andrewcriddle

Hi Yuri

I've been reading your new material it is very interesting but I'm not sure if it proves as much as you claim.

If we take the case of the door of the tomb.

This occurs in John 11:38 in a number of versional witnesses most if not all influenced by Tatian's Diatessaron, but not in the Greek text of the passage.

It also occurs in SecMark in a passage that clearly has some sort of relation to the raising of Lazarus in John.

However it also occurs in Mark 15:46 Mark 16:3, Matthew 27:60 and in many texts of Matthew 28:2

The readings in Mark 15:46 Mark 16:2 and the variant reading in Matthew 28:2 are closer to the passage in SecMark than is the Diatessaronic reading in John 11:38.

It is unlikely that SecMark influenced the Diatessaron and I see little reason to regard the Diatessaronic reading in John 11:38 as being prior to Tatian. (The Diatessaron often preserves extremely ancient readings lost from the main textual tradition but IMO this is not one of them.)

The passage in SecMark is clearly to some extent a telling of a Johannine story in Markan language. (This is true whether the Mar Saba letter is 2nd century or 20th century, and applies to most of SecMark not just this phrase.)

The Diatessaron for John 11:38 would seem to be an independent example of much the same thing; the use of Synoptic type language in recounting a Johannine story.

Andrew Criddle

Vorkosigan

I was looking over your website:

I'm pretty sure that's Markan, Yuri. Mark's hypertextuality is Temple-focused, and the opening of that parable, from Isaiah 5, is Temple-focused as well. Also, during this sequence Mark is furiously paralleling the Elijah-Elisha cycle, and this parable occurs just as the 70 sons of Ahab are getting whacked by Jehu in 2 Kings 9-10 -- the parallel between Jehu killing everyone and grabbing the kingdom and the wicked tenants getting all destroyed should be obvious. Mark has also constructed a polemic that the chief priests and scribes are the priests of Ba'al, which he returns to in several other places -- nobody's caught that one either (another pub for me) -- and which shows up here. It's possible that an interpolator could have caught the references to the E-E legends in here, but why would he bother to preserve them?

On this I agree. Not only are the events in the Bethsaida section all doublets, but even more telling, there's a gap in Mark's paralleling of the Elijah-Elisha cycle that covers the Bethsaida section exactly. I think I am going to write that one up for a second tier journal and rack up a publication out of it. I also like your explanation of the 7 deacons being the "7" in the feeding explanation. That explains quite a bit for me.

My own analysis suggests that this is incorrect. The Centurion's cite is usually translated in a very doctrinally-influenced way. Johnson (2000) writes:

• "It is doubtful whether any English translation can adequately represent the qualitative emphasis that Mark expresses in 15,39 by placing an anarthrous predicate before the verb. Perhaps the verse could best be translated, "Truly this man was God's son." This has the advantage of calling attention to Jesus' role or nature as son of God. It minimizes the question whether the word "son" should be understood as definite or indefinite. At the same time it leaves open the possibility that Mark was thinking of Jesus at this point as "a son of God."

Since the "son of god" in Mark 1:1 is often considered a later interpolation, there doesn't seem any open/close relationship here. More to the point, the vocabulary of 16:1-8 is vintage Mark. I think Powell's suggestion that John 21 was the original ending is correct. That one DOES contain a gigantic framing doublet -- Jesus eats to prove he is not a ghost, just as Jairus' daughter back in Mark 5 is commanded to eat, presumably for the same reason. And the vocabulary is Markan, not Johannine.

:thumbs: I think Mark knows 1 Cor, but he knows it without a lot of stuff....like 1 Cor 15, for example.

Vorkosigan

HelenM

Can you be more specific about the vocabulary being Markan, not Johannine?

Isn't "the disciple Jesus loved" Johannine? It's also in John 13, 19 and 20.

Helen

Vorkosigan

That's most likely from a redactional hand (no one disputes that John 21 is an addition). David Ross' website has a fabulous summary of Powell's argument, which is quite strong (Streeter actually drew the same conclusion decades ago). Here's the page. Scroll down The Missing Ending of Mark where he summarizes Powell and adds more info.

Vorkosigan

HelenM

Thanks.

Yuri Kuchinsky

Dear Andrew,

Thank you for your interest in my study.

Well, you're assuming here that Tatian wrote the Diatessaron, and that "his Diatessaron" then influenced some other texts.

But I don't necessarily share these assumptions.

Nevertheless, it's reasonable to say that some early version of the Diatessaron may have indeed contained this particular reading in this particular passage. From this, there may have been a direct influence on the Persian and the Arabic DTs.

But what about the OS and the Peshitta versions of John? I really don't buy this idea that they were influenced by the Diatessaron.

The most reasonable explanation is that this reading originated in the separate John, from which it made it into the Diatessaron.

But what you're suggesting is that this reading somehow originated in the DT, and then somehow made it from there into the separate John.

Thus, your scenario is more complex than mine, because it seems to leave more unexplained.

