Reconstructed Mk from Mt/Lk
- Joe Weaks wrote:
> I am currently writing a dissertation reconstructing whatThat's great! Keep us informed!
> we can of Mark from the text of triple tradition pericopes
> in Matthew and Luke
It seems pretty clear to me that the text of Mk available to Mt and Lk was not exactly the same, word by word, as the one we have today in NA. The Minor Agreements come to mind. It is, unfortunately, not possible to identify such points with certainty, but it would be interesting if one can make any suggestions, e.g. from the authors style etc. To complicate things, Mt and Lk certainly didn't have a 100% identical text of Mk at hand.
Difficult, but very instructive topic.
Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
- At 08:41 PM 6/13/2006, Wieland Willker wrote:
>Joe Weaks wrote:From later manuscripts, it is clear that the minor variants in the texts
> > I am currently writing a dissertation reconstructing what
> > we can of Mark from the text of triple tradition pericopes
> > in Matthew and Luke
>That's great! Keep us informed!
>It seems pretty clear to me that the text of Mk available to Mt and Lk was
>not exactly the same, word by word, as the one we have today in NA. The
>Minor Agreements come to mind. It is, unfortunately, not possible to
>identify such points with certainty, but it would be interesting if one
>can make any suggestions, e.g. from the authors style etc. To complicate
>things, Mt and Lk certainly didn't have a 100% identical text of Mk at
>hand.. . .
are associated in text criticism in what were called "families," IIRC. Of
course, the characteristics of those "families" of manuscripts may have
developed over time, mainly by adding idiosyncrasies, and perhaps by
"contamination" from other families of texts. And of course our earliest
known exemplars of those families of texts are much later than the date of
Matt. & Luke themselves. Nevertheless, I'm curious about whether any of the
minor differences between M & L can be associated with known differences in
these text traditions?
Although most of the differences are minor, it is interesting that there
are differences even among the oldest extant copies (esp. Codex Bezae vs.
the others, IIRC).
Your question also raises a possible challenge to the usual(?) assumption
that we started out with one copy of Mark, whole and undivided, and that
all copies of Mark derived, ultimately, from a single autograph. This might
not be true. For example, "Mark" may have made copies of his own work,
holding on to his own copy, which he might edit from time to time (leading
perhaps to the different endings?)
I am reminded of a parallel with Shakespeare's plays: all (or most) of
them, it seems, were working copies, subjected to tweaks in response to
performance experiences, resulting in multiple "autographs" of the same
play. Of course, Mark's gospel was probably not "performed" like a
play, but it was frequently *read* out loud to audiences all over the
eastern Mediterranean. So, in a sense, it was performed, and
hearer-response was important. A line in a parable that was boffo in
Alexandria might be stinko in Antioch.
So I think your question about the uniformity of GMark at the time when
"Luke" and "Matthew" supposedly had access to them is an interesting one.
As with most questions in biblical studies, I'll wager that someone has
already looked into this.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> It seems pretty clear to me that the text of Mk available to Mtand Lk was not exactly the same, word by word, as the one we have
today in NA. The Minor Agreements come to mind. It is,
unfortunately, not possible to identify such points with certainty,
but it would be interesting if one can make any suggestions, e.g.
from the authors style etc. To complicate things, Mt and Lk
certainly didn't have a 100% identical text of Mk at hand.
> Difficult, but very instructive topic.This brings to mind a thought I had.
> Best wishes
If we take as given that Matthew and Luke used something similar to,
but not identical to canonical Mark, and that they were at least
mostly independent in their use of Mark, then we can use standard
text critical methods to reconstruct synoptic prime.
If there is no internal directionality to the text, then the "vote"
of Mark would win over the combined vote of Matthew and Luke, but
when there is internal directionality, we might end up saying that
the text of Luke and/or Matthew is more likely original.
The result would look very much like canonical Mark, but it would
not be identical.
The multiple surviving versions of all 3 gospels would have to be
considered as well. For example in Luke 3:22 some version of Luke
(D, some Latins, and some Latin Church fathers) have "this day I
have begotten you". B and Aleph disagree. The internal
directionality would tend to favor the version found in D, except
for one problem, why would Luke add a birth narrative to Mark, and
also make the change to match the text of Ps. 2:7?
But what if synoptic prime originally read "this day I have begotten
you", with no birth narrative? Now we don't have to explain Luke's
mixed mind here. Originally Luke just copied "today I have begotten
you" from synoptic prime here. Most copies of Luke, and all copies
of Mark, came to agree with Matthew over time, however.
It would come down to a standard text critical problem.
For "today I have begotten you" -
we have Luke (D, and Latins ), plus internal directionality.
Against "today I have begotten you" -
we have all Mark versions, all Matthew versions, and Luke (B and
This might be a tough question, but I think there are some other
cases where Mark would more clearly lose the vote. Do we really
think Luke removed "and to give his life as a ransom for many" from
Mark 10:45 ? Here we have Luke and internal directionality vs. Mark
Or on less theologically charged ground - Mark 14:5 has "300
denarii" which could be an assimilation to the text of John. Matthew
and Luke do not have it.
For the text critical question we would have
Matthew and Luke and internal directionality (assimilation to
another strong text) vs. Mark.
Or Mark 10:30 has "heart, soul, mind, strength"
Luke has "heart, soul, strength, mind"
Matthew has "heart, soul, mind"
Dt. 6: 4 "heart, soul, strength"
Here Luke and Mark look like independent conflations of Matthew and
Dt. 6:4. We might reconstruct synoptic prime as matching Matthew