Mark's DiualCritical Marks. Names Use As Evidence of Fiction

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 2110
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: I'm Looking For A Herod

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin »

JoeWallack wrote:I'm Looking For A Herod
Just for the record. There is another "Herod" in P 45. He is in
6:22 and when the daughter of Herodias herself came in and danced, she pleased Herod and them that sat at meat with him; and the king said unto the damsel, Ask of me whatsoever thou wilt, and I will give it thee.

P 45
sai]d the Herod to the d[amsel
ειπε]ν ο ηρωδης τωι κ[ορασιωι

User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1594
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Re: I'm Looking For A Herod

Post by JoeWallack »

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: Just for the record. There is another "Herod" in P 45. He is in
6:22 and when the daughter of Herodias herself came in and danced, she pleased Herod and them that sat at meat with him; and the king said unto the damsel, Ask of me whatsoever thou wilt, and I will give it thee.

P 45
sai]d the Herod to the d[amsel
ειπε]ν ο ηρωδης τωι κ[ορασιωι

JW:

Papyrus 45
Papyrus 45 ( {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}} {\mathfrak {P}}45 or P. Chester Beatty I) is an early New Testament manuscript which is a part of the Chester Beatty Papyri. It was probably created around 250 in Egypt.[1]
Thanks KK. With the above the Chithemism is complete:

Verse Name Theme
3 3:6 And the Pharisees went out, and straightway with the Herodians took counsel against him, how they might destroy him. Herodians Plotting against
6 6:14 And king Herod heard [thereof]; for his name had become known: and he said, John the Baptizer is risen from the dead, and therefore do these powers work in him.
  • Herod
Rising
6:16 But Herod, when he heard [thereof], said, John, whom I beheaded, he is risen.
  • Herod
Rising
6:17 For Herod himself had sent forth and laid hold upon John, and bound him in prison for the sake of Herodias, his brother Philip`s wife; for Herod had married her.
  • Herod

    • Herodias
[/b]
      • Herod
[/b]
Rising

Sexual Immorality

Righteousness
6:18 For John said unto Herod, It is not lawful for thee to have thy brother`s wife.
      • Herod
[/b]
Righteousness
6:19 And Herodias set herself against him, and desired to kill him; and she could not;
        • Herodias
[/b]
Passion to Kill
6:20 for Herod feared John, knowing that he was a righteous and holy man, and kept him safe.
      • Herod
[/b]
Righteousness
6:21 And when a convenient day was come, that Herod on his birthday made a supper to his lords, and the high captains, and the chief men of Galilee;
      • Herod
[/b]
Righteousness
6:22 and when the daughter of Herodias herself came in and danced, she pleased Herod and them that sat at meat with him; and Herod/the king said unto the damsel, Ask of me whatsoever thou wilt, and I will give it thee.
    • Herodias
[/b]
  • Herod

  • Herod
Sexual Immorality
8 8:15 And he charged them, saying, Take heed, beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the leaven of Herod.
  • Herod
Rising
12 12:13 And they send unto him certain of the Pharisees and of the Herodians, that they might catch him in talk. Herodians Plotting against

JW:
To be fair P45 also has "Herodians" for 8:15 and there is textual variation for some of the other "Herods" above as has been noted. My guess though is that the above complete Chithemism is original and chiasms and Chithemisms should be Textual Criticism criteria for Internal evidence (for GMark).

The larger observation is that original GMark does look Gnostic and the extended observation of Difficult Readings in GMark sometimes being supported by few or even one extant Manuscript with the lone or few often different witnesses for each difficult reading, makes possible original readings with no Manuscript support. Traditional conjectural emendations though are backwards with the attempt being to support orthodox assertians. Possible non-orthodox readings should always receive a premium. The only question is how much.


Joseph

Review of Daniel Wallace Mark 16:8 as the Conclusion to the Second Gospel - Greek Manuscript Evidence
User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1594
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Do You See The Light?

Post by JoeWallack »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wky5LIArS2c

JW:
5:22
And there cometh one of the rulers of the synagogue, Jairus by name; and seeing him, he falleth at his feet, (ASV)
External Manuscript: http://www.laparola.net/greco/index.php
ὀνόματι Ἰάϊρος] p45 ‭א A B C L N Δ Π Σ Φ Byz itaur itb itc itf itl itq vg syrc syrs syrp syrh syrpal copsa copbo copfay arm geo ς WH
ᾧ ὄνομα Ἰάϊρος] (see Luke 8:41) W Θ 565 700
omit] D ita itd ite itff2 iti itr1

Ἰάϊρος] WH
Ἰάειρος] Byz ς
JW:
The External evidence is similar to 1:41 for "angry". Bezae, as weighty as any Manuscript for Difficult Readings, and early Latin witness omit. The Western readings may have been insulated from the Eastern Lucian Recension. The other External similarity is that GMatthew also lacks "Jairus". In addition, here we have variation in the phrase.