But these passages are not directly relevant; these are not the direct parallels to John 11:38.

How are they "closer" if they are not really in parallel with John 11:38?

Let's replace "prior to Tatian" with "prior to the earliest Diatessaron", since I don't believe that Tatian wrote the Diatessaron.

But the common belief is that John was added to Justin's Harmony (which contained only the Synoptic material) at a rather late date. So why should we assume that this particular reading didn't enter the Diatessaronic tradition from some rather latish version of John?

Why not?

Well, the main question that you're raising here is if this reading originated in the Johannine or in the Diatessaronic tradition. This may be debatable.

But let's keep in mind that the main point of my study was simply to demonstrate that, textually speaking, the SecMk is far more Western/Peripheral in character than anybody, including Smith, himself, has ever realised up to now.

Why is it so important for me to show this? Because, if the new evidence that I bring to the table is indeed valid, then Smith couldn't have been the forger. He had no interest whatsoever to make SecMk a Western/Peripheral text; thus he couldn't have produced such a document.

Furthermore, by the same logic, nobody in the 20th century could have produced such a document, since hardly anyone nowadays is interested in the Western/Peripheral textual tradition.

And so, the objections that you've offered so far are only of relevance to this particular reading, and its history, as well as perhaps to the history of the Diatessaronic and the Old Syriac traditions in general. And yet, as far as I can see, your objections don't seem to contradict my main thesis in any direct way.

All the best,

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky

May well be, Vork...

What you're saying seems to make sense...

Keep in mind that my original point that I was trying to make is to bring in some quote from Loisy. It was Loisy's idea that this passage was an insertion at this point.

But also, even if granted that the style of this passage is Markan, this still might be an insertion in this particular spot. What if what we define as "Markan style" is simply a _very early_ style?

This passage of Mk 12:1-11 is definitely very early. It was probably part of the earliest proto-gospel. It's just that its original location that seems to be in doubt.

Thank you!

Hmm... Interesting!

Good idea...

I think it's a crying shame how few of the professional biblical scholars are interested nowadays in this whole subject of interpolations in Mk. There are lots of interpolations there, and the Bethsaida section is the prime suspect. It's just so huge, and so loaded with obviously secondary material!

Glad you found this relevant.

Here, I'll just bow my head to your latest interpretation. This is perhaps the most convoluted problem in NT studies, and I'm not about to get into it too deeply at this stage!

This whole problem of the Pauline interpolations really gets me hot under the collar. I just can't believe that hardly anybody among the professional scholars is interested... What a bunch of con artists!

That's why I put this as #1 among my,

Six Big Fallacies of NT Studies!
http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/6fallac.htm

Cheers,

Yuri

andrewcriddle

Firstly as you mentioned the Johannine bits were probably the last to be added to the harmony that became the Diatessaron hence they are IMO less likely to preserve very ancient readings.

Secondly the reading seems to be either a gloss or a harmonization with the synoptics, neither of which on internal evidence suggests originality.

Andrew Criddle

DramaQ

Well, actually I never called Clement an idiot. What I did was ask a question (since I’m not a historian and don’t know that much about Clement). I wanted to know if the generally understood character of Clement as derived from his other writings is consistent with someone who could be such an idiot.

It’s really not the same thing.

Sorry. I didn’t mean to make you go “sheesh�. I guess the old adage “there’s no such thing as a dumb question� isn’t always true.

About “passing judgment� on an historical figure. ISTM that unless you read the Mar Saba letter ASSUMING that it is genuine, it’s not really “passing judgment on history� to question the nature of the character of the alleged writer it, is it?

I realize your having “laid to rest any doubts about the authenticity of this document� means I have no business questioning this Clement of history, but without having seen your web pages prior to my asking, all I could do was wonder if the character of the writer is CONSISTENT with what is known of Clement.

IMHO, the writer of the letter DID do an idiotic thing. (Perhaps that’s from my 21st century perspective, but that doesn’t change my opinion.) He advised an underling to keep quiet about a document he considered to be very secret by REVEALING information in the document.

Then he quoted back “unspeakable� material to a person who had JUST SENT HIM that very quote.

That’s pretty idiotic.

From the point of view of a less-informed 21st century non-historian, anyway.

For the record I am not using this to claim that the letter is any kind of forgery. And I certainly never accused Smith of anything (and never would). Personally, I rather LIKE the idea of there being a “Secret Mark�. I just find the structure of the letter to be like that of a plot in a play, designed to take the reader to a certain conclusion, and doing so by using expository references.

And I found that a bit odd. Hence my questions.

Thank you for making things clearer to me.

DQ

andrewcriddle

FWIW not all Clement scholars regard the letter as compatible with Clement's other writings.

See Osborn 'Clement of Alexandria A Review of Research 1958-1982' SCen 3 (1983) 219-44.

Osborn IMS argues that the letter successfully imitates Clement's style but misunderstands Clement's ideas concerning secret tradition and treats literally Clement's metaphor about heretics breaking into the Church in order to steal its teaching.

Andrew Criddle