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

[JoeWallack]

JW:
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)
  ...

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.

A review of English Bibles at:

BibleGateway

shows that about half of the popular bibles and half of all bibles have "John the Baptist".

I've demonstrated Ad Nazorean that in general Josephus was likely a major source for "Mark" (author):

Mark's" Fourth Philosophy Source (After Imagination, Paul & Jewish Bible) = Josephus

and specifically here Josephus has the only known reference to this John who was baptizing prior to GMark:

Antiquities of the Jews - Book XVIII CHAPTER 5

2. Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist: for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing [with water] would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away [or the remission] of some sins [only], but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness. Now when [many] others came in crowds about him, for they were very greatly moved [or pleased] by hearing his words, Herod, who feared lest the great influence John had over the people might put it into his power and inclination to raise a rebellion, (for they seemed ready to do any thing he should advise,) thought it best, by putting him to death, to prevent any mischief he might cause, and not bring himself into difficulties, by sparing a man who might make him repent of it when it would be too late. Accordingly he was sent a prisoner, out of Herod's suspicious temper, to Macherus, the castle I before mentioned, and was there put to death. Now the Jews had an opinion that the destruction of this army was sent as a punishment upon Herod, and a mark of God's displeasure to him.

Note that only going by the English translation, "John, that was called the Baptist", we have a difference between Josephus' description and the common Christian Bible phrase "John the Baptist". "The Baptist" in Josephus is a substitute name for John while "the Baptist" in the Christian Bible is a title for John. Thus we have no direct extant evidence that anyone used the phrase "John the Baptist" before GMark but it is easy to get there from Josephus. If 1:4 did not contain the Greek word for "the" in the phrase and meant "John was baptizing" (verb and not part of a title) than "Mark" used his own previous narrative in 1:4 as the basis for his subsequent narrative title "John the Baptist".

Everyone welcome to comment except for Harvey Dubish and Outhouse.



Joseph

ErrancyWiki

[JoeWallack]

JW:
Mark 1:5

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

Is "river" original?

Laparola

ποταμῷ] Byz ς WH
omit] D W Θ 28 565 799 ita Eusebius

4215 [e] potamō ποταμῷ river, N-DMS

You say potamo, I say -. We have a minimum amount of quality witness here against "river" as original. Sticking it to the son of man with the External, early witness:

Matthew 3:5

Then went out unto him Jerusalem, and all Judaea, and all the region round about the Jordan; (ASV)

First invocation of "Jordan" and no "river".

Luke 3:3

And he came into all the region round about the Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance unto remission of sins; (ASV)

Again, first invocation of "Jordan" and no "river". Luukeee, ya got sum splainin ta do!

Now the (Internal) leg, huh:

Does "Mark" (author) in general have unorthodox presentation of geographical locations:

Kartagraphy Markoff. Did "Mark" Get Any Geography Right?

Does a Bar take a Peshitta to read in the woods?

As to possible sources for GMark here it has been demonstrated Ad Nazorean in this unholy Forum that "Mark's" baptism story parallels reMarkably well with the Elijah/Elisha baptism story:

2 Kings 2:6

And Elijah said unto him, Tarry here, I pray thee; for Jehovah hath sent me to the Jordan. And he said, As Jehovah liveth, and as thy soul liveth, I will not leave thee. And they two went on. (ASV)

No "river". Of course this is a part of a much larger work which would have previously identified the Jordan as a river. No such previous identification in GMark. Another excellent candidate for a Markan source:

Antiquities 18.5.2 116-119

Here Josephus indicates that John was baptizing but does not give any location.

So, more than enough minimum External and Internal evidence to consider "river" a candidate for being unoriginal. Now, the difficult reading principle. Which is more likely, that copyists added or deleted "river"? Without "river", how would an illiterate living outside of Israel (most of "Mark's" audience) know where/what "Jordan" was, especially considering GMark is a Greek writing for an Aramaic setting with a Hebrew origin?

As my famous ancestor Joseph supposedly said, "What more evidence do we need?".


Joseph

ErrancyWiki