The Word According To Garp. Big Editing in the First Gospel

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Solo
Posts: 156
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 9:10 am

Re: The Word According To Garp. Big Editing in the First Gos

Post by Solo »

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote:
Solo wrote:
JoeWallack wrote:I have previously indicated that the offending 14:28 is under some pressure as original based on Literary Criticism (and if 14:28 is late than 16:7 which is dependent on 14:28 probably is too):
Hey Joe, where are you going with that gun in your hand ?.....

... When the young man in the cave says to the women "there you will see him as he told you" in 16:7, ...
As a little side note: I read currently a bit about, “who” sees “what” in GMark. Mark used three verbs for the process of seeing: ὁράω (horaó), βλέπω (blepó) and θεωρέω (theóreó). In Mark 16:7 the used verb is ὄψεσθε (opsesthe) a form of ὁράω (horaó). The disciples “see” Jesus explicitly only twice, in ...
Mark 6:48-50: And about the fourth watch of the night he came to them, walking on the sea. He meant to pass by them, but when they saw (ἰδόντες - a form of ὁράω) him walking on the sea they thought it was a ghost, and cried out, for they all saw (εἶδον - a form of ὁράω) him and were terrified.

Mark 9:8-9: And suddenly, looking around (περιβλεψάμενοι - a form of βλέπω), they no longer saw (εἶδον - a form of ὁράω) anyone with them but Jesus only. And as they were coming down the mountain, he charged them to tell no one what they had seen (εἶδον - a form of ὁράω), until the Son of Man had risen from the dead.
Otherwise the disciples see (all in forms of ὁράω) explicitly only the folks with the scribes in Mark 9:14, the withered fig tree in Mark 11:20 and the strange wonder worker in Mark 9:38. ;)

The preferred verb for the three women is θεωρέω (theóreó) - Mark 15:40, 15:47, 16:4, but there is also ὁράω (horaó) and βλέπω (blepó). :confusedsmiley:
Good that you analyze the different ways of "seeing" things in the gospel, Kunigunde. It is somewhat more complicated, but I am sure you will come to appreciate the subtleties as you go along. I marvel from one year to another at my past ignorance of Greek, and no doubt I will continue to do so in the time to come. The verb ὁράω is one of the keys to unlock Mark with, as he often plays mind-games with the multiple meanings it has, of plain vision, comprehension, and ecstatic/revelatory vision in accessing the supernatural. (see ὅραμα).

Best,
Jiri
Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 2110
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: The Word According To Garp. Big Editing in the First Gos

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin »

Solo wrote:... one of the keys to unlock Mark with, as he often plays mind-games with the multiple meanings it has, of plain vision, comprehension, and ecstatic/revelatory vision in accessing the supernatural ... Best, Jiri
By the way, I recently read on your old blog. I liked it.
User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1594
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

The Marks Big Brothers (of the lord)

Post by JoeWallack »

Solo wrote: I take the preaching of crucified Christ from James' church in Jerusalem to be fiction that arose around Matthew's time as a way to defeat the Paulinists. The original claim of the Pauline churches was that he was the one and only true apostle of Christ and the gospel derived from him and him alone. IMHO there is no other way that Mark's gospel makes any sense. This original schema was brilliantly overturned by Matthew, who codified the tradition of the twelve apostles (the Markan "apostolic inventory" 3:16-19 is a later fake), with Peter as an apostle and Jesus-certified leader of the church. Starting with Matthew the only true tradition was the "witness" of the disciples. Luke was unable to handle this fundamental shift, and the account of Paul in the Acts was a compromise formula which settled for a portrait of the original apostle as the leading missionary and builder of the church among the Gentiles. The Johanines fought the Petrine apostolate with the beloved disciple-paraclete theory, but the twelve apostles stuck. It was simply too dangerous to build the church on continuous revelations of the Risen One. The spiritualist church of living in the "last days" was finally defeated with the Montanists, and the church became the familiar Catholic faith with the only authoritative witness of Christ by the twelve apostles led by Peter.
JW:
You're getting closer

In order to try and squeeze supposed witness evidence from the Gospels CBS (Christian Bible Scholarship) looks at the Gospels from every possible viewpoint except the one that is the best potential source, claimed witness.

As is normally the case in all walks of life, one key is to get off to a good start. Regarding potential claimed witness to the Christian Bible, the only thing we can be absolutely certain of is that there were no historical witnesses who witnessed the impossible. Sadly almost all CBS personally believes that historical witness witnessed the impossible. Publicly some claim that they are officially neutral from a professional standpoint. Thus their credibility is impeached in this area.

