The main issue I was addressing:
Is there any contradiction between employing a synopsis and presenting the quote as direct speech?
I spent some time yesterday reviewing indirect and direct speech
as it is discussed in the various grammars. Most of NT grammars assume a knowledge of Attic, Herodotus ... . The treatment of the subject is very uneven. One one extreme we find Dana & Mantey who boil it down to a three point sermon. On the other end H. W. Smyth writes a functional specification. Guy Cooper employs oratio obliqua indirect speech
throughout his grammar so your required to get a handle on it if you intend to do much reading.
RE: Mark 14:4 with context it seems that the author represents the substance
of objection to the anointing of Jesus and presents
it as direct speech. In Koine narrative this wouldn't imply any sort of conscious choice on the part of the author. There is nothing unusual going on here. Just the normal way to narrate a speech act preformed by more the one person but with a unity of content and purpose
. In Acts we see examples where Luke draws a distinction between the different elements within a group who are not
unified in there expression. I think this happens with the Riot at Ephesus but I may be confusing it with another riot. Mark doesn't need Luke's level of sophistication to report the objection to the anointing of Jesus. Mark is just telling the story the normal way it would be told.
I am certainly open to objections. Would like to find out what others think about this.
C. Stirling Bartholomew