JoeWallack

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

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

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."


JW:
First, let's give a little Authority background. From Vorkosigan's most excellent sight (whose Word is like Gospel round these parts):

http://users2.ev1.net/%7Eturton/GMark/GMark14.html

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

v28: This prediction of an appearance in Galilee is a strong indicator that the current ending of Mark is truncated.

v28: Most exegetes see this verse and Mk 16:7 as having a very intimate relationship. Bultman, Dibelius, and Taylor all argued that 16:7 was a later insertion to harmonize with Matthew's account of Jesus appearing in Galilee, while other exegetes have taken the view that both are late insertions (see discussion in Brown 1994, p132). 14:28 is missing from the Fayum Fragment, a late second century text that seems to be harmonizing Matt and Mark.

29: Peter said to him, "Even though they all fall away, I will not." 30: And Jesus said to him, "Truly, I say to you, this very night, before the cock crows twice, you will deny me three times." 31: But he said vehemently, "If I must die with you, I will not deny you." And they all said the same.""


JW:
Vork, you need to change the dating reference to late 3rd century. Note that I will have the Legendary Bultman in my corner to Convict Christianity of the Sin of Forgery. Germany was the center of Biblical Criticism until the first 3rd of the 20th century (than something happened to it).

Now, regarding 14:28, let's consider Textual Variation. From Ben Smith's most excellent site:

http://www.textexcavation.com/pvindobonensis2325.html

We have the following Translation for the Fayyum Fragment:

"1. [...l]ead out, when he s[a]i[d]: A[ll]
2. of you [on this] night will be scandaliz[ed]
3. [according to] what is written: I shall strike the [shep-]
4. [herd and the] sheep shall be scatter[ed. When]
5. [said] Pet{er}: Even if all, n[ot I....]
6. [...J{esu}s: Befor]e a cock twice cr[ows, thrice]
7. [you will d]en[y me]."

Note that this Fragment appears to be the earliest extant related Text. Regarding the potential value of FF (Fayyum Fragment) as a Textual Witness, self-proclaimed spokesman for Mainstream Christian Bible Scholarship, Jeff, has this to say:

"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)."


JW:
Well let's just match up FF with ASV ourselves and see first-hand just how much radical abbreviation is going on.

FF = [...l]ead out,

ASV = 26 ..., they went out unto the mount of Olives.

JW:
Here Ben, since we can't see what preceded in FF it's unclear what the significant differences are if any. A reference to mount of Olives may have preceded. Right?


FF = when he s[a]i[d]: A[ll] of you [on this] night will be scandaliz[ed]

ASV = 27 And Jesus saith unto them, All ye shall be offended:


FF = [according to] what is written: I shall strike the [shep-] [herd and

ASV = 27 for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and


FF = the] sheep shall be scatter[ed.

ASV = 27 the sheep shall be scattered abroad.


FF =

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


FF = When] [said] Pet{er}: Even if all, n[ot I....]

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


FF = [...J{esu}s: Befor]e a cock twice cr[ows,

ASV = 30 And Jesus saith unto him, Verily I say unto thee, that thou to-day, [even] this night, before the cock crow twice,


FF = thrice] [you will d]en[y me]."

ASV = shalt deny me thrice."


JW:
Personally I don't see any Significant difference in meaning between FF and ASV here other than the Disputed 14:28, entirely omitted by FF which I find ReMarkable. The extra words in ASV all seem to be embellishments and the Trend of Copyists is to Add to their Source and not Delete. Right Ben.

In my Gospel than:

1) France has Dishonestly dismissed FF as a Textual Witness.

2) UBS has Dishonestly dismissed FF as a Textual Witness.

3) Jeff is guilty of Professional Negligence for simply relying on France and not doing his Homework like I did above.

So in Summary, the earliest extant reference, the Fayyum Fragment, which everywhere else appears to give all the Significant information in the surrounding verses, completely lacks 14:28. What makes this all the more reMarkable is (bold Type provided courtesy of Jeff) 14:28 is exactly what would be most Significant in this area of "Mark" at the time the Fayyum Fragment was written and later.

Thus we have Quality Textual evidence that 14:28 is Forged.



Joseph

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

Ben C Smith

How so?

Ben.

jgibson000

Then that doesn't say much for the evaluative abilities of those "round these parts". The commentary -- or at least this section of it -- is poorly written and both inaccurate and misleading.

For example vis a vis poorly written, note this claim:

A well written sentence would have given the object of the relationship. That is to say, it would have answered the question"'having a very intimate relationship' with what?". And since V is apparently making a contrast with, on the one hand, what most commentators "see" and what, on the other, Butlmann & Co "argue" to the contrary, the sentence beginning "Bultman, Dibelius, and Taylor" should have been prefaced with a "But" ("But Bultman, Dibelius, and Taylor all argued .. .") or have included a postpositive "however" ("Bultman, Dibelius, and Taylor, however, all argued...").

