JoeWallack

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

16:7 "But go, tell his disciples and Peter, He goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you.

16:8 And they went out, and fled from the tomb; for trembling and astonishment had come upon them: and they said nothing to any one; for they were afraid."


JW:
Here's what France said in NIGTC regarding 16:7:

"Thus both for Peter and for the rest of the eleven remaining trimalakas, the message sent by the women implies an assurance of forgiveness and restoration, the more impressive for being left unsaid."

JW:
Even "Mark's" Jesus would be sore Amazed that France has taken an Explicit statement given at The End, for Christ's sake, for emphasis, that the women
"said nothing to any one" and interprets that the women told everyone and the added pearl, in honor of the 2000-2100 anniversary of Jesus' resurrection, that what was said that was unsaid is more impressive because it was unsaid. Hell, why not add a halellulah here France.

Thus France is guilty here of Impersonating an Objective bible scholar, bad X-Uh-Jesus, Lying for Jesus, Dishonesty, Professional Dishonesty and Criminal Fraud. And did I mention Dishonesty?

Truth-challenged Advocates for that man from the Christian Bible whose name escapes me at the moment but I think starts with a "J" or "Y", like France, Typically fail to provide the Distance between:

1) What would be good evidence for their assertion.

2) What is the evidence for their assertion.

Here the Assertion is:
"an assurance of forgiveness and restoration"

or in other words France is asserting that "Mark" intended to communicate that Peter and The Disciples will follow instructions and go to Galilee to be forgiven and restored by Jesus.

Here than is what Good evidence would be for this assertion ranked by quality:

1) "Mark" has Narrative showing Peter and The Disciples follow instructions and go to Galilee to be forgiven and restored by Jesus. - Explicit

2) "Mark" has Dialogue referring to Peter and The Disciples following instructions and going to Galilee to be forgiven and restored by Jesus. - Explicit

Note that there is no such Explicit evidence in "Mark". Proceeding...

3) "Mark" has Narrative showing Peter and The Disciples follow instructions and on The Way to Galilee to be forgiven and restored by Jesus. - Implicit

4) "Mark" has Dialogue referring to Peter and The Disciples following instructions and on The Way to Galilee to be forgiven and restored by Jesus. - Implicit

Note that there is nothing in "Mark" illustrating something in Progress.

5) 3) "Mark" has Narrative showing Peter and The Disciples having taken any action towards following instructions and being on The Way to Galilee to be forgiven and restored by Jesus. - Implicit

6) "Mark" has Dialogue referring to Peter and The Disciples having taken any action towards following instructions and on The Way to Galilee to be forgiven and restored by Jesus. - Implicit

Note that there is nothing in "Mark" illustrating that any Action has been taken towards this Assertion.

7) Lack of Narrative disputing Assertion. Here we have an Ending for emphasis which Explicitly states that the only ones who heard the message did not tell anyone. We aslo have Narrative showing The Disciples abandoning Jesus to fulfill prophecy which coordinates well with Jesus' discourses on illustrative Disciple failure.

8) Lack of Literary Themes disputing Assertion. This author has Major themes of discrediting The Disciples and especially Peter (Family Replacement, Insiders/Outsiders, First/Last, Faith/Fear) and specifically emphasizes (3 times -surprise) that they never Understood or Believed that he would be Resurrected. The Disciples received a personal demonstration of resurrection and didn't understand or believe, abandoned Jesus during his Passion and his supposed resurrection and were therefore in no position to Witness that he was resurrected anyway. I mean, if they didn't believe their own eyes during their first-hand private audience session why would they believe second-hand women?

We see than, a Great Distance between what would be good evidence for an Assertion that "Mark" intended to communicate that Peter and The Disciples will follow instructions and go to Galilee to be forgiven and restored by Jesus and the actual evidence for this Assertion.

Because of this great chiasm I don't need to exorcise 14:28 & 16:7 from "Mark" to demonstrate it Likely that no Restoration was intended. I could easily retreat to a position that 14:28 & 16:7 are just smart-ass comments that The Discples would return to Galilee out of disbelief, without being told that Jesus was already there, than accidently find out or see that Jesus was there without any "Restoration". The supposed prophecy would than be perfectly fulfilled. Jesus went to Galilee before The Disciples and they saw him there.

Because I do think that 14:28 & 16:7 are Forged I will now start an Inventory of reasons to think so:

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

Next, we'll look at Peter's supposed response to 14:28:

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

27 "And Jesus saith unto them, All ye shall be offended: for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered abroad.

28 Howbeit, after I am raised up, I will go before you into Galilee.

29 But Peter said unto him, Although all shall be offended, yet will not I.

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.

