It's all yours (Was about a non-Nazareth indicator)

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: It's all yours (Was about a non-Nazareth indicator)

Post by neilgodfrey »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Mon Nov 20, 2017 6:11 am
Can you give an example of one or two of these features (using that translation)? I am not sure what kinds of things you are referring to.
Will try to do so. Principally it's the fast-moving, frequent present-tense, wham-bam pace of the narrative that does not lend itself, in my view, to an author taking time to struggle with pastiching this and that document or narrative into something new.
As for your final point, I have to confess that I routinely hear alarm bells when I see rhetorical questions functioning as arguments. The questions we ask and the interpretations we elicit are guided by the models that frame our approach to the gospels and their origins.
Ben C. Smith wrote: Mon Nov 20, 2017 6:11 am
Later you mention Occam. Would not Occam be on the side of suggesting that the similarities and differences in the two stories are more simply explained by an author playing with a theme than suggesting that other authors or tradents produced texts that our Marcan author has struggled to incorporate?
Here you seem to default to one approach, in advance, unless I am misreading you. You seem to be privileging the idea that the two feeding stories in Mark are the result of a single author playing with a theme rather than that the author encountered (whether in a text or in a tradition) two versions of the same story and incorporated both. A single author seems to be the assumption that other arguments would have to topple in order to be accepted. But why is that the default?
I was addressing the point about defaulting to the simplest hypothesis (Occam). Mark writing much the same way that wew know other authors generally wrote seems to me to be the simplest hypothesis.
Ben C. Smith wrote: Mon Nov 20, 2017 6:11 am
I would understand that as a default for a text by Plutarch or by Josephus or by Tacitus or by Philostratus, since those authors introduce themselves and lay out a plan of composition and openly evaluate their sources, at least a lot more than any of the evangelists do. But Mark? He does none of those things, so why ought we to treat his text in the same way that we treat, say, Suetonius' texts? Since the author does not (or the authors do not) give us any clues on how the gospel was composed, why should there be a default at all for Mark? Is it possible, a priori, that he composed his entire work simply from his own imagination and the LXX (and possibly Paul, though the argument has to be made here, and not just assumed)? Sure. Is it possible that he manipulated sources, just as (again, on Marcan priority) Matthew and Luke and John and Thomas and Peter and the Gnostic and Jewish-Christian gospels did? Sure. So why is a single creative author the default position? (Again, unless I am misunderstanding you.)
Of course we are even more inclined to be very cautious about what we read in an anonymous work than one that has a more easily identifiable provenance. Certainly. But as for authorship techniques, do we know that other authors (apart from anonymous or pseudonymous "biblical" ones) who composed works in any way markedly different from others?

When we think of our author piecing together in various ways (inclusios, modified echoes, doublets) material that he is pondering before him, trying to see how to fit it together to make a new story out of the disparate bits and pieces -- how many authors, ancient or modern or anywhere in between, wrote/write like that? More like editors or pastiche artists?
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: It's all yours (Was about a non-Nazareth indicator)

Post by neilgodfrey »

spin wrote: Mon Nov 20, 2017 6:22 am If you accept that the Marcan writer represents Jesus as having his home in Capernaum as per 2:1 and having an unnamed hometown (6:1) there are two distinct origins given for Jesus . . . If the writer knew what Jesus hometown was, it would be alien to the culture to obfuscate it, when gentilics were so important. The writer does not know Jesus' hometown, he has merely collected disparate information. This is consistent with the parallels—that have developed from a single source—within Mark.
If the gospel were a biography I can understand the importance of naming the hometown -- or even creating one if the real one was unknown. But I don't think the gospel is that kind of work. It is more about theological symbolism than anything else as far as I can see.
spin wrote: Mon Nov 20, 2017 6:22 am A significant question needs to be asked: if the earlier part of Mark appears to be made up of many small fragments, where did they come from? Were they individually created by those responsible for constructing the text? Are they the same people who constructed the longer stuff later on? The multiplicity of narrative elements in itself suggests a multiplicity of sources. Having narrative doublets is easy to understand in such a context. The use of the same story in two different settings is much less so.
I am not sure I understand why a multiplicity of narrative elements requires a multiplicity of sources -- if by "multiplicity of sources" we are thinking of "fragments" of oral and other written "traditions".
spin wrote: Mon Nov 20, 2017 6:22 amThere seems to be an aversion to oral sources behind the gospels. I gather the reason for this is the unfalsifiable claim that oral stories indicate some historical truth to the material.
If I am biased (and of course I have biases and aesthetic preferences) then at the same time I think the whole notion of dating the gospels within a generation of their narrated event and postulating oral sources is itself the product of a bias. Rather than simply say I am biased, it is more useful to address the criticisms and questions raised. My perspective is primarily influenced by extrapolation of the methods of OT "minimalists" -- and comparing these with what certain historians of ancient times have also had to say in the past about faults in the studies of the classics. NT studies seems to me to be still lagging behind.

