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

Re: Reconstructed Mk from Mt/Lk

Expand Messages
  • Dave Gentile
    ... 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
    Message 1 of 3 , Jun 14, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      > 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.
      >
      >
      > Best wishes
      > Wieland
      > <><

      This brings to mind a thought I had.

      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
      Aleph)

      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
      and Matthew.

      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
      here.

      Etc.

      Dave Gentile
      Riverside, IL
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.