From: Benjamin Raymond (
Date: Sun Apr 26 1998 - 20:28:37 EDT

At 10:39 AM 4/25/98 +0000, Stephen C. Carlson wrote:
>At 11:46 4/24/98 -0500, Benjamin Raymond wrote:
>>Sorry about that; it may have been a Freudian slip, as I've been delving
>>into the synoptic problem of late. Since you mentioned it, would you
>>happen to have subscription info for this "Synoptic-L" list?
>To subscribe, send the message
> "Subscribe Synoptic-L" to
>or see the web site
>for more information.

Much obliged.

>>Without getting into redactional issues, the difference between the Markan
>>and Matthean grammer is still rather striking to me. Funk mentions in the
>>same note that IDOU is already a particle in Attic. What about IDE (in the
>>first century)? How do you think the grammar affects the different
>>accounts? Matthew still seems smoother to me here; Mark appears somewhat
>>rougher and more dramatic. What I'm getting at is the different effect
>>these two constructions would have on a reader. Is IDETE TON TOPON more of
>>an Atticism, perhaps a more "proper" way saying it, albeit less shocking
>>than Mark's reading? I'm trying to understand why each author would have
>>chosen his particular syntax.
>Without getting to the source critical issues here on B-Greek, Matthew
>has more of an emphasis on *seeing* the place where Jesus lay and Mark
>stresses more the *place* where they laid him. In Mark, the women are
>already in the tomb (v5), but this is not quite so clear in Matthew's
>account, where the women seem to be outside the tomb and invited in

>by the angel. Thus, it seems to me that the Mark's and Matthew's
>choice of language and grammar are both appropriate to their own

Thank you, Stephen. I hadn't thought of the difference that way. You've
been very helpful.


Benjamin Raymond
senior, Harding University School of Biblical Studies
HU Box 11871, 900 E Center
Searcy, AR 72149-0001

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:39:36 EDT