Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Amaleq13 · 08-21-2008, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

This is where one must consult the Greek.

The English translation is pretty obviously rhetorical as well, isn't it? Seems so to me.

Of course, double-a probably provides a health history when someone waves to him and says "How ya doin'?".

Clivedurdle · 08-21-2008, 02:32 PM

Returning to Satyricon, written at the time of Nero, the plot is about male lovers. What is the Secret Gospel of Mark about?

More irony?

Ben C Smith · 08-21-2008, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gstafleu

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Ah, so the device is possibly, in your view, an intentional attempt to make an unhistorical story seem more historical.

Correct.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben

Now, are the intended readers buying it (thinking that there really are old geezers around somewhere who know these kids), or would these references rather be recognizable to them as nothing more than a literary device?

Hard to say.

Let me rephrase the question. Does Mark himself intend his readers to buy it? Is he trying to fool them?

Quote:

If the former, what are the implications for genre, IYO? If the latter, do you have examples of this literary span the gap device in other ancient works?

I'm not that well read in ancient lit, but how about the genealogy of Matthew? Here the author wants to establish a link with David. He does that by building a bridge between David and Jesus. Granted, he also goes back past David, but the bridge-via-descendants part is there.

The genealogy in Matthew and the sons in Mark are opposites. The genealogy does what we might expect an author to do: Matthew identifies a participant in his narration (in this case his main participant, Jesus) by his father, and by his grandfather, and so forth. Mark does the unexpected: Mark identifies participants in his narration (Mary, Simon) by their sons.

Let me be clear: I fully agree that authors often construct bridges between generations. That is not the issue. Look at how many references to Abraham, to Moses, and to David we find in the gospels. Rather, the issue is how authors normally identify participants in their (hi)stories. Do they use sons, or do they use fathers?

Quote:

(Isn't the "gospel" genre supposed to be a bit of a Mark original

?)

I think Mark added a twist or two to an already established genre, which you yourself identify as heroic biography.

Ben.

the_cave · 08-21-2008, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

And perhaps you'd be gracious enough to tell us the nature and the degree of the depth of your study into the use of names, and the naming conventions used, by Hellenistic authors that underlies your knowledge and certainly of what would and would not be likely (let alone "much more likely", in any given Hellenistic author's use of names?

If you have evidence that Mark's manner of identifying Mary is typical of his era and genre, I'd be very happy to hear it.

Ben C Smith · 08-21-2008, 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

This is where one must consult the Greek.

The English translation is pretty obviously rhetorical as well, isn't it? Seems so to me.

Yes, I think so, too. In fact, including a not in a question has pretty much the same force in English as it has in Greek.

But I give Greek lessons. Not English lessons.

Ben.

Jeffrey Gibson · 08-21-2008, 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the_cave

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

And perhaps you'd be gracious enough to tell us the nature and the degree of the depth of your study into the use of names, and the naming conventions used, by Hellenistic authors that underlies your knowledge and certainly of what would and would not be likely (let alone "much more likely", in any given Hellenistic author's use of names?

If you have evidence that Mark's manner of identifying Mary is typical of his era and genre, I'd be very happy to hear it.

I'm sure you would. But I'm not the one making a claim here. I'm just trying to determine why we should trust your judgment about what Mark was and was not likely to do with respect to names.

So is your claim about what is likely and unlikely vis a vis Hellenistic authors' naming conventions and practices an informed one or not? Is it grounded in a study of those conventions or not?

The fact that you've tried to switch the burden of proof to me says that the answer is no to both questions. But I'd be happy to be shown that this is not the case.

Jeffrey

the_cave · 08-21-2008, 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Quote:

Originally Posted by the_cave

If you have evidence that Mark's manner of identifying Mary is typical of his era and genre, I'd be very happy to hear it.

I'm sure you would. But I'm not the one making a claim here. I'm just trying to determine why we should trust your judgment about what Mark was and was not likely to do with respect to names.

So is your claim about what is likely and unlikely vis a vis Hellenistic authors' naming conventions and practices an informed one or not? Is it grounded in a study of those conventions or not?

