[Synoptic-L] Re: Mark: Scroll or Codex?
- 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 bea single or multiple quire codex, led me to
> >realise that IMHO it isextremely unlikely that anyone would write an
> >original composition(biblical or secular) on a single quire codex. Please
> >could Iask for comments re. the following argument:
> ...we know all the early codices were single quire, and so it seems
> >As far as
> >reasonable to me to suppose that ALL the books of the New Testament werecopying from
> >originally written on scrolls, and codices were only used when
> >other material.argument stand up to scrutiny?
> >So, does my
>your basic observations about knowing
> I had to snip your argument, but
> the length in advance to use asingle quire codex, though correct, only
> demonstrate that Mark was notdirectly composed into a single quire codex.
> However, this does notnecessarily mean that Mark was composed into a scroll,
> because there wasa variety of media that could have been instead, such
> as wax tablets andloose sheets of papyrus.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 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 Inglis3538 O'Connor DriveLafayette, CA, USA