Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Thu Feb 04, 2021 1:24 pm

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: ↑Thu Feb 04, 2021 1:04 pmimho, Wilker (page 223f) gets it right

Maybe he does, but his argument is nullified by that font choice, sorry. Way it goes.

Point taken

Then I should add my two cents. I suspect that the textual variants in Mark 6:14 and Mark 6:16 are related and go back to the same problematic original variant even if other causes such as an influence by Matthew may also play a role.

I agree with Wilker's conclusion on the textual variants in Mark 6:16


There may be some subvariants in Mark 6:16 with additions, omissions or slight changes but basically all can be divided into two main groups. There are variants in which Herod’s statement is about John and in which Herod does not explicitly identify Jesus with him, and there are variants in which Herod makes this identification.

Alexandrian text type Whom I beheaded, John, this one has been raised	Byzantine text type Whom I beheaded, John, this one is it, he has been raised from (the) dead
Vaticanus, Washingtonianus, Corrector Sinaiticus - Ἰωάννην οὗτος ἠγέρθη Bezae - οὗτος ἐκ νεκρῶν ἠγέρθη Sinaiticus - οὗτος Ἰωάννηc ἠγέρθη SinaiSyriac – this John he cut off head has been raised	Alexandrinus – Ἰωάννην οὗτος ἐστιν αὐτὸς ἠγέρθη ἐκ νεκρῶν Ephraemi rescriptus - Ἰωάννην οὗτος ἐστιν αὐτὸς ἠγέρθη ἀπὸ τῶν νεκρῶν Vercellensis – hic est Ioannes hic a mortuis resurrexit

imho, that’s the problem of Mark 6:16. In Mark 6:14-15 the anonymous people are describing what they think Jesus is and why the miraculous powers are at work in him. Their subject is Jesus.

As a reader, of course, you would expect that Herod comments on the subject and adds his own opinion who Jesus is. But in the Alexandrian textual variant Herod is fixated on John and Jesus is only of interest to him insofar as he could be the risen John. This variant is consistent with Mark's portrait of Herod as someone who has an emotional relationship with John, who „feared“ John, heard him „gladly“ and was „greatly perplexed“ when he heard him and „exceedingly sorry“ about the execution.

But Matthew, Luke and Christian scribes were mainly interested in Jesus and not in John and made Herod play a different role, namely the role of the people in Mark 6:14-15.

There are variants in which Herod’s statement is about John and in which Herod does not explicitly identify Jesus with him, and there are variants in which Herod makes this identification. . .

. . . imho, that’s the problem of Mark 6:16. In Mark 6:14-15 the anonymous people are describing what they think Jesus is and why the miraculous powers are at work in him. Their subject is Jesus.

As a reader, of course, you would expect that Herod comments on the subject and adds his own opinion who Jesus is. But in the Alexandrian textual variant Herod is fixated on John and Jesus is only of interest to him insofar as he could be the risen John.

It could be that innocent, a simple difference in focus of interest. Let me suggest, without insistence, that it may be purposeful.

Actually, the reader is not necessarily expecting Herod to comment on who Jesus is. The context is miracles, and in particular, the ability to empower followers to do miracles. Whoever is initially speaking (Herod or an unspecified "they"), the initial correspondence asserted connects a risen John with a power source for Jesus, not an identity for him. Somebody else proposes an identity, Elijah, who is both somebody expected to come back and also somebody who empowered a follower, Elisha. The final public opinion suggests a generic occupation, prophet, with open-ended miraculous power.

So, yes of course, the audience is primed to hear what Herod thinks about all this, but not necessarily an identification of Jesus. Where his powers come from and how he relates to traditional religious figures have both been discussed, in addition to who he is. Herod might well comment on any or all of those issues.

The "non-innocent" difference between John is raised and This guy is John raised is that the latter quashes the interpretation that John is raised and Jesus is using the raised John as a power source. In a word, that Jesus is a necromancer in Herod's opinion (and in the opinion of those "they" if applicable).

