Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

B.Brooks examination of twelve.

Expand Messages
  • Richard Richmond
    My internet connection was down last night so I did not have the opportunity to see this post by Bruce before posting my own take on the twelve. I am delighted
    Message 1 of 1 , Jul 8, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      My internet connection was down last night so I did
      not have the opportunity to see this post by Bruce
      before posting my own take on the twelve. I am
      delighted to see that his rationale comes from a
      different angle completely but arrives at essentially
      the same conclusions as my own regarding the
      occurences of Twleve within the text of Mark.

      Thank you for your contribution Bruce. I realize that
      you are not agreeing with me and I am only expressing
      my appreciation for the work you did to make your post
      on the issue.


      --- In Synoptic@yahoogroups.com, "E Bruce Brooks"
      <brooks@a...> wrote:
      > [Third try; address problems]
      > To: Synoptic
      > In Response To: John Lupia (in re Rick Richmond
      > On: Coding in Mark
      > From: Bruce
      > I will confess, perhaps as a personal disability, a
      lack of enthusiasm for
      > Baconian ciphers and similar proposals. But it is
      true that sometimes
      > ancient texts tried to protect themselves against
      subsequent alteration (not
      > always with success), or otherwise distinctively
      identify themselves, and I
      > wouldn't rule out, a priori, the sort of thing Rick
      is proposing. John Lupia
      > pointed out in refutation that the proposed key
      numerals occur more times in
      > GMk than Rick's theory calls for. That's a valid
      objection only if our text
      > of GMk has not been interpolated or extended
      subsequent to the coding. I
      > think there is room for doubt here. For instance,
      John's list of HEPTA
      > occurrences ends with "Mk 16:9 original," but I
      would be prepared to argue
      > that nothing after Mk 16:8 can be original.
      > As an extended example of where further
      consideration might be possible, I
      > here take up John's list of 15 GMk occurrences of
      DODEKA "twelve." For
      > convenience, I asterisk the entries that seem to me
      doubtfully original, or
      > perhaps better doubtfully early, in GMk.
      > THE LIST
      > Mk 3:14 "and he appointed twelve" (B, A, D). OK. But
      note that the following
      > phrase, "whom also he designated apostles" (B, not A
      or D) is bracketed in
      > Nestle-Aland 26; I would agree.
      > *Mk 3:16 "[and he appointed the twelve] and he gave
      the name Peter to Simon
      > . . ." (the bracketed phrase in Nestle-Aland 26 has
      support from B, not A or
      > D; I would agree to exclude it). Not necessarily a
      valid example.
      > *Mk 4:10 "the ones around him with the twelve"
      ("twelve" has support from B,
      > A but not D; I note that "the ones around him" may
      be appositive with "the
      > twelve," supporting the idea that "twelve" here is
      extraneous). Not
      > necessarily a valid example.
      > Mk 5:25 "a woman with a flow of blood twelve years"
      ("twelve" in B, A, D,
      > with slight variation in adjoining text; so also
      passim below). OK.
      > Mk 5:42 "for she was twelve years old" (B, A, D; no
      problem). OK
      > Mk 6:7 "and he summons the twelve" (B, A, D. I have
      earlier argued that this
      > passage is an interpolation, and still prefer that
      conclusion, but now with
      > the modification that the interpolation may be at a
      layer antedating the
      > split between the archetypes of B and D). Keep for
      > Mk 6:43 "and they picked up fragments twelve
      basketsful" (B, A, D); OK
      > Mk 8:19 "they say to him, Twelve" (B, A, D; same
      note as Mk 6:7). Keep for
      > now.
      > Mk 9:35 "and having sat down, he called the Twelve"
      [first dispute about who
      > is greatest among the disciples] (B, A, D). Not
      early, but keep for now.
      > Mk 10:32 "and having taken again the Twelve" (B, A,
      D). OK
      > Mk 11:11 "went out to Bethany with the Twelve" (B,
      A, D). OK
      > *Mk 14:10 "and Judas Iscariot, one of the Twelve"
      (B, D, no A). Seeming
      > gloss. Given spotty MS support, not necessarily a
      valid example.
      > Mk 14:17 "he comes with the Twelve" (B, A, D). OK
      > Mk 14:20 "he said to them, One of the Twelve," (B,
      A, D). Arguable as a
      > dispensable appositive (on the following phrase),
      but with good MS support.
      > Keep for now.
      > Mk 14:43 "arrives Judas, one of the Twelve" (B, A,
      D). Same note as 14:20.
      > Keep for now.
      > That's the lot. To put it briefly, and unless I have
      miscounted somewhere,
      > if we limit ourselves to "twelve" passages attested
      in all three of
      > Vaticanus, Alexandrinus, and Bezae, we find the
      concordance list of 15
      > reduced to, uh, hmm, well, it seems to be 12. Of
      Rick's proposed code
      > numbers, I am willing to admit that I would have
      picked 12 as perhaps the
      > most convincingly symbolic, and thus the most
      plausible for a theory of this
      > type.
      > I still don't like it, but I suggest that this
      particular refutation of it
      > may not be itself irrefutable.
      > Bruce
      > E Bruce Brooks
      > Warring States Project
      > University of Massachusetts at Amherst

      Rick Richmond rickr2889@...

      Do You Yahoo!?
      Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.