Yuri Kuchinsky

Well, Peter, as long as they are not the B52s circling over my head, I think I can still take it...

Also, Vork has now raised the question about the Cana miracle. Have you yet read my treatment of it, Vork? I've already supplied the URL above.

And I've already finished researching the Part 2 of my "Water Into Wine" article. Two more Diatessaronic witnesses will soon be added to my analysis, and they provide lots of additional support for my theory. Now the number of those significant parallels has gone up from 16 to 20!

Cheers,

Yuri.

Vorkosigan

Well, Peter, as long as they are not the B52s circling over my head, I think I can still take it...

What? You didn't see Rumsfeld's announcement yesterday about Yuri Kuchinsky's manufacturing of WMDs -- witnesses to the magdalene diatesseron?

Also, Vork has now raised the question about the Cana miracle. Have you yet read my treatment of it, Vork? I've already supplied the URL above.

Yes, fascinating. Do you see the Cana Wedding as originally some kind of magic baptismal ceremony much redacted?

Vorkosigan

Vinnie

Yes, I was quite happy with Koester's work. It was very fulfilling to read.

I think that when looking for a solution to synoptic relations one should not accept the "simplest theory." I think the texts themselves tell us that any solution will be complex. There is no need to purposefully speculate or imagine non-existent texts (if not indicated) but there is no reason to try and reduce the synoptic problem. There probably was some cross-working of various gospels at various stages.

I still can't get away from the 2SH. Isn't Matthew and Luke using a proto-version(s) of Mark and versions of Q still the 2ST? I think that two different authors had before them a version of GMark and a version of Q. This does not however rule out later cross-contamination but this much seems secure to me on the basis of order and the wording of the gospels.

Good article. These two quotes from Koester hit home for me:

I have not read many textual works but both of these views have recently come to be my own. This is what I have learned:

I find it very humorous that all the textual/apologetical talk regarding autographical texts of scripture presupposes that there were auotgraphs and that the writing of various books were a one time deal. This can be argued (or assumed) for most epistles of the NT but not for the Gospels. The second problem is applicable to all early Christian writings: the first one hundred years of a text's life seem to be, as Koester pointed out, its most vulnerable time period for textual corruption. A study of early Christian texts more than amply demonstrates this to be true. How many Christian texts before 200 AD are believed to have underwent redaction? Mark, Q, Thomas, John, to name the more famous ones. Several of these texts may have underwent numerous redactions.

Finally, I am flatly convinced that that looking for an autographical text of GMark and GJohn is entirely bankrupt. Looking for the earliest stage is all we can hope to accompish.

I think Matthew (followed by Luke) may be the securest in regard to have different versions as we have Mark and Luke who used a version of Q as an external control to a degree and Matthew is the most extensively quoted Gospel and has decent manuscript attestion if my memory serves me well.

If the 2ST has a glimpe of truth in it and Matthew used a version of Mark (proto or urMarkus) and Q then we probably should view this as having an autographical text. mark and John may have been composed over the course of several years but a very significant portion of GMatthew's material is attributal to two sources so the composition of this as a one shot deal seems more likely. This does not of course rule out textual corruption which surely does exist.

But if proto or urMark look radically different from canonical Mark I think it would be impossible to reconstruct the text of Q. We wouldn't know whether a text came from Q or Mark. But I think that is where arguments from order of canonical Mark and the wording of canonical Mark would come into play when compared to GMatt and GLk.

So I do not think Matthew and Lke used canonical Mark but I think each used a version that is similar to it (simply an earlier stage of it).

Take what you can get. Brown's Intro to the NT devotes only about 6 pages of texts to textual criticism.

Vinnie

Vinnie

Thanks for the citations. They will be very helpful and I'll try to look into each one and edit my listing as I see as necessary.

One question regarding Frank Schleritt. Who are the "later revisers" and when do they date to? Were these alterations in GJohn by 200 AD? If they were made after this date they aren't of use to me. I believe p66 is dated to ca 200 ad and preserves a large portion of the tet of GJohn? Since I am limiting myself to changes before 200 ad I need to be certain. if the "later revisers" were the early redactor(s) of GJohn I would be all set.