31 But he spake exceedingly vehemently, If I must die with thee, I will not deny thee. And in like manner also said they all."


JW:
Note that Peter's response of 29 is completely reponsive to what precedes 28 and totally non-responsive to 28. A clue to Forged insertion (rape).

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

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

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



Joseph

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

jgibson000

Here in context is what France actually said:

Yes, you did. But it's curious that you don't mention your own.

I have on more than one occasion stated that in arguing their "case" MJers resort to selective quotation amd misrepresentation of the authors they adduce or argue against.

Thanks, Joseph, for another substatiation of my claim.

Jeffrey Gibson

JoeWallack

JW:
The only thing the Objective Reader needs to ask herself is did I quote what France said in NIGTC regarding 16:7.

I quoted France's Conclusion and than demonstrated why such a certain Conclusion is nonsense by doing what France should have done. But thanks for providing his Arguments for his Conclusion. Now the Reader can see for herself that his Conclusion is not supported by his Argument.

This is The Problem of Mainstream Christian Bible scholarship Jeff, they make Conclusions that are not supported by their Arguments like France has above.

Whatever France thinks is Secondary anyway to a Direct examination of the evidence. Now you're off to a bad start here by blindly accepting France's dishonest Conclusion that FF can be Ignored. Maybe you can Restore your credibility on some other point.



Joseph

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

jgibson000

Even assuming that this is indeed the only thing that needs to be asked, the answer is no, you didn't. Neither fully nor accurately.

Assuming that the sentence you (mis)quoted was his conclusion (was it?), perhaps you'd outline for us just what his argument is. I can't see that as of yet you've actually done so,

And again, what's with the peculiar capitalizations?

Sorry, but to my eyes, the only one who hasn't supported his conclusions with arguments (or actual evidence) is you. Where is your comparison of the wording and syntax of the Greek text of the FF with that of the Greek text of Mk 16:1-8 and of Matt. 28:1-10?

Which, notably, you yourself haven't done.

So far as I can see (excuse the pun), I've not accepted anything, let alone blindly. My posting of what France has to say on Mk 16:7 was to show that your claim that text critics/commentators on Mk 16:1-8 ignore the FF was belied by doing what you hadn't (but should have) done, namely, actually looking at the works of text critics/ commentators on Mk 16:7.

But speaking of dishonesty, it seems to me that the only one here who has engaged in it is you. You have moved the goal post from a claim about what is "typically" not done by commentators and text critics with respect to the FF and Mk. 16:17 to how good or bad the arguments that commentators and text critics who do take note of the FF arguments, are.

And in the meantime, while chastising them for not looking at the "evidence", you yourself have not done so. You yourself still have not done and/or posted the work that is necessary for you to do (and post) -- i.e., carrying out and posting a comparison of the wording and syntax of the Greek text of the FF with that of the Greek text of Mk 16:1-8 and of Matt. 28:1-10 -- to show that your assertions about the FF vis a vis Mk. 16:7 are valid, let alone worth considering.

:rolling: :rolling: :rolling:
I hardly think I'm the one here who has -- or is viewed as having -- no credibility.

JG

JoeWallack

JW:
From this point on I Am going to rightly divide my Posts between:

1) My Primary objective of demonstrating that "Mark" did not intend a Rehabilitation of The Disciples.

2) My Secondary objective of demonstrating France's Failure as a supposed Objective bible scholar on the subject of 1).

Therefore, if comments of Jeff primarily deal with 2) or are just mainly Distractions I will not address them in my posts for 1).

This post is a 1).

I have previously given the following Inventory of reasons that 14:28 & 16:7 are Forged:

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

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

And now:

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

27 "And Jesus saith unto them, All ye shall be offended: for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered abroad.

28 Howbeit, after I am raised up, I will go before you into Galilee.

29 But Peter said unto him, Although all shall be offended, yet will not I.

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.

31 But he spake exceedingly vehemently, If I must die with thee, I will not deny thee. And in like manner also said they all."


JW:
Note:
27 "And Jesus saith unto them, All ye shall be offended: for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered abroad."

Here "Mark's" Jesus identifies a supposed prophecy to be fulfilled. The line in question, which directly follows:

"28 Howbeit, after I am raised up, I will go before you into Galilee."

Significantly lessens the importance of the prophecy as it indicates the prophecy will only be Temporary. We have the following reasons to doubt the originality of 14:28 here:

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

2) It's not customary for "Mark" to present temporary prophecies.

