Vorkosigan

Is this some kind of trap? In 8:14-21 Jesus kvetches at the disciples for being nitwits who still don't get it and whose understanding consists of simple facts. My own view is that this passage is an interpolation in its entirety. Its structure is all wrong, and it seems to be a bit of construction off of the OT and perhaps Paul.

Whatever the case, the disciples are pictured as remembering events which did not occur -- Jesus did not miraculously turn a little bread into 12 baskets full. So whether you accept this as Markan or not, it is clearly a piece of fiction. Hence, even if you accept that this is the writer of Mark telling us that the disciples could remember, it is an invention of Mark, much as if you had accepted Tolkien's assurance that the Scouring of the Shire was written up in the local histories, as Tolkien's claim that the hobbits around Frodo were reliable sources of the story.

Vorkosigan

jgibson000

Could you tell me what it is that they don't get? And are the accusations that Jesus uses in his description of what the disciples are up to before and after he warns them against the leaven of the Pharisees and Herod really only kvetches, let alone a charge of "nitwitsim"? I take it you haven't read the discussion of this passage that appeared in JSNT 27 (1986): 31–47.

All wrong? Compared to what? What's wrong with the structure? And does it actually not take up and anticipate themes that are clearly Markan and use distinctively Markan language? Is it inappropriate in it's context?

They occur within the story that Marks give us. And so far as I recall, the question being dealt with here is whether Mark portrays the disciples as incapable of remembering anything of the story of which they are a part.

Jeffrey

Vorkosigan

You mean the one by Jeffrey B. Gibson? No, JSNT isn't available here in Taiwan or on any of the e-journal systems I can access here. Sadly.

8:17 reads, at least to me, like an extended criticism of the disciple's inability to understand. When you say to someone "Don't you understand? Can't you see?" that's strong language aimed at foolish inability to grasp. If you don't like the word "nitwit" that's fine, but the strength of Jesus' commentary seems clear to me.

Not that way, Dr. G. Real Markan pericopes have a particular organization, that neat ABCCBA chiastic structure that I've discussed here and presented on here several times before. It would take time and space to explain. This pericope does not have that nice structure at all. Hence I think it non-Markan in origin.

I agree that it not only takes up Markan themes and perhaps language, but also refers OT texts previously used in Mark. It is also linked to previous events (Pharisees) and the opening of the eyes of the blind man that follows. Nevertheless, I don't believe it is a construction from the original author of GMark. It is possible that an editor screwed things up, so I cannot be sure.

However, that is not all that relevant to our discussion, in any case.

But your definition is too narrow for the reality of the story. The disciples "remember" events that have not occurred. The disciples "remember" simply as part of a larger story aimed at educating the reader as to the meaning of the text. Their remembering is not part of a historical strategy to show that the did indeed recall events, but part of a rhetorical strategy necessary to make the author's point. I think it is hairsplitting to rely on two answers in Mark 8, when the writer of Mark constantly hacks on the disciples for being unable to understand, for denying Jesus, for being self-aggrandizing, etc, and arranges the ending so none of them are present when Jesus dies and is resurrected. Note that in 8:21 the writer does not permit the disciples to answer, implying that (a) they couldn't and (b) the answer is up to the reader.

Vorkosigan

JoeWallack

JW:
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." (ASV)


JW:
The first thing you have to consider is Textual Variation for 14:28 which is Typically not mentioned in Christian commentary (right Jeffrey):

http://www.gospels.net/translations/...anslation.html

"Fayyum Fragment

The following translation is based on the Greek text printed in Jack Finegan's Hidden Records of the Life of Jesus.

"As he led them out, he said, "You will all fall away tonight according to the scripture: 'I will strike the shepherd and the sheep will be scattered.'"

Then Peter said, "Even if everyone else denies you, I won't."

Jesus said, "Before the cock crows twice, you will deny me three times today."

01 [As he] lead them out, he s[ai]d, "[You will] a[ll]
02 fall away [during this] night
03 [according to] the scripture: 'I will strike the
04 [shepherd and the] sheep [will be] scattered.'"
05 [Then] Peter [said], "Even if everyone does, [I will] n[ot]."
06 [Jesus said, "Befo]re the cock cr[ows] twice, [three times]
07 [you will d]eny [me today.]"


