Lakuna Markata. The Relationship of Lacunae to Difficult Readings

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 892
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Lakuna Markata. The Relationship of Lacunae to Difficult Readings

Post by JoeWallack » Tue Oct 10, 2017 7:32 am

Lakuna Markata

It means no worries
For the rest of your days
It's our problem-free methodology
Lakuna Markata!


JW:
We start with the observation that GMark was the [understatement]early least favorite of the Canonical Gospels[/understatement]:
  • 1) The least early fragments.

    2) The least Patristic interest.

    3) The last to have a known Commentary.

    4) The most Difficult Readings.
So it's likely that GMark was the most suppressed of the Canonical Gospels and the better question is how much suppression?

One possible type of suppression would be the relationship between Lacunae of early Manuscripts and Difficult Readings. A quick search of the Internet reveals that no one in the history of Christianity has ever even considered this question (I have Faith though that someone has, I'm just unaware of it).

For a starting point consider:

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] It contains the texts of Matthew 20-21 and 25-26; Mark 4-9 and 11-12;

Difficult Reading Missing in P45?
1:1 The son of God Yes
1:2 Isaiah the prophet Yes
1:10 Into him Yes
1:41 Angry Yes
3:5 Angry Yes
10 Secret Mark Yes
13:32 Neither the son Yes
14:28 Galilee Yes
16:8 ending Yes

Even "Mark's" Jesus would be sore amazed at how well the Lacunae match up with Difficult Reading areas.



Joseph

The New Porphyry

User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 892
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

The Secret of The Secret

Post by JoeWallack » Wed Oct 11, 2017 10:47 am

JW:
The exorcism of Chapter 10 in P45 is the most interesting/suspicious in every way. Physically it is the only missing in between Chapter. Internally, extant Secret Mark is supported as original to GMark based on context:

The Youth with the Linen

14
51 And a certain young man followed with him, having a linen cloth cast about him, over [his] naked [body]: and they lay hold on him;
52 but he left the linen cloth, and fled naked.
The story about the young man here seems strange/bizarre/macabre, even by Markan standards and deserving of some prior connected information. Secret Mark provides just that:
"And they come into Bethany. And a certain woman whose brother had died was there. And, coming, she prostrated herself before Jesus and says to him, "son of David, have mercy on me". But the disciples rebuked her. And Jesus, being angered , went off with her into the garden where the tomb was, and straightway, going in where the youth was, he stretched forth his hand and raised him, seizing his hand. But the youth, looking upon him, loved him and began to beseech him that he might be with him. And going out of the tomb they came into the house of the youth, for he was rich. And after six days Jesus told him what to do and in the evening the youth comes to him, wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus thaught him the mystery of the Kingdom of God. And thence, arising, he returned to the other side of the Jordan."
Yet again, the other extant Secret Mark provides missing context to GMark:

What Happens in Jericho Stays in Secret Mark

10
46 And they come to Jericho: and as he went out from Jericho, with his disciples and a great multitude, the son of Timaeus, Bartimaeus, a blind beggar, was sitting by the way side.
So nothing to see here in Jericho, curious/odd/peculiar that "Mark" (author) would describe Jesus as going to Jericho but not give a reason why or describe anything happening there. But per Secret Mark:
And he comes into Jericho," the secret Gospel adds only, "And the sister of the youth whom Jesus loved and his mother and Salome were there, and Jesus did not receive them."
As previously pointed out there is relatively little early extant for GMark. Sinaiticus may be the earliest complete extant orthodox GMark. It's possible that Secret Mark is the original GMark and this helps explain the early suppression of GMark. The orthodox may have known that Secret Mark was fiction and therefore avoided it. GMatthew may have been the original orthodox Gospel which still had to use Secret Mark as a base since there was no other Gospel narrative. After GMatthew, orthodox GMark was created, largely to replace Secret Mark, just as orthodox Luke may have been created to replace Marcion Luke (GJohn, same story). Thus orthodox tradition would be correct in a Kafkaesque type of way. GMatthew was the first orthodox Gospel, followed by GMark. This could help explain why there was no early commentary on GMark and why Sinaiticus was preserved. Despite its difficult readings it did have Secret Mark edited out.