One of a handful of exceptions, however: Barry Henaut's Oral Tradition and the Gospels: The Problem of Mark 4.

spin wrote: Mon Nov 20, 2017 6:22 amIt's nonsense, just as is the notion that the gospels were basically written by a single author or a group collaborating in what seems to be the one creative moment. The accretive production can be seen for example in the fact that beside Mark we have texts based on it, texts that themselves evince the accretive process. Why is Luke's genealogy not at the beginning of the text where it would normally belong? Why is the only place that Nazareth appears in Luke is in the birth narrative? Why does Luke 3:1 provide what appears to be a start of the narrative? Not only is Luke an accreted Mark, but it has had the birth narrative tacked on at a later period. The evidence for textual accretion is very strong. It is also observable in Matthew, so we have a culture approach to textual development evinced in Matthew and Luke, so we should assume that it is also the case in Mark and there is evidence to suggest it. The smaller units in earlier Mark suggest a collection of materials which are reworked and/or sandwiched together. Among the collected small fragments are traces of oral tradition, the doublet passages that have become dissimilated. I don't find the idea that a writer would simply use the same story in different contexts convincing or reflective of what we see in the gospels. Did the author(s) simply choose very few passages to duplicate? If duplication of stories were an editorial mechanism, like sandwiching, why so few times? The doublets for me are a good indication of dissimilated oral tradition.
Again, I find rhetorical arguments rely upon presumption or assumption rather than analytical argument and consideration of the alternative hypotheses. They close the door on alternative possibilities. While we certainly see signs of some form of editing in the gospel of Mark (and the canonical version is certainly not a true reflection of the original composition). You say the alternative hypothesis to yours is "nonsense" but what I would like to know is what other works were produced the same way you are suggesting the gospel of Mark was produced. (I'd rather keep it confined to GMark than complicating the question by bringing in the other gospels as well.) Or are we describing a process unique to biblical literature?
spin wrote: Mon Nov 20, 2017 6:22 amAs a parenthesis, my working theory is that the itinerant preachers mentioned in the Didache, who lived off different christian communities (getting food and lodging for the traditions and inventions they imparted), were the means of the spread and diversification of early christian traditions. They shared their wares with other preachers along the way, increasing the tradition pool. Some communities chose to systematise the various materials they received and this was the start of gospel tradition evolution.
I am not convinced that the Gospel of Mark demonstrates an interest in attempting to collate a string of stories about the person or career of Jesus. I would expect a different type of narrative (and also a discussion of sources and authorial identification) if that were so. Of course, that's where we disagree.

If I can add my own little parenthesis, I have just begun to read John Van Seters' The Edited Bible. Okay, Van Seters is getting old by now, but he argues that "editors" in the sense of persons pruning and putting together different sources to create new works did not exist in the ancient world. (That does not mean that an author could not take another's work and rewrite it, though. That's a different process for which we have surviving examples.)

(The question of how the gospels may have been written/compiled/edited... is probably one for a separate thread anyway, with just one detail at a time being addressed.)

----------------------------

Added Later . . . .

