Kata Markon

["Rick Frommich" <eugor3 AT hotmail.com>]

My original posting to Dr. Head was accidentally sent to the entire list. I apologize for that but now that the proverbial cat is out of the bag....

Dr. Head you wrote:

Dear Rick,

With respect, I don't think your argument re Mark 14.20 is very compelling.

Could Mark have expected any real reader to notice such a thing?

----

Rick: The concern that someone might want to change his Gospel may very well have motivated the compiler of the Gospel of Mark to couch his work in cryptic structures and metaphors. Paul is constantly talking about those who were seeking to pervert his Gospel:

----

RSV Gal 1:6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and turning to a different gospel --7 not that there is another gospel, but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ.

Rick: I hardly think these fears had been eliminated by the time Mark was putting his version of the Gospel together. Protecting ones message in antiquity was no easy task. At any rate, something very interesting is going on in the Gospel of Mark where the appearance of various forms and root words are concerned. If he is not trying to intentionally que his readers why do we have statements like this in his Gospel?

"But when you see the desolating sacrilege set up where it ought not to be (let the reader understand),

And he said to them, "Do you not understand this parable? How then will you understand all the parables?

Rick: Time and time again the reader, like the disciples, is forced to probe for meaning. i.e. what is it about the loaves that they don’t understand.....this is obviously a metaphor...as is the leaven of the Pharisees. Is there leaven in the loaves.....hot air mixed with the truth...?

-----

Paul seemed to think that false teaching had corrupted his Galatians in this way: "You were running well; who hindered you from obeying the truth? This persuasion is not from him who calls you. A little leaven leavens the whole lump. I have confidence in the Lord that you will take no other view than mine; and he who is troubling you will bear his judgment, whoever he is.

After nearly two thousand years of transmission it should be expected that it will be difficult to detect these cryptic metaphors and structures. Many will have copied the text without thought about its form or structure. Hidden agendas will become even more hidden by accident. However, it is still evident to me that something concerning the counting of words is intentional on the part of the writer of this Gospel according to Mark. Take for example the following words, that I think were originally placed in the narrative a set amount of times...in this case the most probably number is 7.

Gospel

euvagge,lion

euangelion

Mar 1:1

Mar 1:14

Mar 1:15

Mar 8:35

Mar 10:29

Mar 13:10

Mar 14:9

---------

Mar 16:15

The eighth time this word "gospel" appears is in the longer ending of Mark. It is entirely possible that counting words might have served as a kind of copy writing. In this case, counting the words might serve to show the reader that this copy has been tampered with as it does not follow Marks pattern of seven occurrences.

---------

Christ

Cristo,j)

xristos

Mar 1:1

Mar 8:29

Mar 9:41

Mar 12:35

Mar 13:21

Mar 14:61

Mar 15:32

Authority

exousia

exousia

Mar 1:22

Mar 1:27

Mar 2:10

Mar 3:15

Mar 6:7

Mar 11:28

Mar 13:34

Evening

ovyi,aj/ ovye,

Opsias, opse

Mar 1:32

Mar 4:35

Mar 6:47

Mar 11:19

Mar 13:35

Mar 14:17

Mar 15:42

Elders

presbute,ros

Mar 7:3

Mar 7:5

Mar 8:31

Mar 11:27

Mar 14:43

Mar 14:53

Mar 15:1

Seven

~Epta,

epta

Mar 8:5

Mar 8:6

Mar 8:8

Mar 8:20

Mar 12:20

Mar 12:22

Mar 12:23

Mar 16:9

Crucify?

Stau,row

Mar 15:13

Mar 15:14

Mar 15:15

Mar 15:20

Mar 15:24

Mar 15:25

Mar 15:27

Mar 16:6

--------

Rick: It is a simple thing to construct a document where key words are intentionally controlled in this way . There is most certainly some significance attached to counting in Mark when one reads his indictment of the disciples in chapter eight:

------

15 And he cautioned them, saying, "Take heed, beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the leaven of Herod." 16 And they discussed it with one another, saying, "We have no bread." 17 And being aware of it, Jesus said to them, "Why do you discuss the fact that you have no bread? Do you not yet perceive or understand? Are your hearts hardened?18 Having eyes do you not see, and having ears do you not hear? And do you not remember? 19 When I broke the five loaves for the five thousand, how many baskets full of broken pieces did you take up?" They said to him, "Twelve."20 "And the seven for the four thousand, how many baskets full of broken pieces did you take up?" And they said to him, "Seven."21 And he said to them, "Do you not yet understand?"

-------

Is it unreasonable to draw from this text the inference that the numbers twelve and seven are very important to the writer or that, he intends his readers to understand that the disciples again missed the significance of the metaphor of the loaves just as they missed the point of the parable of the soils? The author has intentionally reminded his readers that this like the parable of the soils (he reiterates the seeing and hearing quote from Isaiah). The text anticipates a symbolic interpretation, both for the reader and for the characters in the narrative. I am suggesting that the number twelve and the number seven are very important to the narrative and to the reader. Take another look at the words that I suggest have been placed in the narrative seven times.

