This diagram ought to help keep various terms straight.
Basically, the autograph is the copy of a text produced by the author him/herself; technically, the autograph should be in the author's own handwriting, but this literal definition is not always pressed, and I will not press it here. The autograph is simply the text that the author published, the text from which all other copies derive.
The archetype is a very different concept; it is the (usually nonextant) manuscript to which all extant manuscripts can trace their heritage. All textual criticism is properly an attempt to reconstruct the archetype; using textual criticm to reconstruct the autograph is impossible, except in rare cases in which all extant copies go back to the autograph, since by definition nothing will have been preserved for us from the autograph except that which is represented in the archetype.
In the case of any given text, there may not even really be an autograph! There may be multiple instances of notes or drafts which at some point are assembled by an editor to create a sort of ad hoc autograph, if you will. So the diagram is highly simplified. But the main point is that textual criticism takes us back (hypothetically) only so far as the archetype; it does not deliver us the autograph.
To assume that the archetype is the same as the autograph is tantamount to assuming either (A) that no textual variation was introduced in between the publication of the autograph and the penning of the archetype or (B) that whoever penned the archetype was able to access the autograph itself, either physically or through flawless textual criticism using the manuscripts still extant in his/her own time period. Neither assumption is often very sound.
In the case of the gospels, especially, assumption A seems virtually impossible. Our manuscript history proves that there was much textual variation introduced after the archetype had already come into being, so on what grounds would one propose that no textual variation was introduced before that point? Assumption B is more possible, but is still exactly that: an assumption, and one which I do not make.
I want to look more closely, but briefly, at the kinds of textual variation introduced into the gospel texts. Most variation is accidental or simply a matther of orthography and the like. But some of it seems very deliberate.
Bart Ehrman, of course, has published an entire book, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, about textual variants deliberately introduced by Catholics in order to fend off some theological misinterpretation or other by pesky heretics. For example, someone added "son of God" to Mark 1.1 in order to make clear, against the adoptionists, that Jesus was already the son before his baptism. Someone else added "Jesus" to "Christ" in Romans 8.34 in order to ensure, against the separationists, that the verse cannot be read as a negated question: "Is Christ the one who has died? Rather, [he is] the one who was raised...." Also, "from the dead" was added to "raised" in this same verse to ensure that this raising is an actual resurrection rather than the deathless lifting up of the Christ to the right hand of God at the death of Jesus. And still someone else added Luke 22.43-44, the bit about Jesus' bloody sweat, against the docetics who thought that Jesus did not suffer.
Other examples can be given of this sort of thing. Mark 16.9-20, [21], and the Freer logion were added to Mark in order to remedy the abrupt ending. As another example, instead of Luke 6.5 (which is then postponed until after 6.10) codex Bezae adds, "The same day, he saw a certain man working on the sabbath and said to him, 'Man, if you know what you are doing, you are blessed. But, if you do not know, you are accursed, and a trespasser of the law.'" This seems to be a commentary on the previous "Lord of the sabbath" pericope (Luke 6.1-4). And good arguments can be and have been made that most or all of the shorter Western readings (= Western noninterpolations) are additions to the text in the East (not subtractions from the text in the West), many of them of a nature to shore up certain theological interpretations.
In all of these cases, text has been added to existing text in order to prevent doctrinal "misunderstandings." (Sometimes additions were made apparently simply to preserve the material, or simply because it made for a beautiful story, as may well be the case with the pericope de adultera, but my concern in this thread is with the kinds of additions that serve to change how we read the already existing text in context.)
My suggestion is that the text of Mark 13 is of a similar nature to the above examples of textual manipulation. The sole difference is that the above variants entered the manuscript history at or after the penning of the archetype, while the variants in Mark 13 entered the manuscript prehistory before the penning of the archetype, overpowering the recensions which had lacked the additions which I have identified so far, marked in red:
1 And as He was going out of the temple, one of His disciples said to Him, "Teacher, behold what wonderful stones and what wonderful buildings!" 2 And Jesus said to him, "Do you see these great buildings? Not one stone shall be left upon another which will not be torn down." 3 And as He was sitting on the Mount of Olives opposite the temple, Peter and James and John and Andrew were questioning Him privately, 4 "Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign when all these things are going to be fulfilled?"
5 And Jesus began to say to them, "See to it that no one misleads you. 6 Many will come in My name, saying, 'I am He!' and will mislead many. 7 And when you hear of wars and rumors of wars, do not be frightened; those things must take place; but that is not yet the end. 8 For nation will arise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom; there will be earthquakes in various places; there will also be famines. These things are merely the beginning of birth pangs.
