|
Textual Comments on Canonical Mark by Vincent Sapone
Objective: To examine the Gospel of Mark and present any demonstrable textual difficulties occurring prior to 200 a.d.--that is, when Mark was in its earliest developmental stages. Also, to critically assess claims that the original Gospel does not resemble our modern version.
Citations: Neither Justin's mid second-century nor Papias' slightly earlier references help us establish the text of Mark in any way. Justin Martyr probably indicates knowledge of the text of Mark 3:17 in Dial 106.2-3 but other than this, there aren't any sure citations from this Gospel before Clement of Alexandria and Irenaues in the late second-century. How then can we evaluate the textual stability of Mark since we do not possess any early copies of the work or even a control to go by. Furthermore, how do we know what a control text would even look like? It is quite possible it could look altogether different from extant canonical Mark. The possibility of this is contingent upon how one views early Christians and the textual stability of works in antiquity during their infancy stages. The Two Document Hypotheses: We do, however, have two earlier witnesses if the two source theory is correct; Matthew and Luke. The majority of modern exegetes hold that the extant canonical gospel of Mark must have been written before Matthew and Luke since they both used Mark as a source in composing their own Gospels. These two other gospels will aid us greatly in our investigation here since both gospels frequently reprint the wording and order of Mark in a number of cases.
This, however, is only one of four extant endings found in the manuscript tradition. New Testament textual critic Bruce Metzger writes that "none of these four endings commends itself as original"1. All four of the endings cannot be dated before 200 AD so I cannot add all four to the list here of Markan tampering before 200 C.E. but at least one ending was attached very early. Tatian's Diatessaron seems to include the long ending which would also make it possible that Justin, his mentor, knew it as well.2 Irenaues also shows knowledge of this ending.3 Furthermore, we know that Matthew and Luke diverge sharply after Mark 16:8 which indicates that they both could not have had the same text with its canonical or a similar ending in front of them. Though it is possible they could have simply diverged it must be maintained that Matthew mimics Mark's passion narrative extremely closely and Luke close enough. Their divergence after 16:8 is supported by what the later manuscripts with varying endings indicate. It is possible that either Matthew or Luke had a version of Mark with an ending that did not stop at 16:8 while the other did not. Some have even suggested that the original ending of Mark was redacted and attached to GJohn. Such hypothesis are rather difficult to conclusively settle. My own view is that Mark originally (the version available to Matthew and Luke and looking awfully close to our own) ended at 16:8 and later Christians (Matthew and Luke included) felt this was an inappropriate ending. It is not my goal, however, to argue for this view here so I digress. Mark did have an
added ending attached sometime in the second century and Bruce Metzger
describes the importance of this: "It
should not be overlooked that the text-critical analysis of the ending
of Mark's gospel has an important bearing on the historical and literary
source criticism of the Gospels. Since Mark was not responsible for the
composition of the last twelve verses of the generally current form of
his gospel, and since they undoubtedly had been attached to the Gospel
before the church recognized the fourfold Gospels as canonical, it follows
that the New Testament contains not four but five evangelic accounts of
events subsequent to the resurrection of Christ."4
When we compare Mark's extant manuscript text with the Markan portions reproduced by Matthew and Luke we see that Mark has not passed through history unscathed. It is littered with textual wounds, some large and some small. There are numerous instances where Matthew and Luke agree in their reproduction of "Mark" against today's extant text.5 One pivot of the two source theory is the independence of Matthew and Luke. Thus, these agreements seem to indicate an earlier version of Mark. These are the so-called minor agreements of Matthew and Luke against Mark. They have an interesting bearing on the synoptic problem itself and raise questions concerning the text of GMark (if the 2ST is correct).6
This section in Mark
2:23-28 ends with two sayings of Jesus (v.27 & v. 28). Both Matthew
and Luke contain only the second of these two sayings. It might be argued
that the first saying about the Sabbath was too bold for the later church
and was deleted by both Matthew and Luke. This is countered by the fact
that "criticism of the Sabbath observation was pervasive at that
time, as is shown by passages like Col 2:16; Ign. Mg. 9.1; Barn. 15. Thus
it is more likely that the original text of Mark was later expanded by
the addition of this saying. Only the saying preserved in Matthew and
Luke belonged to the original text of Mark."8 Parable of the Seed Growing Secretly This parable found in Mark 4:26-29 is not found in either Matthew or Luke. If Matthew's version of Mark did have this parable it must be claimed that he replaced it with the parable of the tares (Matt. 13:24-30). However, Matthew was eager to expand the Marcan parable chapter (cf. Matt 13:33, 44-46, 47-50, 51-52). Furthermore, since Luke does not reproduce this parable in his version of the parable chapter nor anywhere else, it is more likely that the original text of Mark did not include it. Jesus' Encounter with the Rich Man Mark's account (10:17-31) is copied quite faithfully and often verbatim by Luke (18:18-30) and Matthew (20:16-30) but the canonical text of Mark contains two passages which are missing in both Matthew and Luke and appear to be secondary expansions. Matthew and Luke show evidence of the more original versions of the Marcan text that both copied. The Great Commandment "In Mark 12:28-31 ( = Matt 22:34-40 and Luke 10:25-28) the pericope about the Great Commandment is introduced by a reference to Dtn 6:4 ("hear, O Israel . . .") and has received an appendix about "the scribe who is not far from the rule of God" (mark 12:32-34). Neither feature has a parallel in Matthew and Luke. In a brilliant analysis, Gunther Bornkamm has demonstrated that this appendix is a later addition to Mark's text, written from the perspective of Hellenistic propaganda." 9 The Naked Young Man Neither Matthew nor Luke reproduce the strange incident that occurs regarding a follower of Jesus when he is arrested (Mark 14:51-52). There is no trace in either gospel of this fortunate young man who managed to escaped when grabbed by armed men by letting go of the linen cloth covering his naked body. The Request of the Sons of Zebedee Luke omits this passage
entirely but part of it is found in Matthew but even though it is not
a "common omission it still must be included here. As Koester wrote,
"In Mark 10:38, Jesus answers the request of the sons of Zebedeee
with two questions, "can you drink the cup that I drink?" and
"can you be baptized with the baptism with which I will be baptized?"