Miracle working is inherently ambiguous about who or what is suspending the ordinary course of nature: God, demons, familiar spirits of dead people, superior knowledge of nature (like how to use spit for medicinal effect)... and here's an opportunity to quash the familiar spirit alternative by an artful "clarification" of a character speech or two. In a world where counterapologists might question the miraculous aspects of the gospel story or apostolic signs and wonders, perhaps taking sorcery off the table is a practical goal.

Again, not with insistence, just a thought.

Paul the Uncertain wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 3:39 am Whoever is initially speaking (Herod or an unspecified "they"), the initial correspondence asserted connects a risen John with a power source for Jesus, not an identity for him. Somebody else proposes an identity, Elijah, who is both somebody expected to come back and also somebody who empowered a follower, Elisha. The final public opinion suggests a generic occupation, prophet, with open-ended miraculous power.

An interesting thought. I have never heard this interpretation before and I assume that it's your own. Do you know if this interpretation is possible for ancient thinking? Grammatically it is clearly possible. So far I have not known any interpretation that does not assume that Jesus IS the risen John.

Paul the Uncertain wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 3:39 am Miracle working is inherently ambiguous about who or what is suspending the ordinary course of nature: God, demons, familiar spirits of dead people, superior knowledge of nature (like how to use spit for medicinal effect)... and here's an opportunity to quash the familiar spirit alternative by an artful "clarification" of a character speech or two. In a world where counterapologists might question the miraculous aspects of the gospel story or apostolic signs and wonders, perhaps taking sorcery off the table is a practical goal.

I remember that Peter Brown wrote a lot about this in "The Making of Late Antiquity".

However, since Mark offensively rejected such a possible accusation in Mark 3:22ff (“by the prince of demons he casts out the demons”), I think it's rather unlikely that he did it here clandestinely.

Compare and Contrast ('N yes, there is a reason for this quote being used here...)

Tacitus, Histories Book 4:

"Amidst all this a mutiny in the army all but broke out. The troops who, having been disbanded by Vitellius, had flocked to support Vespasian, asked leave to serve again in the Praetorian Guard, and the soldiers who had been selected from the legions with the same prospect now clamoured for their promised pay. Even the Vitellianists could not be got rid of without much bloodshed. But the money required for retaining in the service so vast a body of men was immensely large. Mucianus entered the camp to examine more accurately the individual claims. The victorious army, wearing their proper decorations and arms, he drew up with moderate intervals of space between the divisions; then the Vitellianists, whose capitulation at Bovillae I have already related, and the other troops of the party, who had been collected from the capital and its neighbourhood, were brought forth almost naked. Mucianus ordered these men to be drawn up apart, making the British, the German, and any other troops that there were belonging to other armies, take up separate positions. The very first view of their situation paralyzed them. They saw opposed to them what seemed a hostile array, threatening them with javelin and sword. They saw themselves hemmed in, without arms, filthy and squalid. And when they began to be separated, some to be marched to one spot, and some to another, a thrill of terror ran through them all. Among the troops from Germany the panic was particularly great; for they believed that this separation marked them out for slaughter. They embraced their fellow soldiers, clung to their necks, begged for parting kisses, and entreated that they might not be deserted, or doomed in a common cause to suffer a different lot. They invoked now Mucianus, now the absent Emperor, and, as a last resource, heaven and the Gods, till Mucianus came forward, and calling them "soldiers bound by the same oath and servants of the same Emperor," stopped the groundless panic. And indeed the victorious army seconded the tears of the vanquished with their approving shouts. This terminated the proceedings for that day..."

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 12:44 pm I have never heard this interpretation before and I assume that it's your own

It's not mine. The earliest archival publication discussing the matter that I located in a quick seach was:

Kraeling, Carl H. (1940) Was Jesus accused of necromancy?, Journal of Biblical Literature 59:2, 147-157.

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 12:44 pm Do you know if this interpretation is possible for ancient thinking? Grammatically it is clearly possible.

Belief in the efficacy of necromancy is well attested in the times of interest, and then as now, was believed by some and not by others. For example, Cicero (Tusculan Disputations I.16) discusses Appius' belief in the practice, which Cicero doesn't share.

