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

[Synoptic-L] Re: Mark: Scroll or Codex?

Expand Messages
  • David Inglis
    ... Stephen, A very good point. And so, if Mark really is based on the teachings of Peter, it s highly likely that Mark *would* have taken notes (written on
    Message 1 of 1 , Apr 2, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      On 3-28-02, Stephen Carlson wrote:
      > At 09:16 AM 3/28/2002 -0800, you wrote:
      > >The discussions about whether Mark was originally written on a scroll or a
      > >codex, and whether P66 would be
      a single or multiple quire codex, led me to
      > >realise that IMHO it is
      extremely unlikely that anyone would write an
      > >original composition
      (biblical or secular) on a single quire codex.  Please
      > >could I
      ask for comments re. the following argument:
      > ...
      > >As far as
      we know all the early codices were single quire, and so it seems
      > >reasonable to me to suppose that ALL the books of the New Testament were
      > >originally written on scrolls, and codices were only used when
      copying from
      > >other material.
      > ...
      > >So, does my
      argument stand up to scrutiny?
      > I had to snip your argument, but
      your basic observations about knowing
      > the length in advance to use a
      single quire codex, though correct, only
      > demonstrate that Mark was not
      directly composed into a single quire codex.
      > However, this does not
      necessarily mean that Mark was composed into a scroll,
      > because there was
      a variety of media that could have been instead, such
      > as wax tablets and
      loose sheets of papyrus.
      A very good point.  And so, if Mark really is based on the teachings of Peter, it's highly likely that Mark *would* have 'taken notes' (written on whatever pieces of material were available at the time) as Peter was teaching, and then assembled these notes into the form we know as his Gospel.  This also makes it possible that Mark could have made slight changes (for whatever reason) and/or expanded upon his 'notes' when writing his Gospel, thus making the collection of notes a 'Proto Mark'.  Further, if this was the case, then (assuming Markan priority) it is easy to see how Luke's 'great omission could simply be as a result of Luke knowing 'Proto Mark' in this form, and simply not seeing one of the pieces of media that constituted the notes, rather than positing a 'missing quire' from a codex.  By the same logic it is then easy to see why Mark's Gospel (which was a slight revision of his 'notes') contains other material not present in Luke.
      Dave Inglis
      3538 O'Connor Drive
      Lafayette, CA, USA
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.