Mark 14:28, The Argument For Addition

[JoeWallack]

JW:
Now the Luke huh:

Mark 16:1-8	Luke 24:1-9	Significant Differences
16.1 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the [mother] of James, and Salome, bought spices, that they might come and anoint him. 16.2 And very early on the first day of the week, they come to the tomb when the sun was risen.	24.1 But on the first day of the week, at early dawn, they came unto the tomb, bringing the spices which they had prepared.	-
16.3 And they were saying among themselves, Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the tomb? 16.4 and looking up, they see that the stone is rolled back: for it was exceeding great.	24.2 And they found the stone rolled away from the tomb.	-
16.5 And entering into the tomb, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, arrayed in a white robe; and they were amazed.	24.3 And they entered in, and found not the body of the Lord Jesus. 24.4 And it came to pass, while they were perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in dazzling apparel:	"Luke's" women are seeing double
16.6 And he saith unto them, Be not amazed: ye seek Jesus, the Nazarene, who hath been crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold, the place where they laid him!	24.5 and as they were affrighted and bowed down their faces to the earth, they said unto them, Why seek ye the living among the dead? 24.6 He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee, 24.7 saying that the Son of man must be delivered up into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again. 24.8 And they remembered his words,	The Angels remember and remind of Jesus' supposed related words
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. - 16.8 And they went out, and fled from the tomb; for trembling and astonishment had come upon them: and they said nothing to any one; for they were afraid.	24.9 and returned from the tomb, and told all these things to the eleven, and to all the rest.	In GMark the women tell no one. In GLuke they tell everyone.

JW:
The only significant edit in GLuke here other than the women telling everything to everyone (instead of nothing to no one - you have to love the doubling offset of a doubling - how could it be more obvious that it was an intentional correcting reaction) is that there is no related reference to a Jesus prophecy prediction of a post resurrection location.

GLuke has no parallel to GMark's supposed setup for 16:7, 14:28. GLuke continues after the supposed resurrection:

Luke 24

12 But Peter arose, and ran unto the tomb; and stooping and looking in, he seeth the linen cloths by themselves; and he departed to his home, wondering at that which was come to pass.

13 And behold, two of them were going that very day to a village named Emmaus, which was threescore furlongs from Jerusalem.

14 And they communed with each other of all these things which had happened.

15 And it came to pass, while they communed and questioned together, that Jesus himself drew near, and went with them.

In GLuke:

• 1) Peter returns to Galilee
  
  2) Jesus appears to Peter
  
  3) The full Monty frontal Jesus appearance (with Peter) is subsequently in Jerusalem. GLuke follows almost everything else in Mark 16:1-8, why not also a reference to a prophecy/prediction of Jesus going first to Galilee? Of course it's possible that since GLuke wants to emphasize a Jerusalem reunion, she intentionally edits against Galilee references here but it's easier for her to do that if Jesus made no prophecy/prediction of going to Galilee before the disciples = GLuke is evidence that 14:28 is addition.

Joseph

The New Porphyry

[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!).

I am sure you are aware of the secret motif in Mark’s gospel, which of often added to supernatural events (such as those involving demons) and that it does not really mean that the secret was kept. It can be suggested that the pre-Marcan empty tomb story was:

[1] Mary Mag'dalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salo'me,
[2] on the first day of the week went to the tomb

[4] And looking up, they saw that the stone was [moved];
[5] And entering the tomb, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, dressed in a white robe; and they were amazed.
[6] And he said to them, "Do not be amazed; you seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has risen, he is not here; see the place where they laid him.

[8] And they went out and fled from the tomb

However even if verse 8 was longer than this, a case can be made for the “trembling, astonishment” and their being “afraid” as being normal for angelic appearance stories.

What makes sense to me is:
An interpolator added the empty tomb passage

A case can be made that it is Marcan normal redaction for him to have added, “very early” and “when the sun had risen” in verse 2, and “it was very large” in verse 4, as well as verse 7. Therefore making the case for the whole unit to be an interpolation less probable.

However I believe it is likely that the pre-Marcan empty tomb story was created by early Christians (who lived under normal Roman law conventions regarding women and not Jewish ones) and none of it is historical.

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?

Luke would not have included the reference to Galilee because he needs the resurrected Jesus to appear to the disciples in Jerusalem without them having returned to their previous lives following Jesus’ death for theological and Christian development reasons. I believe that John often based his gospel on what is in the synoptics.

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

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

GLuke is evidence that 14:28 is addition

Is it not more difficult than you claim?

Mark 16:7	Matthew	Luke	Peter
But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going before you to Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.”	Then go quickly and tell his disciples that he has risen from the dead, and behold, he is going before you to Galilee; there you will see him. See, I have told you.”	Remember how he told you, while he was still in Galilee, …	For he is risen and gone away to there whence he was sent.' … But I, Simon Peter, and my brother Andrew, having taken our nets, went off to the sea.