The fact that you've tried to switch the burden of proof to me says that the answer is no to both questions. But I'd be happy to be shown that this is not the case.

Jeffrey

I'm only trying to give you as much burden of proof as you're asking for. I freely admit I don't know enough about naming conventions in first- and second-century Greek literature to know with certainty if the naming of Mary in Mark is unusual or not. Though from my limited knowledge, I can't think of any comparable examples. Can you?

But I can very easily turn the tables: why should I trust your judgment if you can't say more than I can? Thus, all we have proven here is that there we personally can arrive at no positive conclusion with regards to the naming of Mary in the gospel of Mark. The only claim I make is that it looks problematic to me, in terms of logic and composition. Maybe it really is unusual, and maybe it really isn't. I have spoken from my limited experience. Please feel free to speak from yours--again, I invite it.

Jeffrey Gibson · 08-21-2008, 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the_cave

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

And perhaps you'd be gracious enough to tell us the nature and the degree of the depth of your study into the use of names, and the naming conventions used, by Hellenistic authors that underlies your knowledge and certainly of what would and would not be likely (let alone "much more likely", in any given Hellenistic author's use of names?

If you have evidence that Mark's manner of identifying Mary is typical of his era and genre, I'd be very happy to hear it.

I'm sure you would. But I'm not the one making a claim here. I'm just trying to determine why we should trust your judgment about what Mark was and was not likely to do with respect to names.

So is your claim about what is likely and unlikely vis a vis Hellenistic authors' naming conventions and practices an informed one or not? Is it grounded in a study of those conventions or not?

The fact that you've tried to switch the burden of proof to me says that the answer is no to both questions. But I'd be happy to be shown that this is not the case.

Jeffrey

aa5874 · 08-21-2008, 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

That is certainly not correct.

The author of Mark did not say that Mary the mother of James, Joses, Simon and Judas.

The author asked a question which he NEVER really answered....

This is where one must consult the Greek. There is no way around it. If one does not know Greek, one must consult those who do (lexicons, commentaries, and so forth).

I doubt the following will have any impact on aa5874, but for those who like to learn stuff, here goes. Mark 6.3a:

Is not [ουχ] this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? Are not [ουκ] his sisters here with us?

Including the word ου (which means no or not and is spelled ουκ when it comes before a nonaspirated vowel and ουχ when it comes before an aspirated vowel) in a question turns that question into one which expects an affirmative answer. Had the author used the other Greek word for no or not (μη), the anticipated answer would be negative. Had the author wished to avoid anticipating any answer at all, he would not have used any word for no or not in the question.

IOW, Mark portrays the Nazareth crowd as affirming (with a rhetorical question) that Mary was the mother of Jesus, that he had brothers, and that he had sisters, and he never denies that affirmation; indeed, he further affirms that Jesus does have a mother and brothers in Mark 3.31.

Ben.

Are you claimimg that the translators of the KJV did not know Greek as well as you?

You have introduced a serious problem, but you know Greek, you may be able to solve it.

Which Greek word for "NOT" did the author of gMatthew use?

Mark 6.3: Is NOT this the carpenter.......?

Matthew 13.55: Is NOT this the carpenter's son? .....

Please don't tell me it is oux.

Ben C Smith · 08-21-2008, 03:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Are you claimimg that the translators of the KJV did not know Greek as well as you?

Not at all. The KJV translators got it right. They cannot help that you understand the English idiom as poorly as you understand the Greek.

Quote:

Which Greek word for "NOT" did the author of gMatthew use?

Mark 6.3: Is NOT this the carpenter.......?

Matthew 13.55: Is NOT this the carpenter's son? .....

Please don't tell me it is oux.

Matthew uses the same word. The question is, once again, rhetorical, and the expected answer is yes, Jesus is the son of a carpenter, just as in Mark the expected answer is yes, Jesus is the carpenter.

Ben.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-21-2008, 02:32 PM	#92
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	Returning to Satyricon, written at the time of Nero, the plot is about male lovers. What is the Secret Gospel of Mark about? More irony?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.