My own model for potential witness to the Christian Bible, in approximate 25 year chunks, is as follows:

Time Real History Promoter Claimed History
25 Jesus is traveling Pharisee Historical witnesses Actual history
50 Post Jesus, his philosophy is promoted Historical followers Base of actual history with legend added
50 Paul in competition with historical witness Paul Spiritual source for history
75 Tradition of historical followers Movement from history towards legend Mixture of actual history and legend, primarily supposed historical witness
75 Paul's movement still in competition Movement from legend towards history Mixture of legend and actual history , primarily spiritual source
100 GMark Paul's movement Acknowledges that the competition was based on the movement of historical witnesses to Jesus but that movement lacked a spiritual understanding of Jesus and God's plan for Jesus


Joseph

Thank-yo

ErrancyWiki
User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1594
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Re: The Word According To Garp. Big Editing in the First Gos

Post by JoeWallack »

Solo wrote:
JoeWallack wrote:JW:
Mark 14:28
Howbeit, after I am raised up, I will go before you into Galilee. (ASV)
This verse has long been a stumbling block for CBS (Christian Bible Scholarship) [for Stephen Huller]which textually abuses it and its sister verse[/for Stephen Huller] 16:7 as proof-text that the original Gospel [SH]intended to show its Peter[/SH] and disciples as witnesses for a fully resurrerected Jesus.

I have previously indicated that the offending 14:28 is under some pressure as original based on Literary Criticism (and if 14:28 is late than 16:7 which is dependent on 14:28 probably is too):
1) Peter's response of 14:29 is completely non-responsive to 14:28.
Hey Joe, where are you going with that gun in your hand ?.....

Verses 14:28, and Peter's non-response in 14:29 is what makes Mark's end scene work. When the young man in the cave says to the women "there you will see him as he told you" in 16:7, Mark is fully aware that Peter & Co "did not get" Jesus in 14:28. They ignore the "after I have been raised" because they do not understand resurrection (as preached by Paul). Jesus tries to teach the disciples Paul's (spiritual) resurrection several times: at Caesarea Philippi, after demonstrating his resurrected state on the mountain and again in 9:30-31:
They went on from there and passed through Galilee. And he would not have any one know it; for he was teaching his disciples, saying to them, "The Son of man will be delivered into the hands of men, and they will kill him; and when he is killed, after three days he will rise."


Big, fat, messianic secret. And what is the response of the disciples ?
But they did not understand the saying, and they were afraid to ask him.
JW:
Here you may be right, Mark's Jesus may have been crazy (or he may have been the lunatic Paul was looking for):

Mark 14:28

Strong's Transliteration Greek English Morphology
235 [e] alla ἀλλὰ But Conj
3326 [e] meta μετὰ after Prep
3588 [e] to τὸ - Art-ANS
1453 [e] egerthēnai ἐγερθῆναί having arisen V-ANP
1473 [e] me με I, PPro-A1S
4254 [e] proaxō προάξω I will go before V-FIA-1S
4771 [e] hymas ὑμᾶς you PPro-A2P
1519 [e] eis εἰς into Prep
3588 [e] tēn τὴν - Art-AFS
1056 [e] Galilaian Γαλιλαίαν. Galilee. N-AFS

Note the critical word "προάξω" = "I will go before". The verb is in the singular meaning it is connected to Jesus. Thus it is intransitive. The relationship context than is temporal and not cause and effect. In the context of timing Jesus will arrive in Galilee before the disciples do. If the verb was in the plural it would be connected to the disciples and the relationship context would be cause and effect. Jesus leading the disciples to Galilee.

Jesus simply returning to Galilee before the disciples do in a temporal sense fits well with "Mark's" (author) overall theme. Ironically the disciples "follow" Jesus after the resurrection, but not because they still believe in Jesus or the resurrection, but because they do not. They are just going home to Galilee because they gave up. Like all of GMark, they are following Jesus once again and for the final time, but for the wrong reason. Per Paul, they physically followed Jesus but did not spiritually follow him.

Thus 14:28/16:7 work just fine with "Mark's" overall theme of discrediting the disciples as witnesses to Jesus. The key prophecy of The Parable of the Sower is fulfilled as those who first and immediately followed Jesus fall away during trial (so to speak) and tribulation. 14:28/16:7 continue and fulfill the picture of GMark's Jesus' disciples based on Paul following Jesus without understanding him.

