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

RE: [XTalk] RE: The Mutilation of Mark's Gospel

Expand Messages
  • Bob Schacht
    ... But isn t it also possible that the shortened version was copied because *no complete version was available*? ... No, it need only to have happened to the
    Message 1 of 9 , Jul 18 11:08 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      At 06:03 AM 7/18/2007, Matson, Mark (Academic) wrote:


      >[snip]
      >
      >Kurt:
      >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
      >broadly.

      But isn't it also possible that the shortened version was copied
      because *no complete version was available*?

      >(and here I find Bauckham's argument that the gospels were
      >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. . . . .

      No, it need only to have happened to the *only extant copy,* whether
      original or not. For example, other copies might have gotten lost
      during the Jewish Wars of 70 C.E.

      Bob Schacht
      University of Hawaii
    • Bob Schacht
      ... I actually like the mutilated Mark hypothesis. It comports well with what we know about other ancient codexes, and with physical realities. BTW, did any
      Message 2 of 9 , Jul 18 1:57 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        At 03:26 PM 7/17/2007, K L Noll wrote:
        >Mark wrote:
        >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?
        >
        >
        >My comments:
        >
        >. . . 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. . . .

        I actually like the 'mutilated Mark' hypothesis. It comports well
        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
        autographs.

        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.

        Bob Schacht
        University of Hawaii
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.