The Skeptical Critical Commentary - Gospel of Mark

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 7266
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Luukee! Ya Got Sum Splainin Ta Do.

Post by Ben C. Smith » Sun May 26, 2019 8:47 pm

JoeWallack wrote:
Sun May 26, 2019 7:49 pm
My guess is Marcion had the original GLuke and Bible scholarship guesses that Marcion's gospel did not start with John baptizing:

The Gospel of the Lord
I agree that Marcion's gospel probably lacked the baptism. I agree that Marcion (or somebody he was indebted to) probably had a proto-Luke of some kind.
The problem though is that the rest of this Gospel generally maintains the Markan references to John and is therefore incomplete by itself without the beginning introduction of John.
As Tertullian puts it: "Suddenly, John!"
It's easy to believe that Marcion's Gospel exorcised Jesus' baptism (instead of just the Spirit descending from Heaven the wholey enCHIlada (Jesus) descends). But why then have to rely on the Reader's knowledge of other Gospels to fill in the blanks regarding John's origin? Doesn't sound like something an early Gospel author would do.
I know you do not necessarily agree with me on this, but I think that all of our extant gospels feature bits which are clunky or inconsistent because changes were being made to previous texts and/or traditions. These inconsistencies are especially jarring in the gospel of John, but the synoptics all have them, too. I would be surprised if Marcion's gospel did not have them, and for the same reason: lots of editing for spiritual, ecclesiastical, polemical, and personal reasons which left debris in its wake.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

andrewcriddle
Posts: 1784
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: The Skeptical Critical Commentary - Gospel of Mark

Post by andrewcriddle » Mon May 27, 2019 2:27 am

Secret Alias wrote:
Sun May 26, 2019 1:53 pm
Consider the parallel evidence of Clement of Alexandria:
And to prove that this is true, it is written in the Gospel by Luke as follows: And in the fifteenth year, in the reign of Tiberius Cæsar, the word of the Lord came to John, the son of Zacharias. And again in the same book: And Jesus was coming to His baptism, being about thirty years old, and so on. And that it was necessary for Him to preach only a year, this also is written: He has sent Me to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord . This both the prophet spoke, and the Gospel.
It would appear that John began the gospel of Luke.
FWIW Clement of Alexandria clearly knows about the content of the first two chapters of Luke e.g. that Zechariah is the father of Johnthe Baptist.

Andrew Criddle

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 11467
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: The Skeptical Critical Commentary - Gospel of Mark

Post by Secret Alias » Mon May 27, 2019 10:59 am

I wonder whether a different Mark and a different Luke were used by Clement before being codified in the Diatessaron gospel of Ammonius.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 1361
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: 1:1-3 External Evidence

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin » Mon May 27, 2019 12:13 pm

JoeWallack wrote:
Sun Mar 03, 2019 7:36 pm
External Evidence:
There is no direct External Evidence supporting omission of 1:1-3. But what are the qualifications for supporting
inclusion?:

1) Large time gap between authorship and extant manuscript support -
  • GMark authorship c. 100 and earliest extant Manuscript/Papyrus is Vaticanus c. 350, about 250 years later.
2) The early GMark papyrus all lack 1:1-3:

List of all registered New Testament papyri
  • P45, c. 250, most of GMark but none of the most difficult readings.

    P88, c. 350, 2:1-26

    P137, c. 200, 1:7-9, 16-18
3) GMark in general lacks the early Papyrus evidence the other Gospels have.

The external evidence for inclusion may be a little bit better :angel:

1) The early GMark papyrus

- An interesting witness is P.Oxy. 76.5073 with Mark 1:1-2

Hurtado wrote
P.Oxy. 76.5073 is a Christian amulet (palaeographically dated to late 3rd or early 4th century CE), containing Mark 1:1-2. It was used as a rolled up strip (25.2 x 4.5 cm) likely worn around the neck. Given the scarcity of extant manuscript evidence for Mark in the first three centuries, even this curious fragment is worth attention for text-critical purposes. The text witnesses to the opening line of Mark as “the beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ” (i.e., without “Son of God”). Both “Jesus” and “Christ” are written as nomina sacra (ιηυ and χρυ respectively), and, interestingly, the Greek definite article precedes “Christ”.

- Interesting is also Papyrus 137, formerly known as First-century-Mark, now dated to the second/third century

The fragment is from a codex, written on both sides with text from the first chapter of the Gospel of Mark; verses 7-9 on the recto side and 16-18 on the verso side

Obbink and Colomo wrote
A single fragment from the foot of a papyrus codex leaf ...

In this format, the text from the beginning of the Gospel to the foot of ↓ would occupy the whole page, with room perhaps for an initial title. Thus the Gospel began at the top of a right-hand page.