The late (to this Forum) Professor Gibson righteously pointed out that Bultman thought that while 14:28 was original to GMark, "Mark" added it to his source. Fayyum than could be based on an earlier source than GMark that had no Galilee reunion prediction. This might reflect an earlier Christianity, closer to Paul, where there was no connection of any type to the disciples and a resurrected Jesus. "Mark" as a subsequent Pauline apologist, may have had to deal with the competing historical witness to Jesus movement of "Mark's" time, who were starting to claim a connection to Jesus' resurrection, and spun it that even though they did witness a resurrected Jesus in some sense, they did not understand and properly follow him. It could explain than the Literary Criticism anomalies between 14:28 and its neighborhood. As KK rightfully accused me though, I do think that "Mark" chose all his words carefully (and, as I am constantly claiming such individual words and phrases as significant, this means that I grudgingly have to confess that GMark has been reMarkably well preserved).

Anyway, my Literary Criticism objections and Manuscript evidence (Fayyum) against 14:28 as original still stand. 14:28 is likely original but there is reason to doubt.
  • [Setting = Jesus and Peter entering SinaMark at Galilee Mall to watch The Passion of the Christ]

    Centurion (Punching Jesus' ticket): Is he with you?

    Jesus: He's with me but he's not "with me".


Joseph

"Most likely to ascend" - Caption of Jesus in Nazareth Class of 18 Yearbook

ErrancyWiki
Solo
Posts: 156
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 9:10 am

Re: The Word According To Garp. Big Editing in the First Gos

Post by Solo »

JoeWallack wrote: JW:
Here you may be right, Mark's Jesus may have been crazy (or he may have been the lunatic Paul was looking for):

Mark 14:28

Strong's Transliteration Greek English Morphology
235 [e] alla ἀλλὰ But Conj
3326 [e] meta μετὰ after Prep
3588 [e] to τὸ - Art-ANS
1453 [e] egerthēnai ἐγερθῆναί having arisen V-ANP
1473 [e] me με I, PPro-A1S
4254 [e] proaxō προάξω I will go before V-FIA-1S
4771 [e] hymas ὑμᾶς you PPro-A2P
1519 [e] eis εἰς into Prep
3588 [e] tēn τὴν - Art-AFS
1056 [e] Galilaian Γαλιλαίαν. Galilee. N-AFS

Note the critical word "προάξω" = "I will go before". The verb is in the singular meaning it is connected to Jesus. Thus it is intransitive. The relationship context than is temporal and not cause and effect. In the context of timing Jesus will arrive in Galilee before the disciples do. If the verb was in the plural it would be connected to the disciples and the relationship context would be cause and effect. Jesus leading the disciples to Galilee.
All right: I don't know if you caught this in one of my old posts: I am convinced (!) that the
Mk 16:6 wrote: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen Iησοῦν ζητεῖτε τὸν Ναζαρηνὸν τὸν ἐσταυρωμένον ἠγέρθη
was interpreted by Mark's pupils via Malachi 3:1, yes the verse that appears in Mk 1:2 but is seemingly misattributed to Isaiah :
Mal 3:1 wrote: Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me ("before thy face" in Mk 1:2)....
but the Malachi verse continues and a key paraphrase of it resurfaces at the end, in 16:6:
...and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, ...(καὶ ἐξαίφνης ἥξει εἰς τὸν ναὸν ἑαυτοῦ κύριος ὃν ὑμεῖς ζητεῖτε)
the (Jerusalem) temple in the verse means of course the spiritual body of the kingdom come that Joseph requisitioned (foolishly) from Pilate which pace Paul is the temple within you, and the body of Christ that precedes the disciples to Galilee.....and consequently is "missing" from the crypt... ARE YOU WITH ME, JOE ? ...
...even the messenger of the covenant,...(καὶ ὁ ἄγγελος τῆς διαθήκης )
..... who the hell could that be ? wait, ...could it be...wild guess.... the neaniskos ??...who tried to run away in fear from the gospel in 14:52 ? And would his absconding have something to do with Malachi 3:2 ?
....whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the LORD of hosts.
...etc, etc, etc.
JoeWallack wrote:Jesus simply returning to Galilee before the disciples do in a temporal sense fits well with "Mark's" (author) overall theme. Ironically the disciples "follow" Jesus after the resurrection, but not because they still believe in Jesus or the resurrection, but because they do not. They are just going home to Galilee because they gave up.
Are you sure that's in Mark ?
JoeWallack wrote:Per Paul, they physically followed Jesus but did not spiritually follow him.
This to me, is the most critical point of the whole gospel. It is their lack of faith that separated them from Jesus, that's why they did not get resurrection. They believed in a flesh-and-blood Messiah who would restore the kingdom in Jerusalem below. Paul and Mark of course talked about the spiritual kingdom of Jerusalem above. So, Mark 4:11-12 (which no one can crack because everyone thinks Mark's Twelve are the twelve disciples of Matthew).:
MK 4:11-12 wrote:And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables: That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.
This directly mirrors Paul's maxim:
1 Cor 2:16 wrote: The unspiritual man (ψυχικὸς δὲ ἄνθρωπος) does not receive the gifts of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.
Best,
Jiri
Thus 14:28/16:7 work just fine with "Mark's" overall theme of discrediting the disciples as witnesses to Jesus. The key prophecy of The Parable of the Sower is fulfilled as those who first and immediately followed Jesus fall away during trial (so to speak) and tribulation. 14:28/16:7 continue and fulfill the picture of GMark's Jesus' disciples based on Paul following Jesus without understanding him.

