Mark 14:28, The Argument For Addition

[JoeWallack]

JW:
First the offending verse:

Mark 14:28

Strong's	Transliteration	Greek	English	Morphology
235 [e]	alla	ἀλλὰ	But	Conj
3326 [e]	meta	μετὰ	after	Prep
3588 [e]	to	τὸ	-	Art-ANS
1453 [e]	egerthēnai	ἐγερθῆναί	having arisen	V-ANP
1473 [e]	me	με	I,	PPro-A1S
4254 [e]	proaxō	προάξω	I will go before	V-FIA-1S
4771 [e]	hymas	ὑμᾶς	you	PPro-A2P
1519 [e]	eis	εἰς	into	Prep
3588 [e]	tēn	τὴν	-	Art-AFS
1056 [e]	Galilaian	Γαλιλαίαν.	Galilee.	N-AFS

JW:
So why suspect 14:28 as addition? Why not.

GMark has a primary theme of discrediting the disciples as proper witnesses to Jesus. 14:28 is the only evidence in GMark that the disciples would see Jesus after he was supposedly resurrected. Without 14:28 there would be nothing in GMark to indicate that the disciples communicated with a resurrected Jesus. Specifically, the only part of 14:28 predicting a reunion or at least evidence to imply one is "I will go before you". Generally speaking it would be strange/bizarre/macabre for an author to have such a strong theme in quality and quantity be undone to some extent with one implication to the contrary. A related explanation is that once the subsequent Gospel GMatthew is created which does have an explicit post resurrection reunion in quality and quantity, than all that is needed in GMark to tie in to it is an implication. Religious editing is like Bruce Lee's maxim, minimum effort/maximum force.

A cursory review of the Internet shows that many of the mainstream Christian Internet authors such as McGrath, Goodacre, Carlson, Hurtado etc. while trying to argue for a lost ending of GMark which did have a resurrection reunion, claim that 14:28 is the key Internal evidence supporting their attempted conclusion.

So from a motivation and opportunity standpoint there is reason to suspect 14:28 in whole or in part of being guilty of addition.

The post above is just a brief argument to suspect 14:28 based on theme. Textual Criticism normally starts with an inventory of variation so next up = 14:28, Textual Variation.


Joseph

The new Porphyry

[Bernard Muller]

I think Mk 14:28 is an early interpolation written in conjunction with the empty tomb passage, itself an early addition to the gospel.
Explanation here for the empty tomb as interpolation: http://historical-jesus.info/hjes3.html#emptyt
The empty tomb passage has 16:6 But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you.
14:28 was inserted as "evidence" for "as he said unto you".
Furthermore 14:28 looks out of context, something Peter in the next verse is not reacting to, as if Jesus did not say it.

Cordially, Bernard

[JoeWallack]

JW:
Now for the External evidence, Let's Get It Started

http://www.laparola.net/greco/index.php

14:28 (Münster)
ἀλλὰ μετὰ τὸ ἐγερθῆναί με προάξω ὑμᾶς εἰς τὴν Γαλιλαίαν.] Byz ς WH
omit] (see parallel passage) cop fay

Fayyum Fragment

Because of its style of handwriting it is believed to have been copied around the end of the third century.[2] The text seems to parallel Mark 14:26-31, appearing to present a more abbreviated account.

A little help Ben:

Textexcavation - Papyrus Vindobonensis 2325. Also known as the Fayyum fragment.

The Fayyum fragment has only one word which is not paralleled in either Matthew or Mark, or in both, and that word (το, or the) is grammatically necessary with γραφεν.

I have faith that Ben would agree that FF (The Fayyum fragment) parallels well with a combined GMark/GMatthew for their parallel verse here.

Christian Textual Critics commonly dismiss FF as Textual Criticism evidence here since it appears to parallel GMark and GMatthew and is thus described as a "harmonization/abbreviation". In the real world though, considering that:

• 1) It parallels well with GMark.
  
  2) GMark was the source for what it also parallels with, GMatthew.
  
  3) It is the oldest (I think) extant Textual Witness.

It has to be Textual Criticism evidence for 14:28. The only question is how good? Well let's look at the two good candidates for source that it parallels well with:

14:28

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

Matthew 26:32

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

FF's lack of mention of Galilee here is the only difference in content between it and a combined GMark/GMatthew. The other differences are primarily word variation and order. The supposed reasoning behind exorcising FF as a witness to GMark here is that if it also parallels a source other than GMark than omission of something in GMark could be explained by FF preferring/being influenced by the other source. But here the other source, GMatthew, does appear to invoke Galilee (but at the same time is also evidence that "Galilee" was not original to GMatthew here either - more on that later), so it was not the reason to exorcise "Galilee" (and it is an entire sentence that is missing). Thus, FF's paralleling of a combined GMark/GMatthew may be better evidence for addition to GMark than if it only paralleled GMark, because an original GMark that lacked it would be needed to offset a GMatthew that had it. Maybe.

