Re: Exploring How the Gospel of Mark was Made
- This is fascinating stuff and I thank you immensely. I always enjoy your writing on your website and here.
A couple of things are over my head though.
I don't think a Latin copy was involved in the loss of the LE. Despite what anQuestions:
author from Dallas Theological Seminary claims, the LE is supported by the Old
Latin; it is present in all extant Old Latin copies of Mk. 16 except Codex
Bobbiensis, which is particularly suspect because of its wild interpolation in
Mk. 16:3-4 and, perhaps, its alteration to Mk. 8:32 (which it shares with the
Sinaitic Syriac). The only other Latin witnesses against the LE are conceivably
Codex Vercellensis (but the evidence is a little complicated) and Pacian.
Just how would (theoretically) a Latin copy be involved in the loss of the longer ending?
I am not sure I follow what you mean here. Or are you simply referring to my thesis?
How valuable are the OL texts in determining the reliability of the LE?
- Jay Rogers
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "James Snapp, Jr." <voxverax@...> wrote:
> Jay Rogers:
> JR: "You are assuming that Mark was written in Rome by Mark?"
> I like to call it a deduction rather than an assumption, but my view is, yes, that the Gospel of Mark 1:1-16:8 was written at Rome by John Mark, using Mark's written notes of Peter's remembrances as his main source (with his own remembrances of some events), and that he also wrote a short freestanding composition about Jesus' post-resurrection appearances. (But Marcan authorship of 16:9-20 is not a requirement for its original-ness as part of the Gospel of Mark when it was initially disseminated in the church.) And that the Gospel of Mark was finished by a Roman Christian, or group of Christians, to whom Mark had entrusted his work to finish, who completed it by attaching Mark's freestanding composition about Jesus' post-resurrection appearances.
> I also think that Mark's written notes of Peter's remembrances constituted a "Proto-Mark," which mutated as Mark occasionally reorganized and expanded his material, and that Matthew and Luke used two different forms of "Proto-Mark," not the Gospel of Mark as we know it, when they wrote their Gospel-accounts. This is, I think, the most plausible way to explain the Minor Agreements, and Luke's non-use of large parts of the Gospel of Mark, and other phenomena.
> JR: "And that there must have been some sort of committee (or apostolic individual) who redacted the text before it was released and copied?"
> Yes, although the redaction was of an extremely simple kind: adding the short composition. J.K. Elliott has expressed a strong suspicion that Mark 1:1-3 was not written by John Mark, but was added very early; this is a possibility but considering the external evidence it looks like Elliott's suspicion is about a higher-criticism question.
> The entrance of a redactor into the equation raises the question, "How thorough was the redaction?" and a while ago, out of curiosity, I isolated all the parts of Mark which are not paralleled in Matthew or Luke, and looked for unique vocabulary. The results were interesting.
> In Unique-Parts-of-Mark, there is material about the word (2:2, 4:33, 5:36, 7:29, 8:32a, 9:10, 10:24, ), the hardness of hearts (3:5, 6:52, 8:17) lack of faith (4:40), details of exorcisms (3:11, 3:15, 5:3b-5, 6:13, 9:14-27), preaching (3:14, 6:12, 13:10, ), and the use of hands in healing (6:5, 7:31-37 esp. 7:33, 8:22-26 esp. 8:25, 9:27).
> [Also notice the explanatory notes or details (3:30, 4:34b, 4:36b, 5:26, 5:29, 5:41, 5:42, 6:31, 6:40b, 7:2-4, 7:19b, 7:24, 7:27, 7:30, 10:12, 10:46, 10:50, 11:19, 12:5, 12:42b, 14:51-52, 15:21b, 15:44. And notice the absence of TOU KRASPEDOU in Mk. 5:27, where in the parallels it is present in Mt. 13:20 and Lk. 8:44, and the absence of KAI DIESTRAMMENH in Mk. 9:19, where in the parallels it is present in Mt. 17:17 and Lk. 9:41, and the absence of TIS ESTIN hO PAISAS SE in Mk. 14:65; cf. Mt. 26:68 and Lk. 22:64. Advocates of a simple Two-Source Theory as the solution of the Synoptic Problem sometimes appeal to Matthew and Luke's non-use of Mark 16:9-20 as evidence that Mark 16:9-20 was not in their copies of Mark. An underlying premise of such a case is that if Matthew and Luke don't use something in Mark, it must not have been in their copies. So how do they explain all of the little places where Matthew and Luke do not use Mark? Streeter's explanations are frequently unpersuasive. But I'm veering away from the main subject.]
