Robert said
This is just plain silly. You are arguing that Mark is using a second μη with an intensive meaning but also that the second element introduced by this second μη doesn’t even matter. If it doesn’t matter, how can it be given an even more intense meaning?
Of course, what you really only want to be retained from your ‘analysis’ is that the use of μη twice is what makes the verse in general more intense but the element that is to be taken more intensely is actually unspoken by Mark!
Maybe we should keep this thread alive for its entertainment value alone.
Yes the element to be taken more intensely is unspoken by Mark.
We can see this in normal English.
Take these two sentences which are interchangeable and express exactly the same thing;
“I was so tired I couldn’t do anything, I couldn’t even eat”
“I was so tired I couldn’t even eat”
The first sentence has two ideas with two negations with the first negation intensified by the second. But because these two sentences are interchangeable and express the same thing we must conclude that one of the ideas/negations is hidden or implicit in the second sentence.
These two interchangeable sentences express something different to
“I was so tired I couldn’t eat”
which is one idea one negation.
The question is, which of these two expressions best corresponds to Mk 3:20? – I say the first, two ideas two negations, based on context.
Robert said
3. The third flaw is of a different sort and has a few levels. You started out trying to argue that Mark, for some unknown reason, was editing Matthew’s text, unintentionally creating an incomprehensible text as an ignorant plagiarists making a small edit that he didn’t think would affect the meaning because nobody likes being a mere copyist. But now you want to claim that Mark did indeed understand the implication of using a double negation in Mk 13,15, essentially that he actually would have understood that his edit was creating an incomprehensible text.
There’s no contradiction here. Mark making an unintentional error would not necessarily mean he doesn’t understand Greek.
Much like many people would happily translate Mk 13:15 into English as
“Let no one on the housetop go down nor enter the house to take anything out.”
until the actual meaning is pointed out, at which point the translation will be changed to what Mark “meant” to say
“Let no one on the housetop go down and enter the house to take anything out.”
Its a small edit by Mark the implication of which could have simply been overlooked.
Robert said
Sorry, but because you are working from English translations and not even trying to learn and understand the Greek, you cannot even see why none of your three sentences is even close to being comparable to Mark’s Greek grammar here. You need to learn Greek first. You need to understand the difference between an indicative verb and an infinitive, how they are differently negated, and how an indicative can relate to an infinitive, and how nonindicative verbs can relate to each other. Otherwise, you will never understand the underlying issues you believe you are discussing but which you are completely ignoring. Begin by trying to reformulate your examples without using any indicative verbs.
I’m not sure verb forms are relevant to the double vs single negation idea.
Aside fro that, how about
2 Cor 3:7
ωστε μη δυνασθαι ατενισαι τους υιους ισραηλ – the sons of israel could not look steadily
vs Mk 3:20
ωστε μη δυνασθαι αυτους μηδε αρτον φαγειν – they could not even eat bread
2 Cor 3:7 is one idea one negation. If Mark wanted one idea one negation in 3:20 why not leave out μηδε? What difference does μηδε make to the sentence?
Robert said
Did Mark or did he not share your invented understanding of the double negative that you foolishly tried to develop in comparing Mk 3,20 and Mk 6,31? You can’t have it both ways. If he understood it, he would not have made the change to Matthew’s text that you want us to believe he did. Instead, you seem to want us to believe that he did indeed understand the change he was making but he just temporarily forgot it or something like that? Really? A much better explanation is that Mark did not understand your invented understanding of the double negative because this understanding had not yet been invented until yesterday. Mark, writing around 70 CE could not possibly have understood a principle of grammar that you would not invent for nearly 2,000 years.
I think if Mark had read μη καταβάτω μηδὲ εἰσελθάτω out of context he would have understood it as “neither go down nor enter” or “don’t go down, don’t even enter”.
The question is why he chose to write 13:15 that way when he probably didn’t want to rule out “go down”.
You say the most likely explanation is pleonastic phrasing – I say the most likely explanation is scribal error.
Robert said Scribal error? Are you now changing your whole argument yet again?
Oh, and once again I see that you declined to answer my question. Why is that?
No I shouldnt have said scribal error just meant his minor edit was an error.
Which question? Did mark share my invented double negative rule?
Yes but I dont think its invented – i think marks double negatives are always translated with the same sense, a sense which would make 13:15 an error.