After their affirmative response, Jesus confirms that they will indeed
drink this cup and be baptized with this baptism (Mark 10:39). In the
Matthean parallel (20:22-23) only the first of these double questions
and confirmations appears. The reference here is certainly to martyrdom
for which the image of drinking the chalice seems appropriate. However,
baptism as a metaphor for death or martyrdom reflects a later usage of
language in Christian literature. That the metaphor was used in this way
in Mark's original text, written some time in the second half of the 1st
century, is highly improbable. Matthew seems to have preserved the original
text of Mark, while the expansions in the present text of Mark may have
resulted from a secondary redaction, most likely a homiletic reference
to the Christian sacraments, eucharist (drinking the cup) and baptism."10 This list is not comprehensive. Other examples and possibilities could be added (e.g. it is possible that the text in Mark 7 where Jesus declared all food clean is a later insertion as it is not reprinted by Matthew or Luke).
Both Matthew and Luke add in "to know" and have the plural "mysteries" instead of the singular mystery found in Mark. Given the context the plural form is more appropriate here and seems to be the more original wording of the passage. Some scholars think the usage of the singular "mystery" in Mark designating the entire preaching of Jesus or the entire Gospel represents later Christian literature. Matt. 16:21 and Luke 9:22 vs. Mark 8:31 GMatt and GLuke agree: "and on the third day to be raised" whereas Mark has "and to rise after three days". Two other references in Mark are less secure so I do not include them here. Matt 17:18-20a and Luke 9:42-43 vs. Mark 9:25-29 11 Mark's version of
the story is almost twice as long as that of Matthew and Luke and it seems
Mathew and Luke read a version of Mark that did not include the verses
that neither one parallel. "Especially the phrases and sentences
of Mark 9:25-27 which are missing in the other two Synoptic Gospels have
the appearance of secondary alterations or additions. Matt 17:18 and Luke
9:42b must have read a common source which reported briefly that Jesus
exorcised the unclean spirit, that the child was healed, and perhaps that
the crowd reacted. The extant text of Mark, however, quotes in full the
wording of an exorcistic formula, indeed the longest such formula in the
Synoptic Gospels. Surprisingly, this is an exorcism for a deaf-mute person,
not for an epileptic child (FN: Mark's later redactor has changed the
introduction of the story (9:17) accordingly; the original description
of the disease, epilepsy, is still visible in Mark 9:18, 20, 22). The
redactor shows little interest in the healing of the disease. Rather,
he wants to describe the effect of a powerful exorcism in order to introduce
the subsequent action of Jesus, which has no parallel in Matthew and Luke:
the demon departs with appropriate demonstration, the boy is left "as
if dead", and the bystanders say "he died". This prepares
for an action of Jesus which is described as the raising of a dead person:
Jesus takes him by the hand, raises him, and he rises. The story, as it
is preserved in the extant text of Mark, appears to be a deliberate redaction
of an older exorcism story which Matthew and Luke still read in their
text of Mark." 12
The terms "to teach" and "teaching" are reproduced by Matthew and Luke during their copying of the following Marcan verses: 1:21, 22; 6:2, 6; (7:7;) 11:18; 12:14; 14:49. However, there are several spots where the parallel does not occur in verses Matthew and Luke draw from Mark (1:27; 2:13; 4:1-2; 6:30; 6:34; 8:31; 9:31; 10:1; 11:17; 12:35, 37, 38. This is a very significant variation. Also found in Mark
are two terms employed that were used in the context of magic performances
of Hellenistic religious language. Mark is the only NT work that employs
these verbs (Luke uses a noun form in several instances13)
which express the amazement associated with witnessing an extraordinary
event. The terms occur in the following passages: 1:2713; 9:15; 10:24;
10:32; 14:33; 16:15; cf. 16:6.
