MARKed - astonishing text variants

[Paul the Uncertain]

Because of the older textual witnesses and the Difficult Reading Principle, the text critics prefer "in Isaiah the Prophet" in Mark 1:2. There's nothing really to say about that (unless you discuss it with Steven Avery ).

Then I won't trouble you by saying anything about it here.

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

Then I won't trouble you by saying anything about it here.

Oh Paul please excuse me. I mistakenly assumed

- that only defenders of the textus receptus stick to the Byzantine text variant and
- your comment was more of a strategic argument in the discussion, but didn't really form your opinion on this text variant.

Feel free to defend the variant with all your might. Your arguments are always appreciated by me.

[robert j]

I am therefore inclined to assume that the structure of the beginning of GMark is like this:

Beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, as it is written in Isaiah the prophet.

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 his paths straight!

John appeared, baptizing in the wilderness ...

I fully agree with KK on this.

From a thread in 2014 ---
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=673

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote in another thread,

Isaiah is used here more as an “internal” part of Mark´s story and not only as an echo in the background. The allusion is not only an allusion, it enables the understanding of Mark.

I have re-posted here my 2014 response to KK’s statement above, with some editing ---

Mark’s reveals the overall theme of his story in his opening line ---

"Beginning of the announcement of good news (τοῦ εὐαγγελίου) of Jesus Christ, as it has been written in Isaiah the prophet." (Mark 1:1-2a).

Most investigators understand the phrase, "as it has been written in Isaiah the prophet", as an introduction to the citations from the Jewish scriptures that follow. But the citations that follow are derived from Exodus (23:20) and Malachi (3:1). It's not until verse three that Marks cites Isaiah (40.3).

I agree that Mark's opening line is a stand-alone statement --- a separate unit from the citations of scripture that follow --- a statement that Mark’s entire tale constituted the beginning of the good news as found in Isaiah.

But Mark imagined much of his beginning --- he brought Paul’s story of a heavenly man-spirit down to earth in recent times --- as a tale with a human Jesus that was more accessible to everyone.

And here is the announcement of good news to which the author of GMark was referring, as written in Isaiah (LXX) ---

Go up on a high mountain, O one announcing good news (ευαγγελιζόμενος) of Zion. Raise up high the strength of your voice, O one announcing good news (ευαγγελιζόμενος) of Jerusalem. … the Lord comes with strength … As a shepherd he will tend his flock and his arms will gather the lambs … (Isaiah 40:9-11).

Therefore my people will know my name. On account of this in that day, for I am he, the one speaking. I am at hand. As an hour upon the mountains, as feet announcing good news (ευαγγελιζόμενου), of a report of peace, as announcing good news (ευαγγελιζομένου) of good things, for I will make your deliverance heard … (Isaiah 52:6-7)

And the Lord will reveal his holy arm before all the nations. And all the ends of the earth will see the deliverance of our God. (Isaiah 52:10).

The spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he anointed me to announce good news (ευαγγελίσασθαι) to the poor. He has sent me to heal the broken hearted, to proclaim a release to captives and recovery of sight to the blind … (Isaiah 61:1).

And along with the explicit announcements of good news, a suffering savior and his resurrection can be found in Isaiah 53:1-12.

I suspect that most Jews and Gentile God-fearers were quite familiar with the good news and the suffering servant in Isaiah --- these were likely popular and well known passages.

Mark painted a picture worth a thousand words --- just with his opening line.

[dbz]

Was "to heal sicknesses" a Markan original?

Mark 3:15 Notes
Textus Receptus vs. Westcott/Hort + Tischendorf

Textus Receptus: And to have power to heal sicknesses, and to cast out devils —και εχειν εξουσιαν θεραπευειν τας νοσους και εκβαλλειν τα δαιμονια[2]

Westcott/Hort + Tischendorf: And to have authority to heal sicknesses, and to drive out the demons —καὶ ἔχειν ἐξουσίαν ἐκβάλλειν τὰ δαιμόνια·

[Paul the Uncertain]

Thank you for your kind response, Kunigunde.

I have no wish to argue the assumptions of text criticism at this time.

I find it fabulously unlikely that Mark would misrepresent his source. What did he write instead? I don't know. Perhaps Matthew 3:3 (where only Isaiah is alluded to and mentioned) reflects what Mark wrote. That possibility is not even an admissible hypothesis in text criticism.

Then again, maybe Matthew 3:3 became a model some scribe sought to harmonize Mark with. The feeble "difficult reading" heuristic provides no way even to evaluate that possibility.

A factual error is mechanically labeled more "difficult" than factual accuracy, without considering who would be in error about what: Mark describing his personal excavation of the Jewish Bible of which he was a demonstrated elite expositor, or some copyist of unknowable qualifications, whether of Jewish Bible exposition or of the skill needed to copy a text accurately.

Then again, maybe it was the scribe, but not quite their fault. You know how it supposedly is with first and last pages - maybe the exemplar was damaged. Verse 1:2a was illegible, something about the prophet or maybe the prophets? Meh, half of it is from Isaiah (Matthew is a reliable authority for that much), and what's a "mash up" anyway?

None of the above has anything to do with the discussion I was having in the other thread,

viewtopic.php?p=159782#p159782

The immediate context was whether Mark used OT mash-ups and so whether an altogether different passage might indeed combine material from both Jonah and the Psalms, against the teaching of rgprice to the contrary. (Which teaching he may have "walked back" since then.)