Robert said
I know you want to believe that and will probably go on believing that no matter what anyone says, but your double negative rule is foolishness and cannot be applied to Mk 13,15.You derived this rule by comparing a result clause in Mk 3,20 (consisting of two negated infinitives with μη) with a combination of a negated indicative verb (with ου) with an infinitive in Mk 6,31. You think it must be significant that there is only one negative in 6,31, but it is not significant. That is simply the normal way one would negate the combination of an indicative and infinitive. A double negative (ου for the indicative or μη for the infinitive) would not even make sense. If you wanted to create an intensive sense at 6,31 you could not do it by adding μη (for the infinitive) or a 2nd ου (for the indicative). Don’t believe me? Go ahead and show me how that would be written in Greek:
[Write in Greek here]
You cannot. An intensive sense is provided here by the NRSV translators but merely from their understanding of the context : “… and they had no leisure even to eat.” So much for your rule.
More importantly, the verse in question (Mk 13,15) consists of two negated imperatives. When you have two negative imperatives together, both are negated as a matter of necessity. Otherwise, you would have a combination of a negative prohibition and a positive command. Whether the sense of the two imperatives is continuous or differing in some way is determined lexically and from the context.
Don’t believe me? Go ahead and show me how you would write these two prohibitions with imperatives in Greek without a second μη:
[Write in Greek here]
Yes 6:31 was a bad example. The rule however was not the use of two negatives but two negations – and I think μηδὲ and οὐδὲ always have the connotation of a negation in addition to an earlier one.
6:31 could have been negated with just οὐ but the choice of οὐδὲ suggests a negation in addition to an earlier one, which is why NRSV and others use the intensive sense.
Same for 3:20 which could be negated with a single μη.
Yes 13:15 couldn’t be negated without a second μη but this is down to the choice of two imperatives. Mark could have a used an imperative and infinitive with a single negation like Matthew did to show “coming down” and “entering house” negated as a single act. But his choice of two imperatives has the implication of two different acts.
Mark could negate the first imperative and not the second “dont come down from the roof but do enter the house” – or negate the second imperative but not the first “do come down from the roof but dont enter the house”.
Using μηδὲ implies “entering the house” is negated in addition to “coming down from the roof”.
Robert said
Uh-oh. So which previous negation do you think Mark is referring to by his use of οὐδέ instead of merely using οὐ in 6,31?We already know that you want to supply words to Mark’s text in 3,20 so that you imagine Mark as saying something like: “… with the result that they were not able (to do anything), (not even able) to eat. Hopefully, you at least realize now that ‘not even be able to eat’ is a mere specification of ‘not able to do anything’ and not an intensification. Personally, I do not consider it good translation practice to add words unless they are needed to make sense out of the text. The risk is that a translator is introducing his or her own thoughts into the text rather than translating the text of the author. This false intensification is not needed. One can reasonable supply the word ‘even’ without creating a false intensification.
Yes perhaps specification is a better description than intensification. In 6:31 and 3:20 Mark is giving a specific negation of a more general implied negation (an inablity to do anything). And of course the more general negation is figurative not literal – in 3:20 the crowd is so big Jesus’s family must wait outside and inside there was no room to do anything not even to sit down and eat.
Robert said
Which negation do you think Mark has in mind in 12,10: Οὐδὲ τὴν γραφὴν ταύτην ἀνέγνωτε·
I think Οὐ on its on would have rendered it as “you have not read the scripture” or “have you not read the scripture” – the use of Οὐδὲ changes it to a specified example of a more general lack of knowledge of the law of the chief priests. (there’s lot of things you havent done) but you haven’t even read this scripture. without δὲ it can be read as Jesus agreeing with the chief priests but here just pointing out a single point of disagreement “you havent read this scipture”
Or the verse can be interpreted as a rhetorical question “isnt it true that you have not read the scripture”
Robert said
There is absolutely no disagreement that Mark’s two prohibitions address two different acts. The first is to ‘not to go down’ and the second is, after going down, ‘not to enter’. The only issue is that you want to construe the first action as absolutely prohibited without any justification for why one is not supposed to go down and in a context in which such an absolute prohibition would make no sense. But both prohibited actions make perfect sense as justified by the single infinitive. One is not supposed to go down and enter the house to take anything out of it because they have just been informed to flee to the mountains. As in the following verse, do not turn back, just flee.
