Skip to content

Mark 14:4

Stephen Hughes wrote:If John was in the thick of it, he was relating a part event that Peter wasn't an ear-witness to.
I fear that taking this position is wrapping an assumption in another assumption. If Matthew and Mark are taking a bird's eye view, they are providing several non-essential details. We don't have any way to know where these details came from. What can be gained from an investigation here?
Stephen Hughes wrote: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.
I think this goes largely along the same lines as that above. It is clear that Γὰρ and ὅτι are used for reported speech, but they are also used to connect to previous statements. In order to evaluate this proposition, wouldn't we need to investigate clear instances of reported speech? Statistics: Posted by Wes Wood — October 17th, 2017, 10:07 am
 
Wes Wood wrote:
October 16th, 2017, 8:04 pm
 
Stephen 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. Statistics: Posted by Stephen Hughes — October 17th, 2017, 12:45 am
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? Statistics: Posted by Wes Wood — October 16th, 2017, 8:04 pm
In the Johanine account of the incident, Judas is explicitly mentioned as being the speaker, that what what Mark puts after the γὰρ is part of what he said.
John 12:4-6 wrote:Λέγει οὖν εἷς ἐκ τῶν μαθητῶν αὐτοῦ , Ἰούδας Σίμωνος Ἰσκαριώτης , ὁ μέλλων αὐτὸν παραδιδόναι, 5 Διὰ τί τοῦτο τὸ μύρον οὐκ ἐπράθη τριακοσίων δηναρίων, καὶ ἐδόθη πτωχοῖς; 6 Εἶπεν δὲ τοῦτο, οὐχ ὅτι περὶ τῶν πτωχῶν ἔμελεν αὐτῷ, ἀλλ’ ὅτι κλέπτης ἦν, καὶ τὸ γλωσσόκομον εἶχεν, καὶ τὰ βαλλόμενα ἐβάσταζεν.
The Matthean redaction doesn't explicate the value of the myrrh, and uses the conjunction under discussion.
Matthew 26:8,9 wrote:Ἰδόντες δὲ οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ ἠγανάκτησαν, λέγοντες, Εἰς τί ἡ ἀπώλεια αὕτη; 9 Ἠδύνατο γὰρ τοῦτο τὸ μύρον πραθῆναι πολλοῦ, καὶ δοθῆναι πτωχοῖς.
Statistics: Posted by Stephen Hughes — October 16th, 2017, 3:30 am
I don't think I misunderstood you, but my meaning wasn't clear. I had in mind the source of the content rather than a description of the utterance (crowd's quotation vs. narrator's explanation). I intended to say that the absence of γάρ would make me more likely to read the sentence as a continuation of the crowd's thoughts. However, I do not think that its presence indicates that this was the narrator's comment. Mark uses γάρ in this manner quite commonly throughout the text1 (with the speaker(s) explaining a previous statement) and is generally good at pointing out the people making specific comments2. Since the verse ends with καὶ ἐνεβριμῶντο αὐτῇ with no other clear change in speaker, I am inclined to believe that this is what the people were saying. 1 Mark 8:34 Καὶ προσκαλεσάμενος τὸν ὄχλον σὺν τοῖς μαθηταῖς αὐτοῦ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς· εἴ τις θέλει ὀπίσω μου ἀκολουθεῖν, ἀπαρνησάσθω ἑαυτὸν καὶ ἀράτω τὸν σταυρὸν αὐτοῦ καὶ ἀκολουθείτω μοι. Mark 8:35 ὃς γὰρ ἐὰν θέλῃ τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ σῶσαι ἀπολέσει αὐτήν· ὃς δ᾿ ἂν ἀπολέσει τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ ἕνεκεν ἐμοῦ καὶ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου σώσει αὐτήν. Mark 8:36 τί γὰρ ὠφελεῖ ἄνθρωπον κερδῆσαι τὸν κόσμον ὅλον καὶ ζημιωθῆναι τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ; Mark 8:37 τί γὰρ δοῖ ἄνθρωπος ἀντάλλαγμα τῆς ψυχῆς αὐτοῦ; Mark 8:38 ὃς γὰρ ἐὰν ἐπαισχυνθῇ με καὶ τοὺς ἐμοὺς λόγους ἐν τῇ γενεᾷ ταύτῃ τῇ μοιχαλίδι καὶ ἁμαρτωλῷ, καὶ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐπαισχυνθήσεται αὐτόν, ὅταν ἔλθῃ ἐν τῇ δόξῃ τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτοῦ μετὰ τῶν ἀγγέλων τῶν ἁγίων. 2Mark 5:27 ἀκούσασα περὶ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ, ἐλθοῦσα ἐν τῷ ὄχλῳ ὄπισθεν ἥψατο τοῦ ἱματίου αὐτοῦ· Mark 5:28 ἔλεγεν γὰρ ὅτι ἐὰν ἅψωμαι κἂν τῶν ἱματίων αὐτοῦ σωθήσομαι. Statistics: Posted by Wes Wood — October 13th, 2017, 2:15 pm
I don't think I misunderstood you, but my meaning wasn't clear. I had in mind the source of the content rather than a description of the utterance (crowd's quotation vs. narrator's explanation). I intended to say that the absence of γάρ would make me more likely to read the sentence as a continuation of the crowd's thoughts. However, I do not think that its presence indicates that this was the narrator's comment. Mark uses γάρ in this manner quite commonly throughout the text1 (with the speaker(s) explaining a previous statement) and is generally good at pointing out the people making specific comments2. Since the verse ends with καὶ ἐνεβριμῶντο αὐτῇ with no other clear change in speaker, I am inclined to believe that this is what the people were saying. 1 Mark 8:34 Καὶ προσκαλεσάμενος τὸν ὄχλον σὺν τοῖς μαθηταῖς αὐτοῦ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς· εἴ τις θέλει ὀπίσω μου ἀκολουθεῖν, ἀπαρνησάσθω ἑαυτὸν καὶ ἀράτω τὸν σταυρὸν αὐτοῦ καὶ ἀκολουθείτω μοι. Mark 8:35 ὃς γὰρ ἐὰν θέλῃ τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ σῶσαι ἀπολέσει αὐτήν· ὃς δ᾿ ἂν ἀπολέσει τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ ἕνεκεν ἐμοῦ καὶ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου σώσει αὐτήν. Mark 8:36 τί γὰρ ὠφελεῖ ἄνθρωπον κερδῆσαι τὸν κόσμον ὅλον καὶ ζημιωθῆναι τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ; Mark 8:37 τί γὰρ δοῖ ἄνθρωπος ἀντάλλαγμα τῆς ψυχῆς αὐτοῦ; Mark 8:38 ὃς γὰρ ἐὰν ἐπαισχυνθῇ με καὶ τοὺς ἐμοὺς λόγους ἐν τῇ γενεᾷ ταύτῃ τῇ μοιχαλίδι καὶ ἁμαρτωλῷ, καὶ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐπαισχυνθήσεται αὐτόν, ὅταν ἔλθῃ ἐν τῇ δόξῃ τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτοῦ μετὰ τῶν ἀγγέλων τῶν ἁγίων. 2Mark 5:27 ἀκούσασα περὶ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ, ἐλθοῦσα ἐν τῷ ὄχλῳ ὄπισθεν ἥψατο τοῦ ἱματίου αὐτοῦ· Mark 5:28 ἔλεγεν γὰρ ὅτι ἐὰν ἅψωμαι κἂν τῶν ἱματίων αὐτοῦ σωθήσομαι. Statistics: Posted by Wes Wood — October 13th, 2017, 2:15 pm
 
