I want to use the connective sense for μηδὲ in Mk 13:15 – not a disjunctive one, as with the rest of Mark

either “Let no one on the housetop go down or enter the house to take anything out” or “Let no one on the housetop go down not even enter the house to take anything out”

In Marks uses of μηδὲ he is connecting two separate concepts which are both negated. 

2:2 “no longer any room”  “not even on the floor”

3:20 “not able” “not even to eat bread”

6:11 “not receive you” “nor hear you”

12:24 “not knowing the scriptures” “nor the power of god”

13:15 “not go down” “nor enter the house”

Matthews version 24:17 has a single action “not going down to enter the house” which is negated – going down to flee the city is encouraged.

If Mark’s Jesus had indeed intended his followers to remain on the rooftops when the end-times come Mk 13:15 would express that perfectly.

ο δε επι του δωματος μη καταβατω εις την οικιαν μηδε εισελθετω αραι τι εκ της οικιας αυτου

let those on the rooftops not go down not even to enter the house to take anything out!

Robert said

Is that brenmcg’s view?  

no its not

Robert said                                                                                                                                                                       You’re still missing the point. Maybe I’m not explaining it well enough or simply enough. The difference is not between “dont go down and dont enter” or “neither go down nor enter.” The connective sense of δε here is simply ‘don’t go down and enter’. The same sense as Matthew’s text.

If you see the point of Mk 3,20, Mark uses a second μη because he has a second verb, but the two verbs are still combined as part of one idea, not being able to eat. There is no intensive sense of not being able (to do anything), nor (even able) to eat bread. You are adding your own words and ideas to Mark’s text. (Shades of your previous inability to understand the infinitive.)

Do you really think that your Greek is better than Mark’s? What have you written in Greek? Is it your first or second language? 

Aside from your lack of experience in Greek and translation praxis, you are still merely assuming that Mark’s text is somehow secondary. Even if Mark’s Greek were as bad as yours and even if he were supposedly nonsensically saying the ridiculous thing that you want to think he said, why assume his text is secondary to Matthew’s text? Why couldn’t Matthew be improving upon Mark’s Greek and your imagined nonsensical ridiculous interpretation of Mark’s text? Would that not be a much more likely directionality? 

It would be better if you first tried to learn Greek and then tried to understand solutions to the synoptic problem. One thing at a time. First things first.  

You can only translate 13:15 as “dont go down and enter” if you ignore the μη part of μηδε.

3:20 without μηδε would indeede combine two verbs as one idea

μη δυνασθαι αυτους αρτον φαγειν – “they are unable to eat” (they may be able to do some things but eating is not one of them)

Adding μηδε changes the meaning – you now have two ideas which are negated in their entirety. Nothing can be done not even eating. (I cant find any translation of 3:20 which doesnt express this intensification).

Heres the important point – if a writer wished to have Jesus tell his followers to remain on the roof Mark 13:15 would express that perfectly. And if the writer wished his followers to flee from the roof Matthew 24:17 expresses this perfectly.

We can safely assume Mark didnt want Jesus to tell his followers to remain on the roof so I think we should be open to the idea that Mark has simply made a mistake here. He has expressed something in the same manner as another writer who had wanted to express precisely the opposite idea. Not an easy thing to do.

Robert said

brenmcg said

You can only translate 13:15 as “dont go down and enter” if you ignore the μη part of μηδε.

3:20 without μηδε would indeede combine two verbs as one idea

μη δυνασθαι αυτους αρτον φαγειν – “they are unable to eat” (they may be able to do some things but eating is not one of them)

Adding μηδε changes the meaning – you now have two ideas which are negated in their entirety. Nothing can be done not even eating. (I cant find any translation of 3:20 which doesnt express this intensification).

Heres the important point – if a writer wished to have Jesus tell his followers to remain on the roof Mark 13:15 would express that perfectly. And if the writer wished his followers to flee from the roof Matthew 24:17 expresses this perfectly.

We can safely assume Mark didnt want Jesus to tell his followers to remain on the roof so I think we should be open to the idea that Mark has simply made a mistake here. He has expressed something in the same manner as another writer who had wanted to express precisely the opposite idea. Not an easy thing to do.  

I do not “ignore the μη part of μηδε”; rather I know enough about Greek and Markan style not to misconstrue its meaning.

As for your not knowing enough translations to find any that do not allow you to exaggerate your view of intensification in Mk 3,20, you need only look at the Syriac, one of the earliest translations of Mark’s Greek, which is also not inconsequentially very close to the Aramaic origins of Mark’s earlier traditions.