The late (to this Forum) Professor Gibson righteously pointed out that Bultman thought that while 14:28 was original to GMark, "Mark" added it to his source. Fayyum than could be based on an earlier source than GMark that had no Galilee reunion prediction. This might reflect an earlier Christianity, closer to Paul, where there was no connection of any type to the disciples and a resurrected Jesus. "Mark" as a subsequent Pauline apologist, may have had to deal with the competing historical witness to Jesus movement of "Mark's" time, who were starting to claim a connection to Jesus' resurrection, and spun it that even though they did witness a resurrected Jesus in some sense, they did not understand and properly follow him. It could explain than the Literary Criticism anomalies between 14:28 and its neighborhood. As KK rightfully accused me though, I do think that "Mark" chose all his words carefully (and, as I am constantly claiming such individual words and phrases as significant, this means that I grudgingly have to confess that GMark has been reMarkably well preserved).

Anyway, my Literary Criticism objections and Manuscript evidence (Fayyum) against 14:28 as original still stand. 14:28 is likely original but there is reason to doubt.
  • [Setting = Jesus and Peter entering SinaMark at Galilee Mall to watch The Passion of the Christ]

    Centurion (Punching Jesus' ticket): Is he with you?

    Jesus: He's with me but he's not "with me".
Joseph

"Most likely to ascend" - Caption of Jesus in Nazareth Class of 18 Yearbook

ErrancyWiki
Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 2110
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: The Word According To Garp. Big Editing in the First Gos

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin »

Solo wrote:I am convinced (!) that the
Mk 16:6 wrote: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen Iησοῦν ζητεῖτε τὸν Ναζαρηνὸν τὸν ἐσταυρωμένον ἠγέρθη
was interpreted by Mark's pupils via Malachi 3:1, yes the verse that appears in Mk 1:2 but is seemingly misattributed to Isaiah :
Mal 3:1 wrote: Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me ("before thy face" in Mk 1:2)....
but the Malachi verse continues and a key paraphrase of it resurfaces at the end, in 16:6:
...and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, ...(καὶ ἐξαίφνης ἥξει εἰς τὸν ναὸν ἑαυτοῦ κύριος ὃν ὑμεῖς ζητεῖτε)
the (Jerusalem) temple in the verse means of course the spiritual body of the kingdom come that Joseph requisitioned (foolishly) from Pilate which pace Paul is the temple within you, and the body of Christ that precedes the disciples to Galilee.....and consequently is "missing" from the crypt... ARE YOU WITH ME, JOE ? ...
...even the messenger of the covenant,...(καὶ ὁ ἄγγελος τῆς διαθήκης )
..... who the hell could that be ? wait, ...could it be...wild guess.... the neaniskos ??...who tried to run away in fear from the gospel in 14:52 ? And would his absconding have something to do with Malachi 3:2 ?
....whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the LORD of hosts.
fantastico
User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1594
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Re: The Word According To Garp. Big Editing in the First Gos

Post by JoeWallack »

What a nightmarke...