I don't mean to be somehow resting my argument on authority when I cite anyone. Rather, I am asking .... Do you agree? Are they wrong?
Last edited by neilgodfrey on Thu Nov 23, 2017 12:54 am, edited 1 time in total.
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: It's all yours (Was about a non-Nazareth indicator)

Post by Ben C. Smith »

neilgodfrey wrote: Wed Nov 22, 2017 6:35 pmWhen we think of our author piecing together in various ways (inclusios, modified echoes, doublets) material that he is pondering before him, trying to see how to fit it together to make a new story out of the disparate bits and pieces -- how many authors, ancient or modern or anywhere in between, wrote/write like that? More like editors or pastiche artists?
I am not sure what you are imagining my vision of Mark's possible procedure to be, so let me just cut right into it: I am imagining that Mark may be just like the other gospel authors (assuming Marcan priority), that maybe he was working with previous materials just like Matthew or Luke was. You ask how many authors wrote "like that" — and I am going to take "like that" to mean no more and no less than what I am proposing — so my answer is: pretty much all of the authors most important for comparison with Mark: to wit, the evangelists (the writers of gospels). I doubt you would characterize Matthew and Luke, for example, as mere pastiche artists, but I also doubt you would stand against the idea that they manipulated sources, and that is all I am claiming Mark may have done in the case, for instance, of the feedings, which is the example at hand.

My question was why you default to the position that Mark created the pair on his own rather than inheriting them from two different sources. So, basically, I am asking you why Mark may not be just like Matthew or Luke (again, assuming Marcan priority), who did that very kind of thing at various points, inheriting two similar passages from two other texts and including both, creating a doublet.

For example, assume (as most do) that Luke postdates both Mark and Matthew. Here is a Lucan doublet:

Luke 9.26-27: 26 "For whoever is ashamed of Me and My words, of him will the Son of Man be ashamed when He comes in His glory, and the glory of the Father and of the holy angels. 27 But I say to you truthfully, there are some of those standing here who shall not taste death until they see the kingdom of God."

Luke 12.8-9: 8 "And I say to you, everyone who confesses Me before men, the Son of Man shall confess him also before the angels of God; 9 but he who denies Me before men shall be denied before the angels of God."

If Mark and/or Matthew were lost to history, and if we were to press your assumptions about authorship, we would have to conclude that Luke was "playing with a theme" (to borrow your phrase for it), would we not?
neilgodfrey wrote:Would not Occam be on the side of suggesting that the similarities and differences in the two stories are more simply explained by an author playing with a theme than suggesting that other authors or tradents produced texts that our Marcan author has struggled to incorporate?
But in this case, no, it does appear that Luke got his doublet from two different sources:

1. Luke 9.26-27: 26 "For whoever is ashamed of Me and My words, of him will the Son of Man be ashamed when He comes in His glory, and the glory of the Father and of the holy angels. 27 But I say to you truthfully, there are some of those standing here who shall not taste death until they see the kingdom of God."

Matthew 16.27-28: 27 "For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels; and will then recompense every man according to his deeds. 28 Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who shall not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom."

Mark 8.38-9.1: 8.38 "For whoever is ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him will the Son of man also be ashamed, when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels." 9.1 And He was saying to them, "Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who shall not taste death until they see the kingdom of God after it has come with power."

2. Luke 12.8-9: 8 "And I say to you, everyone who confesses Me before men, the Son of Man shall confess him also before the angels of God; 9 but he who denies Me before men shall be denied before the angels of God."

Matthew 10.32-33: 32 "Everyone therefore who shall confess Me before men, I will also confess him before My Father who is in heaven. 33 "But whoever shall deny Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father who is in heaven."

The first saying (in Luke 9.26-27) has wording in common with Mark against Matthew, and the second saying (in Luke 12.8-9) parallels Matthew alone to the exclusion of Mark. So the two sayings came from two different sources (no matter how you cut them, even including Q and such in the mix).

Here is another example which assumes Lucan posteriority:

Luke 9.23: 23 And He was saying to them all, "If anyone wishes to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow Me."

Luke 14.25-27: 25 Now great multitudes were going along with Him; and He turned and said to them, 26 "If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple. 27 Whoever does not carry his own cross and come after Me cannot be My disciple."

Is this just a matter of Luke playing with a theme? Or did he have two different sources for the two different yet very similar sayings?

