The Skeptical Critical Commentary - Gospel of Mark

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Charles Wilson
Posts: 1379
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: 1:5 "River" Likely Not Original

Post by Charles Wilson » Thu Feb 06, 2020 8:48 am

JoeWallack wrote:
Sun Jul 14, 2019 6:33 pm
JW:
The combination of a minimum of quality External Manuscript support and The Difficult Reading Principle already makes omission of "river" likely original but further evidence:

Matthew 3
5 Then went out unto him Jerusalem, and all Judaea, and all the region round about the Jordan;
6 and they were baptized of him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins.
GMatthew's first mention of Jordan likewise lacks "river".

Lukewise:

Luke 3
3 And he came into all the region round about the Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance unto remission of sins;
and here there is no following mention of "river".

The baptism here also has good parallels to The Jewish Bible:

2 Kings 2
13 He took up also the mantle of Elijah that fell from him, and went back, and stood by the bank of the Jordan.
14 And he took the mantle of Elijah that fell from him, and smote the waters, and said, Where is Jehovah, the God of Elijah? and when he also had smitten the waters, they were divided hither and thither; and Elisha went over.
15 And when the sons of the prophets that were at Jericho over against him saw him, they said, The spirit of Elijah doth rest on Elisha. And they came to meet him, and bowed themselves to the ground before him.
No mention of "river".


Joseph

Skeptical Textual Criticism
This may be too much "Inside Baseball" stuff:

https://books.google.com/books?id=bsxkX ... 22&f=false

I believe that John is "of Bilgah". Bilgah had a Settlement attached to its name. Note that Ma'ariya is associated with Bilgah. Note also that "Gophna" is associated with Bilgah and Jakim. Gophna figures into Roman Mapping as a region and, as such would not necessarily be a Settlement ('N I do hope that I am reading this correctly...).

Perhaps more later on this but it still appears that the readings of whether "River" appears in the Texts are correct depending on Scope.

FWIW: http://www.aymennjawad.org/2020/01/the- ... mouk-basin

YMMV

CW

[Edit Note] See Also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jifna , "Iron Age and Classical period". A "Vespasian" and a "Titus" are mentioned. I wonder if that might be important?

User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1203
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

House of the rising son

Post by JoeWallack » Sat Feb 08, 2020 3:16 pm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgZQLnuBXIE

JW:
Continuing with The Skeptical Critical Commentary of GMark and the likely first Markan pericope - John Baptiste:

1:6
And John was clothed with camel`s hair, and [had] a leathern girdle about his loins, and did eat locusts and wild honey.
What exactly was John clothed with? Note that clothing, or lack thereof, is a surprisingly important subject in GMark. The minority candidate:

https://www.laparola.net/greco/index.php

δέρριν
  • D = Codex Bezae. 5th century and 6th best Christian Bible witness.

    ita = Codex Vercellensis. 4th century (oldest Latin witness).

    geoA = Georgian. 5th century.
The word means "animal skin". The majority candidate is "camel hair". So which is The Difficult Reading?

Continuing with Textual Criticism of the verse:
καὶ ζώνην δερματίνην περὶ τὴν ὀσφὺν αὐτοῦ] Byz itaur itc itf itl itq vg ς WH
omit (haplography?)] D ita itb itd itff2 itr1 itt vgms
Leaves the Western support for the Verse as:
  • "And John was clothed with camel`s skin and did eat locusts and wild honey."

    Vs. the majority:

    "And John was clothed with camel`s hair, and [had] a leathern girdle about his loins, and did eat locusts and wild honey.".
"Hair" looks like the difficult reading here as you literally could not be clothed in just hair.

In "Matthew's" copying of the story "Matthew" uses "hair" and adds "garment" as an interpretation/explanation to make it sound less whatever the opposite of normal is.

In "Luke's" copying of the story "Luke" exorcises all description of John the Baptist's attire. Literary Criticism that GLuke was after GMatthew. GMark is original with a stylish fascination for trivial but interesting and unorthodox (so to speak) clothing/no clothing. GMatthew's only source is GMark so editing is generally limited to interpretation/explanation. GLuke is later and expands editing to exorcising the trivial/non-historical sounding (so to GJohn).

Regarding GLuke, even though she has exorcised the attire of John the Baptist she is still very much reacting to her source of GMark:

3:11
And he answered and said unto them, He that hath two coats, let him impart to him that hath none; and he that hath food, let him do likewise.
"Mark's" John the Baptist just happens to be in need of both.

1:6 parallels to Zechariah 13:4 either way, the parallel is just better with "skin".

Conclusion = "Hair" looks like the difficult reading and "Matthew" copied "hair" so hair is judged likely original.

Bonus material for Solo = Note the contrivance here in the John the Baptist story regarding "The Wilderness". Everything is painted with its flavor:
  • 1) John is in the wilderness.

    2) John is wearing animal for clothing and eating animal food.

    3) Jesus is driven out of the wilderness and into the wilderness.

    4) "Mark's" Satan is in the wilderness.

    5) Jesus is in the wilderness with the animals.
Parallel = Jesus is with the animal like John and then the animal like Satan and the animal like animals.
[Context = banquet]
6:27 And straightway the king sent forth a soldier of his guard, and commanded to bring his head: and he went and beheaded him in the prison,
28 and brought his head on a platter, and gave it to the damsel; and the damsel gave it to her mother.
In what way does this support the John as animal theme?



Joseph

Skeptical Textual Criticism

User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1203
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Are You Not Entertained

Post by JoeWallack » Sun Feb 16, 2020 4:43 pm

JW:
Continuing with The Skeptical Critical Commentary of GMark and the likely first Markan pericope - John Baptiste:

1:8
I baptized you in water; But he shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit [and Fire].
https://www.laparola.net/greco/index.php

πυρί
  • P = Codex Guelferbytanus A. 6th century.

    1195. 12th century.

    1241. 13th century.

    144m. 13th century.

    syrh*. 7th century
Not much Manuscript support but a prediction that Jesus will baptize with fire is a very Difficult Reading. On to GMatthew:

3
11 I indeed baptize you in water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit and [in] fire:
GLuke:

3
16 John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but there cometh he that is mightier than I, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit and [in] fire:
As GMatthew/GLuke agree to an expanded edit of GMark's John the Baptist story it's possible that the "fire" in GMark was an addition to agree to them. "Fire" in GMark here just seems unexplained/ambiguous. It's unclear how Jesus would baptize in fire and whether that's a good thing or a bad thing. On the other hand, having John baptize in water and contrasting that with Jesus baptizing in fire seems right up "Mark's" Alley Theatre. The baptizing in fire of GMatthew/GLuke adds the explanation that that is the consequence of rejecting Jesus. But generally God does the destroying here, not Jesus. Difficult. Conclusion = Fire it is on the overall strength of "Mark's" style of contrasting.

What the original pericope in GMark looks like:
  • John came baptizing in the wilderness and proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.

    And there went out unto him all the country of Judaea, and all they of Jerusalem; And they were baptized of him in the Jordan, confessing their sins.

    And John was clothed with animal skin and did eat locusts and wild honey.

    And he preached, saying, There cometh after me he that is mightier than I, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to stoop down and unloose.

    I baptized you in water; But he shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit and fire.
Needs a little fine tuning.


Joseph

Skeptical Textual Criticism

Post Reply