The Mark 1:2-3 problem

[Sleeping in EQ]

From Bruce Metzger, “Persistent Problems Confronting Bible Translators”:

“The older manuscripts of Mark 1:2-3 attribute to the prophet Isaiah the evangelist’s composite quotation from both Malachi and Isaiah, whereas later manuscripts (followed by the King James translators of 1611) read ‘As it is written in the prophets,’ an obvious amelioration of the earlier text.”

It looks to me like Mark probably wasn’t drawing on any manuscript sources for his quotes, but rather on oral tradition. He’s doing something similar to that guy (many of us know him) in EQ who said, “Joseph Fielding Smith said yadda, yadda, yadda,” but who wasn’t actually quoting JFS and had things a bit mixed up.

Matthew apparently recognized that Mark was in error and so cut the non-Isaiah material when he cited it for Matt. 3:3.

But, never fear, some well meaning scribe(s) came along later and CORRELATED the passage. We’re going to be more accurate than earlier accounts of Mark! To Hell with Mark!

Why am I thinking of Bruce R. McConkie’s idea to reprint the Journal of Discourses, but without the material he didn’t want people to know?

All this reminds me of what I like about Luke 1:1-4

“Since many have undertaken to set down an orderly account of the events that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed on to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, I too decided, after investigating everything carefully from the very first, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the truth concerning the things about which you have been instructed.”

Luke tells us what he’s doing. He’s looking over accounts that have been handed down to him and is doing his best to be accurate. There’s no urim and thummin and there’s no claim to divine, word-for-word inerrancy.

[MikeWaters]

Luke has always been my favorite.

[creekster]

As you know, this issue in general and this passage in particular are discussed in our current book of the month.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by creekster

As you know, this issue in general and this passage in particular are discussed in our current book of the month.

I should have mentioned Misquoting on this. Please pardon my oops!

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Luke has always been my favorite.

I like Luke for many things. He's the best writer of the four and there's a sensitivity, almost a femininity, to Luke. I like Mark alot too, though. His emotional Jesus feels very real. Matthew is strident and heavy handed. If Jesus had looked up from eating to find a place to toss his fish bone, Matthew would have found a way for it to fulfill some OT prophecy. John is the deepest in intellectual terms, but also a little weird.

I would change their order. John first, then Mark, then, Matthew, then Luke. That way Luke would be next to Acts, the synoptics still wouldn't be interrupted, and the most developed christology would come first.

[creekster]

Why am I thinking of Bruce R. McConkie’s idea to reprint the Journal of Discourses, but without the material he didn’t want people to know?

This raises an interesting thought in my mind (warning, this is my mind, so it may not be too interstign for anyone else):

Is it possible to assume BRM was inspired to publish such a version of the JofD? IOW, maybe those other passages really weren’t meant for us or weren’t useful to us and so, what the heck, get rid of them. IF so, could it also be reasonable, from a spiritual and personal revelation point of view, to assume that the original gospel authors and subsequent scribes labored under a similar mode of inspiration? Obviously, one problem with this is that the scribes clearly got things wrong sometimes as shown by, among other things, the fact that the subsequent changes are at times wildly inconsistent. Even so, maybe we have what we have because God wanted us to have it?

This then raises the larger issue of which the first is a subset: If one believes in personal revelation along with revelation to those with certain keys, how does one perform an intellectual investigation into certain topics without attempting to find the point where the intellect and revelation intersect?

[MikeWaters]

I think we are most interested in "original bias." That is, we are interested in the bias of Luke, and John.

We are also interested in "filtered bias", that is the bias of the scribes. But if the "filtered bias" obscures the text such that the "original bias" cannot be determined, that is a tremendous loss.

So if we apply this to BRM, we learn very important things about BRM and his associates by looking at his actions and bias. But if he had destroyed the original JofD, I doubt most of us would be very happy, no matter how inspired we thought BRM was.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I think we are most interested in "original bias." That is, we are interested in the bias of Luke, and John.

We are also interested in "filtered bias", that is the bias of the scribes. But if the "filtered bias" obscures the text such that the "original bias" cannot be determined, that is a tremendous loss.

So if we apply this to BRM, we learn very important things about BRM and his associates by looking at his actions and bias. But if he had destroyed the original JofD, I doubt most of us would be very happy, no matter how inspired we thought BRM was.

I get that, but it is all intellect. WHere is there room for the spirit?

[MikeWaters]

I'd rather pray about the truth of the original bias by examining the original text, then pray about the truth of the original bias by examining the filtered text.

D&C basically tells us that the more we have studied out something in our own minds before going to the Lord, the better off we will be.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by creekster

This raises an interesting thought in my mind (warning, this is my mind, so it may not be too interstign for anyone else):

Is it possible to assume BRM was inspired to publish such a version of the JofD? IOW, maybe those other passages really weren’t meant for us or weren’t useful to us and so, what the heck, get rid of them. IF so, could it also be reasonable, from a spiritual and personal revelation point of view, to assume that the original gospel authors and subsequent scribes labored under a similar mode of inspiration? Obviously, one problem with this is that the scribes clearly got things wrong sometimes as shown by, among other things, the fact that the subsequent changes are at times wildly inconsistent. Even so, maybe we have what we have because God wanted us to have it?

This then raises the larger issue of which the first is a subset: If one believes in personal revelation along with revelation to those with certain keys, how does one perform an intellectual investigation into certain topics without attempting to find the point where the intellect and revelation intersect?

I think it is possible to belief that the authors of the gospel were inspired in their tellings and editings, though I don't personally.

I think a much more interesting question from the LDS perspective is whether the priesthood is necessary for such inspiration. Knowing as we do that the gospels were written well after we believe that authority left the earth, what do we think about all of these books which were written during the full bloom of the apostacy by people who were presumably apostates (even if unwittingly)?

If the priesthood being on the earth is necessary for such inspitation, then they could not have been inspired. If they are inspired the priesthood is not necessary.