There may, of course, be many more words that occur close to seven times as I have not completed the search. It could be that the words that occurred seven times actually formed a complete sentence or maybe even a paragraph. Notice that I have used the first and second occurrence order to arrange the list. As if I were going in numerological order by first appearance of the word, if two first words appeared in the same verse I simply moved to the second appearance to determine the order. That seemed like a logical arrangement to me, much the same as alphabetical order. I am curious to see where the next word might fall in the order and if it will make any sense at all.

Dr Head: Your wrote: "The above manuscripts, in my view, are supported by some other significant factors. First of all one of Mark’s earliest copiers, The compiler of Matthew, does not include the second occurrence of "eis twn

>dwdeka"." Actually I do indeed think that Matthew should be looked at as a document that was created with Mark as a major source.

Dr. Head: Well, it is a bit much to take Matthew as a witness to the shorter form of Mark's text without any further argument, when the dominant theory would suggest that many manuscripts of Mark have been assimilated at various points to parallel texts in Matthew (and on any view Matthew is patently

not a transcriber of Mark.

Rick: I am not proposing that that he was a transcriber. Nor am I saying that extant manuscripts of Mark are not laden with glosses intended to harmonize it with Matthew. I merely suggest that looking, as best we can, at the text of Matthew may yield some insight into the earliest text of Mark. The text that the compiler of Matthew had before when he created his Gospel. A text that would necessarily been very ancient and thus somewhat closer to the Markan autograph.

Any elementary school teacher seeing line by line the exact same text in the exact same word order between two documents would assume that one had copied from the other. I simply fall into the category of those who believe that Matthew copied much of his Gospel directly from Mark changing and editing where he saw fit. I am aware that there are those who would postulate a third source but I personally find that to be untenable.

Evidence of Matthew’s editorial change’s to the Marken text are far more convincing than any attempt to see it the other way around. So, yes I do believe there is some value in looking at similar passages to evaluate various textual variants in the Gospel of Mark. Matthew must have had some copy of Mark to work from. I would maintain that at Mark 14:20..an early transcriber anticipated heis followed by of the twelve" and had penned the definite article and simply finished it as it did no harm to the thought. He then continued with "the one dipping with me". Hence a sentence that disrupts the structure but not the thought.

--------

Dr. Head>You also wrote: "Secondly, certain key words and phrases in Mark are placed >strategically throughout the narrative and counted. One such word is dwdeka.>Now without going into great detail about how these words function in Mark’s narrative. I will simply say that whenever the count is close to 12 or 7 or 4 I generally am inclined to investigate variant readings on these words or phrases."

--------

Dr. Head I admit it would be quite a neat trick for Mark to use "seven" seven times and "twelve" twelve times. But using such a dubious method to inform your textual criticism seems to put the cart before the horse. It doesn't even work for "seven" (which occurs twice in 8.20 and thus eight times overall). You need to get rid of three "twelve’s to make it work.

Rick: Actually I have no interest in making it work if it is not there to begin with. However, I am more inclined to think that there is something to it as I have affirmed above.

---------

Dr. Head. Matthew does seem to have twelve "twelve’s. Maybe he would be a better bet for such a thing (he generally appears more interested in numbers than Mark, maybe it has something to do with his previous employment).

Rick: I appreciate the humor, we must not take ourselves to seriously you know J

-------

For those of you who find this subject, compelling as I do, here is a short list of words that I consider to belong to the twelve count category.

Baptize

Mar 1:4

Mar 1:5

Mar 1:8

Mar 1:9

Mar 6:14

Mar 6:24

Mar 7:4

Mar 10:38

Mar 10:38

Mar 10:38

Mar 10:39

Mar 10:39

Preaching

Mar 1:4

Mar 1:7

Mar 1:14

Mar 1:38

Mar 1:39

Mar 1:45

Mar 3:14

Mar 5:20

Mar 6:12

Mar 7:36

Mar 13:10

Mar 14:9

Galilee

Mar 1:9

Mar 1:14

Mar 1:16

Mar 1:28

Mar 1:39

Mar 3:7

Mar 6:21

Mar 7:31

Mar 9:30

Mar 14:28

Mar 15:41

Mar 16:7

Pharisees

Mar 2:16

Mar 2:18

Mar 2:24

Mar 3:6

Mar 7:1

Mar 7:3

Mar 7:5

Mar 8:11

Mar 8:15

Mar 10:2

Twelve

Mar 4:10

Mar 5:42

Mar 6:7

Mar 6:43

Mar 8:19

Mar 9:35

Mar 10:32

Mar 11:11

Mar 14:10

Mar 14:17

Mar 14:20

Mar 14:43

King

Mar 6:14

Mar 6:22

Mar 6:25

Mar 6:26

Mar 6:27

Mar 13:9

Mar 15:2

Mar 15:9

Mar 15:12

Mar 15:18

Mar 15:26

Mar 15:32

Please remember that I am only suggesting that these words may have been intentionally counted and placed twelve times in the autograph to convey a cryptic message and to protect the document from being altered. I am not asserting that any one manuscript available to us today would reflect this although that is possible. I would like very much to investigate Codex Bobbienses and Codex Campianus with regard to these words, though that does not seem possible at this time.

--------------

I hope this discussion finds a place among the people of this gmark list but if that does not happen, I will crawl back into my cubbyhole and press on just the same.

Yours in the love of sacred writings,

Rick Richmond

---

---

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com