First question.
Is the demonstrative pronoun after the relative pronoun only a feature of Semitic Greek or is it a feature of other dialects too?
Second question.
What is the function of μία with ἦν here? Is it required to balance the following relative clause?
An observation.
The almost exclusive use of the aorist for finite verbs is striking. Is my impression that the aorist of finite verbs is overused in the excerpt generally, a justifiable supposition?
There has probably been said by somebody else before, but not in an easily accessible online source at least, so anyway it might be worth mentioning.
Looking that this part of page 3:
Morton Smith reads an epsilon at the beinning of επεταξεν in line 61. His transcription of lines 60 - 61is και μεθ ημερας εξ επεταξεν αυτω ο Ιησους. But in the manuscript (the b&w copy that I have access) the first letter of επεταξεν appears to be an alpha (like the one circled in green). At first glance, the stroke at the top of the character I’ve circled in red looks like the top of an epsilon, but that stroke is much lighter than the stroke on top of the epsilon circled in blue. If it is a mark on the page, then the “stroke” may also continue on to the top of the next letterIf it is a partial erasure by the original scribe of the manuscript, then the stroke is spurious. Discounting the “stroke” for either or another reason, the letter would be an alpha. If the verb is read as απεταξεν, then why? If MS had been unsure, then the logical thing to do would have been to assume that the authour / scribe of the manuscript he was copying from knew that ἀποτάσσεσθαι deponent, and discount the possibility of ἀπέταξεν. If that assumption is not made, but rather the possibility of error is incorporated into our reading model, then the sentence could become καὶ μεθ’ ἡμέρων ἕξ ἀπέταξεν (should be -ετο) αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς “After 6 days, Jesus took leave of him.” That would suggest that MS made a quite natural editorial decision that hid the grammatical error that either the original authour or a subsequent editor made when writing out this document.
Having the young man come to Jesus of his own volition, rather than at Jesus’ command fits into the narrative, and perhaps make better sense if it too.
I never remember seeing any such thing in any Greek author. Does it show up anywhere in the NT or the LXX? I don’t recall. As for μία, I think we see it comfortably along the way to becoming the indefinite pronoun, “one woman” = “a woman.”
All of this assuming that Secret Mark was not in fact a hoax, although modern consensus seems to be that it wasn’t.