Colleague dbz pointed out that text critics estimate that Mark mislabeled 1:2-3. Fair enough, but the issue was whether Mark actually used mash-ups, NOT whether Mark acknowledged the mash-ups he used. A casual rebuttal, then, to a casual reservation about an example offered in support of a completely different point than would arise in this thread.

I do not deny what text critics consense; I do find an impliclation of that consensus implausible in this case.

I don't profess anything stronger than a plausible approximation to what was intended by the author Mark. I believe that the best approximation obtainable today (1) is free of blatant factual error about the author's then-recent personal behavior and (2) preserves as much text as seems to be nearly unanimous in the witnesses (= Mark alludes to both Isaiah and Malachi, the latter selection showing influence from Exodus).

Thank you again.

[dbz]

I suspect that most Jews and Gentile God-fearers were quite familiar with the good news and the suffering servant in Isaiah --- these were likely popular and well known passages.

Mark painted a picture worth a thousand words --- just with his opening line.

• The LXX Isaiah text is notable.

[The LXX Books of Isaiah and Ezekiel] depict Galilee of the Gentiles as specially appointed to receive salvation in the messianic age, and, further, as a land which will be one of the first to experience God’s deliverance. The writer of Isa. viii. 23–ix. 6 proclaims that the light of the messianic day will disperse the shadow of death lying over “Galilee of the Gentiles”; and the LXX text of ch. viii. 23 begins with a notable addition . . . that God will pour forth this light of His salvation first upon Galilee[149] . . . according to Ezek. xlvii. 1–12, the prophet beholds a river issuing from under the threshold of the house of the Lord in Jerusalem. . . . and it was flowing towards Galilee (verse 8)!

—G. H. Boobyer[150]

The Book of Isaiah anticipates that emissaries will preach the word of God to the Gentiles and that a savior figure will restore the Jews that were disenfranchised by the Assyrian captivity and who still continue to live among the Gentiles in regions like Galilee.[151][152]

---

"Jesus myth theory". RationalWiki. Retrieved 6 September 2023.

---

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

Was "to heal sicknesses" a Markan original?

Most likely not.

Mark 3:15 Notes
Textus Receptus vs. Westcott/Hort + Tischendorf

Textus Receptus: And to have power to heal sicknesses, and to cast out devils —και εχειν εξουσιαν θεραπευειν τας νοσους και εκβαλλειν τα δαιμονια[2]

Westcott/Hort + Tischendorf: And to have authority to heal sicknesses, and to drive out the demons —καὶ ἔχειν ἐξουσίαν ἐκβάλλειν τὰ δαιμόνια·

At first glance, the Byzantine variant (Textus Receptus) appears to be a harmonization between the Alexandrian text (Westcott/Hort + Tischendorf) and the Western text, the latter harmonizing Mark with Matthew and Luke/Marcion.

Alexandrian text	Western text	Byzantine text
14 ... that they might be with Him, and that he might send them to preach 15 and to have authority to cast out demons.	14 ... that they might be with Him, and that he might send them to preach the gospel, 15 and gave them authority to heal sicknesses and to cast out demons.	14 ... that they might be with Him, and that he might send them to preach 15 and to have authority to heal sicknesses and to cast out demons.

As internal reasons I would argue that the phrase "healing sickness" would be unique to Mark and imho cannot be seen as part of the "authority" (ἐξουσία) of Jesus as Mark describes that authority in other passages.

Do you have a special interest in this text variant?

[dbz]

Do you have a special interest in this text variant?

"exorcist" (ἐξορκιστής / exorkistís) may indicate a middle-platonic relationship.
but
"healing power" (εξουσιαν θεραπευειν / exousian therapevein) could also?

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

Do you have a special interest in this text variant?

"exorcist" (ἐξορκιστής / exorkistís) may indicate a middle-platonic relationship.
but
"healing power" (εξουσιαν θεραπευειν / exousian therapevein) could also?

In GMark the healing power is the δύναμις (dynamis), not the ἐξουσία (exousia) (see Mark 5:30; Mark 6:5) and the healing success necessarily requires faith. (Greetings from Paul!)

imho in GMatthew, GLuke/GMarcion the healing power are such that they could heal anyone, including unbelievers.

[dbz]

In GMark the healing power is the δύναμις (dynamis), not the ἐξουσία (exousia) (see Mark 5:30; Mark 6:5)

Hebrew terms vs Greek philosophical terminology employed in the Septuagint to convey said Hebrew concept:

Per one (but not necessarily representative of all possible usage of the word) Septuagint example:

• Psalm 62:11 (Psalm 63:11 in Hebrew numbering): "..power (δύναμις/ΔΎΝΑΜΙΣ/dýnamis) belongs to God." And "δύναμις" in the Gospel of Mark is attributed to the supernatural power of Jesus. N.B. "ἐξουσίαν/exousían" is closely related to the "δύναμις/dýnamis" (power) of Jesus.

The concept of authority (ἐξουσία - exousia) per healing (θεραπεύειν - therapeuein) and exorcism (εκβαλλειν τα δαιμονια - ekvallein ta daimonia) occurs in the Gospel of Mark.