Kata Markon

["Ron Price" <ron.price AT virgin.net>]

Prof. Hurtado wrote:

>I would agree that the handling of Peter's denial in Mark is to some 
>real extent the work of the author. But I don't think that the notion 
>that Mark's aim was simple denegration of Peter (and the 12) 
>stands up to the full range of evidence in the gospel ....... his
>apostasy ....... is prophetically 
>overcome in Jesus' promise in 14:26-31 .......

Prof. Hurtado,
  I take it that you mean the promise in 14:28.
  As far as I know there have been very few publications since the
Interpreter's Bible which have supported the view that 14:28 and 16:7
are interpolations. But *if* the IB was correct, then it is much clearer
that the original author's aim was simple denigration of Peter. 
  Curiously I have recently criticized Mahlon Smith on XTalk for being
too ready to accept conjectural emendations in Mark. But I did propose
criteria for their acceptance. They are as follows:
(1) There must be something inconsistent about the supposed added words
in their current context.
(2) Removal of the supposed added words must leave a text which makes
better sense.
(3) There must be a plausible reason why the scribe made the emendation.

  The conjectural emendation of 14:28 and 16:7 satisfies all three of
these requirements.
  The words are both peculiar and inconsistent with their context. The
purpose in mentioning Galilee is obscure. More importantly, if the
original author had recorded a promise that Jesus would go to Galilee,
he would surely have recorded an appearance in Galilee to demonstrate
the fulfilment of the promise.
  Removal of the verses in both cases leaves a text which reads more
smoothly. On 14:29 Hooker (_The Gospel according to St Mark_) comments:
"Peter's protest picks up Jesus' prophecy in v.27". On 16:7 Nineham
(_Saint Mark_) comments: "Most commentators think that the verse was
inserted into the tradition by St Mark ......." I think they're wrong,
of course. But I quote this as evidence that most commentators believe
that the text reads more smoothly without 16:7.
  The reason for the emendations is clearly to rehabilitate Peter who
was so denigrated by the denial story. This is parallelled in John's
gospel by the editorial addition of ch.21 also aimed (I believe) at
rehabilitating Peter.
  As it happens there is the Fayyum fragment which supports the omission
of 14:28. On its own this would rightly be regarded as feeble evidence.
But as secondary support to the other arguments it should, I contend, be
regarded as further confirmation that the two verses were interpolated
by an anonymous scribe after the original author had completed his
gospel.
  This leaves the end of the denial story in 14:72 as the last Markan
reference to Peter, thus making it abundantly clear that the denigration
was deliberate.


Ron Price

Weston-on-Trent, Derby, UK

e-mail:  ron.price AT virgin.net

Web site:  http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm