Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Vinnie · 07-31-2009, 03:36 AM

I lost the thread and its simply easier to start a new one. I have conceded the possibility of Rome but said I hold out for places like Syria as well. You basically reiterated Hengel's arguments for Rome. My indecision lies in an unfamiliarity with the languages at hand. A significant and learned minority has arisen which places the gospel in a place in the east like Syria. I am undecided, but here is a quotation in response to the latinism, syro, et al....

Quote:

The Jewish War and the Sitz im Leben of Mark, Joel Marcus, Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 111, No. 3 (Autumn, 1992), pp. 441-462

Citation from pp 444-446

This argument, however, fails to convince. As W. G. Kummel and H. Koester have noted, Mark's Latinisms are mostly technical military terminology and "could occur at any place where a Roman garrison was stationed and Roman law was practiced."16 Neither do the specific words xo8pavTTIg and 7rpaTxwoptov necessarily point to Rome. With regard to xo8pavTrn, it was already noted by F. Blass at the turn of the century that Matt 5:26 suggests knowledge of the Roman term quadrans in the East, since Matthew was probably composed in Antioch.'7 K. Butcher, while acknowledging that the Roman denomination quadrans did not circulate in the eastern part of the empire, adds that the use of the word quadrans in an ancient text may simply refer to a local denomination such as the Greek x)aXxoGu and that Greek and Roman monetary terms were probably interchangeable, even though the currencies were not18 Thus the term quadrans was probably known in the East, even if the Roman quadrans coin itself did not circulate there.19 Mark's translation of two XesTta as one quadrans, Butcher concludes, does not necessarily point to Roman usage. "All it implies is that the term XetoT6v might have been unspecific or unfamiliar to the writer or his audience." This is especially likely because Xetto6v does not seem to have been an official denomination but a general term for lightweight bronze coinage of little value,20 much like the Elizabethan word "mite" used in the KJV of this passage. It seems likely, then, that the note in Mark 12:42 about the X;EtO6v and the xoBpa&vxt should be interpreted not as the conversion of an eastern term into its western equivalent but as the clarification of an imprecise term by a precise one.

Similarly, Mark's comment in 15:16, 'aTo Xl atuf, /o TIctv tcpaoXtirptOV ("inside the palace, that is, the praetorium"), is probably a specification rather than a definition. Mark's readers would certainly have known what an aau;i was. This was a common Greek word for a courtyard; by extension, the term came to denote the "court" of a prince and hence his palace.2l Mark's clause "which is the praetorium, therefore, is not a definition of an unknown word but a clarification that here the ambiguous term auX;l means "palace," more specifically the prefect's palace.22 This sort of specification would probably be even more necessary for an audience in Syro-Palestine than it would be for audiences elsewhere, since inhabitants of Syro-Palestine might have known that there were several palaces in Jerusalem and might have needed specification of precisely which palace was meant.23 Standaert and Hengel contend that, apart from Latinisms, other features such as the note in Mark 7:26 ("Syrophoenician by race") suggest an audience in Rome. In the vicinity of Palestine, they argue, the designation "Phoenician" alone would suffice, and "Syrophoenician" would be superfluous; only in a faraway place such as Rome would it be necessary to specify that the woman was a Syrophoenician, that is, a Phoenician from the province of Syria, as opposed to a Libyphoenician, that is, a Phoenician from the area around Carthage.24

This argument, too, has its problems, one of which has been noted by G. Theissen. In texts of the first two centuries AD, the term "Syrophoenician" is not in fact used to distinguish a Syrian Phoenician from a "Libyphoenician."25 The latter term, moreover, does not designate a Phoenician living in Libya, as the Standaert/Hengel hypothesis would require, but rather a descendant of Phoenicians who have intermarried with native Libyans.26 It is possible that, analogously, "Syrophoenician" in Mark 7:26 denotes a descendant of Phoenicians who have intermarried with Syrians, especially since Mark calls the woman a "Syrophoenician by race" (]upocpotvtxtaoa To yevi).27 It is also possible, of course, that "Syrophoenician" here means a native of the Phoenician part of Syria.28 In either case, the term distinguishes Mark's woman not from Phoenicians living in the "diaspora" but from other varieties of Syrians,29 and it would be perfectly at home in the vicinity of Palestine.

Mark's terminology, then, is no unambiguous indication of the Roman provenance of his Gospel, and the main support of that theory, the tradition of Papias, is not a sound starting point for historical investigation. The decks are cleared for the consideration of an alternate theory.

Vinnie

jakejonesiv · 07-31-2009, 07:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vinnie

I lost the thread and its simply easier to start a new one. I have conceded the possibility of Rome but said I hold out for places like Syria as well. You basically reiterated Hengel's arguments for Rome. My indecision lies in an unfamiliarity with the languages at hand. A significant and learned minority has arisen which places the gospel in a place in the east like Syria. I am undecided, but here is a quotation in response to the latinism, syro, et al....

....

Mark's terminology, then, is no unambiguous indication of the Roman provenance of his Gospel, and the main support of that theory, the tradition of Papias, is not a sound starting point for historical investigation. The decks are cleared for the consideration of an alternate theory.
Vinnie

Hi Vinnie,

I agree that the tradition of Papias is not a sound starting point for historical investigation.

Have you considered Alexandria?

Best,
Jake

Ben C Smith · 07-31-2009, 08:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vinnie

I lost the thread and its simply easier to start a new one. I have conceded the possibility of Rome but said I hold out for places like Syria as well. You basically reiterated Hengel's arguments for Rome. My indecision lies in an unfamiliarity with the languages at hand. A significant and learned minority has arisen which places the gospel in a place in the east like Syria. I am undecided, but here is a quotation in response to the latinism, syro, et al....

....

Mark's terminology, then, is no unambiguous indication of the Roman provenance of his Gospel, and the main support of that theory, the tradition of Papias, is not a sound starting point for historical investigation. The decks are cleared for the consideration of an alternate theory.
Vinnie

Hi Vinnie,

I agree that the tradition of Papias is not a sound starting point for historical investigation.

Have you considered Alexandria?

The Papian evidence for a Roman provenance is ambiguous, IMHO, at best. Simply a comment that Babylon in 1 Peter means Rome. This does not necessarily mean that Papias thought Mark was writing in Rome, only that he was in Rome at one point with Peter.

It is Irenaeus who makes the Roman provenance explicit. Papias may, as well, in text now lost to us, but I do not think we should jump to that conclusion without just cause.

Ben.

Toto · 07-31-2009, 09:34 AM

Your last discussion on the location of the writing of Mark was around this post.

the_cave · 07-31-2009, 01:06 PM

I think spin is right that Mark must have been written in a Latin-speaking area. Though this could include the several Latin-speaking colonies that Rome had in the east. Still, it might take some special pleading to place it in one of them.

Part of the problem is that Mark (obviously IMO) has several editorial layers. Which Mark are we talking about?

Is there a more or less comprehensive list of Latinisms in Mark? Or at least a standard reference.

jakejonesiv · 07-31-2009, 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

Hi Vinnie,

I agree that the tradition of Papias is not a sound starting point for historical investigation.

The Papian evidence for a Roman provenance is ambiguous, IMHO, at best. Simply a comment that Babylon in 1 Peter means Rome. This does not necessarily mean that Papias thought Mark was writing in Rome, only that he was in Rome at one point with Peter.

Ben.

Hi Ben,

The First Epistle of Peter was indeed from the Church at Rome. 1 Peter 5:13. "Babylon" is a designation for Rome as a reading of Revelation 14:8; 17:5; 18:2 will verify. But this tells us nothing directly about the whereabouts of he "historical" Peter or the authorship of GMark.

The First Epistle of Peter is pseudepigraphal. It was addressed to ground zero of the Marcionite movement; "the chosen sojourners of the dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia." This letter was an attempt by catholics to evangelize and catholicize the home territory of Marcion. Likewise, Acts 16:6 and 20:29 were formulated to undercut Marcion's authority by attempting to separate him from Paul.

