Text critical analogies to my proposed changes in Mark 13.

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Text critical analogies to my proposed changes in Mark 13.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

I want to kick off this thread with a diagram concerning textual criticism:

Textual Criticism.png
Textual Criticism.png (22.91 KiB) Viewed 5492 times

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:

Mark 13.1-37:

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:
  1. The birthday party is going to be a disaster.
  2. The birthday party was not as bad as it could have been.
Is it not fair to suppose that the first sentence was uttered before the birthday party while the second was uttered after it? This is what I am proposing for Mark 13.19-20. A time of tribulation was predicted (whether truly in advance or in the middle of it, as a vaticinium ex eventu of sorts); it came; but either it was not as bad as promised or, more likely, it did not lead directly to the apocalyptic scenarios based on prophecies in Daniel (refer especially to 12.1-3). So an interlude was posited by cutting the days of tribulation short; they ended early (by God's mercy), but the advent will still happen.

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.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Text critical analogies to my proposed changes in Mark 13.

Post by Bernard Muller »

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
I do not see it this way. The red text does not seem to either correct, modify, temper or adjust the preceding green text, in the three cases you propose.

Case 1: the red text is probably here to explain why it took so much time for the End to come.

Case 2: the past tense may indicate that God had already in the past decided to shorten the days of the distress. I also proposed another solution here: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3834&p=81869#p81869

Case 3: the fact that the day and the hour are not known has little impact on the time of the end. It's like saying I'll see you next month, but I do not know which day. And the fact the author is saying through Jesus, "And what I say to you I say to all: 'Be on the alert!'" shows that the End is to be seen as imminent.
Furthermore, the unknown time of the end might be a repeat of what Paul wrote in 1 Thessalonians 5:1. But let's notice the more urgent "day and hour" in gMark replaced "times and seasons" in Paul's epistle.
Knowing the exact time was a big concern for early Christians in the 1st century, as seen in Acts 1:7.
Of course, neither Paul, or "Mark" or "Luke wanted to be trapped into setting an exact date: if the date went by without the big event happening, Paul, Jesus through gMark & Acts, or gMark & Acts would be rejected as setting a wrong prophecy generating defection among Christians.

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Text critical analogies to my proposed changes in Mark 13.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Bernard Muller wrote: Mon Jan 29, 2018 9:22 pm
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
I do not see it this way. The red text does not seem to either correct, modify, temper or adjust the preceding green text, in the three cases you propose.

Case 1: the red text is probably here to explain why it took so much time for the End to come.
This case, of the three, is the one that modifies its surroundings the least, to be sure. But it is also the one most likely to be a harmonization to Matthew. Its impact on its surroundings, though modest, still counts in that respect.
Case 2: the past tense may indicate that God had already in the past decided to shorten the days of the distress. I also proposed another solution here: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3834&p=81869#p81869
The past tense indicating the timing of God's decision totally works for the protasis of the condition, but also totally fails for the apodosis, where it is the survival of humankind that is in the past tense, not the divine decision. So this solution fails to solve the problem. Here is your solution from that other thread:
Bernard Muller wrote: Sun Jan 21, 2018 3:56 pmThe author had Jesus going out of character, and instead it is "Mark" who express himself through Jesus in his NOW times (70-71), such as in:
13:19 "For in those days there will be such tribulation as has not been from the beginning of the creation which God created until now, and never will be."
I actually think this has merit, but only with the recognition that Mark, expressing himself from the point of view of his own time frame, is modifying a saying which was written beforehand. Again, the tenses (future and past) are as clear in the Greek as my example of the birthday party is in English: "The birthday party will be bad. The birthday party was not as bad as it could have been." It is the relative dating of these two verses that I am interested in, more so than the exact authorship. Hypothetically the same person could easily have uttered both of those birthday party sentences, and hypothetically the same person could have written both 13.19 and 13.20; my observation is that they were not written at the same time; one was written before (or, at latest, during) the event, the other afterward.
Case 3: the fact that the day and the hour are not known has little impact on the time of the end. It's like saying I'll see you next month, but I do not know which day. And the fact the author is saying through Jesus, "And what I say to you I say to all: 'Be on the alert!'" shows that the End is to be seen as imminent.
I agree that the two sets of sayings can be superficially harmonized: we know which generation will see these events happen, but we do not know the exact day or hour. Simple. The problems with this harmonization become apparent, however, as we get into the details.