Wes Wood wrote:
October 11th, 2017, 12:17 pm
Without γάρ, I would be more likely to read this as a quote rather than an explanatory clause, ...
Even if it is the quote it is still explanatory - those of the disciples, who thought it was a waste were quoted as explaining why they thought it was a waste. The question could be rephrased as does γὰρ suggest that the people who were indignant had to explain to those around them why they had a strong negative reaction to the "waste", OR does it suggest that the narrator felt he need to explain to his intended audience why those who thought it was a waste thought it was a waste. Statistics: Posted by Stephen Hughes — October 13th, 2017, 10:15 am
 
Wes Wood wrote:
October 11th, 2017, 12:17 pm
Without γάρ, I would be more likely to read this as a quote rather than an explanatory clause, ...
Even if it is the quote it is still explanatory - those of the disciples, who thought it was a waste were quoted as explaining why they thought it was a waste. The question could be rephrased as does γὰρ suggest that the people who were indignant had to explain to those around them why they had a strong negative reaction to the "waste", OR does it suggest that the narrator felt he need to explain to his intended audience why those who thought it was a waste thought it was a waste. Statistics: Posted by Stephen Hughes — October 13th, 2017, 10:15 am
Without γάρ, I would be more likely to read this as a quote rather than an explanatory clause, though as you say there is no reason why it must read that way. However, I have been doing quite a bit of reading in John and admit that my comment has likely been affected by this on some level! If it is not obvious, this is an off the cuff response to what I feel is an interesting question. :) Statistics: Posted by Wes Wood — October 11th, 2017, 12:17 pm
 
Mark 14:4,5 wrote:Ἦσαν δέ τινες ἀγανακτοῦντες πρὸς ἑαυτούς, καὶ λέγοντες, Εἰς τί ἡ ἀπώλεια αὕτη τοῦ μύρου γέγονεν; 5 Ἠδύνατο γὰρ τοῦτο πραθῆναι ἐπάνω τριακοσίων δηναρίων, καὶ δοθῆναι τοῖς πτωχοῖς. Καὶ ἐνεβριμῶντο αὐτῇ.
Without considering the role of the γάρ, this encolorated phrase seems like
  • something that would have been general knowledge to people at the time, but needed to be explained to people in a different economic context, or
  • It may also be giving an insight into their thoughts behind the indignation or a reason for them saying, "Peww!" at the women, or
  • It may have been added in what they said aloud to explain what made them angry.
Without the γάρ, any parenthetical comment or inclusion is logically possible. Does the γάρ here suggest either of those interpretation might be more or less likely? Statistics: Posted by Stephen Hughes — October 11th, 2017, 1:21 am