JW:
Mark 3:14
And he appointed twelve, that they might be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach, (ASV)
And the Textual Criticism issue:

http://biblehub.com/text/mark/3-14.htm

Strong's Transliteration Greek English Morphology
2532 [e] kai καὶ And Conj
4160 [e] epoiēsen ἐποίησεν he appointed V-AIA-3S
1427 [e] dōdeka δώδεκα twelve Adj-AMP
3739 [e] hous [οὓς ones, RelPro-AMP
2532 [e] kai καὶ and Conj
652 [e] apostolous ἀποστόλους apostles N-AMP
3687 [e] ōnomasen ὠνόμασεν] he called, V-AIA-3S
2443 [e] hina ἵνα that Conj
1510 [e] ōsin ὦσιν they might be V-PSA-3P
3326 [e] met’ μετ’ with Prep
846 [e] autou αὐτοῦ, him, PPro-GM3S
2532 [e] kai καὶ and Conj
2443 [e] hina ἵνα that Conj
649 [e] apostellē ἀποστέλλῃ he might send V-PSA-3S
846 [e] autous αὐτοὺς them PPro-AM3P
2784 [e] kēryssein κηρύσσειν to preach, V-PNA

The offending words in question in red.

By an Act of Providence foremost Textual Critic Bart Ehrman is currently articulating on Textual Criticsm (Bart's desire to lose his tag of "Textual Critic" in exchange for being a noted Biblical Historian reminds me of "The earlier, funnier Woody Allen". Bart, you want to do mankind a real service? Do more textual criticism.) and discusses External evidence here:

External Evidence in Textual Criticism

Willker gives the External evidence here:

http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/TC-Mark.pdf
TVU 58
...
omit: A, C, C2, D, L, P, f1, 33, 565, 579, 700, 892, 1342, Maj, Latt, Sy, goth
Ehrman discusses Internal evidence here:

http://ehrmanblog.org/jesus-sweating-bl ... -evidence/

Note that the short-hand (so to speak) rule for Textual Criticism is that a combination of a minimum of quality External evidence and Internally, the difficult reading, supports the difficult reading as more likely original.

Here the oMission of the disciples being described as Apostles by "Mark" (author) has quality External evidence and is clearly the difficult reading. Most textual critics and translations accept that omission is more likely original. Most people, including Skeptics, would be surprised to learn just how rare it is for "Mark" to use the word "apostles" for the disciples. The only other instance is 6:30 where the disciples report back to Jesus on the results of their mission with a religious context. Note that the case here is "perfect" indicating a completed as opposed to ongoing mission. This coordinates with Paul who generally describes the competition in his time as "false apostles". The subsequent Gospellers use the term "apostles" to describe the subsequent effort of the disciples more often than ebola is found in a Dallas hospital.

Here an apostle of Daniel Wallace (still waiting on that first century fragment of GMark Dan. At this rate I fear Jesus might actually return before that fragment does) gives an apologetic argument for inclusion:

https://bible.org/article/%E2%80%9Cwhom ... n-mark-314

What CBS (Christian Bible Scholarship) is still missing is that the most important context to consider regarding the relationship of the Gospels is claimed historical witness:
  • Pre (Paul): Revelation

    GMark: Revelation (by the Gospel) and discrediting of historical witness

    GMatthew: Crediting of historical witness at the end of the Gospel

    GLuke: Crediting of historical witness at the end of the Gospel with support during the Gospel

    GJohn: Crediting of historical witness at the start of the Gospel

    Post (Church): Crediting of historical witness to the disciples in the Gospels
An editing of GMark at 3:14 fits this development well:

Mark 3
  • 13 And he goeth up into the mountain, and calleth unto him whom he himself would; and they went unto him.

    14 And he appointed twelve, that they might be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach,

    15 and to have authority to cast out demons:

    16 and Simon he surnamed Peter;

    17 and James the [son] of Zebedee, and John the brother of James; and them he surnamed Boanerges, which is, Sons of thunder:

    18 and Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the [son] of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus, and Simon the Cananaean,

    19 and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him. And he cometh into a house.
as this would be the only place in GMark indicating that Jesus authorized the disciples as apostles for an ongoing mission. Without it Gnostics could argue (correctly) that the original narrative discredited the disciples as witnesses to Jesus and never indicated that Jesus authorized them as apostles in an ongoing sense. Ironically, in destroying/censoring/not preserving the Gnostic versions we have no direct evidence that the Gnostics edited anything while on the other hand, in a Act of Providence, orthodox Christianity has (unwittingly) preserved the direct evidence that they were the ones caught inflagrantee derilictio of their fiduciary responsibility.


Joseph

ErrancyWiki
Solo
Posts: 156
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 9:10 am

Re: The Word According To Garp. Big Editing in the First Gos

Post by Solo »

JoeWallack wrote:What a nightmarke...


