[B-Greek] Mark 1.14
Carl W. Conrad
cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Fri Nov 7 09:38:51 EST 2003
At 1:35 PM +0000 11/7/03, Mark Goodacre wrote:
>On 6 Nov 2003 at 5:51, Carl W. Conrad wrote:
>
>> All this is certainly plausible, Mark, but
>
>The "but" and what comes after suggest that I should interpret this
>use of the word "plausible" in line with the immediate context as
>meaning something like "possible" or "plausible-sounding but
>unconvincing". Is there a difference of nuance, I wonder, between
>American and British uses of the word plausible?
>
>> (a) it's no longer a
>> question about what the text must mean but rather, as you say, of
>> translation and interpretation--not matters that can be resolved by
>> analysis of the Greek text as a Greek text, but rather matters that
>> depend upon how one understands the immediate and broader context of a
>> text whose Greek sense is already reasonably clear,
>
>Yes, though I'd want to add that I'd be wary of too marked a
>distinction between "analysis of the Greek text as a Greek text" and
>"translation and interpretation" -- but that's a perennial.
>
>> and (b) I'm not
>> sure it's compelling. Is JnBpt not engaged in proclamation of the
>> EUAGGELION?
>
>No, not according to Mark. I think for Mark John is preparing the
>way of the Lord; it's pre-gospeling if there is such a thing.
>
>> How are you understanding EUAGGELION IHSOU CRISTOU in Mk
>> 1:1?
>
>I'd take it as an objective genitive, Gospel of Jesus Christ i.e. the
>gospel concerning him, which involves more than just the gospel that
>he preached.
>
>> EUAGGELION appears relatively rarely in Mk: Mark 1:1,14-15; 8:35;
>> 10:29; 13:10; 14:9; 16:15 (I wouldn't count 16:15), and only once with
>> TOU QEOU. So, although I think it's plausible, it really doesn't seem
>> compelling to me. --
>
>As above, I'm intrigued by your use of "plausible" and "compelling",
>which I would more nearly equate than distinguish, though I'd also
>have "compelling" as stronger than "plausible". Anyway, the fact
>that EUAGGELION doesn't occur again with TOU QEOU is exactly my point
>-- that Jesus has received the gospel "from God" in 1.14 and
>subsequently Mark talks about the content of and preaching of that
>gospel, not its origin.
Mark, I certainly didn't intend to "obfuscate" in using those adjectives,
so let me make myself clear. When I say that your interpretation of TOU
QEOU--that it intends to indicate that the message proclaimed by Jesus
DERIVES from God rather than CONCERNS God--is PLAUSIBLE, I mean to say that
I think it is an understanding of the Greek that doesn't violate the range
of semantic flexibility of EUAGGELION TOU QEOU in the context: I think it's
a legitimate possible interpretation of the Greek text. When I say I don't
find it "compelling," what I mean is that I am not PERSUADED by your
arguments from context that this is really the meaning intended by Mark.
I'd be more persuaded if it were something like TO EUAGGELION TO EK QEOU,
for instance. In Mk 11:30, Jesus asks the High Priests, TO BAPTISMA TO
IWANNOU EX OURANOU HN H EX ANQRWPWN?
In sum,
(a) I really believe that the adnominal/adjectival genitive is a structural
rather than a semantic grammatical construction: without convincing,
compelling, cogent pointers in the immediate context, I don't think we can
decide whether a given instance is "objective" or "subjective" genitive.
Thus EUAGGELION TOU QEOU may just as likely mean "gospel from God" or
"gospel about God" or more simply whatever semantic range the English
"God's gospel" may have;
(b) Where there are more than a single legitimate options for interpreting
the sense of a word or expression, I think one must be guided by one's
understanding of the context--and there are different understandings of the
context also. What I DON'T want to do is read more into an expression than
I think one may properly discern--that is, of course, "eisegesis." I don't
think that there is only one possible understanding for every element in
the Greek text; for many there are two or more possibilities; one must
select beteween these possibilities on the basis of how persuasive one
finds the evidence for its validity. You have given one interpretation of
the context, and I think that's an authentic possibility, but it's one that
I don't buy. I hope I've stated this reasonably clearly.
Regards as ever,
--
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)
1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243
cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
WWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list