And one should note that with respect to this claim:

(a) that Taylor does not argue what he is here claimed as having argued (see his Gospel According to St. Mark, p. 608)

(b) that, while Bultmann and Dibleius do think that 16:7 is an "insertion" into the material that Mark reproduces in Mk. 16:1-8. they do not argue or claim either

-- that this "insertion" was "late"; quite the contrary, they both claim that it was "made" by Mark himself at the time he was composing his Gospel, or

-- that its "insertion" by Mark was in any way an attempt on Mark's part to harmonize his story with anything Matthean (See Bultmann HST, p. 285; Dibelius FTG, 180).

Moreover, Dibelius believes that the FF you appeal to is dependent upon, and an abbreviation of, Mk 16:1-8 and has no value as a witness to the text of GMark.

So points off again for your credulity, your bias, your lack of familiarity with the relevant literature, and your failure to check the accuracy of your sources.

[snip]

Yes, let's indeed do.

But please, if you are going to do so and claim, as you do, that you are doing textual criticism that is authoritative, let alone something that is of high "quality" and which, therefore, should be taken seriously , don't employ the Kuchinsky method of doing so -- i.e., doing TC of Greek texts on the basis of English translations of them -- since the relationships between the texts (if any) can only be seen "first hand, let alone authoritatively demonstrated, on the basis of a comparison of their original syntax and wording.

Would you be kind enough to do this comparison for us, Joseph? Or perhaps you'd care to comment, given your expertise in Greek and matters TC, upon the accuracy of Gundry's analysis of the relationship of the FF to the text of Mark 16:1-8 (and Mathew 28:1-10), an analysis which, unlike yours, is based upon a comparison of the original wording and syntax of these texts.

Sorry, but we have no evidence of any such thing, and what we have from you has no degree of "quality".

JG

JoeWallack

JW:
Jeff, I've learned that everything you write needs to be checked. I can't assume that it's accurate or even Fairly presented. Who said I did anything more than quote Vorkosigan's site above? The Point of the quote is that some Authority considers 16:7 Forged. If some of them think "Mark" was the Forger that is interesting and welcome detail but it doesn't change the main point that some Authority thinks 16:7 Forged. Again, assuming what you wrote is fairly presented, having Authority think "Mark" was the Forger would be worse evidence for me, but still evidence. And I have a lot more to present.

Regarding:

"Dibelius believes that the FF you appeal to is dependent upon, and an abbreviation of, Mk 16:1-8"

If he wrote that he would be as sloppy as you (more reason to doubt you). But he didn't really write that, did he?



JW:
I can give this English translation of the above:

"JW's English translation comparison of FF with ASV demonstrates that FF is not a radical abbreviation and I can not dispute JW's point that the related comparison demonstrates that the only Significant text omitted is the disputed 14:28."

Obviously a Greek comparison is even better and will also demonstrate different word order so go ahead. You're the resident Greek expert, right?

You're still Begging the Question of whether FF is an abbreviation as opposed to UBS being the embellishment let alone whether any Type of abbreviation should be Ignored as Textual evidence.



Joseph

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

jgibson000

Would you care to point out just where and how I've given you grounds to be as suspicious as you say you are of the accuracy of what I write?


Not I. But the question isn't what you did. It's what you should have done but didn't do.

And which "authority" would that be? Certainly not Taylor or Bultmann or Dibleius -- unless you are playing fast and loose with the meaning "forged".

And are you actually claiming, especially in the light of how Bultmann and Dibelius and Taylor have been misrepresented in the quote, that Michael is, or should be considered, an authority on the text of Mark, let alone on TC?

It may not. But the issue is not that some authority thinks X. It's whether what the "authority" thinks is worthy of serious consideration. When what one thinks is apparently based on a misreading/misrepresentation of the authorities appealed to in support of what one claims, then it most certainly is not.

I certainly hope it's not of the same "quality" as what you've presented so far. And I hope even more that, contrary to what's been presented so far, it has some actual contact with what scholars actually have said on the matters discussed.

Are you calling me a liar, Joseph? But be that as it may, why don't you do what is atypical of you, namely, actually reading the writings of the scholars you make claims about, instead of relying on second hand summaries of what scholars have said. Go to p. 180 of FTG and compare it with what he writes on pp. 160-161.

Even better??? Jeeze Joseph, This isn't a matter of what's better or worse. It's a matter of what is necessary and essential and indispensable for demonstrating the validity of your claims.

Whether I am or not, the issue is that you claimed that your TC work on the matter in question was "first hand", authoritative, and of sterling "quality", when it wasn't anywhere near any of these things.

Besides that, you're the one making claims about what the Greek of the FF demonstrates vis a vis its relationship with the Greek text of Mk. 16:1-8//Matt. 28:1-10.

So it's your job to produce the evidence and to demonstrate that things are as you claim they are, not mine.

How have I been assuming, without argument or evidence, what needs to be proved? I've produced -- in quoting France and the very source you used to "prove" your point (Finnegan) -- arguments and evidence that support the notion that the FF is dependent upon Mk and Matt and that, given its methods of appropriation of the material it uses and its tendencies to paraphrase, it can hardly be considered a witness to the text of either Matt or MK.