Matthew = theme of Mark 16:7
Luke and Peter = omitted the theme of Mark 16:7, but words or possible thougths of Mark 16:7 are there

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

Luke would not have included the reference to Galilee because he needs the resurrected Jesus to appear to the disciples in Jerusalem without them having returned to their previous lives following Jesus’ death for theological and Christian development reasons. I believe that John often based his gospel on what is in the synoptics.

Agreed.

I think a "Happy end" of GMark needed two things
- reunification of Jesus and the disciples
- disciples, who "see" (understand) Jesus


[/td]

x	Luke - road to Emmaus	John - Mary Magdalene
blind disciples	24:15 While they were talking and discussing together, Jesus himself drew near and went with them. 16 But their eyes were kept from recognizing him.	20:13 She said to them, “They have taken away my Lord, and I do not know where they have laid him.” 14 Having said this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing, but she did not know that it was Jesus. 15 Jesus said to her, “Woman, why are you weeping? Whom are you seeking?” Supposing him to be the gardener, she said to him, “Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have laid him, and I will take him away.”
turning point	exegesis 27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.	baptism (?) 16 Jesus said to her, “Mary.” She turned and said to him in Aramaic, “Rabboni!”
seeing disciples	31 And their eyes were opened, and they recognized him.	18 Mary Magdalene went and announced to the disciples, “I have seen the Lord”

[Charles Wilson]

Hello everyone-

I want to call attention to the possibility that the verse in question may actually have been in AN original - the Original that became the Source for Mark.

Uzi Leibner, Settlement and History in Hellenistic, Roman, and Byzantine Galilee, ISBN-13: 978-3161498718, p. 418:

"A list of settlements in Galilee was paired with a list of the Priestly Courses that appears in 1 Chronicles attributing each Course to a settlement. It appears the compilers of this "combined" list chose sites that, according to historical memory (or perhaps, an actual list) were settled by Jews following the Hasmonean conquest of the Galilee and were connected to the ethos of the glorious past of the Hasmonean Galilee. The thematic array came together in the Galilee during a period in which treatment of motifs connected with the priesthood and the Hasmoneans flourished. The theme linked the Priestly Courses of the Second Temple to the local "ancient" settlements that also reflected that same glorious period of priestly leadership."

The list of Courses matched with settlements should not be doubted. The List has been found at several different excavated sites and appeared to have been known in certain circles not neccessaily associated with the Rabbis. I accept this as a support to the ideas that a Literary View was built up around the Courses with a Story that saw members of the Priesthood, ("Jehoiarib" => Meiron, "Immer" => Jabnit) playing parts in a complex Tale of marching to Jerusalem to fulfill their Duty in Mishmarot. As Joseph Heller once wrote, Something Happened. After this event, a surviving Priest (probably of Immer) returns to "Upper Galilee".

This implies that when Mark was composed, the passage stating that the Priest will leave Jerusalem and go ahead of everyone is "mostly original":
[[But after having arisen]] => Added into Mark-- "I will go before you into Galilee" => Original, from the Priestly Story of "Bilgah" and "Immer" (This from John 1, 2).

CW

[JoeWallack]

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.

JW:
There have been good objections in this Thread to what I'm claiming is evidence for 14:28 as addition but before I get to those I want to continue with the above thought. If FF was a harmonization of all the Synoptics than that could be a reason to omit 14:28 since it contradicts GLuke. But, such harmonization generally includes source information rather than excludes, in order to harmonize. Case in point would be the evil and wicked Diatessaron

The Diatessaron; (Syriac: ܐܘܢܓܠܝܘܢ ܕܡܚܠܛܐ‎, translit. Ewangeliyôn Damhalltê), (c. 160–175) is the most prominent early Gospel harmony; and was created by Tatian, an early Christian Assyrian apologist and ascetic.[1] Tatian sought to combine all the textual material he found in the four gospels—Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John—into a single coherent narrative of Jesus's life and death.

Diatessaron

23 Then said Jesus unto them, Ye all shall desert me this night: it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered. But after my rising, I shall go before you into Galilee.

[It might be interesting for Ben to compare the Greek here with 14:28]

I'll also repeat that FF has witness credential as the earliest evidence regarding 14:28 and that GMark in general has the least amount of early Synoptic witness suggesting orthodox Christianity did not like/approve of the original.


Joseph

The new Porphyry

[Ben C. Smith]

Diatessaron

23 Then said Jesus unto them, Ye all shall desert me this night: it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered. But after my rising, I shall go before you into Galilee.

[It might be interesting for Ben to compare the Greek here with 14:28]

That link is a translation of the Arabic Diatessaron, I believe. No Greek to be had. Potential Greek fragments of the Diatessaron are in very short supply.

[JoeWallack]

JW:
The offending pericope:

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.

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.

And early Patristic reference:

e-catena

Mark 14:27 - NIV, NAB - in A Treatise on Re-Baptism by an Anonymous Writer

Even as we do not apprehend that Peter in the Gospel suffered this alone, but all the disciples, to whom, though already baptized, the Lord afterwards says, that "all ye shall be offended in me,"[16]

Mark 14:27 - NIV, NAB - in A Treatise on Re-Baptism by an Anonymous Writer

"I never knew you; depart from me, ye who work iniquity,"[19]

Mark 14:31 - NIV, NAB - in Tertullian On Prayer

This passage He confirms by subsequent ones, saying, "Pray that ye be not tempted; "[62]

No early Patristic reference to 14:28 but not much reference to the pericope in total.