The goal to gaining acceptance for Peter (in order to begin insinuating Catholic doctrine) was to make him seem a part of the circle of Paul. Silvanus (5:12) was the companion of Paul (2 Cor 1:19; 1 Thes 1:1; 2 Thes 1:1). Mark (5:13) was also associated with Paul. Peter is made to sound as much like Paul as possible to gain acceptance of the Marcionites. 1 Peter 1:3-12 cf. Ephesians 1. It is the agenda of the catholic church to harmonize the two mythical figureheads of the competing sects.

But to what end? There is indeed a gentle introduction of Catholic dogma. That Jesus suffered "in the flesh" (4:1) is an antidocetic statement. The handing over of one's soul to a "faithful creator" is anti-dualism of the Father of Jesus and the Creator (Demiurge) as a separate and lesser being. That Jesus was foretold by the prophets. And perhaps most importantly, that the church at Rome had pre-eminence, that it was "the chosen one." 5:13.

The First Epistle of Peter is a nice piece of second century catholic evangelism.

Best,
Jake

Toto · 07-31-2009, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the cave

Is there a more or less comprehensive list of Latinisms in Mark? Or at least a standard reference

Google "Latinisms in Mark." You will find a number of hits on google books. The Gospel to the Romans (or via: amazon.co.uk) By Brian J. Incigneri, read it on google books at p. 102, summarizes the grammatical indicators.

Ben Smith has a list in Greek near the end of this page. And there is a list contained here

Quote:

Latin Terms in Mark
denarion a denarius (coin) 6:37; 12:15; 14:5
kenturion a centurion 15:39, 44, 45
kensos [census] tax 12:14
kodrantes copper coin, a quadrans 12:42
legion a Roman legion 5:9, 15
modios a measure of grain 4:21
phragello flog 15:15
praitorion quarters of a Roman governor 15:16
pykme “with a handful of water” 7:3
spekoulator executioner 6:27
symboulion a council 15:1
to hikanon poiësai (satisfacere) to satisfy 15:15
xestes a liquid measure, a sextarius 7:4

There are other internal indications of a Latin origin.

Quote:

Twice Mark uses Latin terms to explain Greek terms: Mark 12:42 explains that two lepta are a kodrantes and Mark 15:16 explains that the courtyard, aules, was a praitorion.

I don't think there is any agreement that Mark contains layers.

Vinnie · 07-31-2009, 10:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

Hi Vinnie,

I agree that the tradition of Papias is not a sound starting point for historical investigation.

Have you considered Alexandria?

The Papian evidence for a Roman provenance is ambiguous, IMHO, at best. Simply a comment that Babylon in 1 Peter means Rome. This does not necessarily mean that Papias thought Mark was writing in Rome, only that he was in Rome at one point with Peter.

It is Irenaeus who makes the Roman provenance explicit. Papias may, as well, in text now lost to us, but I do not think we should jump to that conclusion without just cause.

Ben.

I agree to a large extent that it is speculative to connect Papias with Rome but I don't think it is out of the question. Here is how Marcus phrases it so that the quotation above from him you responded does not caricature or misleadingly state his views:

Quote:

First, though, a few words need to be said about the case for a Roman provenance. This case rests mainly on the testimony of Papias, as reported by Eusebius (Hist. eccl. 3.39.15), that Mark became the interpreter of Peter and wrote down accurately, though not in order, the latter's memoirs about Jesus. Though Papias does not specify Rome as the place of the composition, his association of Mark with Peter and his knowledge of 1 Peter (see Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.39.17) lead to the supposition that he thinks Mark was written in Rome, since 1 Pet 5:13 assumes that Peter and Mark are in "Babylon," that is, Rome. In apparent reliance on Papias, Irenaeus and the "antiMarcionite prologue" locate Mark in Rome.

To me, Clement of Alexendria, Irenaeus and Justin's Memoirs, if they refer to Peter's Memoirs are all dependent upon the presbyter tradition relayed by Papias. Them and virtually everyone after them (Eusebius, et al). I think Irenaeus's placement in Rome lends credence to this supposition since his information about Mark appears dependent upon Papias.

I certainly wouldn't argue for Roman provenance on this basis by any stretch of the imagination, however, so its a minor quibble.