You would rather interpret the first imperative as somehow completely disconnected from the second imperative, but there’s no justification for separating the first from the second. They make sense together. They do not make sense when separated. If one is prohibited absolutely from going down the external stairs then it is completely unnecessary to also prohibit one from entering the house to take anything out of it.
The first imperative can be negated independently of the second imperative and vice versa. The only way to interpret that is they are both negated absolutely, one imperative negation is not limited to the other’s.
One could also say each imperative applies separately to the infinitive so going down is negated only so far as it relates to “taking anything out of the house”.
But if “entering the house to take anything out” is prohibited then negating “going down to take anything out” is again “completely unnecessary”. Mark has got himself into a muddle by his choice of two imperatives. Probably due to an edit of Matthew.
Robert said
Again, no disagreement, but you are still avoiding the crucial point. Do you think Mark is intending something that makes no sense whatsoever or should we understand his text in context?And, even if we had a good reason to think that Mark was unintentionally writing something that did not make sense (we don’t), isn’t it more likely that Matthew improved upon Mark’s ambiguous text making it clearer?
All this time you have avoided addressing these fundamental issues? As Bart told you two weeks ago, “Matthew appears to be clarifying an ambiguous statement in mark.”
On the other hand, I have referred to you to one of the foremost experts in Markan style to provide you with a better understanding of Mark’s pleonastic style, which provides innumerable examples that help explain why Mark wrote in this potentially ambiguous manner. Have you bothered to look this work up? If not, why ignore such scholarship, preferring instead to make up your own grammatical rules.
And why have you ignored an immense body of scholarship supporting Markan priority?
Matthew may be clarifying an ambiguous statement by Mark but the question is which is more likely. Original authors tend to have more clarity of thought than multiple authors. And adding one’s own thoughts onto the writing of others tends to give more scope to ambiguous writing.
I think the extra words in Mark, which at the very least causes ambiguity, compared to the more precise clarity of thought of Matthew points to Mark doing the editing. But of course its possible to be the other way.
Secondary writers may clear up ambiguities in original texts but they tend to be with the addition of words. When ambiguities are cleared with the removal of words this should point to the extra words being secondary.
Marks clearing up of ambiguities of Matthew tend to be with the addition of words.
I dont intend on ignoring immense body of scholarship on Markan priority and thank you the reference you provided, I’ll read up on it.
Robert said
You’re getting closer, but your added implied figurative text is still the addition of an illogical intensification that does not pass the basic text: Does your addition make Mark’s text more or less coherent in context?
In other words, does μηδὲ ἄρτον φαγεῖν in Mk 3,20 merely specify that Jesus and the disciples were not even able to eat or is Mark supposedly implying that Jesus and the disciples were not able to do anything? In this story Jesus is in fact teaching in parables, in response to the Jerusalem scribes who were saying that Jesus is possessed by Beelzeboul and is casting out demons by the power of the ruler of demons, and the disciples are in fact bringing word to Jesus about his family being outside, to which Jesus replies with additional teaching. So clearly Mark is not implying even figuratively that Jesus and his disciples were not able to do anything. Adding those words is not a clarification of Mark’s text but more in line with what you believe Mark did to Matthew’s text: ‘adding one’s own thoughts onto the writing of others, creating ambiguity rather than greater clarity by the addition of words’?
Once we get Mk 3,20 clarified, we can move onto the next points.
With 3:20 the question is what is the main issue being highlighted – is it the size of the crowd or the fact the disciples cant eat?
I think its the size of the crowd. People are coming from everywhere to here him speak and the next line tells us that that is what has brought his family to take charge of him.
The fact the disciples can’t eat isn’t brought up again.
The crowd is so big it limits in some way the normal daily dealings of the disciples and the use of μηδὲ indicates that limitation is inclusive of being “unable to eat”. The limitation might not extend to Jesus speaking to the crowd but being “unable to eat” would certainly not be the only limitation caused by the crowd size – it just serves as a specific example of a more general limitation. Which is why the English translation “even to eat” makes sense.
If there was a sign on the wall saying “NO EATING” we would expect just the single μη on its own “the disciples were unable to eat” and the next line to address this somehow – “they got very hungry” “they went to the house next door”.
But μηδὲ shows us “unable to eat” is just a specific example of a more general limitation caused by the crowd size. It implies some previously unspecified negation.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)