1. Luke 9.23: 23 And He was saying to them all, "If anyone wishes to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow Me."

Matthew 16.24: 24 Then Jesus said to His disciples, "If anyone wishes to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me."

Mark 8.34: 34 And He summoned the multitude with His disciples, and said to them, "If anyone wishes to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me."

2. Luke 14.25-27: 25 Now great multitudes were going along with Him; and He turned and said to them, 26 "If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple. 27 Whoever does not carry his own cross and come after Me cannot be My disciple."

Matthew 10.37-38: 37 "He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. 38 And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me."

Thomas also bears this doublet (Thomas 55 and 101).

We find something somewhat similar in Luke 9.1-6, which parallels both Matthew 10.5-16 and Mark 6.7-13, and Luke 10.1-12, which parallels Matthew 9.37-38 and 10.5-16 alone (except for only two words in common with Mark).

And what if we assume that Matthew postdates both Mark and Luke? Well, we find this doublet, for example:

1. Matthew 12.38-42: 38 Then some of the scribes and Pharisees answered Him, saying, "Teacher, we want to see a sign from You." 39 But He answered and said to them, "An evil and adulterous generation craves for a sign; and yet no sign shall be given to it but the sign of Jonah the prophet; 40 for just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the sea monster, so shall the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. 41 "The men of Nineveh shall stand up with this generation at the judgment, and shall condemn it because they repented at the preaching of Jonah; and behold, something greater than Jonah is here. 42 "The Queen of the South shall rise up with this generation at the judgment and shall condemn it, because she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and behold, something greater than Solomon is here."

Luke 11.29-32: 29 And as the crowds were increasing, He began to say, "This generation is a wicked generation; it seeks for a sign, and yet no sign shall be given to it but the sign of Jonah. 30 "For just as Jonah became a sign to the Ninevites, so shall the Son of Man be to this generation. 31 "The Queen of the South shall rise up with the men of this generation at the judgment and condemn them, because she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and behold, something greater than Solomon is here. 32 "The men of Nineveh shall stand up with this generation at the judgment and condemn it, because they repented at the preaching of Jonah; and behold, something greater than Jonah is here."

2. Matthew 16.1-4: 1 And the Pharisees and Sadducees came up, and testing Him asked Him to show them a sign from heaven. 2 But He answered and said to them, "When it is evening, you say, 'It will be fair weather, for the sky is red.' 3 And in the morning, 'There will be a storm today, for the sky is red and threatening.' Do you know how to discern the appearance of the sky, but cannot discern the signs of the times? 4 An evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign; and a sign will not be given it, except the sign of Jonah." And He left them, and went away.

Mark 8.11-12: 11 And the Pharisees came out and began to argue with Him, seeking from Him a sign from heaven, to test Him. 12 And sighing deeply in His spirit, He said, "Why does this generation seek for a sign? Truly I say to you, no sign shall be given to this generation."

Matthew 16.1-4 and Mark 8.11-12 are parallel in sequence (both occurring after the feeding of the 4000 and before the bit about the leaven of the
Pharisees), while Matthew 12.38-42 and Luke 11.29-32 are too similar in wording not to be connected somehow. On Matthean posteriority, Matthew appears to have two different sayings about Jesus' opponents seeking a sign from him, not (merely) because he is playing with a theme, but (also) because he has two different sources to draw from.

And there are the sayings on divorce in Matthew 5.31-32 and 19.3-12. Was he just riffing on a theme? Or did he get the former from Luke 16.18 and the latter from Mark 10.2-12?

There is even an example which would work with Matthean or with Lucan posteriority (Matthew 10.39; 16.25-26 = Mark 8.35-37 = Luke 9.24-25; 17.33). Either Luke has drawn similar sayings from both Matthew and Mark or Matthew has drawn similar sayings from both Luke and Mark.

Back to the feedings. Why is it more likely that Mark was "playing with a theme" all on his own than that he drew the feedings from two different sources, thus creating a doublet? My argument here is not that all doublets prove double sourcing (I personally doubt that the triple passion predictions do, for example), but rather that they can result from double sourcing, and they can do so in precisely the kind of literature that most begs for comparison: other gospels.