The Difficult Reading Principle clearly supports omission as there is no good reason why "Jairus" would be exorcised.

The Internal evidence looks like, as the Brits say, The Cruncher, as "Mark's" (author) style clearly in general is to avoid naming positive characters and specifically avoids naming the recipient of a healing. I will also preempt KK and say that for an author that loves repetition repetition, "Mark" never uses this phrase to identify a character. "Luke" on the other hand loves the phrase (see their respective identification of "Levi").

On the other hand, the External evidence for "Jairus" here includes p45, a very brave and influential witness, and "Jairus" does sound deLightfully contrived to pair with "Jerasa" in the preceding story. My guess is that "Jairus" is not original here. It was created by "Luke" (author) (who unlike "Mark" did want positive named witnesses).


Joseph

The Israeli/Arab Conflict - The London Conference - 1939
Last edited by JoeWallack on Sun Aug 06, 2017 9:28 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Do You See The Light?

Post by Ben C. Smith »

JoeWallack wrote: Sun Aug 06, 2017 8:32 am https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wky5LIArS2c

JW:
5:22
And there cometh one of the rulers of the synagogue, Jairus by name; and seeing him, he falleth at his feet, (ASV)
External Manuscript: http://www.laparola.net/greco/index.php
ὀνόματι Ἰάϊρος] p45 ‭א A B C L N Δ Π Σ Φ Byz itaur itb itc itf itl itq vg syrc syrs syrp syrh syrpal copsa copbo copfay arm geo ς WH
ᾧ ὄνομα Ἰάϊρος] (see Luke 8:41) W Θ 565 700
omit] D ita itd ite itff2 iti itr1

Ἰάϊρος] WH
Ἰάειρος] Byz ς
JW:
The External evidence is similar to 1:41 for "angry". Bezae, as weighty as any Manuscript for Difficult Readings, and early Latin witness omit. The Western readings may have been insulated from the Eastern Lucian Recension. The other External similarity is that GMatthew also lacks "Jairus". In addition, here we have variation in the phrase.

The Difficult Reading Principle clearly supports omission as there is no good reason why "Jairus" would be exorcised.

The Internal evidence looks like, as the Brits say, The Cruncher, as "Mark's" (author) style clearly in general is to avoid naming positive characters and specifically avoids naming the recipient of a healing.

On the other hand, the External evidence for "Jairus" here includes p45, a very brave and influential witness, and "Jairus" does sound deLightfully contrived to pair with "Jerasa" in the preceding story. My guess is that "Jairus" is not original here. It was created by "Luke" (author) (who unlike "Mark" did want positive named witnesses).


Joseph

The Israeli/Arab Conflict - The London Conference - 1939
Good point. I do agree that the possible addition of the name Jairus to the Marcan text has not been given enough consideration. I, too, am somewhat inclined to regard it as secondary.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1594
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Re: Mark's DiualCritical Marks. Names Use As Evidence of Fic

Post by JoeWallack »

JW:
Chapter 12 Continued:

Verse Identity Named Unnamed Normal Unusual Count Context Commentary
12
41 And he sat down over against the treasury, and beheld how the multitude cast money into the treasury: and many that were rich cast in much.
42 And there came a poor widow, and she cast in two mites, which make a farthing.
43 And he called unto him his disciples, and said unto them, Verily I say unto you, This poor widow cast in more than all they that are casting into the treasury:
44 for they all did cast in of their superfluity; but she of her want did cast in all that she had, [even] all her living.
a poor widow - Unnamed - Unusual - - More irony (surprise). Greater physical acquisition acquires greater spiritual condemnation and while the Scribes physically benefit at The Widow's expense, The Widow spiritually benefits at the Scribes' expense (so to speak).



Joseph

ErrancyWiki
User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1594
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

αὐτοῦ Benus?

Post by JoeWallack »

Dittography in Mark 14.47.
Ben C. Smith wrote: Tue Jan 02, 2018 5:23 pm I just ran across this little eventuality and thought this was interesting. Codex Athous Lavrensis (044 or Ψ) is a Greek uncial manuscript from century IX or X. Mark 14.47 reads as follows in the manuscript:

Mark 14.47: 47 Εἷς δέ τῶν παρεστηκότων σπασάμενος τὴν μάχαιραν ἔπαισεν τὸν δοῦλον τοῦ ἀρχιερέως Καίαφα καὶ ἀφεῖλεν αὐτοῦ τὸ ὠτάριον. / 47 But a certain one of those who stood by drew his sword, and struck the slave of the high priest Caiaphas, and cut off his ear.

