Lost Lachmann demonstration re Mark 1:2-3

[neilgodfrey]

...

[neilgodfrey]

...

[Peter Kirby]

The NTVMR website has a "NT Conjectures" feature, which includes hypotheses about interpolations.

https://ntvmr.uni-muenster.de/nt-conjectures

Under Mark 1:2-3, it lists: Lachmann, “Rechenschaft” (1830), 844–845, with this citation:

… er [Mark] bedient sich niemals einer Stelle des Alten Testaments außer in Reden. Aber kann wohl das Citat, 1, 2. 3. für echter als dieses [Mark 15:28] gehalten werden? Wir haben, es zu verwerfen, auch nicht den kleinsten äußern Grund: denn die gleich gut bezeugten Lesarten ἐν τῷ Ἠσαΐᾳ τῷ προφήτῃ und ἐν τοῖς προφήταις können dafür nicht gelten. Allein Marcus Weise ist es nicht nur wie das andre zuwider, sondern hier ist noch gar wunderbar eine Stelle, die Matthäus 11, 10. bei andrer Gelegenheit hat, mit der aus Jesaias, deren sich die übrigen Evangelisten bedienen, verknüpft worden. Wollte der Schriftsteller am Anfang des Buches etwas besondres thun, etwas, das er im ganzen Buche nicht wieder that, nun, so war doch wohl nothwendiger ein Zeugniß der heiligen Schrift von Christo selbst als von seinem Vorläufer. Noch mehr, die Worte unterbrechen den Gang der Rede bis zur völligen Unverständlichkeit, der ohne sie einfach und eben ist, ἀρχὴ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ υἱοῦ Θεοῦ ἐγένετο Ἰωάννης, βαπτίζων ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ καὶ κηρύσσων βάπτισμα μετανοίας εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν. Denn so verbindet ganz richtig Origenes 4, 15. in den Worten πῶς γὰρ δύναται ἀρχὴ εἶναι τοῦ εὐαγγελίου—ὁ Ἰωάννης; Unmöglich kann ἐγένετο Ἰωάννης βαπτίζων genommen werden für ἦν βαπτίζων. Ganz anders sagt Johannes 1, 6. ἐγένετο ἄνθρωπος, ἀπεσταλμένος παρὰ Θεοῦ, indem er die Rede fortschreiten läßt, die er begonnen hatte πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, worauf sich bezieht ἐγένετο ἄνθρωπος. Auch Marc. 9, 7. καὶ ἐγένετο νεφέλη ἐπισκιάζουσα αὐτοῖς ist nicht zu verstehen ἦν ἐπισκιάζουσα, sondern Lucas erklärt 9, 34. ἐγένετο νεφέλη καὶ ἐπεσκίασεν αὐτούς. Also Marcus konnte den Satz in seine Rede unmöglich einflechten: hingegen ein frommer Leser, der die Anmerkung beischrieb, hatte nicht Rücksicht zu nehmen auf Marcus Gebrauch, auf Schicklichkeit und auf den Zusammenhang der Rede. Er setzte, glaube ich, zuerst nur das Wort der Schrift hinzu, das bei dieser Erzählung stets angeführt ward, ὡς γέγραπται ἐν τῷ Ἠσαΐᾳ τῷ προφήτῃ Φωνὴ βοῶντος ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ, ἑτοιμάσατε τὴν ὁδὸν κυρίου, εὐθείας ποιεῖτε τὰς τρίβους αὐτοῦ. Nachher ward auch die Stelle aus Maleachi hinzugefügt, und weil sie bestimmter auf die Person eines Vorläufers deutet, vorangestellt, Ἰδοὺ ἀποστέλλω τὸν ἄγγελόν μου πρὸ προσώπου σου, ὃς κατασκευάσει τὴν ὁδόν σου. Nun war freilich passender ἐν τοῖς προφήταις: aber kein Wunder, wenn sich die ältere Lesart mit Jesaias Namen doch auch erhielt.

Which might be translated:

...he [Mark] never uses a passage from the Old Testament except in speeches. But can the citation, 1:2-3, be considered truer than this [Mark 15:28]? We have no reason to reject it, not even the slightest external reason: for the equally well-attested readings "ἐν τῷ Ἠσαΐᾳ τῷ προφήτῃ" [in Isaiah the prophet] and "ἐν τοῖς προφήταις" [in the prophets] cannot apply to it. However, Marcus Weise finds fault not only with this like the others, but here there is a rather remarkable passage, which in another context Matthew 11:10 has, which has been linked with that from Isaiah, which the other evangelists use. If the author wanted to do something special at the beginning of the book, something he did not do in the whole book, well, then a testimony of Holy Scripture about Christ himself was surely more necessary than about his forerunner. Furthermore, the words interrupt the flow of the speech to complete incomprehensibility, which without them is simple and straightforward, ἀρχὴ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ υἱοῦ Θεοῦ ἐγένετο Ἰωάννης, βαπτίζων ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ καὶ κηρύσσων βάπτισμα μετανοίας εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν [The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. There came John baptizing in the wilderness, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.]. For this reason, Origen rightly connects, in 4.15, the words "πῶς γὰρ δύναται ἀρχὴ εἶναι τοῦ εὐαγγελίου—ὁ Ἰωάννης;" [For how can the beginning of the Gospel be John?] It's impossible that ἐγένετο Ἰωάννης βαπτίζων [there came John baptizing] be taken for ἦν βαπτίζων [he was Baptizing]. Quite differently, John 1:6 says, "ἐγένετο ἄνθρωπος, ἀπεσταλμένος παρὰ Θεοῦ," [A man came, sent from God] allowing the speech to progress, he had begun "πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο," [All things came through him] to which ἐγένετο ἄνθρωπος refers. Also, in Mark 9:7, "καὶ ἐγένετο νεφέλη ἐπισκιάζουσα αὐτοῖς" [and there came a cloud overshadowing them] is not to be understood as "ἦν ἐπισκιάζουσα," [it was Overshadowing] but as Luke explains in 9:34, "ἐγένετο νεφέλη καὶ ἐπεσκίασεν αὐτούς." [there came a cloud and overshadowed them] So, Mark could not possibly incorporate the sentence into his speech; however, a pious reader who added the note did not have to consider Mark's usage, propriety, and the context of the speech. I believe he first added only the word of Scripture, which was always quoted in this narrative, "ὡς γέγραπται ἐν τῷ Ἠσαΐᾳ τῷ προφήτῃ Φωνὴ βοῶντος ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ, ἑτοιμάσατε τὴν ὁδὸν κυρίου, εὐθείας ποιεῖτε τὰς τρίβους αὐτοῦ." [As it is written in Isaiah the prophet, “the voice of one crying in the wilderness: ‘Prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths straight,’”] Afterwards, the passage from Malachi was also added, and since it more specifically points to the person of a forerunner, it was placed at the beginning, "Ἰδοὺ ἀποστέλλω τὸν ἄγγελόν μου πρὸ προσώπου σου, ὃς κατασκευάσει τὴν ὁδόν σου." [Behold, I send my messenger before your face, who will prepare your way] Of course, "ἐν τοῖς προφήταις" [in the prophets] would have been more appropriate; but no wonder if the older reading with the name of Isaiah still persisted.

[Peter Kirby]

This appears to be a link to Lachmann's text.

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

I might add a point about the potential relevance of the argument that Mark 1:2-3 were not part of the original text. In the view of Raschke, without those two verses the door to an entirely different (non-Elijah/OT) theological interpretation of John the Baptist's role opens -- an interpretation that enticed an orthodox copyist to add the two verses to bring John into the "orthodox fold".

Part of the problem is how to understand the first four verses. I know at least three interpretations

Traditional view

(Title) The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ

(Narrative) As it has been written in the prophet Isaiah: “Behold, I send My messenger before Your face, who will prepare Your way.” “The voice of one crying in the wilderness, ‘Prepare the way of the Lord, make straight His paths.’” John came baptizing in the wilderness ...

Modern view (the argument is καθὼς = such as)

(Title) The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, such as it has been written in the prophet Isaiah.

(Chorus) “Behold, I send My messenger before Your face, who will prepare Your way.” “The voice of one crying in the wilderness, ‘Prepare the way of the Lord, make straight His paths.’”

(Narrative) John came baptizing in the wilderness ...

Gustav Volkmar

(Narrative) The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ (- as it has been written in the prophet Isaiah - “Behold, I send My messenger before Your face, who will prepare Your way.” “The voice of one crying in the wilderness, ‘Prepare the way of the Lord, make straight His paths.’”) was John baptizing in the wilderness ...

[neilgodfrey]

...

[neilgodfrey]

...

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

Moreover, the Isaiah passage in its original context does not easily apply to a John the Baptist figure --

If that were also my understanding, then I would agree with you and also find the verses very suspicious. Personally, I share the modern view of the structure of the first four verses and do not understand the passage as primarily referring to John.

imho one of the main problems for Lachmann and Volkmar was the beginning of verse 4 (ἐγένετο Ἰωάννης – it became John). If you want to use that as the beginning of a sentence, it of course has a slightly mystical touch. But I don't have any problem with that. Others certainly do.

[neilgodfrey]

...