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

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



Joseph

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

JoeWallack

JW:
Ben , you need to stop thinking like a Modern and try thinking like an Ancient. The users of "Luke"/Acts would have considered that their Bible and would not have been concerned with what "Mark" said. "Luke" was intended to be a rewrite of "Mark" and having them end up in the same Canon is comical. This is exactly why there are Obvious contradictions.



Joseph

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

JoeWallack

JW:
This is a Type 2) Post:

Secondary objective of demonstrating France's Failure as a supposed Objective bible scholar on the subject of 1).

I previously demonstrated that the only Significant difference in meaning between FF and the related Verses of "Mark" is that FF omits 14:28. Jeff than quoted France as follows, presumably in part to defend against my charge that France dismissing FF as having any Witness value was unjustified:

"7 The announcement of Jesus’ resurrection is not an end in itself, but the basis for action, which for the women is the delivery of an urgent message, and for the disciples to whom that message is sent a journey to Galilee in preparation for the promised meeting with Jesus (14:28).30

30. Against the once popular suggestion that this verse is to be understood as a prediction of the parousia, not of a resurrection appearance (an idea promoted especially by E. Lohmeyer, R. H. Lightfoot, and W. Marxsen), see A. T. Lincoln, JBL 108 (1989) 285; also R. H. Stein, NTS 20 (1973/4) 445–52. See further E. Best, Story, 76–78, responding to N. Perrin’s version of the parousia interpretation.

Life, discipleship, and the cause of the kingdom of God must go on. The commission to deliver the message presupposes that, despite the scattering in Gethsemane, the disciples including Peter are still to be found together as a group, however demoralised. The fact that Jesus still has a message for them, and still more that it includes the repeated promise of a post-resurrection meeting, may be expected to overcome their self-despair, and they may well remember that the previous prediction of a meeting in Galilee followed directly after Jesus’ prediction of their being ‘scattered’ (14:27). Clearly he had not expected their desertion to be more than temporary. The specific inclusion of Peter reflects not so much his leading role in the group as his specific and more public failure in loyalty to Jesus: even after the curse at the second cockcrow, Peter has not been written off. It is also possible (Gundry, 1003) that Peter needed to be mentioned separately because, smarting after his humiliating failure, he had not yet rejoined the other surviving disciples. Thus both for Peter and for the rest of the eleven remaining μαθηταί, the message sent by the women implies an assurance of forgiveness and restoration, the more impressive for being left unsaid.31

31. Contrast the view of W. R. Telford, Theology, 149–50, who derives from the absence of any resurrection appearances in Mark the conclusion that this gospel ‘offers the reader no restoration of Peter after his denial, promises the original disciples no authority to forgive or retain sins, nor grants them any promise or receipt of the Spirit in connection with such a commission’. This is to interpret Mark by his failure to say what others say, rather than by what is actually in his text. A message from the risen Jesus specifically for the disciples and Peter and a promised meeting with them in Galilee seem to me to count for more than what Mark does not say.

It is sometimes suggested that by focusing on the experience of the women and failing to narrate any appearance of Jesus to the disciples Mark is deliberately playing down the significance and leadership of the original disciples in the post-Easter church. But it should be noted that Mark, unlike Matthew, does not have Jesus appearing to the women either (unless, of course, his originally intended ending contained such a meeting, as suggested above), and that the only postresurrection appearance he does indicate (but not narrate) is precisely to οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ καὶ ὁ �*�*τρος. Even more questionable is that the location in Galilee is intended to shift the emphasis away from a Jewish church to a Gentile mission:32

32. W. R. Telford, Theology, 150–51, claiming to ‘interpret the reference to Galilee theologically rather than literally’. This view is especially associated with C. F. Evans, JTS 5 (1954) 3–18. Evans first argues that προάγω must mean ‘lead’ rather than ‘precede’, and since he finds no basis for the idea of the risen Jesus literally leading his disciples northwards, takes the saying as symbolic of the future mission in which he will ‘lead’ them. He too easily assumes that τῶν ἐθνῶν is naturally understood when Galilee is mentioned, and that therefore ‘if the place name is to carry any significance beyond its plain geographical sense there can be no doubt what that significance would be’ (p. 13). See contra Gundry, 849

both the location and the disciples who are to gather there are still Jewish. ‘Galilee of the Gentiles’ is not a Marcan phrase, nor does it express a Marcan perspective. The very deliberate contrast between Jerusalem and Galilee throughout this gospel is not a contrast between Jew and Gentile.

