dost

Hi everyone.

I've been reading lately on the synoptic issue etc. One point that is often made is that the Greek used by Mark is less sophisticated, simpler, sometimes awkward and ungrammatical when compared to the one employed in Matthew and Luke. It is also claimed that Mark uses "unfamiliar" or "unusual" words in his narrative that are not to be found, rather replaced, by Matthew and Luke. For example, Prof. Ehrman writes:

"Sometimes Mark uses a Greek style of writing that is somewhat awkward or not aesthetically pleasing, sometimes he uses unusual words or phrases, and sometimes he presents difficult ideas. In many instances, however, these problems are not found when Matthew or Luke narrates the same stories. This difference suggests that Mark was the earliest of the three to be written. That is to say, it would be difficult to understand why Mark would introduce awkward grammar or a strange word or a difficult idea into a passage that originally posed no problem, but it is easy to see why Matthew or Luke might have wanted to eliminate such problems. It is more likely, therefore, that Mark was first and that it was later modified by one or both of the other authors . . ."

[Bart D. Ehrman, "The New Testament. A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings." Second Edition. Oxford University Press 2000. pp. 79]

Similar comments are also raised in many other books. I am, however, interested to know what alleged "unusual" or "unfamiliar" words are used in Mark that have perhaps "baffled" the Greek grammarians and New Testament scholars, or the meaning of which is in dispute.

If anyone has some information in this regards then that will be great.

Thanks again.

Peter Kirby

Streeter formed the argument in this way (reprinted in The Two-Source Hypothesis, p. 29): "Matthew and Luke regularly emend awkward or ungrammatical sentences; sometimes they substitute the usual Greek word for a Latinism; and there are two cases where they give the literary equivalent of Greek words, which Phrynichus the grammarian expressly tells us belonged to vulgar speech."

At the moment I can give one clear example of the phenomenon.

Mark 10:20. "Teacher, all these I have observed from my youth." ταυτα παντα εφυλαξαμην

Matthew 19:20. "All these I have observed; what do I still lack?" παντα ταυτα εφυλαξα

Luke 18:21. "All these I have observed from my youth." ταυτα παντα εφυλαξα

εφυλαξα is the verb in Matthew and Luke translated "I have observed," which is grammatically Aorist Active Indicative 1st Singular. εφυλαξαμην is the verb in Mark, which is grammatically Aorist Middle Indicative 1st Singular. When this verb is in Middle, as in Mark, the meaning is not to observe but rather "to be on guard against" or "to shun, avoid." Obviously that is a connotation which is not intended and is corrected in Matthew and Luke.

Kümmel also refers to Mark 2:7, which has τι ουτος ουτως λαλει; βλασφημει, as a "difficult construction" that is not repeated in Matthew or Luke.

best,
Peter Kirby

Doctor X

HIJACK!!

Peter the Great:

Yay! I can finally see the Greek font. Is there a "list" for the numbers?

--J.D.

Peter Kirby

Doctor X,

Please refer to the "Recommended Reading" sticky thread here for instructions on how to include Greek letters in your posts.

best,
Peter Kirby

mark9950

That the translators did not only correct it,but put their own spin into the corrections.You know maybe mistranslation for a purpose like the issue of the luciferians.