B.Brooks examination of twelve.
- 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"
> [Third try; address problems]proposal)
> To: Synoptic
> In Response To: John Lupia (in re Rick Richmond
> On: Coding in Marklack of enthusiasm for
> From: Bruce
> I will confess, perhaps as a personal disability, a
> Baconian ciphers and similar proposals. But it istrue that sometimes
> ancient texts tried to protect themselves againstsubsequent alteration (not
> always with success), or otherwise distinctivelyidentify themselves, and I
> wouldn't rule out, a priori, the sort of thing Rickis proposing. John Lupia
> pointed out in refutation that the proposed keynumerals occur more times in
> GMk than Rick's theory calls for. That's a validobjection only if our text
> of GMk has not been interpolated or extendedsubsequent 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 Iwould be prepared to argue
> that nothing after Mk 16:8 can be original.consideration might be possible, I
> As an extended example of where further
> here take up John's list of 15 GMk occurrences ofDODEKA "twelve." For
> convenience, I asterisk the entries that seem to medoubtfully original, or
> perhaps better doubtfully early, in GMk.note that the following
> THE LIST
> Mk 3:14 "and he appointed twelve" (B, A, D). OK. But
> phrase, "whom also he designated apostles" (B, not Aor D) is bracketed in
> Nestle-Aland 26; I would agree.the name Peter to Simon
> *Mk 3:16 "[and he appointed the twelve] and he gave
> . . ." (the bracketed phrase in Nestle-Aland 26 hassupport from B, not A or
> D; I would agree to exclude it). Not necessarily avalid example.
>("twelve" has support from B,
> *Mk 4:10 "the ones around him with the twelve"
> A but not D; I note that "the ones around him" maybe appositive with "the
> twelve," supporting the idea that "twelve" here isextraneous). Not
> necessarily a valid example.("twelve" in B, A, D,
> Mk 5:25 "a woman with a flow of blood twelve years"
> with slight variation in adjoining text; so alsopassim below). OK.
> Mk 5:42 "for she was twelve years old" (B, A, D; no
>earlier argued that this
> Mk 6:7 "and he summons the twelve" (B, A, D. I have
> passage is an interpolation, and still prefer thatconclusion, but now with
> the modification that the interpolation may be at alayer antedating the
> split between the archetypes of B and D). Keep fornow.
>basketsful" (B, A, D); OK
> Mk 6:43 "and they picked up fragments twelve
>note as Mk 6:7). Keep for
> Mk 8:19 "they say to him, Twelve" (B, A, D; same
> now.[first dispute about who
> Mk 9:35 "and having sat down, he called the Twelve"
> is greatest among the disciples] (B, A, D). Notearly, but keep for now.
> Mk 10:32 "and having taken again the Twelve" (B, A,
>A, D). OK
> Mk 11:11 "went out to Bethany with the Twelve" (B,
>(B, D, no A). Seeming
> *Mk 14:10 "and Judas Iscariot, one of the Twelve"
> gloss. Given spotty MS support, not necessarily avalid example.
>A, D). Arguable as a
> Mk 14:17 "he comes with the Twelve" (B, A, D). OK
> Mk 14:20 "he said to them, One of the Twelve," (B,
> dispensable appositive (on the following phrase),but with good MS support.
> Keep for now.D). Same note as 14:20.
> Mk 14:43 "arrives Judas, one of the Twelve" (B, A,
> Keep for now.miscounted somewhere,
> That's the lot. To put it briefly, and unless I have
> if we limit ourselves to "twelve" passages attestedin all three of
> Vaticanus, Alexandrinus, and Bezae, we find theconcordance list of 15
> reduced to, uh, hmm, well, it seems to be 12. OfRick's proposed code
> numbers, I am willing to admit that I would havepicked 12 as perhaps the
> most convincingly symbolic, and thus the mostplausible for a theory of this
> type.particular refutation of it
> I still don't like it, but I suggest that this
> may not be itself irrefutable.Rick Richmond rickr2889@...
> E Bruce Brooks
> Warring States Project
> University of Massachusetts at Amherst
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around