're talking hypotheses, though you seem to regard that as a bad thing.I'm trying to avoid repetition like the impasses we see between J-D and aa. Thus I refer back to my prior answer that you seem to have missed.I see how it all ties together, although the lengthy 3:22-30 about Beelzebub seems like a pericope of its own, as it is in Mt. 12:24-32 and Lk. 11:15-23. Evidently the later editor of Mark set it into the chiasm that you prefer. Are you reverting to inerrancy, at least for canonical gMark?

spin

Oh, change is good, when the right data comes along. It's the ease of change that isn't. The process involves not simply defending your "hypothesis" though, but attempting to appreciate the contrary data presented to you. That is where the problem I was enunciating comes out. You seem to be shaping the data and not dealing with it. That fact reflects an a priori approach.

There is no linguistic analysis in that post. Linguistic analysis deals specifically with language based issues. It helps to establish underlying language connections and differences that one might expect in the work of different writers.

The one thing that is vaguely linguistic you point out is that there are some verbal "exactitudes" between Mk & Lk.

I have seen no linguistic evidence from you about Aramaic. I know that Maurice Casey has a bee in his bonnet on the subject, but hasn't really made much of an impact. You don't get scholars rushing to the Aramaic fold.

It could come from someone with an interest in apocalypticism, someone who had heard someone with an interest in apocalypticism, a follower of John the baptist, a follower of a follower of John the baptist, someone who knew of John the Baptist and and wove him into the evolving Jesus story. In short it could have come from one of very many sources and it could have been just one range of material used by a redactor of a wider range of text. You need more than common content to separate a theoretical source.

Hypotheses need to meet certain standards.

The prior answer #262 was based on your desire to separate the translated Latin idiom hoc est from the other translated Latin idioms. Assertions as you made in #262 are not a response. I have criticized your attempt as trying to divide and conquer evidence that doesn't allow such an approach. You have not responded to the issue. You have only insisted that you can separate the Latinisms as you want. Hence the conclusion that you have made a mess of the data and you return with your ascribing bits of Latinism to different layers without any reason other than they appear in the layers you have invented. Still trying to divide and conquer. Still repetitive without any added analysis.

Nothing "evidently" about it. Using the same logic as you have, why not claim that 3:23b was from a later layer as well? That would help further obscure the chiasm. We see in Mt & Lk no interest in preserving the chiasm.

The links between vv.20-21 and vv.31-35 are evident. Was it just coincidence that vv.22-30 were placed before vv.31-35? If not, it seems difficult to separate vv.20-21 from what follows as they finish the relationship between the two parts of the text.

I'll leave you with another chiasm from Mk 6. You believe that 6:1, 3 are from a later layer than 6:2, 4-5, which is in itself strange because we don't know where the synagogue is until v.4, if v.1 isn't integral.

[T2]

A 1 Jesus went out from there and came into His hometown; and His disciples followed Him.

B 2 When the Sabbath came, He began to teach in the synagogue;

C and the many listeners were astonished, saying, “Where did this man get these things, and what is this wisdom given to Him, and such miracles as these performed by His hands?

D 3 “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? Are not His sisters here with us?”

E And they took offense at Him.
E' 4 Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his hometown

D' and among his own relatives and in his own household.”

C' 5 And He could do no miracle there except that He laid His hands on a few sick people and healed them.

B' 6 And He wondered at their unbelief.

A' And He was going around the villages teaching.

[/T2]
It seems that just as various Marcan authors are adroit in Latin, so are they experts at weaving chiasms, though Matt & Luke plod through the Marcan chiasms without paying attention. Anyone who has followed can judge the current validity of your layers.

Adam

You seem to be shaping what "a priori" means. If it means what you use it to mean, then you're the one shaping the data and not dealing with it. (My bolds)
You misunderstand my thesis at its core. As I have explained several times, the Streeter Proto-Luke proposes that the later material in gLuke is copied over from an intermediate-stage gMark, but just adding what he did not already have. This is where there are mutual verbal exactitudes. I regard the additions as Layers 1 and 2 of gMark. I have tried unsuccessfully for 45 years to find linguistic differences within gMark. Apparently these chiasms are what I overlooked, the clever rearrangements of the final editor of gMark. Perhaps if I had labelled Layers 3 and 4 as Layers 1 and 2 you would be better able to understand me. It's a matter of point of view whether a text with Layers 3 and 4 is labelled the basic text to which (arbitrarily numbered) Layers 1 and 2 are added. The layers can only be defined well by comparison of gMark with John, Luke, and Matthew and further comparison of Luke with Matthew. The linguistic analysis of the type you crave is not relevant.My position is that Layers 3 and 4 in gMark are too different from gLuke to be copied from a common Greek text, but too similar to be attributed to Oral Tradition. I always regarded Form Criticism as inadequate to explain the commonalities. I disagree with the scholars who take the extreme positions on both sides of my analysis and agree witht he scholars in the middle.
Perhaps you misunderstand me again. My desire with Layer 4 (and Layer 5 as well) is to differentiate it from earlier strata that I regard as by eyewitnesses of Jesus's entire ministry. I can't prove he was not present for the final days. However, if it turned out that the person I call the Qumraner got involved in Christianity much later and bolstered John the Baptist and apocalypticism, so much the better. In this thread I have shown (or surely implied) that what comes from the seven eyewitnesses is trustworthy, Therefore I take it as all the more important to show what material even in the Triple Tradition has a provenance we cannot trust as adequate to show that Jesus was primarily a doomsday prophet. (And yes, that's still a live issue, as with Dale Allison, a full century after Albert Schweitzer.)
Wordplay? As I said in my OP, I don't obligate myself to defend against attacks on my evidence as not evidence. Or is that not what you mean? I regard your "divide and conquier" slogan as just rhetoric. Particularly specious is your failure to admit that a late edition of Mark to be presented to Romans would tend to add in a lot of "hoc est" equivalents to the Greek wherever the editor thought a translation would be helpful. Why would you assume they were already there in an earlier edition perhaps not even in Greek?Are you serious or is this just "Spin"? You admit that neither gMatthew nor gLuke contain the chiams, yet you insist they were present in earlier layers from earlier "authors". I have never acknowledged that "authors" of Layers 1, 2, or 3 used Latinisms, though their translators may have. Layers 1 and 3 I regard as originally written in Aramaic, as Layer 2 may have been. You have presented no evidence that the chiasms precede Layer 6, so your diligence has halpfully supported my thesis, the opposite of what you claim. The chiasms are apparently a marker for Layer 6. I had previously regarded Layer 6 as dispensable, now I upgrade it to integral.:wave: