Ben C. Smith wrote:Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote:I have three further arguments to surmise that Sinaiticus could be the original version of Mark 13:10
I would love to see them.
I did notice quite a bit of textual messiness in this verse and in the surrounding verses (even more than LaParola displays).
As usual: Not to convince you of anything, just my thoughts with my own presumptions while thinking about this problem
1) First and foremost, I think Hermann made a good observation and a good argument, but not as strong as he thought. It has to do with the difference of “first” and “before/prior”. One could say “This must be done first” and it isn`t necessary to mention a second or third thing, because the rest can be implied in the sense of “first of all” or it can be understand as “first and foremost”. This is not possible with “before/prior”. Hermann understood “proton” in the sense of “before/prior” and almost all German translations do this. Hermann wrote:
The word πρῶτον (“first”) in Mark 13:10 doesn't make sense, since it is not clear from the preceding text to what it refers. Mark can hardly have wanted to say that the gospel must be spread across the whole world prior to the persecution of Christians referred to in 13:9.
But “proton” means literally “first” and Mark also used “proton” in the sense of “first and foremost”.
Mark 9:11
10 So they kept this matter to themselves, discussing what it meant to rise from the dead. 11 And they asked Jesus, “Why do the scribes say that Elijah must come first?”
Furthermore, I disagree that Matthew has the “better” chronology. Matthew wrote
24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world for a witness to all the nations, and then the end shall come.
But this isn’t the end in Matthew’s "chronology of the end". After that he added and added and added ...
2) I would not claim that Sinaiticus has the original reading of Mark 13:10. But I would rather tend to it.
Acts 13:46
45 But when the Jews saw the crowds, they were filled with jealousy and began to contradict what was spoken by Paul, reviling him. 46 And Paul and Barnabas spoke out boldly, saying, “It was necessary that the word of God be spoken first to you. Since you thrust it aside and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold, we are turning to the Gentiles.
This is exactly the idea of the Sinaitic reading of Mark 13:10. I think the question is from where the author of Acts got the idea that it was necessary to preach the word of God first to the Jews. It doesn't seem to be his own position because Paul and Barnabas claim that it is now enough and that they can go to the Gentiles. I think it is not too far fetched to expect a saying of the Lord. But if I have not overlooked something you will not find such a saying (not in Acts, GLuke or Paul’s letters), except in Codex Sinaiticus at Mark 13:10.
I think if it was the original reading and the original position there could be a good possibility that such a position was later rejected. Acts 13:46 could be one of the first steps.
This position would agree with the metaphor of Mark 7:27 (in little disagreement with Matthew)
26 Now the woman was a Gentile, a Syrophoenician by birth. And she begged him to cast the demon out of her daughter. 27 And he said to her, “Let the children be fed first, for it is not right to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs.”
At the end I think it could explain the development of the minority readings. In Sinaiticus the word order “πρῶτον ... δεῖ” makes a good sense. The word order “δεῖ πρῶτον” in Alexandrinus seems to be a better word choice than “πρῶτον δεῖ” in Vaticanus. The assumed omitting of an original “laon” would explain this situation.
assumed chronological order
πρῶτον λαὸν δεῖ] א*
πρῶτον δεῖ] אc B D Ψ 28 892 pc vg WH
πρῶτον δὲ δεῖ] W Θ 565 pc it syrp
δεῖ πρῶτον] A L f1 f13 Byz itq syrh ς
In agreement with my POV I would never call the later stories of Matthew and Luke “parallels” of Mark. I think the goal is Mark to isolate as best as possible. If there is only the slightest change in the wording, there should be always the suspicion that Matthew and Luke could have changed the whole sense. 