9 But be on your guard; for they will deliver you to the courts, and you will be flogged in the synagogues, and you will stand before governors and kings for My sake, as a testimony to them. 10 And the gospel must first be preached to all the nations. [Link.] 11 And when they arrest you and deliver you up, do not be anxious beforehand about what you are to say, but say whatever is given you in that hour; for it is not you who speak, but it is the Holy Spirit. 12 And brother will deliver brother to death, and a father his child; and children will rise up against parents and have them put to death. 13 And you will be hated by all on account of My name, but the one who endures to the end, he shall be saved.
14 But when you see the abomination of desolation standing where it should not be — let the reader understand — then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. 15 And let him who is on the housetop not go down, or enter in, to get anything out of his house; 16 and let him who is in the field not turn back to get his cloak. 17 But woe to those who are with child and to those who nurse babes in those days! 18 But pray that it may not happen in the winter.
19 For those days will be a time of tribulation such as has not occurred since the beginning of the creation which God created, until now, and never shall. 20 And unless the Lord had shortened those days, no life would have been saved; but for the sake of the elect whom He chose, He shortened the days. [Link.] 21 And then if anyone says to you, 'Behold, here is the Christ,' or, 'Behold, He is there,' do not believe him; 22 for false Christs and false prophets will arise, and will show signs and wonders, in order, if possible, to lead the elect astray. 23 But take heed; behold, I have told you everything in advance.
24 But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, 25 and the stars will be falling from heaven, and the powers that are in the heavens will be shaken. 26 And then they will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory. 27 And then He will send forth the angels, and will gather together His elect from the four winds, from the farthest end of the earth, to the farthest end of heaven.
28 Now learn the parable from the fig tree: when its branch has already become tender, and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near. 29 Even so, you too, when you see these things happening, recognize that He is near, right at the door. 30 Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place. 31 Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away.
32 But of that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone. 33 Take heed, keep on the alert; for you do not know when the appointed time is. 34 It is like a man, away on a journey, who upon leaving his house and putting his slaves in charge, assigning to each one his task, also commanded the doorkeeper to stay on the alert. 35 Therefore, be on the alert — for you do not know when the master of the house is coming, whether in the evening, at midnight, at cockcrowing, or in the morning — 36 lest he come suddenly and find you asleep. 37 And what I say to you I say to all: 'Be on the alert!'" [Link 1. Link 2.]
The links after each red section lead to my discussion of the secondary nature of that section compared to the green text that either comes before it or surrounds it. The red color shared by all three sections is NOT intended to imply that all three sections derive from the same pen. I make no guarantee that I have marked out the full extent of the green sections; I have included only as much as seemed enough to cause the addition of the red text at each point.
In all three cases the red text adds to the green text in such a way as to correct it, modify it, temper it, or adjust it in ways very similar to how the textual additions adduced by Ehrman affect their immediate surroundings.
Mark 13.10 may well simply be a harmonization from Matthew 24. Someone noticed that Mark 13 lacked such a saying, so s/he added it. Such harmonization is a regular feature of the manuscript traditions which postdate the archetype, so what kind of sorcery would prevent it from happening before the archetype, as well?
Mark 13.20 is in the past tense, in stark contrast to the future tense predictions around it. Consider the following two English sentences:
- The birthday party is going to be a disaster.
- The birthday party was not as bad as it could have been.
Mark 13.32-37 is all about not knowing the time, in contradiction to the preceding verses in which it is known which generation will see the end. Indeed, the entire idea of watching for the signs in verses 28-29 is at perfect odds with not having any clue of the time. Again, the obvious way of reading these contradictory statements is as not deriving from the same pen in the same time frame. The generational prediction must have arisen during the generation in question (using exactly the same logic by which Edgar Whisenant's pamphlet about the world ending in September of 1988 must have been published before September of 1988); but once that generation had died out, or perhaps very nearly, it became necessary to dampen its force. Presumably it could not be ignored in some circles (as John 21.21-23 also implies), not any more than Whisenant's prediction could be ignored in his circles, thus prompting his recalculation and ensuing prediction, in a new pamphlet, that the target year was really 1989, instead. That the motif of the unknown hour succeeded in reducing the force of the generational prophecy I have demonstrated elsewhere. It still serves that purpose in Christian churches to this very day.
It may seem odd at first, this kind of updating the text to rid it of its susceptibility to "misinterpretation," but that is exactly what we see happening in the textual tradition as argued by Ehrman. Why should it not have happened during the time period before the textual tradition can be traced?
Ben.