But, as reconstructed, is does offer a text of about the same length as that in א, against the proposed athetesis of verses 1–3 (Holwerda, Elliott) or 2–3 (Lachmann) or 2b (Beza). Similarly the amulet LXXVI 5073, written in a consciously literary hand of the third/fourth century, copies verses 1–2 almost complete.

2) Patristic evidence

Irenaeus, Against Heresies, written about the year 180, quoted Mark 1:1-3 three (?) times.

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 7266
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: 1:1-3 External Evidence

Post by Ben C. Smith » Mon May 27, 2019 1:05 pm

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote:
Mon May 27, 2019 12:13 pm
Interesting is also Papyrus 137, formerly known as First-century-Mark, now dated to the second/third century
Good to see you again, Kunigunde.

Here is my brief page with the text of papyrus Oxyrhynchus 5345 / Ƿ137: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4208.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1202
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

1:4 Translation

Post by JoeWallack » Tue May 28, 2019 5:35 am

JW:
Translation follows Textual Criticsm:

1:4

Strong'sGreek EnglishMorphologyCommentary
1096 [e] Ἐγένετο egeneto Came V-AIM-3S The word has a context of change. A stylish word to use at the beginning (first word) of a Gospel. More grammatical support for omission of 1:1-3 because if it was the set-up for 1:4 this word would not fit for the introduction of John ("Matthew"/"Luke" do not use it.) Also note the Semitic verb subject order here.
2491 [e] Ἰωάννης Iōannēs John, N-NMS -
3588 [e] ὁ ho - Art-NMS -
907 [e] βαπτίζων baptizōn baptizing V-PPA-NMS -
1722 [e] ἐν en in Prep -
3588 [e] τῇ tē the Art-DFS -
2048 [e] ἐρήμῳ erēmō wilderness Adj-DFS -
2532 [e] [καὶ] kai and Conj -
2784 [e] κηρύσσων kēryssōn proclaiming V-PPA-NMS -
908 [e] βάπτισμα baptisma [a] baptism N-ANS -
3341 [e] μετανοίας metanoias of repentance N-GFS -
1519 [e] εἰς eis for Prep -
859 [e] ἄφεσιν aphesin forgiveness N-AFS -
266 [e] ἁμαρτιῶν. hamartiōn of sins. N-GFP -

Translation = John came baptizing in the wilderness and proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.


Joseph

Skeptical Textual Criticism

Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 1361
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: 1:1-3 External Evidence

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin » Tue May 28, 2019 6:58 am

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Mon May 27, 2019 1:05 pm
Good to see you again, Kunigunde.
Thanks Ben. Nice to see you still here.

One of the internal reasons to trust, that Mark 1:1-3 is imho probably original, should be the first part of Mark 1:2 and for the sake of the argument it plays no great role which textual variant is to prefer, even if I follow here (and in general) the Alexandrian text-type.

Alexandrian Mark 1:2 just as it is written in Isaiah the prophet καθὼς γέγραπται ἐν τῷ Ἠσαίᾳ τῷ προφήτῃ
Byzantine Mark 1:2 As it is written in the prophets Ὡς γέγραπται ἐν τοῖς προφήταις

My point of interest is the uncommon sense of the phrase
written <-> in <-> Isaiah“ (or in the Byzantine variant „written <-> in <-> the prophets“)

It is not something that was long ago spoken by the historical prophet Isaiah and it is not „written by Isaiah“ or „written in the book of Isaiah“. The sense is that it is something laid down in scripture und the wording „Isaiah the prophet“ turns out as the title of this scripture. It's the same kind of title as someone would ask: „Have you ever read Harry Potter?“


In comparison, Matthew and John focused on what the (assumed) historical prophet Isaiah said long ago and Luke treated it as a writing of the historical saying of Isaiah.
Matthew 3:3 John 1:23 Luke 3:4
For this is he who was spoken of by the prophet Isaiah when he said, “The voice of one crying in the wilderness: ‘Prepare the way of the Lord; make his paths straight.’” He said, “I am the voice of one crying out in the wilderness, ‘Make straight the way of the Lord,’ as the prophet Isaiah said.” As it is written in the book of the words of Isaiah the prophet, “The voice of one crying in the wilderness: ‘Prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.


