Yuri Kuchinsky

YURI:
So, in your opinion, what would be the possibility that Smith, himself, could have inserted this reading?

Hi, Andrew,

"If he was the author"?

IMO, if he forged SMk, he wouldn't have made it a Western/Peripheral text.

He tried to present SMk as the original Mk. But the universal view in NT field is that "Western text" is late.

Thus, if he forged SMk, he would have certainly made it an Alexandrian text.

But, in any case, see now my latest analysis in another thread. I argue that SMk cannot be a modern forgery.

Regards,

Yuri

Yuri Kuchinsky

Actually, Andrew, 'Son of David' is really a Matthean phrase, rather than Markan. It is Mt that uses this phrase most often. In Mk, as well as in Lk, it seems like a later insert.

Don't forget that Mk argues specifically that Jesus was not really the son of David (Mk 12:35-37).

IMO the appeal for mercy looks originally Johannine. Yet 'Son of David' seems like a late insert in all 3 Synoptics.

Both 'EPESEN AUTOU PROS TOUS PODAS' and 'PROSEKUNHSE' are the standard formulas for paying obeisance. Such formulas are easily interchangeable and reversible. Something that a later editor could replace at will, without anyone paying any attention to it.

Not much on which to build theories of dependence with great security.

Well, in this case, I have one obvious parallel between SMk and the Magdalene Gospel. My question is if this parallel could have been accidental.

I maintain that MG preserves large parts of a pre-canonical version of John. This is based on much textual analysis of numerous passages. Such as this,

4 versions of TURNING WATER INTO WINE
http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/4vdt.htm
Part 2 (6 versions of TURNING WATER INTO WINE)
http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/6vdt.htm

Jesus & Samaritans,
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/loisy/message/2001

(Actually, this whole Johannine passage is analysed in much more detail in my book. The MG version is very different.)

The Beloved Disciple in Jn. I've done quite a lot of work on this,

"Beloved Disciple puzzle" (Jun 21, 2001),
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/johann...e/message/1705

"Beloved Disciple passages in ms Pepys" (Jul 22, 2001),
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/johann...e/message/1853

[John_Lit] "Beloved Disciple passages in ms Pepys" (30 Jul 2001)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/johann...e/message/1864

In all cases, MG seems to preserve the pre-canonical text of John.

All the best,

Yuri

Yuri Kuchinsky

Hi, Andrew,

Now I would like to comment further on this Parallel 2.

My main analysis is here,

http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/secmk2.htm

Yes, it's true that EUThUS is frequently found in the canonical Mk. In the canonical Jn OTOH this word is used only 4 times (Jn 5:9, 6:21, 13:30, and 18:27). And yet, we see that here in Jn 11:44, in the Lazarus scene, there's a triple Western/Peripheral attestation for this word (with many other supporting sources, as well).

So it's probable IMO that this particular instance of EUThUS in Jn 11:44 goes back to precanonical Jn. It looks to me like some later editor of the canonical Jn deleted this word, perhaps to tone down this scene somewhat, for stylistic reasons.

I think, in general, this illustrates just how difficult it is to distinguish between what was in the source of the author of SMk (assuming it's an ancient text), and what may have been added by this author as a result of editing.

I don't think it's impossible that the Raising of Lazarus scene had been added only later to Jn. The original Raising of a Young Disciple (still unnamed) by Jesus may have been a free floating story for some time, before it was added to Jn. So it's possible that the author of SMk may have received this story from some other source other than Jn -- in other words, he or she may have been working with a precanonical version of this story.

It's interesting that Smith considered EUThUS as not belonging specifically to "Western text". He was wrong, as I've now demonstrated. Was he just playing dumb, and pretending that he didn't know that EUThUS belongs to "Western text"? I don't think so. IMHO he simply betrayed his bias, i.e. he wanted SMk to be considered as an Alexandrian text.

In any case, this Parallel 2 does support my general thesis that SMk is far closer to Western/Peripheral text than anyone has ever supposed before.

All the best,

Yuri.