Another way of asking the same question: what makes Mark so different from the other evangelists that in his case alone is it safe to assume that he is not manipulating previous gospel sources?
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: It's all yours (Was about a non-Nazareth indicator)

Post by Secret Alias »

ignore
“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
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2817
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: It's all yours (Was about a non-Nazareth indicator)

Post by andrewcriddle »

neilgodfrey wrote: Wed Nov 22, 2017 7:21 pm .......................................................

If I can add my own little parenthesis, I have just begun to read John Van Seters' The Edited Bible. Okay, Van Seters is getting old by now, but he argues that "editors" in the sense of persons pruning and putting together different sources to create new works did not exist in the ancient world. (That does not mean that an author could not take another's work and rewrite it, though. That's a different process for which we have surviving examples.)

(The question of how the gospels may have been written/compiled/edited... is probably one for a separate thread anyway, with just one detail at a time being addressed.)

----------------------------

Added Later . . . .

I don't mean to be somehow resting my argument on authority when I cite anyone. Rather, I am asking .... Do you agree? Are they wrong?
I am not quite sure about what the distinction here between editing and rewriting entails. However, the Life of Pythagoras by Iamblichus (c 300 CE) is generally accepted as a new work produced by putting together different sources.

Andrew Criddle
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: It's all yours (Was about a non-Nazareth indicator)

Post by neilgodfrey »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Wed Nov 22, 2017 9:14 pm Another way of asking the same question: what makes Mark so different from the other evangelists that in his case alone is it safe to assume that he is not manipulating previous gospel sources?
Of course it is possible that Mark was drawing on prior oral or literary source narratives, but we have no evidence that he was. The argument reminds me a bit of the argument about where God came from? We can go back ad infinitum -- but at some point someone had to start the story or story doublets.
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: It's all yours (Was about a non-Nazareth indicator)

Post by neilgodfrey »

andrewcriddle wrote: Thu Nov 23, 2017 11:49 am I am not quite sure about what the distinction here between editing and rewriting entails. However, the Life of Pythagoras by Iamblichus (c 300 CE) is generally accepted as a new work produced by putting together different sources.

Andrew Criddle
I am not disputing the use of sources. But I am questioning the sort of cut and paste from sources into inclusios sometimes and at other times remoulding and refashioning a source to appear with different details at different points in the narrative; or that a source was already bifurcated and the author found need to enter both as if they are quite distinct events.

All ancient historians and biographers used sources. But did any write the way the evangelists are said to have used sources in composing the gospels?
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: It's all yours (Was about a non-Nazareth indicator)

Post by John2 »

Neil wrote:
Of course it is possible that Mark was drawing on prior oral or literary source narratives, but we have no evidence that he was.
I'm getting to be a big Papias fan. I'm already on board with what he says about Matthew being originally written in Hebrew, and the more I learn about Peter (and I now think 1 Peter is genuine, which mentions a Mark), and the fact that Papias lived in Asia Minor (where 1 Peter and Revelation are addressed and where Papias lived), the more I like what Papias says about Mark. He at least appears to have been in a position to know something about Peter, plus he is the first person to mention Mark, so I'm starting to lean towards Mark being written by someone who followed Peter, the Mark mentioned in 1 Pet. 5:13 (whether Peter approved of it or not). It's interesting to think about the gospel of Mark in this light, at least.
And the presbyter said this. Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord's sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: It's all yours (Was about a non-Nazareth indicator)