Does anyone know if there is anyway of reading direct english translations of say p66 and other works online? I'd be curious for comparison purposes.

It plays its part but I did not say not to speculate or put forth arguments here. I am simply stumped.

Our version of GJohn seems to be a remarkable literary piece that must have been written very carefully. At the same time quite a few parts of it seem to be chopped up. They are in what appears to be the wrong place. I know of neither any reasonable motive or transmission method that could reasonably account for these problems. I'm simply stumped on it

Vinnie

Peter Kirby

The revisions noted by Schleritt are not based on manuscript evidence, and I presume that most revisions made after 200 AD would show up in some manuscript or other. Schleritt himself says, "The Gospel must then have assumed its final form in the first quarter of the second century." (p. 421) Again I strongly recommend the book Jesus After 2000 Years as I think you will find it useful for this purpose and many others besides. It is a comprehensive examination of the redaction and tradition history of the synoptic gospels, John, Thomas, and agrapha.

No, I think any scholar who heard of such an idea would say, "But if you're going to do text-critical comparisons, you have to do it in the original languages." It would be nice for people like us, but I don't know of any such project.

Some of the revisions seem to follow themes. Schleritt writes: "But at least some strata of revision stand out from others. One of these strata seems to be present in 11.5; 13.1b, 12b-17, 20, 34f.; 14.14f., 24 and 15.1-17; the (group of) reviser(s) responsible for it was particularly interested in the theme of love. Another (group of) reviser(s) apparently had a marked interest in the figure of Judas, who delivered Jesus up (cf. 6.64b-65; 12.4b, 6; 13.2-3, 10b-11, 18f.; 17.12b; 18.5c). And yet another was above all interested in the disciple whom Jesus loved (13.23-26a; 19.26-27, 35; 20.3-10; 21; cf. also the remarks on the later revision of 1.35-51). Further attempts at bringing strata together must remain very hypothetical." (pp. 419-420)

As for dislocations, I am not sure how they are to be explained. If it were a codex, one could see pages getting mixed around, for the larger dislocations. Some of the evidence for aporia, or difficulties in the text, may point to interpolation rather than dislocation. Or, if you prefer, one could speak of multiple versions of the text that expanded on the previous text while leaving what was there intact, thus adding to the work while creating problems. In this regard, take a look at the "Signs Gospel" page of ECW.

best,
Peter Kirby

Vinnie

I've been working a lot of hours this month of which I think I've only had two days off :banghead: so my production time has been lowered significantly. At any rate, this is all I have on Gmark thus far. I recommend reading the footnotes (esp. 5) and the GJohn stuff still needs more updating (obviously). There is still a lot more I need to add to Gmark as well so its not close to being finished yet.


Canonical Mark

Unlike the gospel of John, Mark does not receive early manuscript attestation. The first appearance of GMark occurs in the middle of the third century (p45). There is no other manuscript evidence for the text of GMark before the fourth century.

Neither Justin’s mid first-century reference nor Papias’ slightly earlier reference help us establish the text of Mark in any way. Justin Martyr probably indicates knowledge of the text of Mark 3:17 in Dial 106.2-3 but other than this, there aren’t any sure citations from this Gospel before Clement of Alexandria and Irenaues in the late second-century. We do, however, have two earlier witnesses if the 2ST is correct; Matthew and Luke.

The most popularly known textual problem with Mark’s gospel probably concerns its ending. In our current bibles it is widely accepted by even very conservative scholars that Mark 16:9-20 was not part of the autographical text. Three major reasons can be cited:

1. The lack of a smooth juncture between verses 8 and 9 (the subject is the women in v. 8 whereas Jesus is the presumed subject in v.9)
2. The way Mary is identified in v. 9 even though she has been mentioned earlier.
3. The presence of seventeen non-Marcan words or words used in a non-Marcan sense

This, however, is only one of four extant endings in the manuscript tradition. Bruce Metzger argues convincingly that “none of these four endings commends itself as original”1. All four of the endings cannot be date before 200 A.D. so I cannot add all four to the list here but I do think at least one ending was attached very early.