JW:
Mark 3:14
And he appointed twelve, that they might be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach, (ASV)
And the Textual Criticism issue:

http://biblehub.com/text/mark/3-14.htm

Strong's Transliteration Greek English Morphology
2532 [e] kai καὶ And Conj
4160 [e] epoiēsen ἐποίησεν he appointed V-AIA-3S
1427 [e] dōdeka δώδεκα twelve Adj-AMP
3739 [e] hous [οὓς ones, RelPro-AMP
2532 [e] kai καὶ and Conj
652 [e] apostolous ἀποστόλους apostles N-AMP
3687 [e] ōnomasen ὠνόμασεν] he called, V-AIA-3S
2443 [e] hina ἵνα that Conj
1510 [e] ōsin ὦσιν they might be V-PSA-3P
3326 [e] met’ μετ’ with Prep
846 [e] autou αὐτοῦ, him, PPro-GM3S
2532 [e] kai καὶ and Conj
2443 [e] hina ἵνα that Conj
649 [e] apostellē ἀποστέλλῃ he might send V-PSA-3S
846 [e] autous αὐτοὺς them PPro-AM3P
2784 [e] kēryssein κηρύσσειν to preach, V-PNA

The offending words in question in red.

By an Act of Providence foremost Textual Critic Bart Ehrman is currently articulating on Textual Criticsm (Bart's desire to lose his tag of "Textual Critic" in exchange for being a noted Biblical Historian reminds me of "The earlier, funnier Woody Allen". Bart, you want to do mankind a real service? Do more textual criticism.) and discusses External evidence here:

External Evidence in Textual Criticism

Willker gives the External evidence here:

http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/TC-Mark.pdf
TVU 58
...
omit: A, C, C2, D, L, P, f1, 33, 565, 579, 700, 892, 1342, Maj, Latt, Sy, goth
Ehrman discusses Internal evidence here:

http://ehrmanblog.org/jesus-sweating-bl ... -evidence/

Note that the short-hand (so to speak) rule for Textual Criticism is that a combination of a minimum of quality External evidence and Internally, the difficult reading, supports the difficult reading as more likely original.

Here the oMission of the disciples being described as Apostles by "Mark" (author) has quality External evidence and is clearly the difficult reading. Most textual critics and translations accept that omission is more likely original. Most people, including Skeptics, would be surprised to learn just how rare it is for "Mark" to use the word "apostles" for the disciples. The only other instance is 6:30 where the disciples report back to Jesus on the results of their mission with a religious context. Note that the case here is "perfect" indicating a completed as opposed to ongoing mission. This coordinates with Paul who generally describes the competition in his time as "false apostles". The subsequent Gospellers use the term "apostles" to describe the subsequent effort of the disciples more often than ebola is found in a Dallas hospital.

Here an apostle of Daniel Wallace (still waiting on that first century fragment of GMark Dan. At this rate I fear Jesus might actually return before that fragment does) gives an apologetic argument for inclusion:

https://bible.org/article/%E2%80%9Cwhom ... n-mark-314

What CBS (Christian Bible Scholarship) is still missing is that the most important context to consider regarding the relationship of the Gospels is claimed historical witness:
  • Pre (Paul): Revelation

    GMark: Revelation (by the Gospel) and discrediting of historical witness

    GMatthew: Crediting of historical witness at the end of the Gospel

    GLuke: Crediting of historical witness at the end of the Gospel with support during the Gospel

    GJohn: Crediting of historical witness at the start of the Gospel

    Post (Church): Crediting of historical witness to the disciples in the Gospels
An editing of GMark at 3:14 fits this development well:

Mark 3
  • 13 And he goeth up into the mountain, and calleth unto him whom he himself would; and they went unto him.

    14 And he appointed twelve, that they might be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach,

    15 and to have authority to cast out demons:

    16 and Simon he surnamed Peter;

    17 and James the [son] of Zebedee, and John the brother of James; and them he surnamed Boanerges, which is, Sons of thunder:

    18 and Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the [son] of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus, and Simon the Cananaean,

    19 and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him. And he cometh into a house.
as this would be the only place in GMark indicating that Jesus authorized the disciples as apostles for an ongoing mission. Without it Gnostics could argue (correctly) that the original narrative discredited the disciples as witnesses to Jesus and never indicated that Jesus authorized them as apostles in an ongoing sense. Ironically, in destroying/censoring/not preserving the Gnostic versions we have no direct evidence that the Gnostics edited anything while on the other hand, in a Act of Providence, orthodox Christianity has (unwittingly) preserved the direct evidence that they were the ones caught inflagrantee derilictio of their fiduciary responsibility.


