RE: [XTalk] RE: The Mutilation of Mark's Gospel
- At 06:03 AM 7/18/2007, Matson, Mark (Academic) wrote:
>[snip]But isn't it also possible that the shortened version was copied
>I suppose one might allow that Matthew and Luke could have used a
>mutilated text. But for me, how likely is that? We know they used
>Mark, and undoubtedly a Mark that ends with 16:8....but there is no
>evidence that they know of any other text. This is an argument from
>silence, and while it may be true, I wish there were evidence. Clearly
>they were impressed enough with Mark "as is" to use it as the basis of
>their revised gospels. Moreover one has to imagine how they accessed
>this. They probably were not using an "original" codex that had some
>pages lost. No, rather copying of the text must have already taken
>place and been distributed to various places. Thus Luke and Matthew
>used copies of a text that was already a shortened one. So this short
>Mark was considered important enough to copy and distribute, perhaps
because *no complete version was available*?
>(and here I find Bauckham's argument that the gospels wereNo, it need only to have happened to the *only extant copy,* whether
>meant to be distributed broadly, not just products for a closed
>community convincing). So for the mutilation hypothesis to work, the
>mutilation must have happened in the original form, and yet in this
>form it was copied and distributed and used elsewhere. . . . .
original or not. For example, other copies might have gotten lost
during the Jewish Wars of 70 C.E.
University of Hawaii
- At 03:26 PM 7/17/2007, K L Noll wrote:
>Mark wrote:I actually like the 'mutilated Mark' hypothesis. It comports well
>I found the argument that Mt. and Luke vary from Mark the most
>precisely after 16:8. Yes! To me this is a strong argument for
>the shorter original version of Mark. They didn't have it. Period.
>Much more satisfying than somehow a codex version lost the front and
>the back very early in its transmission.... and no-one copied it in
>its original form?
>. . . Mark, I agree and disagree with your comment that I snipped above.
>Your point about Matthew and Luke going their own ways after Mark
>16:8 is important but, does it not cut both ways? They clearly did
>not have a Mark that continued past that verse, but was it the Mark
>that Mark wrote or was it a mutilated text? I don't think that
>could be the most compelling argument for either side in the debate
>because, in my view, it fits both sides. . . .
with what we know about other ancient codexes, and with physical
realities. BTW, did any of the early codexes have true covers to
protect the first and last pages? That might be an important clue. If
Matthew and Luke knew only the 'mutilated Mark', and had physically
seen it and the evidence of missing beginning and end, would that not
have served as extra motivation to supply the "missing" information?
It also does not surprise me much that no complete (unmutilated)
copies survived, because if Mark wrote shortly before 70 BCE, the
Wars would have made it difficult to keep intact the small number of
I also like it because it combines two domains of knowledge: literary
analysis, and manuscript curation (I mean that part of textual
criticism that deals with actually handling and transcribing the
physical manuscripts themselves.) The trouble with much biblical
criticism is that these methods are too often conducted in isolation
from each other.
University of Hawaii