Another possibility is that FF is also a harmony of GLuke which itself has exorcised "Galilee" here. So how well does FF parallel with GLuke? Next -


Joseph

The new Porphyry

[Ben C. Smith]

A little help Ben:

Textexcavation - Papyrus Vindobonensis 2325. Also known as the Fayyum fragment.

The Fayyum fragment has only one word which is not paralleled in either Matthew or Mark, or in both, and that word (το, or the) is grammatically necessary with γραφεν.

I have faith that Ben would agree that FF (The Fayyum fragment) parallels well with a combined GMark/GMatthew for their parallel verse here.

Yes. And here is another link for the Fayyum fragment: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1863.

[Michael BG]

A cursory review of the Internet shows that many of the mainstream Christian Internet authors such as McGrath, Goodacre, Carlson, Hurtado etc. while trying to argue for a lost ending of GMark which did have a resurrection reunion, claim that 14:28 is the key Internal evidence supporting their attempted conclusion.

They may well use if for such but that does not make it an interpolation just because the longer ending of Mark with its resurrection appearances in Galilee is.

It is my understanding that the Fayyum Fragment is the only attestation for 14:28 being not present. Also as Matthew has it, it is probable that Mark had the verse when it reached Matthew.

Furthermore 14:28 looks out of context, something Peter in the next verse is not reacting to, as if Jesus did not say it.

This is a good point. However it has been suggested by some that Mark added 14:28 to provide linkage to 16:7 which he also added to his source. It is normal practice to look for such inconsistencies to find the redactional work of Mark. Some people believe that Mark 14:1 was part of the pre-Marcan passion narrative which dates the crucifixion to the day before the Passover, which also includes the visit to the empty tomb by the women.

[Bernard Muller]

This is a good point. However it has been suggested by some that Mark added 14:28 to provide linkage to 16:7 which he also added to his source. It is normal practice to look for such inconsistencies to find the redactional work of Mark. Some people believe that Mark 14:1 was part of the pre-Marcan passion narrative which dates the crucifixion to the day before the Passover, which also includes the visit to the empty tomb by the women.
Michael BG

Why would "Mark" wrote 16:7, a command kept secret by the women when that suggestion of a meeting in Galilee (14:28) had been told in person by Jesus to his disciples a few days before?
It can be argued the disciples would wait for a confirmation of the Resurrection before expecting to see the resurrected Jesus (somewhere!) in Galilee. But the author of the empty tomb passage made sure the disciples would not be aware of that Resurrection! Therefore they would not be looking for a risen Jesus (more so when Jesus allegedly "prophesied" they would disperse and "fall away" after his arrest!).
That fits with my strong conviction the disciples never believed in the Resurrection or never witnessed anything divine about Jesus. Despite all the efforts of the early Christian authors, and the fact it is accepted by almost all Jesus' historicists, Christians or Atheists, there are many clues in early Christian writings the like of Peter and James never became Christians (or "in Christ"): http://historical-jesus.info/108.html

What makes sense to me is:
An interpolator added the empty tomb passage (but without "as he said unto you"), then later another interpolator added the aforementioned words and 14:28 (Jesus had to know these women could not be trusted as messengers!!!)
OR
"as he said unto you" was part of the original empty tomb interpolation, but another interpolator felt the "evidence" was necessary for ""as he said unto you".

And logically the words "there you will see him/me" in 16:7 should have been put in Jesus' mouth at 14:28. The reason why would Jesus go ahead of his disciples to Galilee is lacking in 14:28, even if it is the most important point to communicate to them.

The following goes against an early story about the resurrected Jesus meeting his disciples in Galilee first:
Luke" & "John" were not aware of it (for gJohn as the first reappearance of the resurrected Jesus to his disciples, as it is presented in gMark & gMatthew). Why would such a thing of the greatest importance not being reported in gLuke & gJohn?

Cordially, Bernard

[JoeWallack]

I'm Just Searching for Clues at the Scene of the Crime

JW:
FF's lack of mention of Galilee here is the only difference in content between it and a combined GMark/GMatthew. The other differences are primarily word variation and order. The supposed reasoning behind exorcising FF as a witness to GMark here is that if it also parallels a source other than GMark than omission of something in GMark could be explained by FF preferring/being influenced by the other source. But here the other source, GMatthew, does appear to invoke Galilee (but at the same time is also evidence that "Galilee" was not original to GMatthew here either - more on that later), so it was not the reason to exorcise "Galilee" (and it is an entire sentence that is missing). Thus, FF's paralleling of a combined GMark/GMatthew may be better evidence for addition to GMark than if it only paralleled GMark, because an original GMark that lacked it would be needed to offset a GMatthew that had it. Maybe.