I think you need to look up what "Begging the Question" involves.

And once again, what's with your capitalizations?

JG

JoeWallack

JW:
Umm, no Jeff, I Am not calling you a Liar. Read my quote again but s-l-o-w-e-r this time (and after I specifically pointed it out to you). There can be another reason why you make False statements which is not Intentional. Hmmm, how do I say this without violating the rules here...?


JW:
God this could go in my King Dave's Stupid Apologist Tricks Thread.

Look Jeff, you do have the capability of improving the quality of evidence directly used in Arguments here. But this incessant whining about the qualifications of anyone who argues on the other side, while in General theoretically relevant, just turns into a Distraction for Casual conversation here.

Whenever you're involved in a Thread here I always feel like Michael Palin in the Argument Sketch:

Joseph: I came here for an Argument.

Jeff: No you didn't.

Joseph: Yes I did.

Jeff: No you didn't.

Joseph: You're not arguing, you're Contradicting.

Jeff: No I'm not.

Joseph: Yes you are.

JW:
Is it Possible for you to make the Evidence Primary and the qualifications secondary?

Now excuse me while I move the Argument forward.



Joseph

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

jgibson000

:huh:

Evidence is already either good or bad. Even I can't make bad evidence good -- even if I were to stoop to misrepresenting it.

So far as I can see, I've only raised questions about qualifications when it's become clear that someone who is claiming them -- no matter what side they are arguing -- doesn't have them and yet goes on to proclaim how well informed and authoritative his or her argument is.

In any case, what really bankrupts the discussion is your penchant for refusing to be responsible for your claims and to back them up when asked to do so.

Did you or did you not selectively quote from Finnegan?

Do you or do you not know whether Bultmann, Taylor, and Dibelius argued what MT says they argued?

Are you or are you not going to buttress your claims about Mark vis a vis the FF in the way that you have to do so if your claims are going to have any merit -- namely, by comparing the Greek syntax and wording of the FF with the Greek syntax and wording of Mk. 16:1-8 and Matt 28:1-10.

Are you going to answer Ben's questions to you about which of these two texts the FF is closer to in syntax and wording (to wit)

Quote:

Since the Fayyum fragment sometimes agrees with Mark against Matthew and sometimes agrees with Matthew against Mark, which of these canonical texts do you suppose originally lacked the Galilean prediction? Or was it both of them? And did they also lack the on this night line in the denials prediction?

and demonstrate that your conclusion is valid through an analysis of the Greek of these texts?

This is exactly what I've been doing. If anyone is bringing up the issue of qualifications, let alone not focusing on or bringing forth evidence, especially when asked to do so, it's you.

And again, what's with the capitalizations?

JG

JoeWallack

JW:
Great stuff Ben, thanks.


JW:
I think "Mark" lacked it. I'll lay out all my reasons here. The FF Textual evidence is only the start. I don't think it's any coincidence that we have no Significant Text for the 1st 3 centuries and the accidental and modern discovery of FF is representative of the Earlier Text subsequent Christianity did not want to preserve.

The related discussion here of the value of FF as a Textual Witness is a wonderful illustration of how The Game is played. If you like what that Script says than its evidence for the original. If you don't like what it says (or doesn't say) than it's just a free radical abbreviation totally dependent on what you otherwise think is the Original, has no Textual witness value and can be Ignored.



Joseph

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

jgibson000

Why would "subsequent Christianity" not want to preserve it? And how do you explain that it (along with other MSS that contain notable variants from the UBS/NA 27 text of Mark) was (were) preserved if there was as much of a concentrated effort on the part of "subsequent Christianity" (in both the East and West and in Africa) as your "conspiracy theory" scenario has to assume to rid the MSS of Mark of things "subsequent Christianity" didn't "like"?

Leaving aside the fact that these two alternative possibilities are hardly the only judgments that Text critics have made about the worth of MSS variants, let me note that anyone who claims that it is whether a text is "liked" that has led Text Critics from Tregelles to Tischendorf to Westcott and Hort to Merk to Aland to Metzger to Erhman to claim that a text was original, and that it was whether it was "disliked" that has led these and other scholars to judge a variant as spurious, and is among the principles upon which the actual practice of TC rests, is absolutely and irresponsibly uninformed on matters TC, has no familiarity whatsoever with anything written on the subject, and is abysmally cluless when it comes to the question how TC has been and is actually undertaken.

Joesph, you've now reached a low that is new even for you in your lack of knowledge of the things you declaim about.

JG

Ben C Smith

No problem. I am working on a list of the various kinds of agreements amongst the three texts, but it may be a few days before I get it finished and posted.

If you think that the original text of Mark, with its lack of Galilean prediction, was unselected (as it were) for preservation, then why do you think Luke, which not only lacks a Galilean prediction but indeed stands squarely against such a thing (!), was so very well preserved?

Ben.