A general thought is that early Apologists would want to deemphasize disciple failure here and emphasize disciple success here. So there is an expectation that Apologists would be more likely to refer to 14:28 here than the other verses of the pericope since that is the only verse with an implication of undoing to some extent what otherwise is perhaps the most damning prediction for the disciples and especially Peter, whom Patristics unanimously considered the lead disciple and apostle, in the entire Gospel.

A look at A Treatise on Re-Baptism by an Anonymous Writer:

6. ...Although these were already righteous, and, as we have said, had been baptized by the Lord's baptism even as the apostles themselves, who nevertheless are found on the night on which He was apprehended to have all deserted Him. And even Peter himself, who boasted that he would persevere in his faith, and most obstinately resisted the prediction of the Lord Himself, yet at last denied Him, that by this means it might be shown to us, that whatever sins they bad contracted in the meantime and in any manner, these same sins, by the faith in them subsequently attested as sincere, were without doubt put away by the baptism of the Holy Spirit. ...Even as we do not apprehend that Peter in the Gospel suffered this alone, but all the disciples, to whom, though already baptized, the Lord afterwards says, that "all you shall be offended in me," Mark 14:27 all of whom, as we observe, having amended their faith, were baptized after the Lord's resurrection with the Holy Spirit.

Note that the author refers to almost everything in the offending pericope except for the disputed verse. The point of this part of the author's Treatise is to claim that despite the disciples' huge failure here in abandoning Jesus after being baptized they were still redeemable because they had not yet received the baptism of the holy spirit (whatever that means). The only evidence in the pericope that they would be redeemed is 14:28 which is exactly what the author of the treatise would want to refer to but strangely/bizarrely/macabrely the only part of the pericope he does not refer to.

The Treatise as a whole looks like an apology for the disciple pawns of GMark/GMatthew who's credibility is sacrificed for the bulk of the Gospel and than with only seconds left on the Christian's Chess Clock are promoted to Bishops and Queens and hurriedly sent off in an end game after the other King. The Treatise follows GLuke as an apologetic cure = the disciples had not yet received the baptism of the holy spirit which is what qualified them to be apostles.


Joseph

TheNewPorphyry Blog

[MrMacSon]

The offending pericope: 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.

Mark 14:27-8 sounds somewhat like a war-cry - a reference to an attack or a battle, that he is expecting to win, and thus go to Galilee as a victor.

[JoeWallack]

JW:
The GMatthew version of the offending pericope:

Matthew 26

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

31 Then saith Jesus unto them, All ye shall be offended in me this night: for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad.

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

33 But Peter answered and said unto him, If all shall be offended in thee, I will never be offended.

34 Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, that this night, before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice.

35 Peter saith unto him, Even if I must die with thee, [yet] will I not deny thee. Likewise also said all the disciples.

And early Patristic reference:

e-catena

Matt. 26:30 - NIV, NAB - in Constitutions of the Holy Apostles Book V

and we were with Him, and sang an hymn according to the custom.[96]

Matt. 26:31 - NIV, NAB - in Constitutions of the Holy Apostles Book V

And on the fifth day of the week, when we had eaten the passover with Him, and when Judas had dipped his hand into the dish, and received the sop, and was gone out by night, the Lord said to us: "The hour is come that ye shall be dispersed, and shall leave me alone; "[93]

Matt. 26:35 - NIV, NAB - in Irenaeus Against Heresies Book V

To the same purpose did the Lord also declare, "Heaven and earth shall pass away."[333]

No early Patristic reference to 26:32 but not much reference to the pericope in total.

Again, a general thought is that early Apologists would want to deemphasize disciple failure here and emphasize disciple success here. So there is an expectation that Apologists would be more likely to refer to 26:32 here than the other verses of the pericope since that is the only verse with an implication of undoing to some extent what otherwise is perhaps the most damning prediction for the disciples and especially Peter, whom Patristics unanimously considered the lead disciple and apostle, in the entire Gospel.

A look at Apostolic Constitutions (Book V):

Concerning the Passion of Our Lord, and What Was Done on Each Day of His Sufferings; And Concerning Judas, and that Judas Was Not Present When the Lord Delivered the Mysteries to His Disciples.
...
the Lord said to us: "The hour has come that you shall be dispersed, and shall leave me alone;" John 16:32; Matthew 26:31 and every one vehemently affirming that they would not forsake Him, I Peter adding this promise, that I would even die with Him, He said, "Verily I say unto you, Before the cock crows, you shall thrice deny that you know me." Luke 22:34 And when He had delivered to us the representative mysteries of His precious body and blood, Judas not being present with us, He went out to the Mount of Olives,

Again, the author refers to almost everything in the offending pericope except for the disputed verse.


Joseph

TheNewPorphyry Blog