JoeWallack

JW:
"with self-possession, confidence, and resolution". Do these sound like qualities of someone who is afraid? The sense is overcoming your Original fear.

People who are afraid of doing something can still do it without being "Daring" or "courageous" can't they.

Actually "Mark's" use of "boldly" here is intended to Ironically Contrast Pilate's "Amazement." There's no Historical reason why Pilate would be Amazed that Jesus was dead (especially if he had just watched The Passion of (the) Christ). Pilate, the guy with the Power, is Afraid of the Body of Jesus and Joseph, the guy without the Power is Courageous about Jesus' body. This is "Mark's" priMary Theme, Faith/Courage = Good and Fear/Doubt = Bad. This is why "Mark's" The Disciples never make Good. Too little Faith & Too much Fear. The highlite of this is Jesus' not being afraid of False accusation during his Trial while Peter is afraid of True accusation during his trial. More evidence that 14:28 is Forged.

And now that I've impeached your Witness do you think the Fayyum Fragment should be Ignored as Textual Evidence?



Joseph

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

dzim77

Wow, that just may be the most backhanded compliment I've ever received!

The following does not relate to 'the reunion' per se, but I think it's relevant.

Forgive me (or let me know) if this has already been discussed in the previous thread you seem to be referring to, but I came across the following passages which indicate that Jesus fully expects a restoration of the disciples, post-resurrection...

jgibson000

What an interesting way of avoiding admitting that you were wrong when you claimed that the Fayyum fragment is not mentioned in Christian commentary on the text of Mark and that you have engaged in selective quotation.

For anyone who wishes to engage seriously with this fragment, here is the note and bibliography that is listed for it in J. K. Elliott's The Apocryphal New Testament: A Collection of Apocryphal Christian Literature in an English Translation (Clarendon Press, 1993)

**********

THE FAYYUM FRAGMENT
The fragment was discovered in 1885 in Archduke Rainer's collection of papyri in Vienna. Its publication therefore preceded that of the Gospel of Peter or P. Oxy. 1 and aroused great interest. The manuscript is dated third century, and was found in the Fayyum district of Egypt.As with some other fragments included in this section, it is not clear if this text comes from an unknown gospel, or if it is merely an adaptation of material known in the synoptic Gospels (in this case Matt. 26:30-4 or Mark 14:26-30).The translation is of the Greek text as printed by de Santos Otero, following Harnack.

EDITIONS

G. Bickell, "'Ein Papyrusfragment eines nichtkanonischen Evangelium'", Zeitschrift für Katholische Theologie, 9 ( 1885), 498-504; 10 (1886), 208-9.
----- Mittheilungen aus der Sammlung der Papyrus Rainer, i ( Vienna, 1886), 53-61, ii and iii ( 1887), 41-2, v ( 1892), 78-82.

C. Wessely, "'Über das Zeitalter der Wiener Evangelienpapyrus'", Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie, ii ( 1887), 507-15.

A. Harnack, 'Das Evangelienfragment von Fajjum', Appendix to A. Resch, Agrapha ( Leipzig, 1889), 481-97 (= TU 5.4). [Includes short bibliography (pp. 483-4) of original notices.]

A. Resch, Aussercanonische Paralleltexte zu den Evangelien, ii ( Leipzig, 1893-6), 28-34 (= TU 10).

Preuschen, 21-2.

Klostermann, Apocrypha, ii. ( 2)20.

C. Bruston, Fragments dun ancien recueil de paroles de Jé?sus ( Paris, 1905), 27-9.

C. Wessely, 'Fragments de collections de pré?tendues sentences de Jé?sus', in Les plus anciens monuments du Christianisme écrits sur papyrus: Textes grecs édités, traduits et annotés', PO 4. 2 ( Paris, 1908), 173-7. [Also included is a bibliography of earlier
notices (p. 173).]

SYNOPSES
Aland13, 584; Huck-Greeven13, 285; Boismard, 415.

MODERN TRANSLATIONS

English
James, 25.
Hennecke3, i. 115-16.
Hennecke5, i. 102.

French
Éac, 421-3.

German
Hennecke1, 38 (E. Hennecke); cf. Handbuch, 88 f.
Hennecke3, i. 74 (W. Schneemelcher).
Hennecke5, i. 87 (W. Schneemelcher).

Italian
Bonaccorsi, i. 31-2.
Erbetta, i.1, 108.
Moraldi, i. 426, 447.

Spanish
de Santos Otero, 85.

GENERAL
A. Hilgenfeld, "'Kein neuentdecktes Evangelium'", ZWT 29 ( 1886), 50-6.
T. Zahn, Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons, ii ( Erlangen and Leipzig, 1890-2), 781 ff.
P. Savi, 'Le fragment é?vangé?lique de Fayoûm', Rev. Bib. 1 ( 1892), 321-44.

[After supper as was the custom, he said,]
'All] in this night will be offended
as] it is written: I will smite the [shepherd
and the] sheep will be scattered.' 1

____________________
1 Matt. 26:31 and Mark 14:27.

************

Jeffrey Gibson

Ben C Smith

Of course I agree. I never disagreed. You are making something out of nothing.

Not unless they do it by accident.

Ignored? No.

Ben.

JoeWallack

JW:
Well God damn Jeff, after all the shit you accused Doherty of. I'm just wasting time with you. Here's the translation:

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

1. [...ε]ξαγειν ως ε[ι]πε[ν] οτι, Α[παντες]
2. [εν ταυτη] τη νυκτι σκανδαλισ[θησεσ-]
3. [θε κατα] το γραφεν· �*αταξω τον [ποιμε-]
4. [να και τα] προβατα διασκορπισθησ[ονται. ει-]
5. [ποντος το]υ �*ετ{ρου}· Και ει παντες ο[υκ εγω...]
6. [...Ι{ησου}ς· �*ρι]ν αλεκτρυων δις κοκ[κυσει τρις]
7. [...με α]παρν[ηση].

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].


Ben, do you think this is "a fairly free and radically abbreviated citation of the narrative"?



Joseph

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

jgibson000

Are you saying you didn't selectively quote Finnegan?

Yes, you are wasting time -- mine, anyway.

Please show me how I begged the question.

JG

jgibson000

I've made it available (with transliterated Greek) here:

http://f1.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/MNV4RU7...20Mark%208.pdf

You may have to join the group to have access to it.

Jeffrey Gibson

Ben C Smith

I would avoid the term radically myself, but yes, I think that the Fayyum fragment is fairly free (it appears to differ from Matthew and Mark more than Matthew and Mark differ from each other) and is abbreviated relative to Matthew and Mark (it lacks the Galilean prediction and truly I say to you, on this night part of the prediction of the Petrine denials. Furthermore, when given the choice, from Matthew and Mark, of a more verbose rendition and a more compact rendition, it appears to prefer the more compact version more often than not. (I find two exceptions, one of which amounts to a single conjunction, the other of which is the main agreement with Matthew against Mark, the phrase on this night in the scandal prediction.)

Just for you, Joe, I have added a synoptic table (in Greek only) on my Fayyum fragment page.

Question: 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?

Ben.

Vorkosigan

Thanks. I highly appreciate that. But regrettably I got the DOCUMENT NOT FOUND. What group is that?

Michael

jgibson000

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JBGibs...guid=152256051

I'll send you a copy off list.

Jeffrey