You’ve also ignored the whole question of semitic interference in Mark’s syntax or his pre-Markan tradition in Mk 13,15.

You hold to one possible English translation of Mk 13,15 without even considering the fact that other perfectly valid translations make much better sense in Mark’s context.

If you would learn Greek, you would not need to make up stuff based on comparing a few English translations. 

You’ve also neglected to defend your pure assumption of Matthean priority here as well as the fact that it is not supported by your ‘reading’ of Mark’s text. Rather the very opposite (Matthew improving on Mark’s rough pleonastic text) is very strongly indicated.   

this peshitta interlinear preserves the double negation of “go down” and “enter”

** you do not have permission to see this link **

and this 1894 translation of the syriac gospels preserves a double negation – although it changes the first idea to “go down into the house” and the second “not enter to take anything from the house”.  Not a word for word translation of the greek Mk 13:15 but the double negation appears to be maintained from greek through syriac to english.

** you do not have permission to see this link **

I think we can agree that without μηδε in 3:20 the text would read “they were unable eat” – I say adding μηδε  changes the meaning to “they were unable even to eat”. If I’m understanding you correctly you’re saying adding μηδε  doesn’t change the meaning? Or how do you think μηδε changes the meaning of 3:20?

Robert said
The use of the waw (and) and the negation with each verb in the Old Syriac and the Peshitta of Mk 13,15 is exactly what I’ve been pointing to as possible semitic interference with Mark’s Greek syntax. You are focusing too much on individual words of the interlinear English translation without understanding the underlying Syriac syntax. As in the Syriac here, perhaps following an early Palestinian Aramaic, and as found in classical Hebrew, the addition of the waw and negation for the second verb has no additional meaning, but is normal syntax to make the simple negation with two inflected verbs.

In Mk 3,20, the Greek does not have inflected verbs but is a result clause with two infinitives: ‘to be able’ is an auxiliary verb and ‘to eat’ expresses the main idea. They were ‘not able to eat’. This is only one idea, not two separate ideas. It may be that the 2nd μη is intended to add an intensive sense or it may be merely pleonastic on Mark’s part (Syriac). In Greek, as in English, it doesn’t matter on which verb you place the intensive sense:

“… with the result that they were not even able to eat.”

“… with the result that they were not able even to eat.”

Thus it is still one idea, not two. Thus it would be an exaggeration to over-translate this as “… with the result that they were not able (to do anything), (not even able) to eat.” There’s no indication that Mark would like to emphasize the words added here to his text and they wouldn’t really make sense. Otherwise, one would entertain the idea that Mark has in mind the second more intensive of two potentially different cases, one whereby the crowd impinges so much on Jesus and his disciples that they are not able to do anything and the other even more intensive case whereby the crowd impinges so much on Jesus and his disciples that not only were they unable to do anything, but they can’t even eat! Not being able to eat isn’t a more intensive situation than not being able to do anything. Thus, again, one should not focus too much attention or emphasis on a single word to the exclusion of the whole syntactical unit and the larger context. One idea, two verbs, both negated by μη and μη- and both connected by the -δε in μηδε.  

The context of 3:20 supports an intensification reading. Whats significant in the verse and context is the size of the crowd not the being unable to eat. Crowds have been following him everywhere and its the crowd in the house that make his family think he’s out of his mind and go to collect him.

 “a crowd again gathered so that they were unable even to eat” puts the significance on the crowd, “unable to eat” can be replaced by “unable to sit down” or “unable to swing a cat” without the meaning of 3:20 being lost. “Unable to eat” is not relevant to what follows.

If we translate as “a crowd again gathered so that they were unable to eat” we would put the significance on “unable to eat” and the reader would expect that to be remedied in the next line – maybe “so they went to the house next door”.

Theres no suggestion in the context that Jesus wants to avoid the crowd in order to eat – “unable to eat” is irrelevant.

We can see this other sense in Mk 6:31 “Then, because so many people were coming and going that they did not even have a chance to eat, he said to them, Come with me by yourselves to a quiet place and get some rest.”  Here a single negation is used which puts the significance on not eating with the expectation that the next line will be related to a remedy of this situation “Come with me …”

In these two passages Mark is demonstrating his understanding of the implication of using double negations vs a single negation.

Robert said

I’m pretty sure I know where you want to go with this, but I’m guessing the flaw in your reasoning has not yet occurred to you …  

Yes I want to say Mark has demonstrated an understanding of the implications of double negation vs single negation so we shouldnt put 13:15 down to Mark’s pleonastic phrasing.

I dont see where the flaw is?