Tatian’s Diatessaron seems to include the long ending which would also make it possible that Justin, his mentor, knew it as well.2 Furthermore, we know that Matthew and Luke diverge sharply after Mark 16:8 which indicates that they both could not have had the same text with its canonical or a similar ending in front of them. Matthew follows Mark’s PN extremely closely and Luke close enough. Their divergence after 16:8 is supported by what the later manuscripts with varying endings indicate.

It is possible that either Matthew or Luke had a version of Mark with an ending that did not stop at 16:8 while the other did not. Some have suggested that the original ending of Mark was redacted and attached to GJohn. My own view is that Mark originally ended at 16:8 and later Christians (Matthew and Luke included) felt this was an inappropriate ending. It is not my goal, however, to argue for this view here so I digress.

Mark probably had an added ending sometime before or around 200 ad. Bruce Metzger relayed the importance of this claim:

“It should not be overlooked that the text-critical analysis of the ending of Mark’s gospel has an important bearing on the historical and literary source criticism of the Gospels. Since Mark was not responsible for the composition of the last twelve verses of the generally current form of his gospel, and since they undoubtedly had been attached to the Gospel before the church recognized the fourfold Gospels as canonical, it follows that the New Testament contains not four but five evangelic accounts of events subsequent to the resurrection of Christ.”3.

Minor Agreements

The 2ST raises interesting problems for the authenticity of the text of canonical Mark. When we compare Mark’s extant manuscript text with the Markan portions reproduced by Matthew and Luke we are left wondering whether the original version of Mark has survived intact or if it was lost like the synoptic sayings source? The most important observation that can be made in this regard is to those instances where Matthew and Luke agree in their reproduction of Mark against today’s extant text.4.

These are the so-called minor agreements of Matthew and Luke against Mark. They have an interesting bearing on the synoptic problem itself and raise questions concerning the text of GMark (if the 2ST is correct). 5

Selected Texts of Common Omissions 6

Plucking Grain on the Sabbath

This section in Mark 2:23-28 ends with two sayings of Jesus (v.27 & v. 28). Both Matthew and Luke contain only the second of these two sayings. It might be argued that the first saying about the Sabbath was too bold for the later church and was deleted by both Matthew and Luke. This is countered by the fact that “criticism of the Sabbath observation was pervasive at that time, as is shown by passages like Col 2:16; Ign. Mg. 9.1; Barn. 15. Thus it is more likely that the original text of Mark was later expanded by the addition of this saying. Only the saying preserved in Matthew and Luke belonged to the original text of Mark.” 7.

Parable of the Seed Growing Secretly

This parable found in mark 4:26-29 is not found in either Matthew or Luke. If Matthew’s version of Mark did have this parable it must be claimed that he replaced it with the parable of the tares (Matt. 13:24-30). Howerver, Matthew was eager to expand the Marcan parable chapter (cf. matt 13:33, 44-46, 47-50, 51-52). Furthermore, since Luke does not reproduce this parable in his version of the parable chapter nor anywhere else, it is more likely that the original text of Mark did not include it.

Jesus Encounter with the Rich Man

Mark’s account (10:17-31) is copied quite faithfully and often verbatim by Luke (18:18-30) and Matthew (20:16-30) but the canonical text of Mark contains two passages which are missing in both Matthew and Luke and appear to be secondary expansions. Matthew and Luke show evidence of the more original versions of the Marcan text that both copied.

The Great Commandment

“In Mark 12:28-31 ( = Matt 22:34-40 and Luke 10:25-28) the pericope about the Great Commandment is introduced by a reference to Dtn 6:4 (“hear, O Israel . . .”) and has received an appendix about “the scribe who is not far from the rule of God” (mark 12:32-34). Neither feature has a parallel in matthew and Luke. In a brilliant analysis, Gunther Bornkamm has demonstrated that this appendix is a later addition to Mark’s text, written from the perspective of Hellenistic propaganda.” 8.

The Naked Young Man

Neither Matthew nor Luke reproduce the strange incident that occurs regarding a follower of Jesus when he is arrested (Mark 14:51-52). There is no trace in either gospel of this fortunate young man who managed to escaped when grabbed by armed men by letting go of the linen cloth covering his naked body.

