Wes Wood wrote: ↑October 16th, 2017, 8:04 pmStephen Hughes wrote: ↑October 16th, 2017, 3:30 am
Johanine account ... what Mark puts after the γὰρ ... The Matthean redaction
I'm not convinced that all of these accounts are describing the same event, though they could be. If we assume they are parallels, perhaps they provide some measure of support to the idea that Mark was recording what the crowd said, although he doesn't provide the specific person who gave the utterance. Is this what you were thinking or have I missed your intent?
Event, yes. Version of the event, no. "Provid[ing] the specific person who gave the utterance" might depend on who heard what of what was said. Harmonisation models are usually quite simplistic - centring on a bird's-eye (over)view of the event, rather than an eye-witness view, so to help talking about the Greek, it might be worth thinking about what is assumed by harmonisation. If John was in the thick of it, he was relating a part event that Peter wasn't an ear-witness to. Seeing people indignant and hearing them saying, "What a waste", might have been quite what everybody in the room could hear murmured as that opinion spread. Judas sighing about how much money had slipped through his fingers might have been what John the beloved had heard. (John leant on his breast, Judas dipped his fingers in the same bowl and was entrusted with the money. He wasn't an outsider.)
Another plausible line to explore is the relationship between
λέγω and what we understand as "say". Without the ubiquity of print or any broadcast media, what was said and what was heard needn't come from the same person (oral culture). Γὰρ and ὅτι both used in reporting speech or thoughts in some ways or another. It might be possible that γὰρ is relating what was said and related, but not heard directly.