Another possibility is that FF is also a harmony of GLuke which itself has exorcised "Galilee" here. So how well does FF parallel with GLuke? Next -

Papyrus Vindobonensis 2325. Also known as the Fayyum fragment

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

and GLuke:

Luke 22

33 And he said unto him, Lord, with thee I am ready to go both to prison and to death.

34 And he said, I tell thee, Peter, the cock shall not crow this day, until thou shalt thrice deny that thou knowest me.

35 And he said unto them, When I sent you forth without purse, and wallet, and shoes, lacked ye anything? And they said, Nothing.

36 And he said unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise a wallet; and he that hath none, let him sell his cloak, and buy a sword.

37 For I say unto you, that this which is written must be fulfilled in me, And he was reckoned with transgressors: for that which concerneth me hath fulfilment.

38 And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough.

39 And he came out, and went, as his custom was, unto the mount of Olives; and the disciples also followed him.

Note that GLuke has switched the order by placing the conversation before the mount of olives. The only significant difference in content though between GLuke and GMark/GMatthew here is the offending verse of 14:28. Since FF already looks like a harmonization of GMark and GMatthew, why not also a harmonization of GLuke as well, since it would have been a fellow Canonical Gospel at the time. This would be a good reason for FF to omit 14:28.

Back to GMatthew as witness to Mark 14:28 as original:

Matthew 26

32 But after I am raised up, I will go before you into Galilee.

Verses

Matthew 28

7 And go quickly, and tell his disciples, He is risen from the dead; and lo, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you.

Note that GMatthew 28:7 lacks any reference to Jesus being the one who told the disciples that after he was raised he would go before the disciples into Galilee in GMatthew 26:32. It's especially odd since GMatthew edits GMark to show more supposed Jesus' prophecy fulfillment. Predictably, there are additions to GMatthew adding "he told you". 28:7 than would seem to coordinate better with no 26:32.

Next - The second century witness.



Joseph

The new Porphyry

[iskander]

Crime??


Different people recollect their hope and their sorrow.

The Rashomon effect is the effect of the subjectivity of perception on recollection, by which observers of an event are able to produce substantially different but equally plausible accounts of it.

http://psychology.wikia.com/wiki/Rashomon_effect

[DCHindley]

Crime??

JW likes to think of himself as Police Detective Lt. Frank Columbo, as played by Peter Falk, in movies and a TV series).

DCH

[JoeWallack]

JW:
Analysis of early Christian writings summarizing at what point they depart from GMark 16:1-8 as evidence for their dating relative to each other:

Measurement identifications are as follows:

• Edited = "GMark" is the base with limited editing.
  
  Neutral = Does not support or contradict
  
  Contradicts

Gospel	Measurement identification
Matthew	Mark 16:1-8-----Edited
Peter	Mark 16:1-8-----Edited
Luke	Mark 16:1-6---- Edited Mark 16:7------ Neutral Mark 16:8------ Contradict
John	Mark 16:1-5---- Edited Mark 16:6------ Neutral Mark 16:7-8--- Contradict
The Epistula Apostolorum	Mark 16:1-4--- Edited Mark 16:5-6--- Contradict Mark 16:7-8--- Neutral

Thus the earliest here is GMatthew. As righteously pointed out by B(i)G, GMatthew does mostly parallel the offending verse by giving a Jesus prophecy/prediction of Jesus going to Galilee before the disciples do.

Looking at the next though, the Gospel of Peter, in this post here, viewtopic.php?p=43792#p43792 I indicate that GMark was a more likely source for GPeter than GMatthew. And the parallels to the offending verse in GPeter:

Mark 14:28

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

The Gospel of Peter

Nothing extant. What we have from the Gospel of Peter starts after Jesus has been arrested. But there is a parallel to Mark 16:7:

Mark 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.

Gospel of Peter

For he is risen and gone away to there whence he was sent.'

No reference to a Jesus prophecy/prediction even though the implication from the speaker is that Jesus went to Galilee. Gospel of Peter finishes:

[59] But we twelve disciples of the Lord were weeping and sorrowful; and each one, sorrowful because of what had come to pass, departed to his home. [60] But I, Simon Peter, and my brother Andrew, having taken our nets, went off to the sea. And there was with us Levi of Alphaeus whom the Lord ...

And so the disciples return to Galilee. Because what is extant is interrupted at the end, it's possible that the disciples do meet Jesus in Galilee in the original. If GPeter had a Jesus prophecy/prediction of Jesus returning to Galilee before the disciples did, there's no reason for the messenger not to refer to it just so the disciples will be surprised when they do see Jesus in Galilee, because it was only the women who were told by the speaker:

For he is risen and gone away to there whence he was sent.' [57] Then the women fled frightened.

so the disciples would not have known/been told anyway.

GPeter than is evidence that Mark 14:28 is addition.


Joseph

The New Porphyry