Joseph

The New Porphyry

User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 892
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

This Is Your Wake Up Call

Post by JoeWallack » Thu Oct 12, 2017 6:47 am

Go To Work

JW:
Speaking of Textual suppression, consider the unholy sagan of the supposed First Century fragment of GMark as reported by Legendary Patristic Daniel Wallace (who may be voted the top Textual Critic right now, at least by CBS):

First-century Mark: A Timeline
February 1, 2012 – Daniel Wallace mentions the existence of “a fragment from Mark’s Gospel that is from the first century” during a debate with Bart Ehrman about the reliability of the New Testament text. The debate is online at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kg-dJA3 ... e=youtu.be (uploaded to YouTube on February 13, 2012). One hour and 13 minutes into the debate, Dr. Wallace mentions the existence of the first-century fragment of Mark:

“In the last few months several very early fragments of the New Testament have been discovered. These will be published by an international scholarly publishing house in a book one year from now. . . . Among the finds was also a fragment of Luke that is from the early second century. . . . The oldest manuscript of the New Testament is now a fragment from Mark’s Gospel that is from the first century. . . . How accurate is the dating? Well, my source is a papyrologist who worked on this manuscript – a man whose reputation is unimpeachable. Many consider him to be the best papyrologist on the planet. His reputation is on the line with this dating, and he knows it, but he is certain that this manuscript was from the first century.”

...

2013

...

2014

...

2015

...

2016

...

2017

...

Jesus actually returns

...

Peace between Israel and Palestinians

...

Trump admits he was wrong

[Still no publication of fragment]
The above suggests that the fragment in question/mystery may very well be old and has not been published because it is in very orthodox hands and contains a Difficult Reading thus continuing the oldest Christian tradition.


Joseph

The New Porphyry

Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 1199
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: This Is Your Wake Up Call

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin » Fri Oct 13, 2017 12:03 pm

JoeWallack wrote:
Thu Oct 12, 2017 6:47 am
February 1, 2012
...
2013
...
2014
...
2015
...
2016
...
2017
...
Jesus actually returns
...
[Still no publication of fragment]
:)

User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 4881
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Lakuna Markata. The Relationship of Lacunae to Difficult Readings

Post by MrMacSon » Fri Oct 13, 2017 6:18 pm


.
. . ...

. . 2016

. . ...

. . 2017

. . ...

. . Jesus actually returns - publication of digitised, revised, sanitised fragment

. . ...

. . Peace between Israel Judea and Palestinians Galileans
.


andrewcriddle
Posts: 1376
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: Lakuna Markata. The Relationship of Lacunae to Difficult Readings

Post by andrewcriddle » Sat Oct 14, 2017 12:47 am

I tentatively think it unlikely that P45 had additional material in chapter 10 of Mark. On a very rough calculation the missing material (end of chapter 9 chapter 10 and beginning of chapter 11) is about 4 pages i.e. about 2 sheets. Adding the Mar Saba material into those 4 pages would probably be difficult and the additional material from the Mar Saba letter is less than one page, less than 1/3 of a double sided sheet.

Andrew Criddle

User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 892
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

The Fayyum Fragment

Post by JoeWallack » Sat Oct 14, 2017 1:10 pm

I'm Being Repressed

The Fayyum Fragment

Matthew 26.30-34
Mark 14.26-30
Fayyum Fragment
30 And after singing a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives.26 And after singing a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives.[...] leading [(them) out]
31 Then Jesus said to them, "You will all be scandalized because of Me this night, for it is written, 'I will strike down the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered.'27 And Jesus said to them, "You will all be scandalized, because it is written, 'I will strike down the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered.'when [he] s[aid,] "A[ll of you on this] night [will be] scandalized according to] what is written: 'I shall strike the [shepherd and the] sheep will be scatter[ed.'"]
32 "But after I have been raised, I will go before you to Galilee."28 "But after I have been raised, I will go before you to Galilee."-
33 But Peter answered and said to Him, "Even though all may fall away because of You, I will never fall away."29 But Peter said to Him, "Even though all may fall away, yet I will not."[When] Pe(ter) [said,] "Even if all, n[ot I,"]
34 Jesus said to him, "Truly I say to you that this very night, before a cock crows, you shall deny Me three times."30 And Jesus said to him, "Truly I say to you, that you yourself this very night, before a cock crows twice, shall three times deny Me."[J(esus) says, "Befo]re a cock cr[ows] twice, [thrice today you will] d[eny me ....]

