MARKed - astonishing text variants

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 3401
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: MARKed - astonishing text variants

Post by DCHindley »

Ben,

I'm open to correction <sob>.

Yes, I was aware that time is not always the prime focus of some Greek verbal forms. When I learned this kind of stuff in the late 1970s, time seemed to be more heavily stressed. I am, after all, old and decrepit.
Snapshot_20160914.JPG
Snapshot_20160914.JPG (40.06 KiB) Viewed 5673 times
Scroll down to see problem, and no SA, I am not referring to my moon unit.

But isn't there a future perfect tense that might seem more appropriate for a prediction, assuming that such a form for that verb was in use at that time?

Considering how Hebrew verbs really do not indicate time but action, with the time frame being implied by context, I'd like to know more about the way "cock crow" was used in the Talmud, and by that I mean, the grammar of it all. Perhaps someone like Iskander can illuminate. As the way translators have treated these denial stories of Peter, there is an effort to make the reference more definite that it seems it actually was. Were these phrases clearly references to a specific watch of the day, or like here a vague reference to the sound of a rooster like in the gospels?

But to get back to Peter's ears. What, exactly, was to remind Peter that he denied Jesus? Was it an actual rooster crowing, or some other indication that the time of a watch has arrived? I find it hard to believe that watches were publically proclaims: "Hear ye hear ye! In case you haven't noticed, it is morning! WAKE UP!" To me, watches were specific to internal, not public, observance of time. Households, businesses, militaries. Even medieval heralds were delivering news, not time notices (like the annoying watchtower guard in the castle tower of ID in the Wizard of ID comic strip). It cannot be an actual rooster crowing, on cue, as they crow all friggin' day long, despite the preconception of city dwellers that they "really" only do it in the morning.

I'd prefer to think that Jesus was joking with Peter, and the chance occurrence of a rooster crowing right after he actually does what Jesus joked about, suddenly making it into a very serious issue in his mind. This tells us more about the development of the idea that Jesus was prescient, by using Peter as an example. Maybe he was the one to first start to speculate that Jesus was more than a mere man, and the Gospel writers retell the tale. I dunno.

It is perhaps best to leave this matter alone (barring the imput of Hebrew speakers).

DCH
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: MARKed - astonishing text variants

Post by Ben C. Smith »

DCHindley wrote:But isn't there a future perfect tense that might seem more appropriate for a prediction, assuming that such a form for that verb was in use at that time?
No, not really. As long as the main verb is in the future tense, which it is, the verbs subordinate to it are free to express aspect. Even in English we do not use the future tense in the way you are suggesting. We use the present tense.

We say: "Before a cock crows, you will deny me."
We do not (usually) say: "Before a cock will crow, you will deny me."

As long as "you will deny me" is in the future tense, the whole sentence is set in the future.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 2110
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: MARKed - astonishing text variants

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin »

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote:If I understand it correctly then there is a further problem that could have caused the textual problems. Logically, we look at Mark 14:67-72 and think that the sequence must be
first denial, first crow, second denial, third denial, second crow

We interpret it as “before the rooster crows the second time, you will deny me three times.”

But literally and precisely Jesus’ prediction says another thing. Right? Especially because of this particle that stands directly before the “twice”. Jesus said: Before twice the rooster crows, thrice me you will deny. That would point to this scenario:
first denial, second denial, third denial, first crow, second crow

If you look at the problem from this perspective, there is an interesting point. The problem, that Jesus’ prophecy in this reading variant went seemingly wrong, is the first crow after the first denial. Without this first crow, there would be no greater problem.

There would be two obvious possibilities to correct the seemingly “contradiction” in this reading variant. The first possibility is to change the two crows in one crow. That would be a rather rigouros correction of the text, but with a clear story at the end. The second possibility is to omit the first crow in Mark 14:68 as the critical point. In the latter case the reader would surely ask at Mark 14:72 (“Immediately the rooster crowed the second time”), when the rooster has crowed the first time, but because of the omitting there would be no clear contradiction to the prophecy of Jesus. This would be a gentle correction of the text, although the story would be not so clear.

It may be interesting that our oldest codices, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, show exactly both variants, Sinaiticus the first and Vaticanus the second.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: MARKed - astonishing text variants

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote:
Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote:If I understand it correctly then there is a further problem that could have caused the textual problems. Logically, we look at Mark 14:67-72 and think that the sequence must be
first denial, first crow, second denial, third denial, second crow

We interpret it as “before the rooster crows the second time, you will deny me three times.”

But literally and precisely Jesus’ prediction says another thing. Right? Especially because of this particle that stands directly before the “twice”. Jesus said: Before twice the rooster crows, thrice me you will deny. That would point to this scenario:
first denial, second denial, third denial, first crow, second crow

If you look at the problem from this perspective, there is an interesting point. The problem, that Jesus’ prophecy in this reading variant went seemingly wrong, is the first crow after the first denial. Without this first crow, there would be no greater problem.
If language were always created and used in perfectly logical ways, then I could probably follow you down this path. But I think that, in practice, "twice" is sometimes used as a synonym for "a second time" or "again".

First, in English: "Experience is the ability to see a mistake before it happens twice." I do not imagine that this line means that the trick is to figure things out before a mistake happens twice in immediate succession; I think that explicit allowance is being made for a mistake to be made once, but for the lesson to be learned before it happens a second time (or again).

Second, in ancient Greek: we encounter the expression "once and twice" (ἅπαξ καὶ δίς) fairly commonly. Were it "once or twice", it would not apply to the case at hand, but as it is "once and twice" the meaning, according to your strictly logical way of reading δίς, would have to be "a total of three times" (once plus twice = thrice; 1 + 2 = 3). But take 1 Kingdoms 17.39a, for example:

And he girt David with his sword over his coat; and he made trial walking with them once and twice [ἅπαξ καὶ δίς]....

Are we to understand that David tried walking about with arms and armor three times, once on its own account and then twice again in tandem somehow? Or are we to understand that David tried it once, and then tried it again (a second time)? I suspect the latter; do you not? And that is how translations such as Brenton's takes it:

And he girt David with his sword over his coat: and he made trial walking with them once and again....

Refer also to Deuteronomy 9.13; Nehemiah 13.20; 1 Maccabees 3.30; Philippians 4.16; 1 Thessalonians 2.18.
Last edited by Ben C. Smith on Thu Apr 27, 2017 12:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 2110
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: MARKed - astonishing text variants

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin »

That may be all fine. But do you think that "δὶς" has the meaning of "again" or "second time", when it stands directly next to "thrice" and the word for "second time" occurs in the verse?
Na28 - Mark 14:72
καὶ εὐθὺς ἐκ δευτέρου ἀλέκτωρ ἐφώνησεν. Καὶ ἀνεμνήσθη ὁ Πέτρος τὸ ῥῆμα ὡς εἶπεν αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς ὅτι πρὶν ἀλέκτορα φωνῆσαι δὶς τρίς με ἀπαρνήσῃ·
And immediately the second time the rooster crowed. And remembered the Peter the word which had spoken to him the Jesus: "Before the rooster crows twice, thrice me you will deny.
And have you ever seen a translation of Mark which translated "δὶς" not as twice?
iskander
Posts: 2091
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:38 pm

Re: MARKed - astonishing text variants

Post by iskander »

It is not a prophecy. A leader of a reforming group knows that his time is up. He expresses doubts as to the ability of the group to live up to his programme and later on this leader will die feeling abandoned by his God. He fears his teaching will be compromised by his followers.
Mark tells of this despair in the denial of Peter, in the garden, his silence in front of Pilate and his death.
There is no contradiction; different people tell the same story differently and the transmission of the text may have copyist errors. Above all there is no prophecy.
Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 2110
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: When a rooster crows in the Codex Regius L (019)

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin »

Meanwhile I think, that this is the thing I was looking for and I felt it must be there (not knowing that it was under my nose)
Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote:Second, when I read the sentence in 14:72 “And Peter remembered”, my first thought is (one may forgive me): Peter will get it wrong. Jesus meant one thing, but Peter will understand another thing. Therefore I surmise that in the original text was a hint for the reader to understand this and what Mark meant. This is the reason why I do not look for the most meaningful story without contradictions.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: MARKed - astonishing text variants

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote:That may be all fine. But do you think that "δὶς" has the meaning of "again" or "second time", when it stands directly next to "thrice" and the word for "second time" occurs in the verse?
Yes, I do, because the same insensitivity to the potential logical distinction which went into an expression such as ἅπαξ καὶ δίς would also apply here. It does not matter how close "a second time" and "twice" are to each other in the text if the writer and readers are automatically treating them as synonyms.
And have you ever seen a translation of Mark which translated "δὶς" not as twice?
No, I have not, but of course the explanation would be that the translators are just as insensitive to the potential logical distinction as the ancient writers and readers were: just as insensitive to it, indeed, as either the author who wrote the text with two cock crows spaced apart by two of the denials or the interpolator who chose in add the first cock crow two denials too early for your logic.

To be clear, I was insensitive to the logic, as well, until you posted your original comment on the distinction. And, while I completely agree that the distinction could be made, that does not change the fact that, as it seems to me, it is generally not made. So I turn your question about translations of Mark around on you: do you know of commentators, ancient or modern, who have noticed the same distinction you notice? Wells of ink have been spilled trying either to demonstrate or to resolve the apparent contradiction between Peter thrice denying Jesus after one cock crow or two; how much of that ink has been spilled over the specific use of "twice" instead of "a second time"?

Ben.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 2110
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: MARKed - astonishing text variants

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin »

.
I do not understand why both of you are not a bit more friendly to my suggestion. The discussion started with the observation that the early textual tradition of Mark 14:30.68.72 is really damaged. There could be two different reasons: intentional corrections of the text or inadvertent errors by some early scribes. When we notice how damaged this textual tradition was, then, I think, the possibility of intentional corrections can not be ruled out. But it is clear that the original text must have contain a real problem which caused such intentional corrections.

During our discussion I noticed (contrary to my first assumptions) that the preferred reading variant contains such a problem, because - taken on the surface and with the “normal” meaning of "δὶς" as “twice” - the prophecy of Jesus (Mark 14:30) went wrong and I think it is no exaggeration to say that this would be a problem with the potential to cause an intentional correction of the text.

Yesterday I noted that the two earliest known reading variants (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus) are completely different, but could be understood as such intentional corrections, which would solve exactly this “problem” in different, but meaningful ways.

I think so far is nothing illogical or exaggerated and it would explain why not only Matthew, Luke and John differed from Mark, but also the damaging of the textual tradition.

Naturally, it must be assumed, that some ancients understood it as a big problem and that this knowledge was later lost. But I think that at least the scribes of Bezae, Ephraemi and Washingtonius had more than one textual tradition or a “mix” before them and they were not able to handle the situation. Therefore the stories in these codices are self-contradictory (only one crow is prophecied, but in fact the rooster crowed twice or before the third denial). Furthermore, from this time on the problematic reading variant became the dominant variant. (Maybe because no one “corrected” more)

I do not think that this scenario can be proven as “most likely”, but I doubt a bit that you will find an explanation that fits the facts better.
iskander
Posts: 2091
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:38 pm

Re: MARKed - astonishing text variants

Post by iskander »

KK, I am only interested in what the text is trying to say . This article of the CCC is what his followers are saying while they wait for the cock to crow again for a second time.


CCC 1851
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/a ... s1c1a8.htm
1851 It is precisely in the Passion, when the mercy of Christ is about to vanquish it, that sin most clearly manifests its violence and its many forms: unbelief, murderous hatred, shunning and mockery by the leaders and the people, Pilate's cowardice and the cruelty of the soldiers, Judas' betrayal - so bitter to Jesus, Peter's denial and the disciples' flight. However, at the very hour of darkness, the hour of the prince of this world,126 the sacrifice of Christ secretly becomes the source from which the forgiveness of our sins will pour forth inexhaustibly
Post Reply