�*ροάγει ὑμᾶς εἰς τὴν Γαλιλαίαν exactly repeats the promise of 14:28, apart from the necessary change in the person and tense of the verb. See comments there, especially on the meaning of προάγω;33

33. See also p. 577 n. 82�* for Van Iersel’s proposal that εἰς τὴν Γαλιλαίαν be translated ‘in Galilee’.

here the following clause makes it clear that there will be no meeting before Galilee, so that προάγω does not refer to Jesus’ literally leading them northwards. Rather, once they have left the hostile territory of Jerusalem and returned to their own home province, where the whole story began, they will meet him again, and their role as his disciples can be restored after its temporary failure.34

34. T. J. Geddert, Watchwords, 166–69, argues persuasively for a motif of ‘Discipleship Renewal’ in the idea of a return to Galilee. Insofar as there is a call to mission, it is to mission as part of the essential task of discipleship, not as an end in itself. Now is the time for them in their turn to ‘take up their cross’ and follow Jesus.

αὐτὸν ὄψεσθε belongs, as did v. 6, to the physical dimension rather than promising a visionary experience. The body which the women cannot see in the tomb because it is no longer there will be the one which the disciples will see in Galilee. The concluding clause καθὼς εἶπεν ὑμῖν does not refer specifically to the promise of seeing Jesus, since Mark has recorded no promise in those terms, but rather to the whole prospect of the Galilean rendezvous, in the wording of which in 14:28 the seeing may be implied but is not stated.

France, R. T.: The Gospel of Mark : A Commentary on the Greek Text. Grand Rapids, Mich.; Carlisle : W.B. Eerdmans; Paternoster Press, 2002, S. 680"


JW:
First of all Jeff, thanks for such a Long quote. Why don't you just copy the whole thing and mail it to your friends as Christmas presents?

Regarding France, he is a well known Professional writing a detailed Critical Commentary for perhaps the best known detailed Critical Commentary series. Thus, we should hold him here to an extremely high Standard (as opposed to an Amatuer writing quick, casual posts on the Internet).

My important observations on FF are as follows:

1) It's the earliest available reference to the area of Mark 14:28.

2) The only significant difference in meaning between FF and this area of "Mark" is 14:28.

3) FF lacks all of 14:28.

What does France say above about these 3)? Nothing. Please pause to take in the irony.

In a previous post Jeff wrote the following:

"For as R.T. France notes, "The UBS4 text rightly omits mention of the so-called Fayyum Fragment (text in Aland, 444), a third-century papyrus which includes a version of these verses with v. 28 omitted. The fragment is in other ways a fairly free and radically abbreviated citation of the narrative rather than a copy of the gospel text as such, [emphasis mine]and the omission is more likely to be due to abbreviation than to a shorter text tradition". (The Gospel of Mark : A Commentary on the Greek Text. Grand Rapids, Mich.; Carlisle : W.B. Eerdmans; Paternoster Press, 2002, p. 573)."

This is almost everything France wrote on the subject here, except for:

"See further Gundry 852-53."

Note the following Failures by the so-called Professional France:

1) Failure to Explicitly identify FF as the earliest reference to the area of 14:28.

2) Categorization of FF as "fairly free and radically abbreviated citation" considering I have demonstrated no significant difference in meaning except for the disputed 14:28.

3) Failure to consider clues in the existing Text (as I have just started to do here) pointing to 14:28 being Forged.

So than, the so-called Authority France is Convicted of being almost as bad as Jeff thinks Doherty is and the only remaining question here for the Objective reader is the Source of France's misconduct, Bias or Incompetence?

And so that the honest and objective Skeptic can sleep better at night I have reported France to the Authorities.



Joseph

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

Ben C Smith

Your answer has to do with people who use Luke and only Luke, but such people are not the focus of my question. I am interested in people who used either Mark and only Mark or both Mark and Luke. The latter apparently did not worry too very much about the apparent contradiction between an implied appearance in Galilee and a set of appearances solely in Jerusalem. The former... well, we have to guess a bit at the former, since we have no direct evidence. But my question about the former would run as follows: If the only Christians of which we have direct evidence tolerated big, obvious contradictions like those between Mark and Luke, what was it that prompted them to squelch the version of Mark that you find behind the Fayyum fragment? (Recall what prompted this question; you said that Christians did not want to preserve that version.)

In short, I do not think that, so far as preserving the actual texts is concerned, these kinds of issues mattered very much. It would matter only when someone set out to compose a new work of his or her very own (based on the older works). I do not think I am the one here having trouble thinking like the ancients.

Ben.

JoeWallack

JW:
This a 1) Post.

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

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

Next, let's consider Chiastic structure of the surrounding Verses:

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

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: for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered abroad.