Joseph

ErrancyWiki
Yeah, we may be looking here (3:14-19) at the remains of a textual massacre or at least at not so great a cut-and-paste job.

The hous kai apostolous ōnomasen looks very, very strange because of its strange function vis-a-vis the first verb in the sentence poieó, and the fact that the named/called apostles' inventory immediately follows. It really does look like that this was an intermediate throw-in, ie. the first interpolation, before the full contingent of apostles was actually supplied in the text. Then somehow it got forgotten in most of the mss. This view is strengthened by the strange lack of grammatical agreement between the renaming of Simon in 3:16 in dativ and the rest of the named crew (3:17-19) which is in accusative. The confusion about the operation, ie. the mixing of the naming and ordaining the twelve, must have been acute, for the interpolator thinking it prudent to repeat the start of the verse 3:14 in 3:16 to make the link explicit. I can't imagine any other scenario under which it would have been necessary. The addition of the definite article to dódeka in 3:16 also more or less destroys the purpose of introducing the body by an anarthrous form in the original sentence two verses earlier.

My take on this is that in the original Mark, the four main disciples, Peter, Andrew, John, James were not part of (the) Twelve. The Twelve were a mystical collective symbolizing the twelve tribes of Israel (or the twelve sons of Jacob, Gen 49:28: Παντες ουτοι υιοι Ιακωβ δωδεκα). Only one character, Judas, was to be singled out by name in the haggadic midrash on Judah's treachery toward Joseph. By so doing he divides the house of Israel, and thus fulfils the prophecy of Jesus (if you agree with spin that Mark is post 70CE).

Best,
Jiri
User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1594
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

"Mark" Sending Paul's Jesus Back to the Future

Post by JoeWallack »

JW:
Back to Big editing in the original Gospel. If you've been following along at the brave and truthful ErrancyWiki you have already seen editing at every turn of phrase:

1:1 Transmission Error = "The son of god" is not original

1:2 Misquote of Jewish Bible

1:3 Misleading quote, misquote and quote out of context from Jewish Bible

The next verse 1:4
John came, who baptized in the wilderness and preached the baptism of repentance unto remission of sins. (ASV)
has something for everyone:
  • 1) Evidence of Transmission Error = "John baptizing" (verb) verses "John the Baptist" (title)

    2) Textual Criticism evidence for Nazareth = If "Mark" (author) started with "John baptizing" and used the first reference to subsequently create a title, "John the Baptist", than that is evidence that "Mark" likewise did the same for "Jesus came from Nazareth" to subsequently create a title, Jesus the Nazarene (sorry spin).

    3) The above would be evidence of intentional fiction by "Mark".

    4) The above would be evidence of an intentional fictional geographical relationship by "Mark" (that Jesus came from Nazareth).

    5) More evidence that Paul was a major source for "Mark" as the offending word has excellent parallels in Galations 3:27.
Biblical Criticism should start with Textual Criticism:

1:4
John came, who baptized in the wilderness and preached the baptism of repentance unto remission of sins. (ASV)
and Textual Criticism should start with Metzger/Ehrman:
1:4 [ὁ] βαπτίζων ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ καί {C}

In view of the predominant usage in the Synoptic Gospels of referring to John as “the Baptist” (ὁ βαπτιστής occurs in Mk 6:25 and 8:28, as well as seven times in Matthew and three times in Luke), it is easier to account for the addition than for the deletion of the definite article before βαπτίζων. The omission of καί in a few Alexandrian witnesses is the result of taking ὁ βαπτίζων as a title. p 63


Metzger, B. M., United Bible Societies. (1994). A textual commentary on the Greek New Testament, second edition a companion volume to the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament (4th rev. ed.) (p. 62). London; New York: United Bible Societies.
JW:
Translation = Implication of a minimum of quality external evidence for with and without ("ὁ" = "the"). Explicitly, the Internal evidence (difficult reading principle) favors without. Secondary observation that related textual variation of with and without "καί" (and) for External evidence with "ὁ" also supports no "ὁ" in original.