Mark famously omits the name of the high priest during the passion of Christ, but in this manuscript the priest is named as Caiaphas. It may be tempting to assume that this is an instance of harmonization with Matthew or John (or less likely Luke, who mentions Caiaphas only in 3.1, and not in connection with the passion), but another reason is at hand. Look at the name in the Greek as compared to the two words immediately following it:

ΚΑΙΑΦΑ
ΚΑΙΑΦΕΙΛΕΝ

This could easily be dittography, the writing of two sequences of letters twice because they are the same (or very close to the same). The opposite of dittography is haplography, which is the omission of a sequence of letters because it is repeated in the text; haplography is what we might have on our hands if this manuscript happened to preserve the original text of the Marcan archetype while all/most other manuscripts omitted the name.

It is funny how close Mark came to actually printing the name of the high priest in his text (assuming that what we find in Ψ is not original), but as the result of the conjunction of two completely unrelated Greek words.

Ben.
JW:

14:47

3588 [e] ton τὸν the Art-AMS
1401 [e] doulon δοῦλον servant N-AMS
3588 [e] tou τοῦ of the Art-GMS
749 [e] archiereōs ἀρχιερέως high priest, N-GMS
2532 [e] kai καὶ and Conj
851 [e] apheilen ἀφεῖλεν cut off V-AIA-3S
846 [e] autou αὐτοῦ of him PPro-GM3S
3588 [e] to τὸ the Art-ANS
5621 [e] ōtarion ὠτάριον. ear. N-ANS

JW:
Since the original Greek would not have had spaces between words the related excerpt would have been:
  • τοῦἀρχιερέως[the High Priest]καὶἀφε
As opposed to the proper name καὶἀφα. This seems like quite a coincidence and combined with the range of Name Games played by "Mark" as evidenced by this Thread I think the better question here is for someone like "Mark" (author) who knew from Josephus that Caipha was a prominent High Priest, did he not recognize the similarity in spelling/sound here?

Bonus material for Solo = "Mark" uses the offending word which makes the connection above work, "ἀφεῖλεν", once. So does Paul (surprise). Now go to works Pal. Hint for KK = The servant(s) of the High Priest can no longer "hear" because of the servants of youknowwho.


Joseph

The New Porphyry
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: αὐτοῦ Benus?

Post by Ben C. Smith »

JoeWallack wrote: Wed Jan 03, 2018 9:00 amThis seems like quite a coincidence....
All Mark had to do to get the correct form of Caiaphas' name into the text is to use the (historic) present ἀφαιρεῖ instead of the aorist ἀφεῖλεν. Even Leviticus can call Caiaphas a priest, at least, if Mark's misspelling be deemed acceptable:

Leviticus 4.20 LXX: 20 καὶ ποιήσει τὸν μόσχον ὃν τρόπον ἐποίησεν τὸν μόσχον τὸν τῆς ἁμαρτίας οὕτως ποιηθήσεται καὶ ἐξιλάσεται περὶ αὐτῶν ὁ ἱερεύς καὶ ἀφεθήσεται αὐτοῖς ἡ ἁμαρτία.

Leviticus 4.31 LXX: 31 καὶ πᾶν τὸ στέαρ περιελεῖ ὃν τρόπον περιαιρεῖται στέαρ ἀπὸ θυσίας σωτηρίου καὶ ἀνοίσει ὁ ἱερεὺς ἐπὶ τὸ θυσιαστήριον εἰς ὀσμὴν εὐωδίας κυρίῳ καὶ ἐξιλάσεται περὶ αὐτοῦ ὁ ἱερεύς καὶ ἀφεθήσεται αὐτῷ.

ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1594
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

ἀφεῖλεν cut off

Post by JoeWallack »

JW:

14:47

3588 [e] ton τὸν the Art-AMS
1401 [e] doulon δοῦλον servant N-AMS
3588 [e] tou τοῦ of the Art-GMS
749 [e] archiereōs ἀρχιερέως high priest, N-GMS
2532 [e] kai καὶ and Conj
851 [e] apheilen ἀφεῖλεν cut off V-AIA-3S
846 [e] autou αὐτοῦ of him PPro-GM3S
3588 [e] to τὸ the Art-ANS
5621 [e] ōtarion ὠτάριον. ear. N-ANS

Also of interest here is:
851 [e] apheilen ἀφεῖλεν cut off V-AIA-3S
"Cut off" may be a mistranslation. The primary meaning is "take away". Other than the verse here and where it was copied was the word ever used for a literal cutting off? This adds to the contrivance of close to Caiphais' name being spelled by consecutive letters after "High Priest".



