Date: Thu Mar 26 1998 - 12:15:38 EST
Carl W. Conrad wrote:
> At 10:30 AM -0600 3/26/98, Jim West wrote:
> >At 08:09 AM 3/26/98 -0800, you wrote:
> >>This is a marvelous discussion. Did the centurion consider Jesus to
> >>be A, or B? And the answer might be NEITHER!! The lack of an article
> >>does indeed seem to argue for the sarcastic 'neither' view, which then
> >>makes the 'debate' so evenly balanced. He would then be saying in
> >>English idiom a scathing "Son of God indeed!"
> >>George Blaisdell
> >Lets all be careful lest we assume that Mark is reporting actual historical
> >events. Otherwise soon we will have an entire apocryphal gospel on the look
> >on the centurion's face and what color clothing he had on, as well as what
> >he had for breakfast. His tone of voice is immaterial, for Mark is not
> >interested in the Roman, only in what he says. That Mark would have him
> >say, in an insulting way, that Jesus was "son of god" (sneer supplied by our
> >apocryphal gospelists) goes against the very purpose of the Gospel.
> >Interpretation should keep in mind such things as authorial intent or the
> >text becomes subject rather than object.
> May I suggest even further that it would be best of all not to venture out
> into the murky realm of speculation as to what any ambiguity in this text
> MAY POSSIBLY mean (to be sure, I did so earlier this morning myself, but
> tentatively, I think, and clearly granting that, as Jim himself noted in
> his first response, there will NOT be a consensus on this question of
> exactly what the centurion's statement means). The question is what are the
> limits within which a grammatically intelligible understanding of that text
> must lie.
AMHN Carl ~
The key word in my comment, [on how marvelous this discussion has
been,] is MIGHT. I certainly do not regard the centurian's words as
sarcastic, and had just never considered the possibility that they
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:39:18 EDT