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