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

7069Re: [textualcriticism] Re: Mark 5:1 "Gerasenes"

Expand Messages
  • Daniel Buck
    Mar 1, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      <<9. JOHN 1:22.
      "They said therefore unto him, Who art thou? that we may give an answer to them that sent us. What sayest thou of thyself?" This speech of the emissaries amounts to the following: We had a surmise what you were and came to learn if it was so, but now we know that you are not that. It remains for us, therefore. to hear your account of yourself, so that we may report your answer to those who sent us.
      10. OF THE VOICE JOHN THE BAPTISTS IS. >>

      No, the chapter heading is obviously not Origen's. It must predate Stephanus' Textus Receptus, which introduced verses into the NT text.
       
      Daniel Buck

      From: joewallack <joewallack@...>
      To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Friday, February 24, 2012 12:01 PM
      Subject: [textualcriticism] Re: Mark 5:1 "Gerasenes"

       

      --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "Wieland Willker" <wie@...> wrote:
      >
      > First:
      > Origen is difficult to judge since he does not assign his
      > readings to a specific Gospel.

      JW:
      Origen. Commentary on John Book VI 

      "24. THE NAME OF THE PLACE WHERE JOHN BAPTIZED IS NOT BETHANY, AS IN MOST COPIES, BUT BETHABARA. PROOF OF THIS. SIMILARLY "GERGESA" SHOULD BE READ FOR"GERASA," IN THE STORY OF THE SWINE. ATTENTION IS TO BE PAID TO THE PROPER NAMES IN SCRIPTURE, WHICH ARE OFTEN WRITTEN INACCURATELY, AND ARE OF IMPORTANCE FOR INTERPRETATION."

      Is this Chapter heading Origen's? The Judaizing Masorah type language, ""GERGESA" SHOULD BE READ FOR"GERASA,"" is evidence that it is. If it is than Origen is clearly referring to the Canonical Gospels ("Scripture"). If it is not than the author clearly thinks that Origen is.

      "Thus we see that he who aims at a complete understanding of the Holy Scriptures must not neglect the careful examination of the proper names in it. In the matter of proper names the Greek copies are often incorrect, and in the Gospels one might be misled by their authority. The transaction about the swine, which were driven down a steep place by the demons and drowned in the sea, is said to have taken place in the country of the Gerasenes. Now, Gerasa is a town of Arabia, and has near it neither sea nor lake. And the Evangelists would not have made a statement so obviously and demonstrably false; for they were men who informed themselves carefully of all matters connected with Judaea. But in a few copies we have found, "into the country of the Gadarenes;"

      It's clear that Origen is referring to the Canonical Gospels. The logical implication is that per Origen the dominant Gospel reading in all Gospels was "Gerasenes". Origen's Gadarenes comment coordinates with the subsequent evidence that "Matthew" has Manuscript support for it. I'm getting ahead here but what's interesting for me is not what this says about "Mark". All categories of evidence support "Gerasenes" as likely original to "Mark". Not interesting. What is interesting is that Origen is also evidence that "Gerasenes" was original to "Matthew". This suggests that some of the corrections we see in "Matthew" were not a result of the author but of the Editors. Again, this coordinates with the observation that "Matthew" was the favored early Gospel.


      >The same is true for
      > Eusebius' Onomasticon.

      Same for Eusebius:

      Eusebius of Caesarea, Onomasticon (1971) Translation. pp. 1-75. CONCERNING THE PLACE NAMES IN SACRED SCRIPTURE.

      "Gergasei (Gergasi).304 Located on the Jordan near the city of the Galaad (City of Transjordan near tribe Mt.Galaad) which the tribe of Manasse received. It is said to be Gerash the famous city of Arabia. Some affirm it to be Gadara. But the Gospel mentions the Gerassenes (Gergessenes)."

      The clear implication is that per Eusebius the dominant reading in all Gospels was "Gerasenes". Which again coordinates with Origen.

      > My very tentative argumentation goes like this:
      > Basically, on external grounds, we have a tie in all three
      > Gospels between two readings:
      > Mt: Gadara versus Gergesa
      > Mk: Gerasa versus Gergesa
      > Lk: Gerasa versus Gergesa

      I do not think your conclusion is supported by the External because of the Patristic category above. Also, if you put Authority in the External, Authority also favors "Gerasenes" for "Mark". In addition, I would add a Scribal category. Not much meat there, but what there is is pretty choice. Sinaiticus has been edited from "Gerasenes" to "Gergesenes" with Origen/Eusebius providing the fuel. Your related transcription exercise is secondary as we have primary evidence of change to away from "Gerasenes". The Scribal category has the key attribute of Direction. Which way is the text moving.

      > Now I boldly rule out Gerasa, as being geographically
      > impossible (60 km away from the lake) and I don't think that
      > any of the evangelists wrote this.
      > This then would give us Gergesa in Mk and Lk.

      So the only reason you reject "Gerasenes" as original to "Mark" is because you think it would be an error. That is a type of Internal evidence but the related question is who was more likely to make the error, the author or Editors? Generally, authors are more likely to make errors than Editors. There is also the more basic question of whether it is an error. Error is normally defined as significant distance between intent and result. We can not be sure of what "Mark's" intent was. You are assuming it was to be historically accurate. Related to this, "Gerasenes" is not that bad of an error. It's not like the author wrote "Albuqueque". There is a context of which side of the Sea and Gerasa was the biggest city on the Decapolis side and Decapolis is invoked at the end of the story.

      > since Mt is the first and most important
      > Gospel.

      I believe your meaning is that "Matthew" is placed first in the Canon and was the favored early Gospel. As I explained above, this supports the first change away from "Gerasenes" being in "Matthew" as it had the most early Patristic interest.
       
      > At least we can conclude that the incident happened "in the
      > area of Gadara", perhaps near a little village called
      > Gergesa.

      We can be certain that there was no such incident because that would have been Impossible. When I get to the Internal evidence here I'll demonstrate that even if you do not consider the Impossible/Improbable "Mark's" related story tests high for Fictional Criteria. This reduces the supposed objection that "Mark" would not intentionally use a fictional "Gerasenes" as the setting.
    • Show all 14 messages in this topic