Expansion of Textual Criticism with Laparola:

http://www.laparola.net/greco/index.php
  • ὁ βαπτίζων ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ καὶ] ‭א L Δ 205 1342 copbo geo1 slavms (NA [ὁ]) TILC = with "ὁ" and "καὶ"

    ὁ βαπτίζων ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ] B 33 2427 pc copbo(mss) WH NR Riv Nv NM = with "ὁ"

    βαπτίζων ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ καὶ] A E F G H K Pvid W Π Σ f1 f13 180 565 579 1006 1009 1010 1071 1079 1195 1216 1230 1241 1242 1243 1253 1292 1344 1365 1424 1505 1546 1646 2148 2174 Byz Lect (l751) (l1074) itf syrh syrpal (copsa omit καὶ) goth arm eth slavmss ς (CEI) (Dio) = with "καὶ"

    βαπτίζων ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ] 892 = without

    ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ βαπτίζων καὶ] D Θ 28 700 l2211 ita itaur itb itc itff1 itl itq itr1 itt vg syrp (Eusebius Cyril-Jerusalem omit καὶ) Jerome Augustine ND = changed order

    ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ καὶ] geo2 = changed order

Joseph

ErrancyWiki
User avatar
cienfuegos
Posts: 346
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2014 6:23 pm

Re: Hans Does Not Sach

Post by cienfuegos »

Solo wrote:
MrMacSon wrote:
Solo wrote:.
I take the preaching of crucified Christ from James' church in Jerusalem to be fiction that arose around Matthew's time as a way to defeat the Paulinists.
ie.
".. the preaching of crucified Christ from James' church in Jerusalem to be fiction that arose around Matthew's time; as a way [for James' church] to defeat the Paulinists ??

[in a competition for followers; or a competition of theology; or both] ??
Both, but that is an involved matter.
MrMacSon wrote:
Solo wrote:.
The original claim of the Pauline churches was that he was the one and only true apostle of Christ and the gospel derived from him and him alone.
he - 'Paul'? "Simon"/'Paul'? or the doctrine around a 'Paul'?
Paul. I don't buy the Simon = Paul theory.
MrMacSon wrote:This is interesting -
Solo wrote:IMHO there is no other way that Mark's gospel makes any sense. This original schema was brilliantly overturned by Matthew, who codified the tradition of the twelve apostles (the Markan "apostolic inventory" 3:16-19 is a later fake), with Peter as an apostle and Jesus-certified leader of the church.

Starting with Matthew the only true tradition was the "witness" of the disciples. Luke was unable to handle this fundamental shift, and the account of Paul in the Acts was a compromise formula which settled for a portrait of the original apostle as the leading missionary and builder of the church among the Gentiles.

The Johanines fought the Petrine apostolate with the beloved disciple-paraclete theory, but the twelve apostles stuck. It was simply too dangerous to build the church on continuous revelations of the Risen One. The spiritualist church of living in the "last days" was finally defeated with the Montanists, and the church became the familiar Catholic faith, with the only authoritative witness of Christ by the twelve apostles led by Peter.
How have you come to this assessment/summary/conclusion? (I don't doubt, just genuinely seek to know)
Doubting is ok. The above is a digest that I landed on after absorbing a quantity of books on the texts and the Early Church.
MrMacSon wrote:
Solo wrote:The only thing I can really say to that is that those Pauline Christians who accepted Matthew's account must have believed in the reality of Jesus' ministry on Earth, even though they knew the gospel was symbolic fiction.
Subsequent generations may not have considered the gospel to be fiction - it would have, ironically, become & been "gospel truth" for those later generations
I believe Paul Tillich when he says that the patristic church basically cut itself from its own origins. It goes again back to suppressing the communal property of the Spirit in favour of the apostolic authority. On the question of historicity of the gospel events, the church had a split personality, on the one hand representing Jesus pronouncements as oracles of the Lord visiting the apostles, and on the other hand, as straightforward talk of historical Jesus in a definite time and place, received and remembered as oral history. One excellent example of the "double-think" is Irenaeus in A.H. 3.1 insisting that the apostles had to be first perfected by the holy spirit before preaching the gospel. Why would that be necessary if they were handpicked by Jesus himself and reported on actual events around him and his words (as Peter did for Mark) ? Evidently, there were two contradictory accounts: one of the oracles (logia) of the Lord which appears to be the original form of transmission (and to which one has access only via spirit), and the sayings (logoi) of Jesus of Nazareth, the man, which was how the revelatory artifacts were apprehended later.

Best,
Jiri

Yes, it is about controlling relevation, as I have said we have seen in more modern times with the emergence of the LDS religion. LDS leaders, even Joseph Smith, had to take steps to control wayward revelations.

This thread, by the way, has been a pleasure to read.
Post Reply