Placing concern in a Jewish mind is straightforward, since necromancy has several mentions in the Jewish scriptures. Most spectacular is the witch of Endor story (1 Samuel 28), of course, but it recurs as a prohibited practice in Torah (Deuternonomy 18:11; Leviticus 19:31, 20:6, 20:27), and gets some attention from Isaiah (8:19, 19:3, 29:4).

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 12:44 pm However, since Mark offensively rejected such a possible accusation in Mark 3:22ff (“by the prince of demons he casts out the demons”), I think it's rather unlikely that he did it here clandestinely.

Maybe so, but the hypothesis was introduced to explain (possibly) why a copyist much later than Mark might seek to clarify a grammatically possible and culturally relevant interpretation of what Mark wrote. It isn't necessary for Mark to have intended his audience to interpret his writing that way, or even for the copyist to have thought so. Seeing the hole may explain the patch.

Again, I am not proposing this with insistence as "the" interpretation of the remark, but it does seem possible that emphasizing the identification interpretation (this is John) was done to clarify an ambiguity rather than simply a matter of a copyist being more interested in Jesus than in John.

Paul the Uncertain wrote: ↑Sat Feb 06, 2021 2:29 am It's not mine. The earliest archival publication discussing the matter that I located in a quick seach was:

Kraeling, Carl H. (1940) Was Jesus accused of necromancy?, Journal of Biblical Literature 59:2, 147-157.

I read it on JSTOR. The problem is that Kraeling agrees that his interpretation is not possible for the text of GMark. Kraeling is a source critic and wrote


He then reconstructs what the people and Herod REALLY said.
.
I do not want to prevent anyone from doing such source-criticism operations but in my humble opinion this is more of writing one's own gospel and therefore of no interest to me. Sorry

gryan wrote: ↑Thu Feb 04, 2021 2:25 am Is it possible that the writer of GMark was personally with Paul in Galatia so that the Galatians were able, with their own eyes, see him in the very process of putting in print those words about the one "having been crucified"?

Well, you know what scholars would say about the dating of Galatians and GMark. Would you date GMark early or Galatians late?

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: ↑Mon Feb 08, 2021 12:53 pm

gryan wrote: ↑Thu Feb 04, 2021 2:25 am Is it possible that the writer of GMark was personally with Paul in Galatia so that the Galatians were able, with their own eyes, see him in the very process of putting in print those words about the one "having been crucified"?

Well, you know what scholars would say about the dating of Galatians and GMark. Would you date GMark early or Galatians late?

I do think of the final form of GMark as coming together around 70 CE, but there could have been earlier editions being written and rewritten long before then. Why not?

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: ↑Sat Feb 06, 2021 8:18 am I do not want to prevent anyone from doing such source-criticism operations but in my humble opinion this is more of writing one's own gospel and therefore of no interest to me. Sorry

Just to be clear between us, the Krealing paper was offered solely in response to your stated assumption that the proposed interpretation was mine. I have met my burden of showing that your assumption about me is false. The merits of Kraeling's approach are irrelevant to the only question then on the table, which was priority. Beyond that, Kraeling doesn't speak for me, nor I for him. He did, however, entertain the idea before I was born.

I am not altogether sure who, in your view, is "writing one's own gospel." The matter between us arose not in the context of what Jesus's contemporaries may or may not have actually said about him, nor in the context of what Mark may have written about that, but rather that there are two distinct branches of copyists' rendition and subsequent translation. What we have to look at dates from long after Mark had died.

I happily to cop to the inevitable: whoever proposes to perform a text must choose what meaning will be given to the text in hand whenever the text leaves some matters unspecified, as is both typical and visibly the case here. If that acceptance of an inevitability is "writing one's own gospel," I have no priority in recognizing the inevitability either.

You offered a hypothesis of why some copyists of one branch may have preferred to introduce an identification between John and Jesus which is not found on the page of the other branch's work product. I offered an alternative hypothesis about the dichotomy, for discussion purposes. If that discussion no longer interests you, then the sorrow is all mine.

Paul the Uncertain wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 6:53 am Just to be clear between us ...

Sorry Paul, I was a little upset with Kraeling because I thought his article was a waste of time. On the other hand, I was really grateful to you for pointing out that the first speaker also didn't explicitly identify John with Jesus.