Joseph

The New Porphyry
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: ἀφεῖλεν cut off

Post by Ben C. Smith »

JoeWallack wrote: Sat Jan 06, 2018 7:19 pm"Cut off" may be a mistranslation. The primary meaning is "take away". Other than the verse here and where it was copied was the word ever used for a literal cutting off?
A quick search yields the following:

Genesis 40.19: 19 "Within three more days Pharaoh will take away [ἀφελεῖ] your head from you and will hang you on a tree; and the birds will eat your flesh off you."

Ezekiel 23.25: 25 "And I will set My jealousy against you, that they may deal with you in wrath. They will remove [ἀφελοῦσιν] your nose and your ears; and your survivors will fall by the sword. They will take your sons and your daughters; and your survivors will be consumed by the fire."

1 Maccabees 7.47: 47 Then the Jews seized the spoils and the plunder, and they cut off [ἀφεῖλον] Nicanor's head and the right hand which he so arrogantly stretched out, and brought them and displayed them just outside Jerusalem.

1 Maccabees 11.17: 17 And Zabdiel the Arab cut off [ἀφεῖλεν] the head of Alexander and sent it to Ptolemy.

2 Maccabees 1.16: 16 Opening the secret door in the ceiling, they threw stones and struck down the leader and his men, and dismembered them and cut off [ἀφελόντες] their heads and threw them to the people outside.

4 Maccabees 10.18: 18 But he said, "Even if you remove [ἀφέλῃς] my organ of speech, God hears also those who are mute."

Acts of Paul: A lion, then, of huge size and unmatched strength was let loose upon him, and it ran to him in the stadium and lay down at his feet. And when many other savage beasts, too, were let loose, it was permitted to none of them to touch the holy body, standing like a statue in prayer. At this juncture a violent and vast hailstorm poured down all at once with a great rush, and shattered the heads of many men and beasts as well, and shore off [ἀφεραιθῆναι] the ear of Hieronymus himself. And thereafter, with his followers, he came to the God of Paul and received the baptism of salvation. But the lion escaped to the mountains.

Parthenius, Narrationes Amatoriae 8.9: καὶ κομισθέντος ἱερείου τὴν Ἡρίππην ἐκέλευεν ἀντιλαβέσθαι· τῆς δὲ κατασχούσης, ὡς καὶ ἄλλοτε σύνηθες αὐτῇ, ἐπανατεινάμενος τὸ ξίφος καθικνεῖται καὶ τὴν κεφαλὴν αὐτῆς ἀφαιρεῖ τῷ τε Ξάνθῳ παρεκελεύετο μὴ δυσφορεῖν ἐξαγγείλας τὴν ἐπιβουλὴν αὐτῆς ἐπέτρεπέ τε τὸ χρυσίον ἅπαν κομίζειν αὑτῷ.

ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1594
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Jesus BarAbbas. Same Name Used For Contrasting Character For Ironic Effect.

Post by JoeWallack »

JW:

Verse Name Replacement Commentary
13
6 Many shall come in my name, saying, I am [he]; and shall lead many astray.
For full name see next entry - Jesus instructs how you identify a false Christ. They say "I am".
14
36 And he said, Abba, Father, all things are possible unto thee; remove this cup from me: howbeit not what I will, but what thou wilt.
Jesus Bar Abba (son of Father) - -
14
61 But he held his peace, and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him, and saith unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?
62 And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.
63 And the high priest rent his clothes, and saith, What further need have we of witnesses?
64 Ye have heard the blasphemy: what think ye? And they all condemned him to be worthy of death.
Jesus Bar Abbas (Blessed = The Father) - Jesus uses his own identification for identifying a False Christ, saying "I am", when asked by The Court if he is The Christ. He has just confessed. What more evidence does the Court need.
15
7 And there was one called Barabbas, [lying] bound with them that had made insurrection, men who in the insurrection had committed murder.
8 And the multitude went up and began to ask him [to do] as he was wont to do unto them.
9 And Pilate answered them, saying, Will ye that I release unto you the King of the Jews?
[Jesus?] BarAbbas Jesus Bar Abbas, who gave life, will be condemned to die. In his place, BarAbbas, who gave death and was condemned to death, will be given life. As has been indicated on this Forum, "Jesus Barabbas" is likely original here in "Matthew's" version and GMark was the base for GMatthew. Having Pilate say "the King of the Jews" in order to distinguish the two is also some indication that he couldn't distinguish by saying "Jesus".

Nota Ben = I have faith that GMark originally had "Jesus Barabbas" but even if it did not I also have faith that you would agree that "BarAbbas" is likely a contrived name intended to achieve a literary theme.

Jewbrick Cube for Solo = How could "Mark" have economically made a more ironic contrasted replacement between Jesus BarAbbas and Jesus BarAbbas?


Joseph

The New Porphyry
Post Reply