14:28 Howbeit, after I am raised up, I will go before you into Galilee.

14:29 But Peter said unto him, Although all shall be offended, yet will not I.

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.

14:31 But he spake exceedingly vehemently, If I must die with thee, I will not deny thee. And in like manner also said they all.

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:
Observe the nice Chiasm without 14:28:

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:
---------------for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered abroad.

14:29
--------------------But Peter said unto him,
-------------------------Although all shall be offended, yet will not I.

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.

14:31
---------------But he spake exceedingly vehemently, If I must die with thee, I will not deny thee.
-----------And in like manner also said they all.

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:
Note the Balanced Chiastic structure:

14:26 Prayer
----------Movement

14:27 ---------Prophecy that all will fail
--------------------Prophecy that one will die

14:29 --------------------Peter says
-------------------------I will not fail

14:30 -------------------Jesus says
------------------------You will fail

14:31 ---------------Prophecy that one will die
---------------Prophecy that all will not fail

14:32 -----Movement
-----Prayer


Note that with 14:28:
"Howbeit, after I am raised up, I will go before you into Galilee."

there is no Balanced Chiastic structure.

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

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



Joseph

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

Ben C Smith

This is by far your best argument on this matter to date.

Now I wonder how you would separate the idea of a later addition to Mark from the idea of a Marcan addition to earlier tradition.

Chiasms. I was wondering when I would have the chance to pull out my Official Guide to Marcan Chiasms.

Here is your proposed chiasm (without 14.28, of course; letter identifications added for clarity):

At first glance, that is a nice chiasm, I admit. However, there may be a couple of problems as we look closer.

First, your summary of your chiasm lines up prayer in 14.26 with prayer in 14.32. It is a hymn in 14.26, not prayer, but I suppose we can extend the class to something liturgical in order to cover both. But the real problem there is that the sitting down for prayer in 14.26 should probably balance out the rising up of 14.42, in the next chiasm. If we are to section Mark out into chiasms (and I am not entirely convinced that we should), I think that makes more sense, and that is of course how Michael Turton has it structured in his outline.

Second, here is the chiasm of this same passage as Michael gives it:

A1 And when they had sung a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives.

B1 And Jesus said to them, "You will all fall away; for it is written, `I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered.'

C1 But after I am raised up, I will go before you to Galilee."

D1 Peter said to him, "Even though they all fall away, I will not."

D2 And Jesus said to him, "Truly, I say to you, this very night, before the cock crows twice, you will deny me three times."

C2 But he said vehemently, "If I must die with you, I will not deny you."

B2 And they all said the same.

A2 And they went to a place which was called Gethsem'ane.

Michael calls this particular chiasm a chiasm full of well-crafted oppositions. The brackets of interest for us here are C1 and C2, the opposition between which entails at least rising (C1) versus dying (C2).

You may object that your chiasm has a better structure. You may be right. But Michael virtually has to give us this structure as it stands, since his rule number 8, practically applied, breaks a quotation followed by something that someone else either says or does into two separate brackets. For example, he has the following earlier in Mark:

And they begged him: Send us to the swine; let us enter them.

So he gave them leave.

These are two separate brackets. Notice that the demons are speaking in one bracket, then somebody else (Jesus in this case) speaks in the next (the content of this speech not being filled out).

Or consider:

But there were some who said to themselves indignantly: Why was the ointment thus wasted? For this ointment might have been sold for more than three hundred denarii, and given to the poor.

And they reproached her.

Again we have two separate brackets, and in this case the same people are the subject of both brackets! The break is from direct quotation to a separate action (even if that action entails speech, as giving leave does and reproaching might allow).

In our present text, you have given the following as a single bracket:

But he spake exceedingly vehemently: If I must die with you, I will not deny you. And they all said likewise.

Michael Turton characteristically has:

But he spake exceedingly vehemently: If I must die with you, I will not deny you.

And they all said likewise.

The break is between Peter speaking in a direct quotation to the other disciples speaking in indirect speech. Two different brackets. Which virtually forces 14.28 back into the picture to offset one of them... if we follow the guidelines set out by one who has broken the entire gospel into chiasms.

As I intimated before, I am not yet convinced that Mark intended to write chiastically, at least not all the time. But if you are going to claim that he did, I think you will have to interact with those others who have made the same claim before you. Michael Turton did the right thing by John Dart; he disagreed with him on many particulars (notably the doubled center), so he laid out a new system in its entirety. I think you should do the same if you intend to disagree with either Turton or Dart (and I have no idea how Dart divides this pericope up, though he probably does not have a doubled center here as you and Michael do).

Ben.