Mark 14:28, The Argument For Addition

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 2110
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: Mark 14:28 GMatthew Version - Early Patristic Interest

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin »

JoeWallack wrote:JW:
The GMatthew version of the offending pericope:
To make a fair case you should mention the early mss with Matt 26:32 - P37, P45, P53 and especially P64 (late 2nd/3rd century)

folio 3v, col 2
[τοτε] [λεγει]
αυτοις ο ις̣ [π]α̣ν̣[τες] [υμεις]
σκανδαλισθη[σεσθε]
εν εμοι εν̣ τ̣[η] [νυκτι]
ταυτη γ̣ε̣γ̣[ραπται] [---]
π̣ρ̣ο̣α̣ξ̣[ω] [υμας] [εις] [την]
γ̣αλειλαιαν α̣[ποκρι]-
θεις δε ο̣ πετρος̣ ε̣[ιπεν]-
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Mark 14:28 GMatthew Version - Early Patristic Interest

Post by Ben C. Smith »

JoeWallack wrote:The offending pericope....

The GMatthew version of the offending pericope....

And early Patristic reference....
Those are good points, Joe. I want to point out, however, that Biblindex lists as alluding to these verses (in addition to the relatively late John Chrysostom, Hilarius, Gregory of Nyssa, Ambrosius, and Ambrosiaster) both Clement of Alexandria and Origen.

The reference in Clement comes from the Excerpts From Theodotus:

61 Ὅτι μὲν οὖν αὐτὸς ἕτερος ἦν ὧν ἀνείληφεν, δῆλον ἐξ ὧν ὁμολογεῖ· «Ἐγὼ ἡ Ζωή», «ἐγὼ ἡ Ἀλήθεια», »ἐγὼ καὶ ὁ Πατὴρ ἕν ἐσμεν». Τὸ δὲ πνευματικὸν ὃ ἀνείληφεν, καὶ τὸ ψυχικόν, οὕτως ἐμφαίνει· «Τὸ δὲ παιδίον ηὔξανεν καὶ προέκοπτεν <ἐν> Σοφίᾳ.» Σοφίας μὲν γὰρ τὸ πνευματικὸν δεῖται· μεγέθους δὲ τὸ ψυχικόν. Διὰ δὲ τῶν ἐκρυέντων ἐκ τῆς πλευρᾶς, ἐδήλου, ταῖς ἐκρύσεσι τῶν παθῶν ἀπὸ τῶν ἐμπαθῶν, ἀπαθεῖς γενομένας τὰς οὐσίας σεσῶσθαι. Καὶ ὅταν λέγῃ· «Δεῖ τὸν Υἱὸν τοῦ Ἀνθρώπου ἀποδοκιμασθῆναι, ὑβρισθῆναι, σταυρωθῆναι», ὡς περὶ ἄλλου φαίνεται λέγων, δηλονότι τοῦ ἐμπαθοῦς. Καί· «Προάξω ὑμᾶς», λέγει, «τῇ τρίτῃ τῶν ἡμερῶν εἰς τὴν Γαλιλαίαν»· αὐτὸς γὰρ προάγει πάντα· καὶ τὴν ἀφανῶς σῳζομένην ψυχὴν ἀναστήσειν ᾐνίσσετο, καὶ ἀποκαταστήσειν οὗ νῦν προάγει. Ἀπέθανεν δὲ ἀποστάντος τοῦ καταβάντος ἐπ' αὐτῷ ἐπὶ τῷ Ἰορδάνῃ Πνεύματος, οὐκ ἰδίᾳ γενομένου, ἀλλὰ συσταλέντος, ἵνα καὶ ἐνεργήσῃ ὁ θάνατος· ἐπεὶ πῶς, τῆς Ζωῆς παρούσης ἐν αὐτῷ, ἀπέθανεν τὸ σῶμα; οὕτω γὰρ ἂν καὶ αὐτοῦ τοῦ Σωτῆρος ὁ θάνατος ἐκράτησεν ἄν, ὅπερ ἄτοπον. Δόλῳ δὲ ὁ θάνατος κατεστρατηγήθη· ἀποθανόντος γὰρ τοῦ σώματος καὶ κρατήσαν- τος αὐτὸ τοῦ θανάτου, ἀναστείλας τὴν ἐπελθοῦσαν ἀκτῖνα τῆς δυνάμεως, ὁ Σωτὴρ ἀπώλεσε μὲν τὸν θάνατον, τὸ δὲ θνητὸν σῶμα, ἀποβαλ<ὼν> πάθη, ἀνέστησεν. Τὰ ψυχικὰ μὲν οὖν οὕτως ἀνίσταται καὶ ἀνασῴζεται· πιστεύσαντα δὲ τὰ πνευματικὰ ὑπὲρ ἐκεῖνα σῴζεται, »ἐνδύματα γάμων» τὰς ψυχὰς λαβόντα.