The Request of the Sons of Zebedee





1. Bruce Metzger, The Text of the NT, 3rd Version, Oxford, pp 226-229

2. This is certain in so far as Tatian’s Diatessaron can be reconstructed to have originally contained this material. The

3. As we saw from the discussion of GJohn, there are certainly more than five hands involved in the process!

4. Metzger, ibid., 229

5. Neirynck in Minor Agreements provides a through classification of all the agreements. There are several explanation commonly offered for these agreements. One, many of them appear to be common stylistic and grammatical corrections of GMark. Two, later scribes may have altered the text of Luke in light of the better known text of Matthew. Three, maybe Luke knew Matthew and the 2ST is incorrect. Four, Matthew and Luke used a version of Mark that differs significantly from our canonical copy. This discussion favors the latter view and is not concerned with the common stylistic and grammatical corrections but with instances of agreement against the extant text of Mark where known editorial purposes can be the reason for the differences.


6. For this section I am indebted to Helmut Koester. I am following his lead on pp 276-286, Ancient Christian Gospels, Trinity.

7. Koester, ibid., p. 276.

8. Koester, ibid., p. 277.


To be continued

Vinnie

Peter Kirby

There is no need to guess on this point; the twelve verse longer ending of Mark was added before Irenaeus of Lyons. Adv. Haer. 3.10.5 says: "Also, towards the conclusion of his Gospel, Mark says: 'So then, after the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God;'." This is from the longer ending.

best,
Peter Kirby

Yuri Kuchinsky

Hi, Vinnie,

Here are a few comments about the stuff that you posted from Koester.

But was there a synoptic sayings source? There are lots of doubts about it...

Quote:

The most important observation that can be made in this regard is to those instances where Matthew and Luke agree in their reproduction of Mark against today’s extant text.4. These are the so-called minor agreements of Matthew and Luke against Mark. They have an interesting bearing on the synoptic problem itself and raise questions concerning the text of GMark (if the 2ST is correct). 5

I think here we have to be a bit more careful about terminology. In actual fact, the Minor Agreements, so-called, happen to constitute proof positive that the 2ST is not correct. In a normal world, these 1000 Anti-Markan Agreements -- the places where Mt and Lk agree with each other against Mk -- would be seen as conclusive and incontrovertible evidence against any suggestion that Mt and Lk were originally based on Mk. But, of course, our world of biblical scholarship is very far from being a normal world -- it's a lot more like the fantasy world.

So, in fact, what Koester is talking about is a sort of a modified 2ST, but it really needs a separate name of its own, such as the Ur-Markus theory.

Essentially, I agree with Koester that both Mt and Lk -- but also the canonical Mk itself! -- originally depended on some sort of a short proto-gospel. The only question that remains to be clarified is what was its textual character. But this last question is certainly a very difficult one. Myself, I think that this early proto-gospel looked more like Lk than Mk.

Now, all those further case studies that you cite from Koester, the Common Omissions such as:

Plucking Grain on the Sabbath

Parable of the Seed Growing Secretly

Jesus Encounter with the Rich Man

The Great Commandment

The Naked Young Man

are all quite reasonable, and I can agree with most of what he says. Some small details might differ here and there, but these are all solid examples of some probable later expansions in Mk.

And, as I recall, when I was presenting similar evidence to Synoptic-L for years, there was hardly any replies, or any real interest that was expressed by any of those professional zombies who inhabit this list.

The number of biblical scholars today who know anything about this Ur-Markus theory is probably 1%. The fact is that nobody is interested in any evolutionary theories of gospels composition. Because they are all Creationists!

Best,

Yuri.

Vinnie

There are significant doubts. I would have to support one of these two positions:

Proto-Marcan priority with Q:
Matthew and Luke used an earlier version of Mark and a version of Q along with other sources (L and M, incancy, whater).