It begins with Jesus
going to Bethsaida and ends with the story of the healing of a blind man
from Bethsaida. The town of Bethsaida does not occur again in the Gospel. Two healing stories in this section (Mark 7:32-36 and 8:22-26) are also missing in Matthew as well. These are the only two narratives in the Synoptic Gospels where the healing is accomplished through elaborate manipulations. All other instances are performed through Jesus' word, simple gestures like touching and taking the hand and so forth. There is also slightly peculiar vocabulary found in several instances here. As Koester writes, "the term "to understand" occurs four times (6:52; 7:14; 8:17, 21), but elsewhere in Mark only once in an illusion to Isa 6:9-10 (Mark 4:12). The synonymous verb "voeiv" is found twice here (7:18; 8:17), elsewhere in Mark only in 13:14. The adjective "without insight" is used in Mark only in this section (8:17). If each of these items were taken alone they would not say very much but when taken together they might provide cumulative evidence which allows for the conclusion that Luke's version of Mark probably did not yet contain the Bethsaida section.
The two document hpothesis posits the independence of Matthew and Luke but Matthew and Luke agree against Mark in a large number of instances (e.g. Mark 2.1-12 and parr.) Some scholars have gone to suggest these agreements invalidate the two document hypothesis. Others would use them to argue for the textual instability of Mark. In some cases these agreements can of course be attributed to coincidence, popular tradition, correction of poor Greek ands syntax, omission of Mark's verbosity and a host of other things such as textual assimilation to Matthew--the most popular of the Gospels in antiquity. In other instances they cannot and some scholars do not accept these things as an aequate explanation of the minor agreements. The listing above aims for the more significant ones that can plausibly be attributed to editorial changes. There is, however, a large stockpile of "minor agreements" still out there that can be sifted through. These minor agreements have an important bearing on textual critical studies and the synoptic problem itself an should not be ignored.
Conclusion What do all the features above point to? Through all the common omissions and instances where Matthew and Luke independently agree against Mark some scholars surmise that the gospel of Mark was redacted after its usage by Matthew and Luke. Thus, there may have been two versions of Mark in antiquity: Mark (original-now lost) and Mark (redacted = canonical). Other scholars would accept the text of Secret Mark as indicating yet another version of the gospel of Mark in antiquity. Some scholars dispute the authenticity of Secret Mark, however. Others think parts of Secret Mark predate canonical Mark. There is a significant gulf in scholarship over this issue, though I am not sure why. Some scholars suggest that Matthew and Luke might possibly have used different versions of Mark. Luke's version would be gleaned through his omission of the Bethsaida section. Therefore, under some paradigms, there could have been at least four different versions of Mark in antiquity. How stable is the extant canonical text of Mark? Well if it was too unstable how could scholars ever defend Markan priority? The text of original Mark must be significantly similar to the text of canonical Mark. Many of the above examples are based upon Matthew and Luke copying Mark faithfully and then diverging. Without textual stability and fidelity, these arguments could never get started. We are simply talking redactional expansion, modification and omission. Dispensing with Q would remove some of these issues. I am sympathetic to the 'Mark without Q' view which posits Lucan dependence upon Matthew. Such a view completely removes the majority of the evidence for viewing Mark as being edited by a later redactor. But unless they synoptics were all redacted in exactly the same fashion, the synoptic problem demonstrates the overall textual reliability of the Gospel of Mark--and it does so very early.
by Vincent Sapone
Notes: 1. Bruce Metzger, The Text of the NT, 3rd Version, Oxford, pp 226-229 2. This is
certain in so far as Tatian's Diatessaron can be reconstructed to have
originally contained this material. The 4. As this series should caution us, there was certainly more than five hands involved in the process! 5. Metzger, ibid., 229 6. Neirynck in Minor Agreements provides a through classification of all the agreements. There are several explanations commonly offered for these agreements. One, many of them appear to be common stylistic and grammatical corrections of GMark. Two, later scribes may have altered the text of Luke in light of the better known text of Matthew. Three, maybe Luke knew Matthew and the 2ST is incorrect. Four, Matthew and Luke used a version of Mark that differs significantly from our canonical copy. This discussion favors the latter view and is not concerned with the common stylistic and grammatical corrections but with instances of agreement against the extant text of Mark where known editorial purposes can be the reason for the differences. 7. For this section I am indebted to Helmut Koester. I am following his lead on pp 276-286, Ancient Christian Gospels, Trinity. 8. Koester, ibid., p. 276. 9. Koester, ibid., p. 277. 10. Ibid, p.278-279 11. This is more easily seen in parallel fashion. 12. Koester, 282 13. Luke probably
read this verb in his copy of Mark since 4:36 uses the noun form. Its
also used in 5:9 and Acts 3:10.
|
Vincent Sapone After-Hourz.Net 2004