61 That he was other than what he received is clear from what he professes, “I am the Life, I am the Truth, I and the Father are one.” But the spiritual nature, which he received, and the psychic he thus indicates, “And the child grew and advanced greatly.” For the spiritual nature needs wisdom but the psychic needs size. But by the flowing out from his side he indicates that the substances having become free from passion have been saved by the flowings out of the passions from those who shared in them. And when he says “The Son of Man must be rejected and insulted and crucified,” he seems to be speaking of someone else, that is, of him who has passion. And he says, “On the third of the days I will go before you into Galilee.” For he goes before all and indicated that he will raise up the soul which is being invisibly saved and will restore it to the place where he is now leading the way. And he died at the departure of the Spirit which had descended upon him in the Jordan, not that it became separate but was withdrawn in order that death might also operate on him, since how did the body die when life was present in him? For in that way death would have prevailed over the Saviour himself, which is absurd. But death was out-generalled by guile. For when the body died and death seized it, the Saviour sent forth the ray of power which had come upon him and destroyed death and raised up the mortal body which had put off passion. In this way, therefore, the psychic elements are raised and are saved, but the spiritual natures which believe receive a salvation superior to theirs, having received their souls as “wedding garments.”

Origen, also from Alexandria (and later Caesarea), is translated into Latin as commenting on Matthew 26.32 in his Commentary on Matthew: post hoc autem congregentur a resurgente Christo et praecedente eos in Galilaeam.

Matthew 26.32 is also found in four papyrus manuscripts from centuries II and III: Ƿ37, Ƿ45, Ƿ53, and Ƿ64. Unsurprisingly, these all have an Egyptian provenance.

I am quite inclined, based on the Fayyum fragment, to regard Mark 14.28 as an interpolation; but the above evidence from Egypt ought to inform our decision both on that matter and on when and where the interpolation, if such it is, may have been accomplished.

Ben.
Last edited by Ben C. Smith on Sat Mar 05, 2016 1:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Mark 14:28 GMatthew Version - Early Patristic Interest

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote:To make a fair case you should mention the early mss with Matt 26:32 - P37, P45, P53 and especially P64 (late 2nd/3rd century)
I see you were on it, Kunigunde. I was working on my post when yours came through. :)
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
james_C
Posts: 27
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2016 6:14 am

Re: Mark 14:28, The Argument For Addition

Post by james_C »

whenever jesus makes predictions about his resurrection , i note that peter either does not know about what rising from the dead means or he does not know of a dieing and rising messiah and rebukes jesus. when he says he is willing to die in 14:28(something positive for a change), he completely ignores jesus' claim about the resurrection(or maybe this is proof 14:28 is an addition?).
i find this interesting because it seems like mark is deliberately keeping them in the dark about resurrection predictions.
if my understanding is correct, why would mark have any of the disciples wait in jerusalem to hear the claims from an unknown man in an empty tomb, about who is going to galilee?
even jesus does not say, (neither the man in the tomb) that jesus will be met in jerusalem.
Post Reply