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

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

Expand Messages
  • Daniel Buck
    Message 1 of 14 , 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.
    • joewallack
      JW: Continuing with my textual criticism of your textual criticism of Mark 5:1: A Textual Commentary on the Greek Gospels Vol. 1 Matthew BY WIELAND WILLKER
      Message 2 of 14 , Mar 2, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        JW:
        Continuing with my textual criticism of your textual criticism of Mark 5:1:

        A Textual Commentary on the Greek Gospels Vol. 1 Matthew BY WIELAND WILLKER

        For TVU 92 27 NA27 Matthew 8:28 you write:

        "Zahn cannot believe that one of the evangelists really used the well known town Gerasa, which is a two day's journey away from the lake
        ...
        If we follow Zahn and rule out Gerasa completely, what was probably the source that led to it? Transcriptionally Gergeshnw/n is more probable:
        gera shnwn
        gergeshnwn
        gadar hnwn
        So, it is probable that Gergeshnw/n was the original reading in Mk (and Lk). Since the reading Gerasa is not found in the Greek tradition of Mt, it is probable that Mt did not read Gergeshnw/n originally. So we are left with Gadarhnw/n for Mt. Josephus calls the area around Gadara (which is about 10 km from the lake) h` Gadari/tij (Bel. Jud. III 10,10), which belonged to the Dekapolis. So, the incident happened eivj th.n cw,ran tw/n Gadarhnw/n. But the mentioned village cannot be Gadara, which is too far away. There must have been a village called Gergesa. Where was this village? Only in the area of es-Samra hills meet the lake. These are called tulul es-se'alib, "fox-hills". Several ruins can be found there, the highest point is 93 m above the lake. This is the argumentation/speculation of Zahn."

        Your wording is unclear as to the primary reason you are quoting Zahn here. Is it primarily because he is an Authority or because his argument has significant weight? If it's because he is an Authority this does not help your conclusion much as Authority in general is clearly against him. Your last related post makes clear you think his argument has weight. Following are his main assertions and the problems I see with them:

        1) Zahn can not believe that "Mark" wrote "Gerasenes" because it would not fit the physical requirements of the story. As I already mentioned, it's more likely that "Mark" originally wrote it than subsequent scribes who would have had the benefit of hundreds of years of thought on the subject and a more historical based assumption.

        2) He does not consider "Gerasenes" as a possible transcription ancestor because of 1) so his only transcription candidate for "Gadarenes" is "Gergesenes". Close, but so is "Gerasenes". And again, the transcription exercise is secondary as we have superior evidence (Sinaiticus and Patristic) that "Gerasenes" is the ancestor. Also, Gadarenes can be better explained as editing for a position closer to the Sea.

        3) He says "Gerasenes" is not in the Greek tradition of "Matthew" but Origen/Eusebius not only indicate it was but are evidence that it was the dominant Greek text.

        To summarize how I see the External Categories and my related objections to your commentary:

        1) Manuscript = I see the quality as favoring "Gerasenes". I also observe the related dividing of the Manuscripts here as a pattern with the "Gerasenes" team usually on the winning Textual Criticism side. Your observation?

        2) Patristic = Clearly favors "Gerasenes". You seem to be dismissing Origen/Eusebius because they do not say "Mark" rather than just discounting. Why?

        3) Scribal = Clearly favors "Gerasenes". Sinaticus' correction is unreMarkable to you?

        4) Authority = Clearly favors "Gerasenes". I find the attention you give to Zahn inconsistent with the position of Authority here in general. I assume you accept that Authority says "Gerasenes". Why no weight?

        Note that all of the above coordinate. In Origen/Eusebius' time the text was "Gerasenes". Origen famously objects to "Gerasenes" as not fitting and proposes "Gergesenes" with no Manuscript support. Subsequent Editors accept Origen and change from "Gerasenes". In summary you are rejecting this known explanation and instead selecting an inferior one which is unknown.

        I'll cover the Internal evidence next.


        Joseph















         
      • George F Somsel
        All of this speculation regarding the reference to the location was to a known locality.  If, as seems likely, the physical location was not well known to the
        Message 3 of 14 , Mar 2, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          All of this speculation regarding the reference to the location was to a known locality.  If, as seems likely, the physical location was not well known to the author, the author may have supplied any location name which became known to him.  The actual location of the site is somewhat immaterial.
           
          george
          gfsomsel

          search for truth, hear truth,
          learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
          defend the truth till death.

