Vinnie

http://ecwar.org/controltextintegrity.pdf

Vinnie

jakejonesiv

Hi Vinnie,

This is very nicely done. I greatly admire your attention to detail. Your conclusion is sound, "The extant text of canonical Mark is similar enough to the version used by Matthew and Luke, whenever, wherever and by whoever it was written, to be used critically by historians." But you will note that is not the same thing as "there was no urMark." It only means the canonical versions bear a textual relationship to each other. And as you have acknowledged in your article, you are working with texts that date no earlier that 250 CE.

There is a very jarring example that we do not have the earliest version of Mark's gospel in 14:3-11. An unnamed woman anoints Jesus with a very costly perfume in anticipation of his burial. (Do not read Mary back in from John 23:3). This causes a controversy, but Jesus says "Truly I say to you, wherever the gospel is preached in the whole world, what this woman has done will also be spoken of in memory of her." Her name has been suppressed in our Mark. [see note below]

I will suggest her name was suppressed because she was a "gnostic" in the pure sense of the word; she knew something the disciples and women followers of Jesus did not know. Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome were just as dense as the male disciples; they bought spices, and went to anoint Jesus forgetting that this had already been accomplished! Mark 16:1. Add to this, they were on the way to the tomb before they it occured to them they needed assistance to roll the stone away from the entrance of the tomb. Intractable stupidity.

The legend of Judas is unknown before Irenaeus. We find no mention of the arch betrayer in Justin or the Gospel of Peter, which according to JDC incorporates material from a gospel more primitive than the canonical gospels. In GPeter, each of the Twelve in grief retire to their respective homes after the death of Jesus. Thus no member of the Twelve could have been the betrayer. Yet in Mark, we find Judas front and center, even though the crucial scene indicates an intermediate version in which the betrayer is nameless.

There are also indications that in an earlier version of Mark, that a certain Simon was crucified in Jesus' place. Notice how after Simon begins to carry the cross, it is all pronouns through the crucifixion.
Mark 15
²¹ They pressed into service a passer-by, Simon, a Cyrenian, who was coming in from the country, the father of Alexander and Rufus, to carry his cross.
²² They brought him to the place of Golgotha (which is translated Place of the Skull).
²³ They gave him wine drugged with myrrh, but he did not take it.
²⁴ Then they crucified him and divided his garments by casting lots for them to see what each should take.
²⁵ It was nine o'clock in the morning when they crucified him.

In GMark, the only person who could vouch that Jesus was really dead was Joseph of Arimathea, an otherwise unknown follower of Jesus. The disciples had all run away, and the women followers were at too great a distance to confirm the events.

Now Vinnie, you may say, coincidence, or unintentional. But it is entirely too close for comfort to Irenaeus' report that Basilides, who lived in Alexandria in first half of the 2nd century and wrote a Gospel, professed this: “Jesus did not suffer, but a certain Simon of Cyrene was obliged to carry the cross in his place. It was he whom, by ignorance and error, was crucified, having been transfigured by Jesus, in order to take the place of Jesus. As for Jesus, he took the shape of Simon and stood aside and laughed at them.” Adv. Haer. 1.24.3. Vinnie, please note that Ireneaus in AH 3.11 stated that before times, the Gospel of Mark was in the hands of the Separatists (i.e. adoptionists), which was the Christology of Basilides.

Herzliche Grüße,
Jake Jones IV

Note: A most unlikely suggestion for the anonymity of the woman who anointed Jesus is that it was to protect her from arrest by the Romans! Are we to imagine that Roman officials, after reading GMark, decide that some woman named Mary (as if there weren't a plethora of Marys) had committed treason against Rome, and oh she moved in around the block. Let's go get her!

Vinnie

I should make a slight change. There is no basis for an Ur-Mark on the basis of a comparison to Matthew and Luke. The textual history of the gospel before this is unknown to me. Did it start with the early conflict stories that look like they were part of a unit and build from there, adding in other sayings, miracles and parables and a passion narrative? I leave that to those more competent than me.

I believe we have second century manuscripts of parts of Matthew and Luke. Maybe even Matthew in the first half of the second century (Comfort and Barrett). I also date all the synoptics to the first century though I can push Luke-Acts to 110 if need arises. Matthew 80-100 and Mark ca. 70, in there generally present form, though there are certainly a number of textual difficulties.

Suppressed or not mentioned? Was the name of the man with the shriveled hand in the beginning of Mark 3 suppressed or not mentioned? How many more examples, besides the one I mentioned, would you like me to present and ask the question: Suppressed or not mentioned?

I believe there is evidence in the gospels themselves of Judas' existence beside Mark. The different lists of the twelve for one, potentially the embarrassment criterion, and not two but three authors invent three different gory deaths for him (Papias, Mathhew and Luke). As an side, for those skeptics who think Papias did not mean our Mark, how was he aware of Judas? Judas may also have been part of the pre-marcan passion narrative.

Justin also knew the texts of Matthew and Mark. Nothing can be gleaned from his silence on Judas. The gospel of Peter is another story. The tradition was somewhat widespread on Judas by the first or second decade of the second century.

Mark writes in Rome or a place Like Syria, Matthew has the tradition probably in Antioch, a Phyrgian Bishop knows it (Papias) just after the turn of the century or 120 at latest, and so does the audience of Luke, wherever he writes. Not too mention the possibility of Judas in the PN which probably pre-dates Mark and different lists of the twelve in Matthew and Luke and the embarrassment criterion--which also explains why Judas could be "excised" by local groups in later generations.

Also, the crucifixion is evident in the earliest material we have and in the creeds Paul relays. If any belief developed that Jesus was not really killed it must be considered secondary and is probably the genesis of docetism. Mark's entire gospel can be adequately described as an apology for the Cross (see Gundry's 1000 page commentary).

