jgibson000

Yes, it is. If it's anything, it's #2.

No. It was to show that you had both misquoted (trimalaka?) and selectively quoted France. It was also to show that you were/are wrong and that you didn't know what you were/are talking about when you claimed the FF has been ignored by Christian scholars when they deal with the text of Mk. 16:1-8 - an inconvenient fact that you have slithered away from noting or discussing.

And again, what's with the capitalization of "significant?

Sigh. It's Jeffrey [yPtz]

:huh:

I should think that this is the ICC.

And again, what's with the capitalizations?

Leaving aside the question of whether your claim about what "we" should do is a self serving non sequitur, are you finally admitting that you are amateur and therefore not only do not have actual expertise in the matters that you pronounce so grandly upon and are not particularly well informed about them, but that you have no right to post with the air of authority and scholarly superiority (and the sneering disdain for the work of actual scholars) you like to assume when you post?

And if you are admitting this (how else to take your words?), how does this excuse for you from abiding by standards of scholarship. Seems to me that the amateur actually should be expected to be even more dutiful and circumspect towards abiding by them, and not deviating from then, especially when he is putting forward views that he claims are superior to those he is opposing/critiquing.


Observe away. But how good is this observation (let alone "important")? What is your evidence for claiming as you do, that the FF is "early"? Is the 3rd century dating of the FF secure?

Is it? How can one say this, let alone say this with the certainly that you evince here, without first actually comparing the Greek wording and syntax of the FF with that of Mk. 16-1-8//Matt. 28?

Well of course it does! But the question is why it lacks 14:28. You are claiming that it's because it is a faithful reproduction of the original text of the Markan verses it witnesses to. But without an actual examination of the Greek wording and syntax of the FF -- and the data there (i.e., it's use of the genitive absolute and its use of a siglium for Peter's name, its trasposition of words, its preference for Matthean wording and word order over Mark's) shows that it does abbreviate its Markan exemplar and, notably, is more dependent on Matthew than on Mark (as Gundry's discussion of the FF shows), your claim is petitio principii.

Why should he identity("Explicitly" or othewise) the FF as such? Because you say he should? On what grounds?

And what's with the capitalization of "explicitly"?

Are you saying that France is aware of your "demonstration" and is failing to take it into account?

In any case, re your claim to have demonstrated "no significant difference in meaning [presumably between what Mark and Matt say in Mk 16:1-8 and Matt. 28:1-10 respectively and what we find in the FF] for the disputed 14:28, you have done no such thing. You have made an apodictic assertion about this. But since you have not produced or in any way engaged in anything resembling what the actual demonstration of your claim would have to consist in -- an analytical comparison of the Greek wording and syntax of the FF with that of Matt. 16:1-8//Matt. 28:1-10 -- you most certainly have not "demonstrated" anything (other than your inability to deal with the Greek texts of these passages and your tendencies to avoid things that might show you have no idea what you are talking about), let alone what you claim to have demonstrated.

Again, you play fast and loose with the term forged. It does not follow, even if it is the case that Mark added Mk. 16:7 to the tradition he was reproducing, that Mk. 16:7 was "forged" (made up by Mark) and it is the fallacy of bifurcation to say so. As Mk. 14:28 indicates that Mk. 16:7 stems from dominical (and therefore pre-Markan) tradition. In this case, the term "forged" is as much of a misnomer as it is illegitimate. And using it only shows a mind that, well in advance of any argument, and despite what the evidence points to, has already decided what the "truth" has to be.

And again, what's with the capitalizations of "text" and "forged"?

Sorry, Joseph. But if your charge of "bias and incompetence" fits anyone, it's you.

And again, what's with the capitalizations?

JG

JoeWallack

I Get A Kick Out Of You

JW:
Heh, heh.

The Objective of "Mark" is to explain How Jesus the Messiah was missed by Israel. "Mark" does this by giving Reactions to Jesus (Amazed, surprised, marvelled, wondered and oh yeah, jealous). An important part of the explanation is that Jesus' Insiders didn't Understand/Believe Jesus and therefore "told no one" about Jesus' resurrection. That's why the Author has to.

The best example of this is the Literary Contrast between Jesus and Peter. Let's look at the Chiasm again but this time consider Peter and The Disciples as Counter Prophecy to Jesus:

14:26
And when they had sung a hymn,
-----they went out unto the mount of Olives.

14:27
----------And Jesus saith unto them, All ye shall be offended: (Jesus Prophecy - The Disciples will Fail - True)
---------------for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered abroad. (Jesus Prophecy - He will Die - True) Fulfills Prophecy

14:29
--------------------But Peter said unto him,
-------------------------Although all shall be offended, yet will not I. (Peter Prophecy - He will succeed - False)

14:30
--------------------And Jesus saith unto him, Verily I say unto thee,
-------------------------that thou to-day, [even] this night, before the cock crow twice, shalt deny me thrice. (Jesus Prophecy - Peter will Fail - True)

14:31
---------------But he spake exceedingly vehemently, If I must die with thee, I will not deny thee. (Peter Prophecy - He will Die - False) Fulfills Oath
-----------And in like manner also said they all. (The Disciples Prophecy - The Disciples will succeed - False)

14:32
-----And they come unto a place which was named Gethsemane:
and he saith unto his disciples, Sit ye here, while I pray.


