Chris Weimer

Mark 1:5 parallels Matthew 3:5, and Luke 3:3.

Mark - 5 kai exeporeueto prov auton pasa h ioudaia cwra kai oi ierosolumitai pantev kai ebaptizonto up autou en tw iordanh potamw exomologoumenoi tav amartiav autwn

Matthew - 5 tote exeporeueto prov auton ierosoluma kai pasa h ioudaia kai pasa h pericwrov tou iordanou
6 kai ebaptizonto en tw iordanh potamw up autou exomologoumenoi tav amartiav autwn

Luke - 3 kai hlyen eiv pasan pericwron tou iordanou khrusswn baptisma metanoiav eiv afesin amartiwn

This one blows me out of the water. Which better reflects the original?

Judaeo-Christian Culture and Criticism

Agnostic Theist

It's probably a bit much to ask, but could you translate those passages? Also, the link only goes to the main page of the Jewish forum. Presumably it was supposed to go to a specific post or thread?

andrewcriddle

I'm sorry I'm not sure what you mean by 'better reflects the original'

Do you mean is Mark here closer to Matthew or to Luke ?
If that's what you mean then Mark seems clearly closer to Matthew here than to Luke.

However I suspect you mean something different by your question but I'm not sure what.

Andrew Criddle

Agnostic Theist

Taken literally, Luke seem to deviate furthest in that John( it is John the Baptist, isn't it?) goes to the people, while in Matthew and Mark the people have to go to him.

Symbolic significance, perhaps?

Chris Weimer

Mark - 5 kai exeporeueto prov auton pasa h ioudaia cwra kai oi ierosolumitai pantev kai ebaptizonto up autou en tw iordanh potamw exomologoumenoi tav amartiav autwn

Matthew - 5 tote exeporeueto prov auton ierosoluma kai pasa h ioudaia kai pasa h pericwrov tou iordanou
6 kai ebaptizonto en tw iordanh potamw up autou exomologoumenoi tav amartiav autwn

Luke - 3 kai hlyen eiv pasan pericwron tou iordanou khrusswn baptisma metanoiav eiv afesin amartiwn

And there went to him all the Judaean land and they of Jerusalem and they all were baptized by him in the river Jordan confessing their faults.

Then went to him Jerusalem and all Judaea and all the region around Jordan.

And he came into all the area around the Jordan preaching baptism of repentence in the remission of faults.

(NB: Here, I translated hamartia as fault, the classical understanding)

Chris Weimer

well, taking that Mark didn't make this up, the evangelists must have gotten this from somewhere. Which one, in your opinion, better reflects the original.

Agnostic Beast, I agree that Luke seems to deviate the furthest from the three readings, I would agree with Mark and Matthew on this.

Red is Mark and Matthew sharing word for word, Blue is Luke and Matthew sharing word for word, and Green is Luke and Matthew sharing a word but not exactly the same.

Mark - 5 kai exeporeueto prov auton pasa h ioudaia cwra kai oi ierosolumitai pantev kai ebaptizonto up autou en tw iordanh potamw exomologoumenoi tav amartiav autwn

Matthew - 5 tote exeporeueto prov auton ierosoluma kai pasa h ioudaia kai pasa h pericwrov tou iordanou
6 kai ebaptizonto en tw iordanh potamw up autou exomologoumenoi tav amartiav autwn

Luke - 3 kai hlyen eiv pasan pericwron tou iordanou khrusswn baptisma metanoiav eiv afesin amartiwn

Chris Weimer

Actually, this fits perfectly with my theory, now that I look at it color coded. Mark, being the earliest narrative gospel, reflects closer to the original than Matthew or Luke. Matthew, coming in second, reflects the Jewishness of the gospel by changing land to Jerusalem, which of course would change from a general messiah to a very specific Old Testament rooted one. Later the land and the Jerusalemites (a better reading than the earlier "they of Jerusalem") became changed to refer to Jersualem only.

Yuri Kuchinsky

(RSV) Luke 3:3 and he went into all the region about
the Jordan, preaching a baptism of repentance for the
forgiveness of sins.

Luke seems to be preserving the earliest version here. Because in the Lukan version we see John the Baptist doing what every preacher does, i.e. go around and preach.

In the other two accounts, he's no longer a preacher, but already some sort of an Oracle, sitting around by the riverside, and everyone else comes to pay obeisance.

The OS Aramaic version is even better,

(Luke 3:3 OS Aramaic) and he was preaching in the wilderness, and in all the country around Jordan the baptism of repentance for remission of sins.

All the best,

Yuri.

Amaleq13

But he wasn't just "doing what every preacher does", he was obviously best known for baptisim. It seems reasonable to suggest that, at least after he established a reputation, that he remained in a fixed location near water and folks came to him.

But that is precisely where he is supposed to be in his career when Jesus goes to him, isn't he?

To whom does one preach "in the wilderness"?

Did Jews make any sort of regular visit to a specific place on the river Jordan?

Chris Weimer

I highly doubt it Yuri, for after all, Jesus is described as a preacher going from town to town, yet people still flock to him. In Matt and Mark it says that he wernt throughout the countryside. If I were you, I'd make a case for Luke having many manuscripts, some newer (like a more developed John the Baptist compared to Mark) and some older (you can still make a case for this one).

By the way, where do I find the Aramaic Old Sinaiticus at?