Post by Ben C. Smith »

neilgodfrey wrote: Fri Nov 24, 2017 4:08 pm
Ben C. Smith wrote: Wed Nov 22, 2017 9:14 pm Another way of asking the same question: what makes Mark so different from the other evangelists that in his case alone is it safe to assume that he is not manipulating previous gospel sources?
Of course it is possible that Mark was drawing on prior oral or literary source narratives, but we have no evidence that he was.
This sounds quite fair and all: maybe Mark was drawing on prior sources, and maybe he was not. It sounds like a judgment of non liquet. But you also wrote this:
Would not Occam be on the side of suggesting that the similarities and differences in the two stories are more simply explained by an author playing with a theme than suggesting that other authors or tradents produced texts that our Marcan author has struggled to incorporate?
Here you seem to be siding with the idea that Mark's doublets are the result of his own authorial creativity rather than the incorporating of prior sources. But why is this? Why does Occam side, in your opinion, with creative single authorship when we know little or nothing about the author(s)? Why are you assuming that Mark must be more like, say, Josephus or Plutarch and less like, say, Matthew and Luke, whose doublets did often arise from multiple sources? The only reason I can think of is that you believe that Mark is, not only the first gospel written among extant gospels, but also the first gospel written among all gospels ever written, whether still extant or not. Or do you have another reason for your assumption that I have not thought of? If not, then what is the evidence that Mark was the first gospel text ever penned?
The argument reminds me a bit of the argument about where God came from? We can go back ad infinitum -- but at some point someone had to start the story or story doublets.
That "someone" does not have to have started the entire story. It could have started small and grown over time.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1594
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Re: the critical text corruption spins you around again

Post by JoeWallack »

Steven Avery wrote: Thu Nov 16, 2017 9:41 pm Nahh, I can be pretty sure the learned men know the Greek better than you OR it is a minority textual corruption that you wrongly think is original.

And checking, you are following the corruption text, which will tend to mess up many things. Rather than the ultra-minority corruption I'm following the text that is based on probably 95%+ of the Greek mss, including many uncials. Many years, many times, I have encouraged you to use the pure Bible.

Laparola - http://www.laparola.net/greco/index.php ... 8&rif2=2:1
ἐν οἴκῳ] p88 ‭א B D L W Θ Σ 33 571 892 1071 pc WH
εἰς οἴκον] A C Γ Δ Π Φ 090 0130 f1 f13 22 28 157 330 543 565 579 Byz ς

And note that they rig the data presentation as well, and tend to omit many uncials that have the true text.

That little Byz represents 1500+ mss.

And the Latin supports "the house" as well. Most likely the Syriac, but I have not checked. They tend to omit Byz supports in the apparatuses in order to trick the dupes.

Steven
JW:
Regarding the Textual Criticism question here:
Laparola - http://www.laparola.net/greco/index.php ... 8&rif2=2:1
ἐν οἴκῳ] p88 ‭א B D L W Θ Σ 33 571 892 1071 pc WH
εἰς οἴκον] A C Γ Δ Π Φ 090 0130 f1 f13 22 28 157 330 543 565 579 Byz ς
From a Skeptical standpoint the Manuscript evidence for "ἐν οἴκῳ", "at home" (note that the Markan usage has a context here of location (at home) and not possession (his house). "They" know where he is and come running.), is clearly qualitatively superior but I fear the average Skeptic does not appreciate how much superior. Based on the brave and truthful NA (the standard for Bible Scholarship) ratings the witnesses for the two readings rate as follows:

Distribution of Greek manuscripts by century and category

Witness Date Text Type NA Rating Reading
Codex Sinaiticus 350 Alexandrian 1 Home
Codex Vaticanus 350 Alexandrian 1 Home
p88 350 Alexandrian 1 Home
Codex Regius 700 Alexandrian 2 Home
Codex Koridethi 850 Alexandrian 2 Home
Manuscript 33 850 Alexandrian 2 Home
Codex Ephraemi 450 Weak Alexandrian 2 House
Codex Washingtonianus 400 Caesarean 3 Home
Codex Alexandrinus 425 Byzantine 3 House
Codex Bezae 450 Western 4 Home

Note that based on the above the qualitative Textual support strongly favors "home". The bul(l)k of the "witnesses" for "house" are rated weaker than a Category 5 and post 9th century. As is typical this coordinates with the very critical criterion of Direction of Change. "Home", supported by the qualitative and early witness, was seen as a difficult reading, and the change to exorcise the difficulty is evidence of "home's" originality.

In the bigger picture though I think "home" here is evidence of "Mark's" (author) intentional fiction and not evidence of a source for "Mark".


Joseph

The New Porphyry
Post Reply