Vinnie

Vinnie · 07-31-2009, 11:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vinnie

I lost the thread and its simply easier to start a new one. I have conceded the possibility of Rome but said I hold out for places like Syria as well. You basically reiterated Hengel's arguments for Rome. My indecision lies in an unfamiliarity with the languages at hand. A significant and learned minority has arisen which places the gospel in a place in the east like Syria. I am undecided, but here is a quotation in response to the latinism, syro, et al....

....

Mark's terminology, then, is no unambiguous indication of the Roman provenance of his Gospel, and the main support of that theory, the tradition of Papias, is not a sound starting point for historical investigation. The decks are cleared for the consideration of an alternate theory.
Vinnie

Hi Vinnie,

I agree that the tradition of Papias is not a sound starting point for historical investigation.

Have you considered Alexandria?

Best,
Jake

Hello Jake, I was wondering what evidence you know of for Alexandria?

Vinnie

spin · 08-01-2009, 06:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vinnie

I lost the thread and its simply easier to start a new one. I have conceded the possibility of Rome but said I hold out for places like Syria as well. You basically reiterated Hengel's arguments for Rome. My indecision lies in an unfamiliarity with the languages at hand. A significant and learned minority has arisen which places the gospel in a place in the east like Syria. I am undecided, but here is a quotation in response to the latinism, syro, et al....

Quote:

The Jewish War and the Sitz im Leben of Mark, Joel Marcus, Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 111, No. 3 (Autumn, 1992), pp. 441-462

Citation from pp 444-446

This argument, however, fails to convince. As W. G. Kummel and H. Koester have noted, Mark's Latinisms are mostly technical military terminology and "could occur at any place where a Roman garrison was stationed and Roman law was practiced."16 Neither do the specific words xo8pavTTIg and 7rpaTxwoptov necessarily point to Rome. With regard to xo8pavTrn, it was already noted by F. Blass at the turn of the century that Matt 5:26 suggests knowledge of the Roman term quadrans in the East, since Matthew was probably composed in Antioch.'7 K. Butcher, while acknowledging that the Roman denomination quadrans did not circulate in the eastern part of the empire, adds that the use of the word quadrans in an ancient text may simply refer to a local denomination such as the Greek x)aXxoGu and that Greek and Roman monetary terms were probably interchangeable, even though the currencies were not18 Thus the term quadrans was probably known in the East, even if the Roman quadrans coin itself did not circulate there.19 Mark's translation of two XesTta as one quadrans, Butcher concludes, does not necessarily point to Roman usage. "All it implies is that the term XetoT6v might have been unspecific or unfamiliar to the writer or his audience." This is especially likely because Xetto6v does not seem to have been an official denomination but a general term for lightweight bronze coinage of little value,20 much like the Elizabethan word "mite" used in the KJV of this passage. It seems likely, then, that the note in Mark 12:42 about the X;EtO6v and the xoBpa&vxt should be interpreted not as the conversion of an eastern term into its western equivalent but as the clarification of an imprecise term by a precise one.

Similarly, Mark's comment in 15:16, 'aTo Xl atuf, /o TIctv tcpaoXtirptOV ("inside the palace, that is, the praetorium"), is probably a specification rather than a definition. Mark's readers would certainly have known what an aau;i was. This was a common Greek word for a courtyard; by extension, the term came to denote the "court" of a prince and hence his palace.2l Mark's clause "which is the praetorium, therefore, is not a definition of an unknown word but a clarification that here the ambiguous term auX;l means "palace," more specifically the prefect's palace.22 This sort of specification would probably be even more necessary for an audience in Syro-Palestine than it would be for audiences elsewhere, since inhabitants of Syro-Palestine might have known that there were several palaces in Jerusalem and might have needed specification of precisely which palace was meant.23 Standaert and Hengel contend that, apart from Latinisms, other features such as the note in Mark 7:26 ("Syrophoenician by race") suggest an audience in Rome. In the vicinity of Palestine, they argue, the designation "Phoenician" alone would suffice, and "Syrophoenician" would be superfluous; only in a faraway place such as Rome would it be necessary to specify that the woman was a Syrophoenician, that is, a Phoenician from the province of Syria, as opposed to a Libyphoenician, that is, a Phoenician from the area around Carthage.24

