JW:
Mark 14:28
Howbeit, after I am raised up, I will go before you into Galilee. (ASV)
This verse has long been a stumbling block for CBS (Christian Bible Scholarship) [for Stephen Huller]which textually abuses it and its sister verse[/for Stephen Huller] 16:7 as proof-text that the original Gospel [SH]intended to show its Peter[/SH] and disciples as witnesses for a fully resurrerected Jesus.
I have previously indicated that the offending 14:28 is under some pressure as original based on Literary Criticism (and if 14:28 is late than 16:7 which is dependent on 14:28 probably is too):
1) Peter's response of 14:29 is completely non-responsive to 14:28.
2) It's unlikely that any prophecy would be given by "Mark's" Jesus whose significance would be so reduced in the next line.
3) 14:28 breaks an otherwise balanced chiastic structure for the surrounding verses.
4) 14:28 uses a passive form of "raised up" while the 3 passion predictions use an active form.
5) 14:28 completely reverses the point of 14:27 with no apparent motivation or explanation for doing so which doesn't fit the style of "Mark".
6) The grammar of 14:28 is awkward compared to the Markan narrative and suggests a different source.
The evil and wicked Christian Bible scholar Dan Wallace makes the following boast about the supposed certainty of an extant Christian Bible that faithfully reproduces the original for all practicing purposes:
Dr. Wallace: Earliest Manuscript of the New Testament Discovered?
But the most interesting thing is the first-century fragment.
It was dated by one of the world’s leading paleographers. He said he was ‘certain’ that it was from the first century. If this is true, it would be the oldest fragment of the New Testament known to exist. Up until now, no one has discovered any first-century manuscripts of the New Testament. The oldest manuscript of the New Testament has been P52, a small fragment from John’s Gospel, dated to the first half of the second century. It was discovered in 1934.
Not only this, but the first-century fragment is from Mark’s Gospel.
...
As with all the previously published New Testament papyri (127 of them, published in the last 116 years), not a single new reading has commended itself as authentic. Instead, the papyri function to confirm what New Testament scholars have already thought was the original wording or, in some cases, to confirm an alternate reading—but one that is already found in the manuscripts. As an illustration: Suppose a papyrus had the word “the Lord” in one verse while all other manuscripts had the word “Jesus.” New Testament scholars would not adopt, and have not adopted, such a reading as authentic, precisely because we have such abundant evidence for the original wording in other manuscripts. But if an early papyrus had in another place “Simon” instead of “Peter,” and “Simon” was also found in other early and reliable manuscripts, it might persuade scholars that “Simon” is the authentic reading. In other words, the papyri have confirmed various readings as authentic in the past 116 years, but have not introduced new authentic readings. The original New Testament text is found somewhere in the manuscripts that have been known for quite some time.
These new papyri will no doubt continue that trend. But, if this Mark fragment is confirmed as from the first century, what a thrill it will be to have a manuscript that is dated within the lifetime of many of the eyewitnesses to Jesus’ resurrection!
The above would be quite a hit to ole Dan's credibility if he had any to start with. It's hard to get through Dan's maze above but reading between the lines, there have been new discoveries that are new discoveries (a previously unknown reading). Of course a better standard than Dan's "no new authentic readings" is should there be any new readings or does a new discovery at least create doubt regarding an otherwise "authentic reading".
The
Fayyum Fragment:
The Fayyum Fragment (Papyrus Vindobonensis Greek 2325 [P. Vienna G. 2325]) is a papyrus fragment containing text that could be from part of the New Testament, and consists of only about 100 Greek letters. The fragment was originally discovered in Al-Fayyum, Egypt, and was translated in 1885 by Gustav Bickell after it was found in the papyrus collection of Archduke Rainer Joseph of Austria in Vienna.
The surviving manuscript is badly damaged and has fewer than a hundred Greek letters preserved.[1] 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. It is unclear whether the fragment is an abridged version of the synoptic gospels, or a source text on which they were based, perhaps the apocryphal Gospel of Peter.
is the oldest known potential manuscript witness to 14:28's neighborhood. Sadly the confessional, er, professional Textual Criticism apparachicks tend to either give it the silent treatment (so to speak) or dismiss it as not having any textual criticism value because it is a "radical" "abbreviation" of multiple sources. Laparola to its credit does inventory it as a variant reading.
Everyone would agree that Fayyum primarily parallels GMark and GMatthew here and that the only significant difference is that Fayyum appears to lack all of 14:28. Even if Fayyum is some kind of harmonization of Gospels here, since it primarily parallels GMark and GMatthew here and lacks all of 14:28 which they both have, it would still be reMarkable not to consider it good or at least some textual criticism evidence against 14:28 as original since it is the oldest known potential witness. It also is supported by the Literary Criticism above.
Our own Benjamin Smith, probably the best Christian scholar ever to grace FRDB, went to the trouble (upon sufficient goading) of analyzing parallels between Fayyum and the Gospels:
Papyrus Vindobonensis 2325
Agreements of Mark and Fayyum against Matthew:
Mark and Fayyum each have οτι (that), which Matthew lacks.
Mark and Fayyum each lack υμεις (explicit you), which Matthew has.*
Mark and Fayyum each lack εν εμοι (at me), which Matthew has.*
Mark and Fayyum each locate τα προβατα (the sheep) before διασκορπισθησονται (shall be scattered), while Matthew reverses the order.**
Mark and Fayyum each lack της ποιμνης (of the flock), which Matthew has.*
Mark and Fayyum (apparently) each lack αποκριθεις (having answered), which Matthew has.*
Mark and Fayyum each have και (even, but in slightly different locations), which Matthew lacks.
Mark and Fayyum each lack εν σοι (at you), which Matthew has.*
Mark and Fayyum each have ουκ (not), while Matthew has ουδεποτε (never).
Mark and Fayyum each lack σκανδαλισθησομαι (I shall be scandalized), which Matthew has.*
Mark and Fayyum each lack εν (on), which Matthew has.*
Mark and Fayyum each have δις (twice), which Matthew lacks.
Mark and Fayyum (apparently) each have με απαρνηση (you will deny me), while Matthew reverses the order.**
Words changed from Matthew: 1.
Words added to Matthew: 3.
Words subtracted from Matthew: 10.
Order changed from Matthew: 2.
Agreements of Matthew and Fayyum against Mark:
Matthew and Fayyum each have εν ταυτη τη νυκτι (on this night), which Mark lacks.
Matthew has ειπεν (said) and Fayyum likely has ειποντος (having said), while Mark has εφη (spoke).
Matthew and Fayyum each lack αλλ (but or rather), which Mark has.*
Matthew and Fayyum each lack συ σημερον (you today), which Mark has.*
Matthew and Fayyum each lack η (virtually untranslatable in this instance with πριν), which Mark has.*
Words changed from Mark: 1.
Words added to Mark: 4.
Words subtracted from Mark: 4.
Clearly Fayyum parallels best with GMark. That CBS generally does not inventory Fayyum here is a Shandah, it's Lashon Hora, it's a Chillul HaShem.
Joseph
SCRIPTURES, n.
The sacred books of our holy religion, as distinguished from the false and profane writings on which all other faiths are based.
ErrancyWiki
