MARKed - astonishing text variants

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18321
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: MARKed - astonishing text variants

Post by Secret Alias »

How this relates to whatever point SA was making is hard to tell, as he almost always brings up the Diatessaron as an ur-gospel used by Marcionites.
The situation we find ourselves in when we take as our starting point Criddle's and my deconstruction of Against Marcion is that the Marcionite gospel must have resembled the harmony text used by the community of Justin. Canonical Mark is not the ur-text. This/these texts are closer to the beginning of the gospel. Canonical Mark is a truncated version of something else.
“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
Secret Alias
Posts: 18321
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: MARKed - astonishing text variants

Post by Secret Alias »

Something to think about (or not as the case may be). Clement of Alexandria says that the gospel ministry lasted for a year. The liturgical year lasts the same amount of time. But for some inexplicable reason the liturgy of the churches does not follow the chronology of any gospel. The Diatessaron is a multi-year ministry narrative. But surely the original gospel narrative paralleled the original liturgical year. How couldn't it? Both lasted a year. The jumbled nature of the liturgy (one week Mark, one week Luke, one week a reading from Matthew) is reflective of a secondary (or even tertiary) church tradition. But the original single year gospel must have been read from start to beginning in sections to match the 52 cycle. There must have been 52 parshiot too.

Already with secret Mark there is a clear connection with the Alexandrian liturgy. What happens to the youth is explicitly connected by Clement with the baptism of the catechumen. The secondary Church baptizes on Easter undoubtedly to mirror (or obscure the original context of) the Pauline 'baptism [of] death.' But originally Jesus's baptism of a dead and resurrected disciple becomes the context of all the Pauline statements on the subject. Paul's letters no longer have explicit references to the gospel. Justin no longer explicitly references Paul. But they must have at one stage in their reshaping.

The decoupling of the single year gospel from the liturgical year was deliberate.

The Samaritans still celebrate the writing of the Torah on the date of the writing of the Torah. There is still a reminiscence of a line by line reading of the Torah for the weekly parshiot. The seven weeks leading up to Shavuot each have a specific biblical theme in Samaritan tradition:

1) Week of the crossing of the (Red) Sea (Exod. 14:26-15:21)
2) Week of the changing of the water of marah (Exod. 15:22-26)
3) Week of elim, where the Israelites found twelve water springs and seventy palm
trees (Exod. 15:27-16:3)
4) Week of the manna, which fell down upon them from heavens in the desert
(Exod. 16:4-36)
5) Week of the of water welling out from the rock (Exod. 17:1-7)
6) Week of the battles against Amalek (Exod. 17:8-17)
7) Week of the Decalogue (Exod. 19:1 ff.)

Thus, the week of Shavuot overlaps with the week of the Decalogue (beginning on the second day of that week). Thus, like the rabbinic community, the Samaritans connect Shavuot to the giving of the Torah (not the five books of Moses but the ten commandments as Moses wrote the Pentateuch not God).

But the point is that we have the preservation of chronological parshiot. The dist4ance between Passover and Shavuot is 7 weeks.
“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
Secret Alias
Posts: 18321
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: MARKed - astonishing text variants

Post by Secret Alias »

I've said over and over and over again that these white people who treat the gospel as 'just a book' are merely reinforcing their alienation from the truth. The Pentateuch was intimately connected to the liturgy just as the lost ur-gospel was for the Christian community. It wasn't just a written text. The lines of the gospel were the narrative for the liturgical year. Like a song it had rhythm and cadence. It was acted out 'live' in front of people. Why don't people see how fruitless their investigations are?
“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
Secret Alias
Posts: 18321
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: MARKed - astonishing text variants

Post by Secret Alias »

The Diatessaron (even though it is now a multi-year narrative) is one step closer to the original ur-text that just 'ran' the course of the year long ministry of Jesus 'acted out' in the liturgical year. Since our liturgy is (necessarily) spread across 4 different texts we don't have the original text which just 'ran' through the 52 week year. We don't have the original 'script' for the liturgical year. How many times do I have to repeat this before people acknowledge the fruitlessness of their labors?
“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
User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 3401
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: MARKed - astonishing text variants

Post by DCHindley »

Charles Wilson wrote:
Ben C. Smith wrote:Peter, too, warms himself by the fire.
According to John, Peter warms himself by the "charcoal fire":

John 18: 18 (RSV):

[18] Now the servants and officers had made a charcoal fire, because it was cold, and they were standing and warming themselves; Peter also was with them, standing and warming himself.

Look at Berakoth 28A ( http://www.come-and-hear.com/berakoth/berakoth_28.html ):

"On that day Judah, an Ammonite proselyte, came before them in the Beth ha-Midrash. He said to them: Am I permitted to enter the assembly? R. Joshua said to him: You are permitted to enter the congregation. Said Rabban Gamaliel to him: Is it not already laid down, At Ammonite or a Moabite shall not enter into the assembly of the Lord?...Forthwith they permitted him to enter the congregation. Rabban Gamaliel thereupon said: This being the case, I will go and apologize to R. Joshua. When he reached his house he saw that the walls were black. He said to him: From the walls of your house it is apparent that you are a charcoal-burner...They said: Who will go and tell the Rabbis? A certain fuller said to them: I will go...Lock the doors so that the servants of Rabban Gamaliel should not come and upset the Rabbis..."

I've cut out too much and not enough. There is something complex in this story. Nonetheless, notice how it reads as a Template for Peter getting into the Courtyard yet not into the Inner Court. (BTW, note that "charcoal fire" also occurs in John 21, where Titus...Oh, never mind...
Aus also points out that, just as cockcrow was a synonym for the third (and final Jewish) watch of the night, so Peter denied Jesus three times. Perhaps the original idea was that he denied Jesus once during the first watch (the evening), again during the midnight watch, and a third time during the watch of the cock crow (that is, before the cock crowed).
The Disciples "denied" Jesus three times as well. They could not keep awake to the end of their Watches. Those who were awake with the "Fourth Watch" could and they controlled events from that point on.

CW
Charcoal-burner, which in the middle ages meant a class of people who actually baked wood to create charcoal for cooking and smelting/smithing. Yes, cooking and smelting/smithing. Both are either easier to use (no smell of raw burning wood for the cook to endure, plus it gets hot enough so you will need less of it to cook your fish) or absolutely necessary (to get temperatures high enough to cause iron ore to be beaten into wrought iron or forged into steel). I think charcoal might be necessary for smelting of copper and tin, but not for melting lead, gold or silver.

But anyways,

b. Berakoth 28a: When he [Rabban Gamaliel] reached his [R. Joshua] house [to apologize to him for questioning his decision to allow Judah, an Ammonite proselyte, to enter the Beth ha-Midrash] he saw that the walls were black. He said to him: From the walls of your house it is apparent that you are a charcoal-burner. [ מכותלי ביתך אתה ניכר שפחמי אתה ]16 [To this expression of surprise on the part of Rabban Gamaliel, R Joshua took exception, and complained that the scholars of the elite classes of Jerusalem were totally ignorant of the poor conditions that country scholars had to endure].

Aramaic שפחמי (Shin-Pe-Het-Mem-Yod) seems to be related to Hebrew פֶּחָם (Pe-Het-Mem, Prov 26:21; Isa 44:12 & 54:16), meaning charcoal. But footnote #16 above calls attention to the fact that the Jerusalem Talmud version of this story (Berakhot 4:1, 7c-d) calls him a 'smith' or a maker of needles. I could not seem to determine what Aramaic word was involved, but I suspect something related to Aramaic נחש (Nun-Het-Shin, Nechash, brass).

Whatever, the point I wanted to make was that being a "charcoal burner", whether using it for a heat source or actually baking wood to make it, and would not cause the house to become sooty. Charcoal was made from common wood baked in special kilns, and burning charcoal as a smith should not release smoke or soot. Charcoal is thus perfect for cooking (e.g., Jesus roasting some fish on a charcoal fire) or getting things hot (smithing or I suppose just to get warm). I would think that using charcoal in a warming fire would be a relatively wasteful thing to do except for someone as wealthy as a (former) HP would be.

Rambling mode, off ...
Charles Wilson
Posts: 2093
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: MARKed - astonishing text variants

Post by Charles Wilson »

DCHindley wrote:Rambling mode, off ...
You're not rambling at all and quite on point. The use of the word "charcoal" is odd given the contexts. Both instances in the Gospels occur in John.

John 18: 18 (RSV):

[18] Now the servants and officers had made a charcoal fire, because it was cold, and they were standing and warming themselves; Peter also was with them, standing and warming himself.

John 21: 9 (RSV):

[9] When they got out on land, they saw a charcoal fire there, with fish lying on it, and bread.

So, in John 21, there is time to prepare not only the food but also to prep the wood for charcoal to cook the fish and bread - and prep the dough for the bread. Sorta' like the aftermath of The Lunatic, where the terrified townsfolk have time to run away and come back and find the Lunatic clothed and in his right mind. Sorta' like "Baptism" not meaning "Immersion in Water" but...

1 Corinthians 1:16 (RSV):

[16] (I did baptize also the household of Steph'anas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any one else.)

D'ya get a little cold shiver up your spine when you read this one? I believe you should. "Baptism" isn't all sweetness and light.

The use of "Charcoal" points to something found in the Hebrew/Aramaic, I believe. Berakoth 28A points to the Priesthood with the arguments of "Cave Water" and "Oven Ashes". The Note given concerning Cave Water references the Book of Numbers and, unless Numbers is randomly everywhere in the NT, Zakkai might display the hidden hand here. I don't know how much farther I can go with it.

DCH, yer not ramblin' at all. Thank you.

CW
iskander
Posts: 2091
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:38 pm

Re: MARKed - astonishing text variants

Post by iskander »

Charles Wilson wrote:
DCHindley wrote:Rambling mode, off ...
You're not rambling at all and quite on point. The use of the word "charcoal" is odd given the contexts. Both instances in the Gospels occur in John.

John 18: 18 (RSV):

[18] Now the servants and officers had made a charcoal fire, because it was cold, and they were standing and warming themselves; Peter also was with them, standing and warming himself.

John 21: 9 (RSV):

[9] When they got out on land, they saw a charcoal fire there, with fish lying on it, and bread.

So, in John 21, there is time to prepare not only the food but also to prep the wood for charcoal to cook the fish and bread - and prep the dough for the bread. Sorta' like the aftermath of The Lunatic, where the terrified townsfolk have time to run away and come back and find the Lunatic clothed and in his right mind. Sorta' like "Baptism" not meaning "Immersion in Water" but...

1 Corinthians 1:16 (RSV):

[16] (I did baptize also the household of Steph'anas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any one else.)

D'ya get a little cold shiver up your spine when you read this one? I believe you should. "Baptism" isn't all sweetness and light.

The use of "Charcoal" points to something found in the Hebrew/Aramaic, I believe. Berakoth 28A points to the Priesthood with the arguments of "Cave Water" and "Oven Ashes". The Note given concerning Cave Water references the Book of Numbers and, unless Numbers is randomly everywhere in the NT, Zakkai might display the hidden hand here. I don't know how much farther I can go with it.

DCH, yer not ramblin' at all. Thank you.

CW
Charcoal was used as a domestic fuel for cooking in the ancient Roman world.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=HwF ... me&f=false
Attachments
cooking fuel roma 2.PNG
cooking fuel roma 2.PNG (113.51 KiB) Viewed 10227 times
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 »

.
There may be some astonishing text variants, but sometimes it is astonishing, if there is no text variant :mrgreen: I think we would strongly expect an "Abimelech", but only the "ἱερέως" is there

laparola Mark 2:26 :eh:
ἐπὶ Ἀβιαθὰρ ἀρχιερέως] ‭א B G K L Y 118 157 892 1010 1195 1216 1230 1242 1342 1344 1365 1424 1646 2174 2427 Byz l69 l70 l76 l80 l150 l299 l1127 l1634 l1761 arm WH
ἐπὶ Ἀβιαθὰρ τοῦ ἀρχιερέως] A C Θ Π Σ Φ 074 f1 f13 28 33 565 579 700 1071 1079 1241 1253 1546c 2148 al Lect copsa copbo ς
ἐπὶ Ἀβιαθὰρ ἀρχιερέως or ἐπὶ Ἀβιαθὰρ τοῦ ἀρχιερέως] itaur itc itl itq vg (syrp) syrh syrpal(mss) geo
ἐπὶ Ἀβιαθὰρ τοῦ ἱερέως] Δ itf (goth omit τοῦ)
omit] (see Matthew 12:4; Luke 6:4) D W 855 1009 1285 1546* 1668* 2774 ita itb itd ite itff2 iti itr1 itt syrs (syrpal(ms))
User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1584
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Re: MARKed - astonishing text variants

Post by JoeWallack »

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote:.
There may be some astonishing text variants, but sometimes it is astonishing, if there is no text variant :mrgreen: I think we would strongly expect an "Abimelech", but only the "ἱερέως" is there

laparola Mark 2:26 :eh:
ἐπὶ Ἀβιαθὰρ ἀρχιερέως] ‭א B G K L Y 118 157 892 1010 1195 1216 1230 1242 1342 1344 1365 1424 1646 2174 2427 Byz l69 l70 l76 l80 l150 l299 l1127 l1634 l1761 arm WH
ἐπὶ Ἀβιαθὰρ τοῦ ἀρχιερέως] A C Θ Π Σ Φ 074 f1 f13 28 33 565 579 700 1071 1079 1241 1253 1546c 2148 al Lect copsa copbo ς
ἐπὶ Ἀβιαθὰρ ἀρχιερέως or ἐπὶ Ἀβιαθὰρ τοῦ ἀρχιερέως] itaur itc itl itq vg (syrp) syrh syrpal(mss) geo
ἐπὶ Ἀβιαθὰρ τοῦ ἱερέως] Δ itf (goth omit τοῦ)
omit] (see Matthew 12:4; Luke 6:4) D W 855 1009 1285 1546* 1668* 2774 ita itb itd ite itff2 iti itr1 itt syrs (syrpal(ms))
JW:
As James Woods said in the classic "Contact" when forced to acknowledge that an event which seemed to last a few seconds had hours of tape, "That is interesting, isn't it."
omit] (see Matthew 12:4; Luke 6:4) D W 855 1009 1285 1546* 1668* 2774 ita itb itd ite itff2 iti itr1 itt syrs (syrpal(ms))
Presumably "Matthew"/"Luke" were looking at:

2
26 How he entered into the house of God when Abiathar was high priest, and ate the showbread
In the textual tradition before Canonization, presumably copyists of GMark only had a tradition that there was a word there, so for those who recognized the error of "Abiathar" there, presumably the first choice or at least a significant choice would be trying to change the word to prevent error. Once GMark was canonized though the tradition was expanded to what "Matthew"/"Luke" had and both had originally exorcised the error. It's still surprising though that no evidence of the logical correction to "Ahimelech" early on survived. I think part of the explanation is that there was a relatively short time period between GMark being accepted by the orthodox and being canonized. Compare though to the more famous textual criticism issue of 1:41 where "Matthew"/"Luke" as editors and not just copyists exorcise the likely original "angry" yet the subsequent textual tradition of 1:41 is overwhelmingly changed to "compassion" (although there are a few manuscripts that just exorcise).

Side note just for KK = I think our favorite author knew her Jewish Bible forwards and backwards (so to speak) and deliberately (mis)used Abiathar there because of the name Abiathar, with "Abi" being a prefix for "father" in Hebrew and therefore being delightfully phonetical at the start to "Abba" for his Greek audience. Not to mention (so to speak) any name there is unnecessary to identify the story being referred to in the Jewish Bible.


Joseph

Genocide In The Israeli/Arab Conflict
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 »

JoeWallack wrote:Side note just for KK = I think our favorite author knew her Jewish Bible forwards and backwards (so to speak) and deliberately (mis)used Abiathar there because of the name Abiathar, with "Abi" being a prefix for "father" in Hebrew and therefore being delightfully phonetical at the start to "Abba" for his Greek audience. Not to mention (so to speak) any name there is unnecessary to identify the story being referred to in the Jewish Bible.
Agreed. I also tend to think (through a glass darkly) that "Abiathar" is part of Mark's Davidic theme and that he stands in opposition to the Sadducees (the "sons" of Zadok).
Post Reply