> What is interesting about these features in Unique-Parts-of-Mark is that, in such a small amount of Mark, we find several elements which are also present in 16:9-20:
> the word (16:20), hardness of hearts (16:14) lack of faith (16:11, 16:13, 16;14, 16:16), exorcisms (16:17), preaching (16:15, 16:20), and the use of hands in healing (16:18).
> Perhaps if a person were to isolate all the Unique-Parts-of-Mark without considering 16:9-20, and perform a vocabulary-analysis on them, the results might show a greater departure from Mark's usual vocabulary than what is seen in 16:9-20 or even in 15:40-16:4. But whether that is or isn't the case, the evidence allows, if not suggests, the theory that the text of the Gospel of Mark as we know it, and the Proto-Marks used by Matthew and Luke, were different, and that they were different because the text of the Gospel of Mark as we know it has been slightly edited at the points just listed.
> I suspect that it was Mark himself who is responsible for this editing. This would add to the case, I think, that 16:9-20 is Marcan. But because the evidence is so sparse, and because much of it is capable of alternate explanations (given enough Two-Source Theory advocates with enough imagination), I (currently) don't think anything should be built on these observations. It is just interesting.
> JR: "What language was Mark written in?"
> JR: "What of the idea that there were two autographs of Mark? A Latin copy with the longer ending and a Greek copy that either did not have the ending or had lost it very early on."
> I don't think a Latin copy was involved in the loss of the LE. Despite what an author from Dallas Theological Seminary claims, the LE is supported by the Old Latin; it is present in all extant Old Latin copies of Mk. 16 except Codex Bobbiensis, which is particularly suspect because of its wild interpolation in Mk. 16:3-4 and, perhaps, its alteration to Mk. 8:32 (which it shares with the Sinaitic Syriac). The only other Latin witnesses against the LE are conceivably Codex Vercellensis (but the evidence is a little complicated) and Pacian.
> JR: "The patristic testimonies are that Mark was in Italy and wrote a Gospel there, and also wrote in Egypt being martyred there."
> Chrysostom's comment that the Gospel of Mark was written in Egypt looks to me like a casual comment without foundation. The ancient testimony is that the Gospel of Mark was written in Rome; there is disagreement about whether this was before or after the death of Peter.
> The account of Mark's martyrdom in Egypt, on the other hand, appear remarkably precise -- the date of the year of his martyrdom is recorded; it was the day before a certain pagan feast-day. Like so many martyrdom-accounts, there are some barnacles in it, but the basic facts seem firmly established, setting Mark's martyrdom in A.D. 68.
> JR: "The early church fathers unamimously record or suppose that Matthew was written in Hebrew whenever language is mentioned."
> Because they echo Papias' statement about the Logia.
> Yours in Christ,
> James Snapp, Jr.
- Hi Folks,
>Why Greek if it was written to Italians? I realize that the vastJames Snapp
>consensus is Greek, but this question seems logical. If one were
>writing to Latin speakers, and if Mark was indeed the "interpreter"
>of Peter, who was likely speaking in Aramaic or Greek, why not write
>in the Italians' own language?
>The reason why Mark would write for Italians in Greek is that theSteven
>Italians, then and there, were speaking and reading and writing in
All of them ? As their first language or second ?
>If you would like to see demonstrations of the extensive verbalSteven
>affinities (in Greek) between Mark, Matthew, and Luke, consult John
>Hawkins' "Horae Synopticae," which can be downloaded for free from
>Google Books or Archive.org.
Since a translation from Latin or a Graeco-Latin dialect to Greek
would likely have been done by someone aware of Mark and Matthew,
such verbal affinities are expected in all scenarios.
>Jaay Rogers:James Snapp
>"Just how would (theoretically) a Latin copy be involved in the loss
>of the longer ending?"
> Theoretically ..- if Mark had written the Gospel of Mark in Latin,someone could have translated an early draft of it into Greek,
And this was the theory of Herman Hoskier, accompanied with extensive
analysis, that Mark was written in either Latin or a Graeco-Latin dialect.