Matthew and John focused on what the historical prophet Isaiah said long ago. They were mainly not interested in the fulfillment of a holy scripture (although Matthew sometimes did so), but of the fulfillment of the sayings of the historical prophet, on which God’s spirit rested.
Matthew 3:3 For this is he who was spoken of by the prophet Isaiah when he said, “The voice of one crying in the wilderness: ‘Prepare the way of the Lord; make his paths straight.’”
Matthew 4:14 so that what was spoken by the prophet Isaiah might be fulfilled:
Matthew 8:17 This was to fulfill what was spoken by the prophet Isaiah: “He took our illnesses and bore our diseases.”
Matthew 12:17 This was to fulfill what was spoken by the prophet Isaiah:
Matthew 13:14 Indeed, in their case the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled that says: “‘“You will indeed hear but never understand, and you will indeed see but never perceive.”
Matthew 15:7 You hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, when he said:
John 1:23 He said, “I am the voice of one crying out in the wilderness, ‘Make straight the way of the Lord,’ as the prophet Isaiah said.”
John 12:38 so that the word spoken by the prophet Isaiah might be fulfilled: “Lord, who has believed what he heard from us, and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?”
John 12:39 Therefore they could not believe. For again Isaiah said,
John 12:41 Isaiah said these things because he saw his glory and spoke of him.


Luke too remained true to himself and treated his second (and last) mention of Isaiah also as a writing of a historical saying of Isaiah. It seems that Luke sought a "middle" position to appreciate both, the prophetical saying from a long time ago as well as the scripture in which it can be read.
Luke 3:4 As it is written in the book (βίβλῳ) of the words of Isaiah the prophet, “The voice of one crying in the wilderness: ‘Prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.
Luke 4:17-18 And the book (βιβλίον) of the prophet Isaiah was given to him. He unrolled the scroll and found the place where it was written, 18 “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor.


The only other time GMark mentioned Isaiah is Mark 7:6 and Mark stressed there again the authority of scripture (in contrast to Matthew 15:7).
Mark 1:2 As it is written in Isaiah the prophet, “Behold, I send my messenger before your face, who will prepare your way,
Mark 7:6 And he said to them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, “‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; 7 in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’


This appreciation of the scriptures (and not of the sayings of historical prophets) can be found everywhere in GMark. There is no instance in GMark which stressed what was „spoken“ by a prophet long ago.
Mark 2:25 And he said to them, “Have you never read what David did, when he was in need and was hungry, he and those who were with him:
Mark 9:12 And he said to them, “Elijah does come first to restore all things. And how is it written of the Son of Man that he should suffer many things and be treated with contempt?
Mark 9:13 But I tell you that Elijah has come, and they did to him whatever they pleased, as it is written of him.”
Mark 11:17 And he was teaching them and saying to them, “Is it not written, ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations’? But you have made it a den of robbers.”
Mark 12:10 Have you not read this Scripture: “‘The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone;
Mark 12:24 Jesus said to them, “Is this not the reason you are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God?
Mark 12:26 And as for the dead being raised, have you not read in the book of Moses, in the passage about the bush, how God spoke to him, saying, ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’?
Mark 13:14 “But when you see the abomination of desolation standing where he ought not to be (let the reader understand),
Mark 14:21 For the Son of Man goes as it is written of him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been better for that man if he had not been born.”
Mark 14:27 And Jesus said to them, “You will all fall away, for it is written, ‘I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered.’
Mark 14:49 Day after day I was with you in the temple teaching, and you did not seize me. But let the Scriptures be fulfilled.”


Therefore imho the vast majority of the early Christian authors would never have used the uncommon phrase
written <-> in <-> Isaiah" (or „in the prophets“)

but it was perfectly normal for Mark.

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 7266
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: 1:1-3 External Evidence

Post by Ben C. Smith » Tue May 28, 2019 7:55 am

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote:
Tue May 28, 2019 6:58 am
One of the internal reasons to trust, that Mark 1:1-3 is imho probably original, should be the first part of Mark 1:2 and for the sake of the argument it plays no great role which textual variant is to prefer, even if I follow here (and in general) the Alexandrian text-type.

Alexandrian Mark 1:2 just as it is written in Isaiah the prophet καθὼς γέγραπται ἐν τῷ Ἠσαίᾳ τῷ προφήτῃ
Byzantine Mark 1:2 As it is written in the prophets Ὡς γέγραπται ἐν τοῖς προφήταις

My point of interest is the uncommon sense of the phrase
written <-> in <-> Isaiah“ (or in the Byzantine variant „written <-> in <-> the prophets“)

It is not something that was long ago spoken by the historical prophet Isaiah and it is not „written by Isaiah“ or „written in the book of Isaiah“. The sense is that it is something laid down in scripture und the wording „Isaiah the prophet“ turns out as the title of this scripture. It's the same kind of title as someone would ask: „Have you ever read Harry Potter?“
Nitpick: I think this is the wrong analogy, since "Harry Potter" is an abbreviated form of every book title in that series ("Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone," and so on). It is more like, "Have you ever read J. K. Rowling?" This is using the author's name in lieu of the title of a book or of a body of work.
In comparison, Matthew and John focused on what the (assumed) historical prophet Isaiah said long ago and Luke treated it as a writing of the historical saying of Isaiah.
Matthew 3:3 John 1:23 Luke 3:4
For this is he who was spoken of by the prophet Isaiah when he said, “The voice of one crying in the wilderness: ‘Prepare the way of the Lord; make his paths straight.’” He said, “I am the voice of one crying out in the wilderness, ‘Make straight the way of the Lord,’ as the prophet Isaiah said.” As it is written in the book of the words of Isaiah the prophet, “The voice of one crying in the wilderness: ‘Prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.