JW:
The Fayyum Fragment is generally dated to late 3rd century which I believe makes it earlier than any other extant of these verses. Note that it lacks 14:28 "Howbeit, after I am raised up, I will go before you into Galilee."

Another ReMarkable coincidence dzim77, that a line which goes against "Mark" Thematically and Stylistically (thanks Neil) and that you need as a Proof-text to support a Reunion is missing in the earliest Manuscript?

More to follow (Peter, this is primarily for you).



Joseph

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

Roger Pearse

Eusebius of Caesarea discussed various questions about the start and end of the gospels in the now lost Biblical Questions, which comprised two books Ad Stephanum and one Ad Marinum. The former two dealt with questions about the beginnings of the gospels; the latter with the endings, including this question.

The work was still extant in the 15th century, but has since been lost. However an epitome of it exists in the margins of a Vatican manuscript, and quotations of the original in Syriac. Claudio Zamagni did a text and French translation of the epitome as a thesis, which is online, and has submitted it to the Sources Chrétiennes for publication. This particular 'question' was translated by James Kellhoffer, and his article is online somewhere.

Jerome also discussed this in his letter to Hedibia. I did start to translate this, but never got very far with it. However it reflects Eusebius' discussion.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

jgibson000

If so, it is with good reason. 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 (or via: amazon.co.uk). Grand Rapids, Mich.; Carlisle : W.B. Eerdmans; Paternoster Press, 2002, p. 573).

See too the very source you are selectively quoting to make your "point". i.e., Finnegan, who says "As compared with the canonical parallels it is evident that the Rainer fragment [i.e., the Fayyum fragment] presents an abbreviated account but has no independent information to add. It must, therefore, be judged dependent upon Mt and Mk, but whether this was true throughout the larger Gospel, of which the fragment was presumably a part, cannot be ascertained since only so tiny a piece has survived" (Hidden Records of the Life of Jesus, p 212).

But the very fact that France comments on it (as does Gundry, Mark: A Commentary on his Apology for the Cross, 852–53, and as does Schneemelcher and Dodd)) shows not only that you claim above is not correct, but that, if there's anything that is "Typically" done, it's that you don't do your homework.

Jeffrey Gibson

dzim77

Thanks for the reply...

Is this fragment the only instance where the verse is abscent?


Also, beside the verse in question, we still have the young man (angel?) in Mk. 16, claiming that Jesus would meet them in Galilee "just as he told them".

jgibson000

So far as I can see, yes.

Jeffrey Gibson

JoeWallack

JW:
Well this is a Defining moment for you as far as telling me Who you are just as it was when Carlson abandoned his Natural "while Quirinius was Governor of Syria" translation without comment that he'd used for two years and Smith arguing that Joseph being "daring" means he's "afraid".

Leaving aside for now your Begging the Question of whether an abbreviation is justifiably ignored as Textual Evidence let alone if you only think it's an abbreviation please demonstrate that the Fayyum fragment is "a fairly free and radically abbreviated citation of the narrative":

New Test. Stud. 52, pp. 1–28. Printed in the United Kingdom © 2006 Cambridge University Press DOI:10.1017/S0028688506000014




JW:
No matter how Professional you are Jeff (see 14:37), unlike Jesus the day will come when an Amateur knows more than you and that day...

What's annoying to the Unfaithful here is your obsession with criticism of self-confessed Amateurs that no one will mistake as a Professional. Wouldn't your criticism be better spent on Professionals? Hell, you could even make a career out of it.

Your nonsense above puts you below dzim77 here so you'll excuse me while I address him.



Joseph

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

Ben C Smith

1. Doug also argued that Joseph was afraid.
2. To be daring is to be courageous, and to be courageous is either to do something despite being afraid or to do something that would cause others to be afraid (though many might call the latter foolishness, not courage). I can live with either of these options in the case of Joseph of Arimathea.

Either way, what is your point exactly? Or is this like Lt. Commander Galloway in A Few Good Men? Lt. Kaffee: She has no point. She often has no point.

Ben.

Dare:

To be courageous or bold enough to do or try something.

Courage:

The state or quality of mind or spirit that enables one to face danger, fear, or vicissitudes with self-possession, confidence, and resolution.

--American Heritage Dictionary.