Thanks to Ben Smith. The Fayyum Fragment is dated c. 300:
The Fayyum Fragment (Papyrus Vindobonensis Greek 2325 [P. Vienna G. 2325]) is a papyrus fragment containing text that could be from part of the New Testament, and consists of only about 100 Greek letters. The fragment was originally discovered in Al-Fayyum, Egypt, and was translated in 1885 by Gustav Bickell after it was found in the papyrus collection of Archduke Rainer Joseph of Austria in Vienna.
The surviving manuscript is badly damaged and has fewer than a hundred Greek letters preserved.[1] Because of its style of handwriting it is believed to have been copied around the end of the third century.[2] The text seems to parallel Mark 14:26-31, appearing to present a more abbreviated account. It is unclear whether the fragment is an abridged version of the synoptic gospels, or a source text on which they were based, perhaps the apocryphal Gospel of Peter.[3]
Other than the supposed First Century Fragment of Mark The Fayyum Fragment would be the oldest known fragment of GMark/harmonization of GMark. Corresponding areas of P45 are both mysteriously/suspiciously missing:

Difficult Reading Missing in P45?
1:1 The son of God Yes
1:2 Isaiah the prophet Yes
1:10 Into him Yes
1:41 Angry Yes
3:5 Angry Yes
10 Secret Mark Yes
13:32 Neither the son Yes
14:28 Galilee Yes
16:8 ending Yes

JW:
Note that [repression in the system]historically The Fayyum Fragment has not been included in Critical Apparatus for Textual Criticism of GMark due to the Apologetic that because of the differences with orthodox GMark it must be something else.[/repression in the system]. But since The Fayyum Fragment is the oldest extant fragment of GMark combined with the Difficult Reading Principle, it is possible that it does represent an earlier GMark in toto or in part (this would be true even if it is a harmonization). To its credit, Laparola does inventory and to his discredit, Wieland Willker does not.



Joseph

The New Porphyry

User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 892
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

The Frickin Sharks With Lacunae

Post by JoeWallack » Tue Oct 17, 2017 7:12 am

andrewcriddle wrote:
Sat Oct 14, 2017 12:47 am
I tentatively think it unlikely that P45 had additional material in chapter 10 of Mark. On a very rough calculation the missing material (end of chapter 9 chapter 10 and beginning of chapter 11) is about 4 pages i.e. about 2 sheets. Adding the Mar Saba material into those 4 pages would probably be difficult and the additional material from the Mar Saba letter is less than one page, less than 1/3 of a double sided sheet.

Andrew Criddle
JW:
Thanks for the guess Andrew. Again, I wonder if anyone else has ever tried to do this before:

P45 Mark 9:18-31:

Image

This is the last extant leaf before the Chapter in question. I note with interest/suspicion that this leaf and those preceding it are some of the most relatively complete pages in the collection (feel free to note the point at which I start to sound like Steven Avery).

To calculate properly I think someone like spin/Ben would need to do it but my very guess is about 19 modern verses per leaf. Hmmm, close to what the Secret Mark excerpts would be Image


Joseph

The New Porphyry

andrewcriddle
Posts: 1376
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: Lakuna Markata. The Relationship of Lacunae to Difficult Readings

Post by andrewcriddle » Tue Oct 17, 2017 10:40 am

19 verses is maybe about right for a page of P45. However you can't add a single page. You have to add a whole leaf, 2 pages, which is twice as many verses.

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle
Posts: 1376
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: Lakuna Markata. The Relationship of Lacunae to Difficult Readings

Post by andrewcriddle » Sat Oct 21, 2017 2:04 am

Skeat argues on a codicological analysis that a whole number of quires are missing. I.E. either 2 leaves (4 pages) or 4 leaves (8 pages). Adding 2 extra leaves (4 pages) is far too many.

On the other hand there is apparently enough room on the missing quire for 3 to 4 more verses than are found in canonical Mark. However, I don't think this is anywhere near enough to include the material from the Mar Saba letter.

Andrew Criddle

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Ben C. Smith, Google [Bot], JoeWallack, John2, MrMacSon, rakovsky, Stefan Kristensen, Ulan and 32 guests