Parts of chapter 13 depict a rising crescendo of bad tidings, leading up to the tribulation period, followed in short order by the advent of the son of man. The emphasis in these parts is on the knowing and the being able to figure things out: "I have told you everything in advance" (verse 23), "when you see the abomination of desolation" (verse 14), "when it puts forth leaves, you know" (verse 28), "when you see these things happening, he is right at the door" (verse 29). The wise person in this scenario is the one who can read the signs so as not to be taken by surprise. These signs are not just about knowing that one lives in the target generation; they are about spotting the actual end itself before it comes.

But other parts of chapter 13 depict a scenario in which signs are of no avail. There is no guessing when the master of the house is going to return, no way of knowing when he is "right at the door." Having to be ready at all times suggests that there are no signs available to narrow down the chronological options. The wise person in this scenario will be ready at all times so as not to be taken by surprise.

The two ways of thinking are not fully compatible. Also, as demonstrated in two of my other posts, the latter way of thinking served the church fathers very well as a buffer against "misunderstanding" the generational prophecy; I suggest that it was intended all along to serve as just such a buffer.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
gmx
Posts: 317
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2015 4:35 am

Re: Text critical analogies to my proposed changes in Mark 13.

Post by gmx »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Mon Jan 29, 2018 7:12 pm 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.
What does that imply about the intended purpose and usage of the document? If it served a similar purpose for its intended audience that it does today, in a time when there were presumably far fewer copies in existence, how did a "community" (if such a thing existed) in possession of a copy of Mark, and believing in its veracity, allow themselves to freely expand / modify its content. Given that copying Mark for the purposes of adding a few clarifications and apologetic glosses requires significant application of resources, that scenario would seem to clash with their assumed belief system and reverence for the document as handed down to them?

This might be overstating matters, but if Ben's hypothesis is true, then either:
  • we have no understanding of the purpose and intended usage of the gospels by their very early custodians, or
  • those custodians were wilful forgers and conmen
I saw a Naked girl ,Slowly emerge in front of me,Greek hairstyle,Very beautiful,She has a beautiful [fine] profile.; She is fine in profile. the view of profile,hard to tell.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Text critical analogies to my proposed changes in Mark 13.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

gmx wrote: Tue Jan 30, 2018 4:25 am
Ben C. Smith wrote: Mon Jan 29, 2018 7:12 pm 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.
What does that imply about the intended purpose and usage of the document? If it served a similar purpose for its intended audience that it does today, in a time when there were presumably far fewer copies in existence, how did a "community" (if such a thing existed) in possession of a copy of Mark, and believing in its veracity, allow themselves to freely expand / modify its content. Given that copying Mark for the purposes of adding a few clarifications and apologetic glosses requires significant application of resources, that scenario would seem to clash with their assumed belief system and reverence for the document as handed down to them?

This might be overstating matters, but if Ben's hypothesis is true, then either:
  • we have no understanding of the purpose and intended usage of the gospels by their very early custodians, or
  • those custodians were wilful forgers and conmen
However you wish to characterize the process (forgery, con artistry, or what have you), once the extant gospel manuscripts begin to multiply we can see with our own eyes the additions to the text which seem designed to preempt theological or doctrinal misconceptions. What I am proposing for Mark 13 is that the same kinds of things happened in the earlier days as in the later days.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Text critical analogies to my proposed changes in Mark 13.

Post by Bernard Muller »

to Ben,
The past tense indicating the timing of God's decision totally works for the protasis of the condition, but also totally fails for the apodosis, where it is the survival of humankind that is in the past tense, not the divine decision. So this solution fails to solve the problem.
Again, the tenses (future and past) are as clear in the Greek as my example of the birthday party is in English: "The birthday party will be bad. The birthday party was not as bad as it could have been."
I notice that "Matthew" (in 24:22) did not feel he had to correct "Mark" (in 13:20) about changing to a future tense from an Aorist passive indicative for "no life would have been saved". Was "Matthew" less competent in Koine Greek than you?

I see now "if not/unless the Lord had shortened those days" is a supposition. What would be a consequence of that supposition if true": "no flesh would have been saved". That makes sense.
Then next, the author (through Jesus) make some (pseudo) historical statements: "but for the sake of the elect whom He chose, He shortened the days." (here, the Aorist active indicative for "shortened" suggests that God took that decision in the past. "Matthew" changed that to the future tense). Here the shortening of days is not a supposition, but rather an affirmation.
"Mark" could have kept going by saying next: "Therefore flesh will be saved" without conflict with the earlier "no flesh would have been saved".