This argument, too, has its problems, one of which has been noted by G. Theissen. In texts of the first two centuries AD, the term "Syrophoenician" is not in fact used to distinguish a Syrian Phoenician from a "Libyphoenician."25 The latter term, moreover, does not designate a Phoenician living in Libya, as the Standaert/Hengel hypothesis would require, but rather a descendant of Phoenicians who have intermarried with native Libyans.26 It is possible that, analogously, "Syrophoenician" in Mark 7:26 denotes a descendant of Phoenicians who have intermarried with Syrians, especially since Mark calls the woman a "Syrophoenician by race" (]upocpotvtxtaoa To yevi).27 It is also possible, of course, that "Syrophoenician" here means a native of the Phoenician part of Syria.28 In either case, the term distinguishes Mark's woman not from Phoenicians living in the "diaspora" but from other varieties of Syrians,29 and it would be perfectly at home in the vicinity of Palestine.

Mark's terminology, then, is no unambiguous indication of the Roman provenance of his Gospel, and the main support of that theory, the tradition of Papias, is not a sound starting point for historical investigation. The decks are cleared for the consideration of an alternate theory.

Vinnie

Go for better analyses, Vinnie. These guys are bending over backwards to avoid the obvious. They are doing the usual old trick of looking at a few examples and saying that they don't necessarily imply the case so the case hasn't been made, while ignoring the full range of examples and the types of examples.

It seemingly doesn't dawn that the notion of "Syrophoenician" is totally inappropriate for a Levantine context. Doh! That's why they throw up a variety trivial explanations (would a person from the area for example confuse Syria with Phoenicia?

), thinking number will suffice for quality.

Think about this in a non-Latin context: the widow in Mk 12:42 contributes lepta duo o estin kodranths ("two leptas, which are a quadrans"). Not only is o estin a Latin idiom translated into Greek (= "that is"), but it's part of an explanation that is no help to a Greek speaker other than one in a Latin/Roman context. If you are Greek you know what two leptas are and need to equivalence in Roman coin. One uses a Latin idiom and a Roman equivalent for a Roman audience. It's not sufficient that a Greek speaker may know what a quadrans was: one has to justify why the Marcan writer saw fit to supply it beyond the two leptas. Who is the Marcan writer supplying the explanation to?

The writer is clearly helping a Roman Greep-speaking audience as is the case with the explanation of the palace as a praetorium, 15:16 ths aulhs o estin praitwrion. (Notice once again the use of the Latinism, o estin.)

It is reprehensible that there is no mention of idiomatic Latinisms. They even deal with the context without noting the idiom!

Here's an interesting Latin idiom that has made it into English, by parts meaning "to make sufficient/contented": "to satisfy" from the Latin satis facere. This idiomatic form (verb plus noun) is translated -- by parts -- into Greek to ikanon poihsai ("make sufficient") in Mk 15:15. Although the Greek form can represent the notion of giving security, here it clearly represents the Latin "satisfy", ie what Pilate does when he orders the release of Barabbas, to satisfy the crowd, and as such is only found in Mark. (And there are other Latin idioms translated into Greek.)

And no, Koester wasn't my source on Latinisms. But if he makes similar arguments, he's probably working in the right direction.

(And the Greek transliterations have been so jumbled up -- in the conversion to forum presented material -- to be unrecognizable.)

spin

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

07-31-2009, 09:34 AM	#4
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Your last discussion on the location of the writing of Mark was around this post.

07-31-2009, 01:06 PM	#5
the_cave Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Earth Posts: 1,443	I think spin is right that Mark must have been written in a Latin-speaking area. Though this could include the several Latin-speaking colonies that Rome had in the east. Still, it might take some special pleading to place it in one of them. Part of the problem is that Mark (obviously IMO) has several editorial layers. Which Mark are we talking about? Is there a more or less comprehensive list of Latinisms in Mark? Or at least a standard reference.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.