Matthew and John focused on what the historical prophet Isaiah said long ago. They were mainly not interested in the fulfillment of a holy scripture (although Matthew sometimes did so), but of the fulfillment of the sayings of the historical prophet, on which God’s spirit rested.
Matthew 3:3 For this is he who was spoken of by the prophet Isaiah when he said, “The voice of one crying in the wilderness: ‘Prepare the way of the Lord; make his paths straight.’”
Matthew 4:14 so that what was spoken by the prophet Isaiah might be fulfilled:
Matthew 8:17 This was to fulfill what was spoken by the prophet Isaiah: “He took our illnesses and bore our diseases.”
Matthew 12:17 This was to fulfill what was spoken by the prophet Isaiah:
Matthew 13:14 Indeed, in their case the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled that says: “‘“You will indeed hear but never understand, and you will indeed see but never perceive.”
Matthew 15:7 You hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, when he said:
John 1:23 He said, “I am the voice of one crying out in the wilderness, ‘Make straight the way of the Lord,’ as the prophet Isaiah said.”
John 12:38 so that the word spoken by the prophet Isaiah might be fulfilled: “Lord, who has believed what he heard from us, and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?”
John 12:39 Therefore they could not believe. For again Isaiah said,
John 12:41 Isaiah said these things because he saw his glory and spoke of him.


Luke too remained true to himself and treated his second (and last) mention of Isaiah also as a writing of a historical saying of Isaiah. It seems that Luke sought a "middle" position to appreciate both, the prophetical saying from a long time ago as well as the scripture in which it can be read.
Luke 3:4 As it is written in the book (βίβλῳ) of the words of Isaiah the prophet, “The voice of one crying in the wilderness: ‘Prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.
Luke 4:17-18 And the book (βιβλίον) of the prophet Isaiah was given to him. He unrolled the scroll and found the place where it was written, 18 “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor.

The only other time GMark mentioned Isaiah is Mark 7:6 and Mark stressed there again the authority of scripture (in contrast to Matthew 15:7).
Mark 1:2 As it is written in Isaiah the prophet, “Behold, I send my messenger before your face, who will prepare your way,
Mark 7:6 And he said to them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, “‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; 7 in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’

This appreciation of the scriptures (and not of the sayings of historical prophets) can be found everywhere in GMark. There is no instance in GMark which stressed what was „spoken“ by a prophet long ago.
Mark 2:25 And he said to them, “Have you never read what David did, when he was in need and was hungry, he and those who were with him:
Mark 9:12 And he said to them, “Elijah does come first to restore all things. And how is it written of the Son of Man that he should suffer many things and be treated with contempt?
Mark 9:13 But I tell you that Elijah has come, and they did to him whatever they pleased, as it is written of him.”
Mark 11:17 And he was teaching them and saying to them, “Is it not written, ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations’? But you have made it a den of robbers.”
Mark 12:10 Have you not read this Scripture: “‘The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone;
Mark 12:24 Jesus said to them, “Is this not the reason you are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God?
Mark 12:26 And as for the dead being raised, have you not read in the book of Moses, in the passage about the bush, how God spoke to him, saying, ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’?
Mark 13:14 “But when you see the abomination of desolation standing where he ought not to be (let the reader understand),
Mark 14:21 For the Son of Man goes as it is written of him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been better for that man if he had not been born.”
Mark 14:27 And Jesus said to them, “You will all fall away, for it is written, ‘I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered.’
Mark 14:49 Day after day I was with you in the temple teaching, and you did not seize me. But let the Scriptures be fulfilled.”

Therefore imho the vast majority of the early Christian authors would never have used the uncommon phrase
written <-> in <-> Isaiah" (or „in the prophets“)

but it was perfectly normal for Mark.
Wow, these are excellent observations.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 7266
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The Skeptical Critical Commentary - Gospel of Mark

Post by Ben C. Smith » Tue May 28, 2019 7:58 am

I think Paul speaks quite a lot about what "has been written" in scripture. If that is correct, then Mark is not completely alone in early Christianity.
Last edited by Ben C. Smith on Tue May 28, 2019 7:59 am, edited 1 time in total.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

Charles Wilson
Posts: 1379
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: The Skeptical Critical Commentary - Gospel of Mark

Post by Charles Wilson » Tue May 28, 2019 7:59 am

Let the reader note this.

Post Reply