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Text critical analogies to my proposed changes in Mark 13.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Bernard Muller wrote: Tue Jan 30, 2018 5:58 pmI notice that "Matthew" (in 24:22) did not feel he had to correct "Mark" (in 13:20) about changing to a future tense from an Aorist passive indicative for "no life would have been saved".
That is correct.
Was "Matthew" less competent in Koine Greek than you?
Probably not.
I see now "if not/unless the Lord had shortened those days" is a supposition. What would be a consequence of that supposition if true: "no flesh would have been saved". That makes sense.
What you are calling a supposition is the protasis of the condition, and this condition is a past contrary-to-fact condition.
Then next, the author (through Jesus) make some (pseudo) historical statements: "but for the sake of the elect whom He chose, He shortened the days." (here, the Aorist active indicative for "shortened" suggests that God took that decision in the past.)
Sort of. The aorist indicative suggests that the shortening itself actually took place in the past. It makes sense, then, that God's decision took place in the past, as well, but I want to make sure we understand that it is the actual shortening of days that is in the past tense here. There is a verb for "shorten" here, but not a verb for "decide."
("Matthew" changed that to the future tense). Here the shortening of days is not a supposition, but rather an affirmation.
The shortening of days in Mark's second sentence is also not a supposition; it is an affirmation ("he shortened the days"). The only difference between Matthew and Mark here is that Matthew places this affirmation in the future tense while Mark places it in the past tense.
"Mark" could have kept going by saying next: "Therefore flesh will be saved" without conflict with the earlier "no flesh would have been saved".
Had Mark gone on to place his second sentence in the future, then of course he would be writing in as contradictory a manner as Matthew is. Matthew literally says both that the shortening happened ("if the days had not been shortened, no flesh would have been saved") and that it will happen ("the days will be shortened"). What does that mean to you? Why does Matthew place the shortening both in the past and in the future? (I mean, I have my own thoughts on that, but what are yours?)
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Text critical analogies to my proposed changes in Mark 13.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Bernard, you can go to this link: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... tion%3D136. Scroll down to 2292, which begins: "Only one class of conditional sentences distinctly expresses non-fulfilment of the action."

You can confirm for yourself that the condition in Mark 13.20 is of this type (εἰ with the aorist indicative, ἄν with the aorist indicative), that it is a past condition, and that it means that the action described in the protasis did not occur. (In this case what did not occur is God not shortening the days; therefore, he did shorten the days.)
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
gmx
Posts: 317
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2015 4:35 am

Re: Text critical analogies to my proposed changes in Mark 13.

Post by gmx »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Tue Jan 30, 2018 7:58 am
gmx wrote: Tue Jan 30, 2018 4:25 am
Ben C. Smith wrote: Mon Jan 29, 2018 7:12 pm 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.
What does that imply about the intended purpose and usage of the document? If it served a similar purpose for its intended audience that it does today, in a time when there were presumably far fewer copies in existence, how did a "community" (if such a thing existed) in possession of a copy of Mark, and believing in its veracity, allow themselves to freely expand / modify its content. Given that copying Mark for the purposes of adding a few clarifications and apologetic glosses requires significant application of resources, that scenario would seem to clash with their assumed belief system and reverence for the document as handed down to them?

This might be overstating matters, but if Ben's hypothesis is true, then either:
  • we have no understanding of the purpose and intended usage of the gospels by their very early custodians, or
  • those custodians were wilful forgers and conmen
However you wish to characterize the process (forgery, con artistry, or what have you), once the extant gospel manuscripts begin to multiply we can see with our own eyes the additions to the text which seem designed to preempt theological or doctrinal misconceptions. What I am proposing for Mark 13 is that the same kinds of things happened in the earlier days as in the later days.
Well, it's not how I wish to characterize. We can see with our own eyes the additions, but we can only guess at the purpose behind those additions, unless we understand the purpose of the gospel documents for the audience that received, modified, and retransmitted them. That was my point. Isn't that prerequisite to ascribing a motive for the changes? Maybe that wasn't the focus of your post, Ben, but it occurred to me in response.
I saw a Naked girl ,Slowly emerge in front of me,Greek hairstyle,Very beautiful,She has a beautiful [fine] profile.; She is fine in profile. the view of profile,hard to tell.
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2818
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: Text critical analogies to my proposed changes in Mark 13.

Post by andrewcriddle »

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).

Andrew Criddle
Post Reply