          - Jan Hus
          _________

          From: joewallack <joewallack@...>
          To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
          Sent: Friday, March 2, 2012 11:07 AM
          Subject: [textualcriticism] Re: Mark 5:1 "Gerasenes"

           

          JW:
          Continuing with my textual criticism of your textual criticism of Mark 5:1:

          A Textual Commentary on the Greek Gospels Vol. 1 Matthew BY WIELAND WILLKER

          For TVU 92 27 NA27 Matthew 8:28 you write:

          "Zahn cannot believe that one of the evangelists really used the well known town Gerasa, which is a two day's journey away from the lake
          ...
          If we follow Zahn and rule out Gerasa completely, what was probably the source that led to it? Transcriptionally Gergeshnw/n is more probable:
          gera shnwn
          gergeshnwn
          gadar hnwn
          So, it is probable that Gergeshnw/n was the original reading in Mk (and Lk). Since the reading Gerasa is not found in the Greek tradition of Mt, it is probable that Mt did not read Gergeshnw/n originally. So we are left with Gadarhnw/n for Mt. Josephus calls the area around Gadara (which is about 10 km from the lake) h` Gadari/tij (Bel. Jud. III 10,10), which belonged to the Dekapolis. So, the incident happened eivj th.n cw,ran tw/n Gadarhnw/n. But the mentioned village cannot be Gadara, which is too far away. There must have been a village called Gergesa. Where was this village? Only in the area of es-Samra hills meet the lake. These are called tulul es-se'alib, "fox-hills". Several ruins can be found there, the highest point is 93 m above the lake. This is the argumentation/speculation of Zahn."

          Your wording is unclear as to the primary reason you are quoting Zahn here. Is it primarily because he is an Authority or because his argument has significant weight? If it's because he is an Authority this does not help your conclusion much as Authority in general is clearly against him. Your last related post makes clear you think his argument has weight. Following are his main assertions and the problems I see with them:

          1) Zahn can not believe that "Mark" wrote "Gerasenes" because it would not fit the physical requirements of the story. As I already mentioned, it's more likely that "Mark" originally wrote it than subsequent scribes who would have had the benefit of hundreds of years of thought on the subject and a more historical based assumption.

          2) He does not consider "Gerasenes" as a possible transcription ancestor because of 1) so his only transcription candidate for "Gadarenes" is "Gergesenes". Close, but so is "Gerasenes". And again, the transcription exercise is secondary as we have superior evidence (Sinaiticus and Patristic) that "Gerasenes" is the ancestor. Also, Gadarenes can be better explained as editing for a position closer to the Sea.

          3) He says "Gerasenes" is not in the Greek tradition of "Matthew" but Origen/Eusebius not only indicate it was but are evidence that it was the dominant Greek text.

          To summarize how I see the External Categories and my related objections to your commentary:

          1) Manuscript = I see the quality as favoring "Gerasenes". I also observe the related dividing of the Manuscripts here as a pattern with the "Gerasenes" team usually on the winning Textual Criticism side. Your observation?

          2) Patristic = Clearly favors "Gerasenes". You seem to be dismissing Origen/Eusebius because they do not say "Mark" rather than just discounting. Why?

          3) Scribal = Clearly favors "Gerasenes". Sinaticus' correction is unreMarkable to you?

          4) Authority = Clearly favors "Gerasenes". I find the attention you give to Zahn inconsistent with the position of Authority here in general. I assume you accept that Authority says "Gerasenes". Why no weight?

          Note that all of the above coordinate. In Origen/Eusebius' time the text was "Gerasenes". Origen famously objects to "Gerasenes" as not fitting and proposes "Gergesenes" with no Manuscript support. Subsequent Editors accept Origen and change from "Gerasenes". In summary you are rejecting this known explanation and instead selecting an inferior one which is unknown.

          I'll cover the Internal evidence next.


          Joseph















           


        • schmuel
          Hi Folks, Matthew 8:28 (AV) And when he was come to the other side into the country of the Gergesenes, there met him two possessed with devils, coming out of
          Message 4 of 14 , Mar 2, 2012
          • 0 Attachment
            Hi Folks,

            Matthew 8:28 (AV)
            And when he was come to the other side into the country of the Gergesenes,
            there met him two possessed with devils,
            coming out of the tombs,
            exceeding fierce, so that no man might pass by that way.

            Wieland Willker expounding on Theodor Zahn
            " Since the reading Gerasa is not found in the Greek tradition of Mt, it is probable that Mt did not read Gergeshnw/n originally."

            Steven
            Here we have the famous evidence from silence expanded into the silence of a non-corruption, a very thin reed :) .

            Wieland
            So we are left with Gadarhnw/n for Mt. Josephus calls the area around Gadara (which is about 10 km from the lake) h` Gadari/tij (Bel. Jud. III 10,10), which belonged to the Dekapolis.

            Steven
            This Gadarenes--Decapolis connection is very important. 
            Here is where Decapolis is mentioned, in Mark, not in Matthew. 

            Mark 5:20  (AV)
            And he departed, and began to publish in Decapolis how great things Jesus had done for him: and all men did marvel.

            With the Gergesenes region as Kursi, across from Tiberias, that is not a Decapolis region, as it is above Hippo. Thus, allowing that the Gospel writers were well informed, the Decapolis reference is one of many that supports the Received Text - Greek Majority text reading, Gadarenes, matching Decapolis, for Mark and Luke, Gergesenes for Mattthew.  (Putting aside the attempt to place Kursi with Samra.)

            Wieland
            So, the incident happened eivj th.n cw,ran tw/n Gadarhnw/n.
            But the mentioned village cannot be Gadara, which is too far away.

            Matthew 8:33
            And they that kept them fled, and went their ways into the city,
            and told every thing, and what was befallen to the possessed of the devils.

            Luke 8:27
            And when he went forth to land, there met him out of the city a certain man,
            which had devils long time, and ware no clothes,
            neither abode in any house, but in the tombs.

            Steven
            You can not read too much into this, as evidence for or against. The city could have been the few mile trek up the hills (walking distances was far more common in those days, as we see in the Bible) or there could have been a Gadarene port village on the lake, your other alternative.

            Wieland
            There must have been a village called Gergesa. Where was this village? Only in the area of es-Samra hills meet the lake. 

            Steven
            There is an etymological difficulty here.
            If you claim Samra was somehow Gergesa, then it becomes the region of the Samra, not just a village.

            Wieland
            These are called tulul es-se'alib, "fox-hills". Several ruins can be found there, the highest point is 93 m above the lake. This is the argumentation/speculation of Zahn."

            Steven
            This is a bit stale, as incomplete info, as the Kursi identification is more common today for Gergesenes, across from Tiberias. While I disagree with Franz on some elements, this is the basic factual info about Gergesa, he simply mentions the two possibilities. 

            Note that Franz does not talk of the region of Samra, or even a village, simply that the hill was called Samra at one good, southern (Gadarene) spot.

            The Demoniacs of Gadara
            Gordon Franz
            http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2011/03/07/the-demoniacs-of-gadara.aspx
            The text is clear that this event took place on the eastern shore of the Sea of Galilee. Two (maybe three) possible sites have been proposed for the setting of the casting of the demons into the swine. The first possibility, which is now a National Park, is the Byzantine Kursi church on the southern banks of the Wadi Samek. The other possibility is Tel Samra, situated under the campground of Kibbutz Ha�on.

            Stevem
            Now we switch to JW.

            JW:
             Zahn  ...  does not consider "Gerasenes" as a possible transcription ancestor because of 1) so his only transcription candidate for "Gadarenes" is "Gergesenes".

            Steven
            This is a reasonable point to make against the minority alexandrian reading of Gadarenes in the text of Matthew. Although, harmonization can often supply a missing possible vector of original inclusion. And you can not read too much into scribal mind-reading theories when there are overlapping elements, like the complex dual-language, lectio difficilior, geography knowledge, harmonization and word-similarity considerations.  You can always have a theory for A to Z.)

            JW
            Close, but so is "Gerasenes". And again, the transcription exercise is secondary as we have superior evidence (Sinaiticus and Patristic) that "Gerasenes" is the ancestor.

            Steven
            This is basically the same type of error JW made earlier, the previous post.

            Gerasenes is exceedingly week in Matthew, Sinaiticus supports Gadarenes with correction to Gergesenes. Plus ECW support is weakest of all. So it is hard to fathom what JW is arguing here, perhaps that Gerasenes was the lost Greek "ancestor" of Gadarenes.  However, Gadarenes, if not original in Matthew (and I believe not) is easily explained by harmonization and geographical familiarity as derived from Gergesenes. Thus it does call out for any simplistic transcriptional vector, a concern which is grossly overrated in this verse study.

            JW
            Also, Gadarenes can be better explained as editing for a position closer to the Sea. 

            Steven
            Except that Alexandrian scribes in gnostic lands are not known for familiarity with Israel geography.
            e.g. Sinaiticus talks of Nazareth, a city of Judea, a blunder that is generally hidden from view.

            JW
            3) He says "Gerasenes" is not in the Greek tradition of "Matthew" ....

            Steven
            Which it clearly is not in the extant tradition.
            The discussion of Origen is limited by the simple fact that he does not discuss any particular books of the three synoptic Gospels.

            Shalom,
            Steven Avery
            Queens, NY
          • Wieland Willker
            The manuscript evidence is divided and I consider the case impossible to judge from external evidence. But I agree that the evidence for Gerasa is strong in Mk
            Message 5 of 14 , Mar 3, 2012
            • 0 Attachment
              The manuscript evidence is divided and I consider the case
              impossible to judge from external evidence. But I agree that
              the evidence for Gerasa is strong in Mk and Lk.
              You asked: "Sinaticus' correction is unreMarkable to you?"
              Yes, since it is harmonistic. The corrector changed the
              reading in all Gospels to Gergesa.

              Origen seems to have Gerasa as the majority(?) reading, that
              is true, but he is assigning no specific Gospel to it.
              Eusebius is mentioning the names in his Onomastikon without
              assigning a Gospel. What does this help?
              Epiphanius is assigning the names to each Gospel and he has
              Gergesa for Mk and Lk and Gadara in Mt, which is in
              agreement with the analysis of Zahn.

              I don't mention Zahn, because he is an authority. He is, but
              this is not important. I think his argumentation is one
              possible, although tentative explanation. I am very
              unconfident that it is correct. It is basically possible of
              course that Mark (and Lk) wrote Gerasa originally. Note
              Origen! Then, the other names might be attempts to correct
              the geographical problem.

              I think that this is overall very difficult to judge. In the
              end I left the case as "indecisive".


              Best wishes
              Wieland
              <><
              --------------------------
              Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
              http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie
              Textcritical commentary:
              http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/

              Please check out the TC forum:
              http://tcg.iphpbb3.com
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.