Text critical analogies to my proposed changes in Mark 13.

[Ben C. Smith]

Hi Ben

This seems to imply not only that the archtype of Mark differs from the autograph (which is likely) but also that the archtype has been assimilated to Matthew (which is IMHO less likely).

It took me a moment to realize what your criticism is, and that is my fault. Instead of a harmonization from Matthew (implying our extant text), I should have specified a harmonization from some form of Matthew (including versions which may have predated our extant text). I am influenced in this view by David Parker's model: "For example, Matthew copies bits out of Mark in reproducing a tradition; then a later copy of Mark is enriched by some of Matthew's alterations; and next a copy of Matthew (already different from the one we began with) is influenced by something from the also changed Mark. Add in Luke, and oral tradition, and any other sources that might have been available, at any points in the development that you please, and you have a process a good deal less recoverable than any documentary hypothesis." I have been led to this point slowly and painfully, to be honest, since my long held default approach was to go only with the extant texts and their stronger variants, an approach which probably works rather well with much of ancient literature, but does not seem to work at all with the kind of literature which encompasses the Christian gospels.

[Bernard Muller]

to Ben,
It might be a protasis, but in my view it is also a supposition: "if not/unless the Lord had shortened those days".

From your link: "if you had done this, you would have done well." The opposite is implied with an Aorist verb "but you did not do this".
The same construct as in: "And unless the Lord had shortened those days, no life would have been saved; but ... He shortened the days"

And the three Aorist verbs in verse 13:20 ("shortened" (twice) & "would have been saved") totally complies with (from your link):

Second Form of Conditions: PRESENT AND PAST UNREAL CONDITIONS
[*] 2302. In present and past unreal conditions the protasis implies that the supposition cannot or could not be realized because contrary to a known fact. The apodosis states what would be or would have been the result if the condition were or had been realized.
[*] 2303. The protasis has ει᾽ with the imperfect, aorist, or pluperfect indicative; the apodosis has ἄν with these past tenses. The protasis and apodosis may have different tenses. Unreal conditions are either particular or general.

(bolding mine)
I think "Mark" (and "Matthew") treated the apodosis as from a general "unreal condition".
Note: For Jesus (through "Mark"), "he shortened the days" is a known fact, even if the end of those days had not happen yet when the gospels were written).

Cordially, Bernard

[Ben C. Smith]

It might be a protasis, but in my view it is also a supposition: "if not/unless the Lord had shortened those days".

....

And the three Aorist verbs in verse 13:20 ("shortened" (twice) & "would have been saved") totally complies with (from your link):

Second Form of Conditions: PRESENT AND PAST UNREAL CONDITIONS
[*] 2302. In present and past unreal conditions the protasis implies that the supposition cannot or could not be realized because contrary to a known fact. The apodosis states what would be or would have been the result if the condition were or had been realized.
[*] 2303. The protasis has ει᾽ with the imperfect, aorist, or pluperfect indicative; the apodosis has ἄν with these past tenses. The protasis and apodosis may have different tenses. Unreal conditions are either particular or general.

(bolding mine)
I think "Mark" (and "Matthew") treated the apodosis as from a general "unreal condition".

Well, yes, quite. That is exactly my point. It is an unreal condition. "Unreal condition" and "contrary-to-fact condition" are two terms for the same exact condition. It is not only the apodosis in Matthew and Mark which belongs to this condition; the protasis does too. As I said, this is a textbook contrary-to-fact condition. It presumes that the protasis did not happen.

You have come full circle and are now repeating/reinforcing my assertions, point for point. What then is your point? It sounds like you are agreeing with me.

[Bernard Muller]

to Ben,

You have come full circle and are now repeating/reinforcing my assertions, point for point. What then is your point? It sounds like you are agreeing with me.

Except that the apodosis in Mk 13:20 "no flesh would have been saved" is valid in the Aorist and does not relate to anything "historical" happening in the past. The apodosis just answers (generally) the condition (supposition) stated in the protasis, even if the protasis implied the opposite as a true action.
"if you had done this, you would have done well (implied: but you did not do this)".

Cordially, Bernard

[Ben C. Smith]

to Ben,

You have come full circle and are now repeating/reinforcing my assertions, point for point. What then is your point? It sounds like you are agreeing with me.

Except that the apodosis in Mk 13:20 "no flesh would have been saved" is valid in the Aorist and does not relate to anything "historical" happening in the past. The apodosis just answers (generally) the condition (supposition) stated in the protasis, even if the protasis implied the opposite as a true action.

I do not know what this means. ETA: Rather, I think I know what this means, but it is exactly what my point has been all along, so I am not sure why you are presenting it as something new.

"if you had done this, you would have done well (implied: but you did not do this)".

Yes. This is correct. In our verse, it would be: "If God had not shortened the days, no one would have survived (implied: but God did shorten the days)."