JW:
What I have Faith you will find interesting is that Jesus' fulfillment of Prophecy in 14:27 is Balanced with Peter's Oath in 14:31 (he spake exceedingly vehemently). What I find more than interesting is by Narrative Peter's Denial is also given in Oath form (and while Jesus' Trial is with Male Royalty Peter's is with a female slave - nice!). So Peter prophesied by Oath not to Deny Jesus and than Denies Jesus by Oath. This Author is very Good Ben. Too good to have thrown in 14:28 which gamos up the whole Structure.

Again, that "Mark" uses Peter as the Textbook (pun intended) Counter to Jesus is Huge evidence that no Rehabilitation was intended.



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

Ben C Smith

Ben.

jgibson000

Even granting this (can you support the claim?), is it true that this is the only objective of Mark, let alone the main one? If so, it hardly explains the emphasis in Mark on the necessity of suffering to implement God's plans for Israel, all the teaching on the obligations of discipleship that we find there, and the various attempts on Mark's part (especiallly in Mk 13) to persuade his readers to reject the ideology, christology, and the nationalism of YEUDOXRISTOI and YEUDOPROFHTAI (read the Zealots) that, as Hengel, Theissen, Markus, Telford, Evans and others (including myself) have shown, they are drawn to.

JG

JoeWallack

JW:
Hello Dr. Gibson. Where have you been?



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

jgibson000

Among other things, I've been occupied with writing and publishing on Mark [See http://www.peeters-leuven.be/boekoverz.asp?nr=8179 and then click on the Table of Contents button], along with participating in the Mark Group at SBL, reading the works of Markan scholars, and doing what I can to to keep up with Markan studies published in the standard academic journals.

And where in the world of scholarship and publishing and non internet Markan studies have you been?

And what's with your capitalizations?

JG

JoeWallack

JW:
This a 1) Post.

Continuing with the Inventory of reasons that 14:28 & 16:7 are Late:

1) The Fayyum Fragment is Script evidence that 14:28 is Late. 16:7 is dependent on 14:28. So if 14:28 is Late, so is 16:7.

2) Peter's response of 14:29 is completely non-responsive to 14:28.

3) It's unlikely that any prophecy would be given by "Mark's" Jesus whose significance would be so reduced in the next line.

4) 14:28 breaks an otherwise Balanced Chiastic structure for the surrounding Verses.

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Mark_14:28

"Howbeit, after I am raised up, I will go before you into Galilee." (ASV)

Note that the Form of the underlying Greek for "raised up" is Passive here. Specifically, in all three Passion predictions of "Mark" the Active form was used.

So, continuing with the Inventory of reasons that 14:28 & 16:7 are Late:

1) The Fayyum Fragment is Script evidence that 14:28 is Late. 16:7 is dependent on 14:28. So if 14:28 is Late, so is 16:7.

2) Peter's response of 14:29 is completely non-responsive to 14:28.

3) It's unlikely that any prophecy would be given by "Mark's" Jesus whose significance would be so reduced in the next line.

4) 14:28 breaks an otherwise Balanced Chiastic structure for the surrounding Verses.

5) 14:28 uses a Passive Form of "raised up" while the 3 Passion predictions use an Active form.

Perhaps Dr. Gibson would like to comment?



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

Ben C Smith

The passive voice of this verb tells you that this verse is an interpolation?

Is Mark 12.26 an interpolation too? What about Mark 16.6?

Ben.

S.C.Carlson

Jeffrey, thanks for taking the trouble of making your article available to those interested. It is a nice piece of work, and I recommend it to others.

Stephen

JoeWallack

JW:
I Am surprised that you are bothering to object here Ben. It has to be evidence. The only question is how good is the evidence.

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Mark_12:26

"But as touching the dead, that they are raised; have ye not read in the book of Moses, in [the place concerning] the Bush, how God spake unto him, saying, I [am] the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?" (ASV)

JW:
By contrast, even this is evidence for you. It's just not very good evidence. The context indicates the Passive is appropriate. Also, "they" is not Jesus, is they?

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Mark_16:6

"And he saith unto them, Be not amazed: ye seek Jesus, the Nazarene, who hath been crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold, the place where they laid him!" (ASV)

This is better evidence for you Ben. At least Jesus is being described. However:

1) In The Three notable Passion predictions, the Active is used.

2) 14:28 would be the only time Jesus refers to himself being raised as Passive.

3) 16:7 is not a Prophecy. It's a description of a Past event. So a Passive is natural.

This is potentially a good clue for Insertion. A different Form is used.

The Active also goes well with "Mark's" preference for the Historical Present.

There is a scene which comes to mind in the classic The Keep where The Monster refers to his own Resurrection by prophesizing it in Cyrillian in the Imperative!

France notes the difference in Form but states that both Forms occur in the Christian Bible with no clear difference in sense and concludes that the difference here is probably not significant.

#2) Dr. Gibson, I confess that I find France very good at identifying the Evidence. However, I Am frequently dissapointed in his Conclusions, with the above a case in point. In connection with my other points in this Thread he should at least consider the possible significance of the difference within "Mark".



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page