Proto-Marcan priority without Q:
Matthew used and earlier version of Mark and Luke used an early version as well in addition to the text of GMatthew. Both had access to other sources as well (L an M, infancy, whatever)


It still seems probable to me in the latter scenerio that Matthew had to use some sort of sayings list. Not our current Q but I do not see it as plausible to state that Matthew invented the double tradition material whole cloth which Luke copied from that Gospel.

Furthermore, Papias connects a sayiongs list with Matthew (edited from Gmatthew!) and I am not willing to simply dismiss Papias whole cloth even though I do not think arguments for authorship based on Papias have even the slightest hint of accuracy to them. Furthermore, there still are Thomas/Q overlapps even if there is no Q. Q is simply the double tradition now. We would have Double tradition/Thomas overlapps.

By saying there was no Q and Luke used GMatthew we are not saying that Matthew did not make use of a sayings gospel. In all likelihood, he probably did, we simply cannot reconstruct it or rather, them as he may have used more than one.

Is this justified? The double tradition is mostly sayings is it not?

How many of them can be explained away as the result of grammatical and stylistic corrections? How many as the result of a later copier modling Luke to fit the better known Matthew? How many as the result of a proto mark? How many as Mark/Q overlapps? if this is not sufficient we might need to be willing to dismiss Q and say Luke knew Matthew!

But still, aren't the sayings used in different contexts in various places in a similar order? I still wonder if its not best to say that Luke and Matthew knew a sayings source (not the same as Q) but Luke knew GMatthew as well.

I think the text was enough like Mark to be called proto-Mark. With developments we are left with canonical Mark.

This would have to be argued using a synopsis and looking for where Canonical Mark appears to be the middle term and seems to have been copied by both Matthew and Luke. Further, I think it can be established that GMatthew made us of a version of canonical Mark's passion narrative. But I think canonical Mark, GPeter and GJohn can be traced back to a single passion narrative (argumentation a la Koester). It seems likely to me that this source stood at the basis of the proto Gospel used by Matthew and Luke but ended at 16:8 where they diverge [adding in] the most significantly.

I think significant hunks of canonical Mark must be attributed to this Proto-Mark. The order of canonical Mark and the wording calls for this in my view. I wouldn't call the text UrMark or protoMark if I didn't think this!

Vinnie

Yuri Kuchinsky

Well, now that Vinnie has decided to enjoy the summer (and who can blame him? ), it looks like the number of people here, besides myself, who might be interested in the proto-Mk theories has declined to 0?

But, in any case, here's my reply to Vinnie for such time as when he might be back.

Well, I'm certainly not arguing that there were no sayings lists (plural!). There probably _were_ sayings lists of various sorts that the gospel writers used. But were they free-standing sayings, without any narrative attached to them? I doubt it a lot.

And were they in a form of one unified gospel with its own theology and history of transmission? I doubt that too...

None of the above assumptions have been proven as yet, so it's all speculation.

Quote:

How many of them [the Anti-Markan Agreements] can be explained away as the result of grammatical and stylistic corrections?

Very few, I'd say.

Quote:

How many as the result of a later copier modling Luke to fit the better known Matthew?

But why not modelling _Mark_ to fit the better known Matthew? So I think this argument doesn't hold water.

Quote:

How many as the result of a proto mark?

Now, here we agree, of course.

Quote:

How many as Mark/Q overlapps?

Well, right now we're talking about the Anti-Markan Agreements in the triple tradition. So this doesn't need to have any relevance to Q.

Quote:

if this is not sufficient we might need to be willing to dismiss Q and say Luke knew Matthew!

Let's not complicate this any further than it needs to be. Q is a separate matter.

Quote:

But still, aren't the sayings used in different contexts in various places in a similar order? I still wonder if its not best to say that Luke and Matthew knew a sayings source (not the same as Q) but Luke knew GMatthew as well.

This is the Farrer Theory. It has just as many problems, in my view, as the mainstream 2ST.

Quote:

I think the text was enough like Mark to be called proto-Mark.

Well, this needs to be proven.

There's too much hard evidence, it seems to me, that the proto-Luke was in fact the earliest Christian gospel. But of course none of the mainstream scholars are interested in any of this stuff.

All the best, and have a good holiday, Vinnie!

Yuri.