Vinnie

the_cave

Hi Vinnie--

I have to agree with Jake that your statements in your chapter don't entirely seem to support the simplistic conclusion you want to draw.

For one thing, using a couple of phrases from the beginning and end of the Great Omission/Bethsaida Section to prove Luke's familiarity with it is not very conclusive--you should assume that there was a lot of editing at the margins of texts (see Turton's Commentary on Mark, for example, for an argument that original Mark included parts of what is now considered the Great Omission--the author of canonical Mark has just rearranged certain sections).

I wonder what you mean by "Ur-Markus". I take any "Ur-Markus" to be identical with a "proto-Mark", and to contain much of the very same material as portions of canonical Mark. I don't consider it to be a radically different document from canonical Mark, except that it may contain sections that canonical Mark doesn't have, and may be missing things that canonical Mark adds.

I highly recommend Delbert Burkett's Rethinking the Gospel Sources (or via: amazon.co.uk) for a comprehensive view of all the phenomena that need explaining. It can get quite convoluted. Burkett's solution (a proto-Mark and extraneous material, then two deutero-Marks, then the gospels) is unique, though compatible with various theories that have been proposed over the years. I myself thinks he needlessly complicates some things (redactors were not the robots he thinks they were, for one thing) and I don't entirely agree with him, but the problems are all there.

Anyway, Jake is correct that your attention to detail is the way to go. All I can say is, good luck

dog-on

Interesting read. Well done.

I was struck by something in your conclusion.


Works of classical history? Why not works of classical fiction?

How do you know?

Vinnie

One can reconstruct classical history from fiction from the classical era. Tht is how I meant it. I am not saying the gospels are historical documents similar to the writings of say Josephus or Tacitus. Maybe "classical documents" would have been a better word choice but I take any documents from that period to be a part of classical history even if they are not histories from the classical period. Any literature tells us something (for example, if fiction, the types of stories people enjoyed reading at that time).

Vinnie

Vinnie

One of the chief arguments for supposing a different version of Mark is Luke's apparent great omission. Matthew includes most of this stuff, IIRC, and if Luke evinces knowledge of its content, there is absolutely no need to posit it was missing from Mark. Luke simply omitted it.

Conceding that Luke shows knowledge of this section in his gospel tends to saw off the branch you are sitting on when arguing it wasn't in Mark. It is argued to not be in Mark precisely because Luke does not retain it. The references of allusions from the NJBC occur all throughout the section.

If it makes it clearer, by proto I meant deutero-Mark. I have seen them used interchangeably and there is a difference between deuter or proto-mark and ur-Mark.

I should probably make that clearer...

Vinnie

Vinnie

Look up Boismard on the synoptic problem. His theory of relations will make your head spin. The complicated theories solve a lot of problems. The only real objection is that they keep multiplying hypothetical stages and texts.

Vinnie

dog-on

Sounds good.

I agree, "classical documents" would probably be a bit more accurate in this case.

Anyway, nice work!

jakejonesiv

Hi Vinnie,

Thanks for the informative reply. No doubt Justin knew text that eventually was included in canonical Mark, but what format he had the texts in cannot easily be determined. He lumps all gospel material into the catch-all "memoirs of the Apostles." He seems to harmonize extemporaneously with even material found in heretical gospels, and occasionaly adds gospel details from meditation on Old testament texts. And when it comes to the most important details of the passion, he leaves the gospels and appeals instead to the Acts of Pilate.

We find evidence for an evolving text of Mark in the minor agreements of the triple tradition. This indicates textual corruption of Mark after the versions used by Matthew and Luke.

The woman who anointed Jesus could hardly have been anonymous in an earlier version of the text. Jesus said, according to Mark 14:9 that what the woman had done would be told in memory of her. Not just the deed, but in memory of the woman herself. This is not a trivial instance that can be dismissed as "not mentioned" but of foremost importance, to be told wherever the gospel is proclaimed to the whole world.

"Amen, I say to you, wherever the gospel is proclaimed to the whole world, what she has done will be told in memory of her."

I can't follow your reasoning that contradictions concerning Judas' death indicate Judas' existence. Just the opposite is indicated. Judas is a fiction. In the Pauline epistles, there is no betrayer. “For I have received from the Lord that which also I delivered (paradidOmi) unto you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which he was delivered up (paradidOmi) took bread:” 1 Cor. 11:23. Judas is never mentioned until Ireneus. "Judas" as the betrayer was just another way to lay blame at the feet of the Jews (Judas equals Judah). Judah, the patriarchal namesake of the Jews, was the betrayer of Jospeph as Judas betrayed Jesus.

The ridiculous story attributed to Papias concerning Judas' death comes to us through Apollinarius of Laodicea, a fourth century Christian bishop. It is incautious to presume that Judas was known in the early second century based on fantastic fourth century garnish. Likewise, the tradition that you rely so heavily on (Papias-Mark-Peter) also dates to the fourth century in the pen of Eusebius. Ignatius mentions nothing of Papias' testimony concerning Mark; many discussions on Papias give a false impression on this. I think the over-reliance on proto-orthodox tradition is biased; the "heretics" had alternate traditions for almost everything (i.e. Peter-Glaucias-Basilides), and these tend to cancel each other out. Rather than historical facts, I think we are seeing competing claims made in the cause of doctrinal authority.

Vinnie, I know you are expending great effort in an attempt to trace strands of Christian tradition through the early centuries CE. I greatly appreciated the goal and the effort. The comments you have made dating the Muratorian fragement to the fourth century and that Jesus' body was likely eaten by dogs illustrate to me that you are an honest seeker of facts unconcerned with apologetics. I look forward to reading more of you.

Jake