Kata Markon

["Professor L.W. Hurtado" <hurtadol AT div.ed.ac.uk>]

Ron Price wrote in response to my statement that Peter's 
apostasy and recovery is presented in Mark as predicted by Jesus:

>   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.

Two main points, if I may.  First, as a working principle claims for 
interpolations are much stronger where we have evidence of textual 
variation/uncertainty in the extant mss of a work.  I do rather 
strongly think that this is a crucial criterion that you overlook here.
Second, I'm not persuaded that 14:28 and 16:7 meet the three 
criteria that you mention.
You write:
>   The words are both peculiar and inconsistent with their context. The
> purpose in mentioning Galilee is obscure. 
Galilee is a known emphasis of Mark and seems to function as the 
place where disciples are called to follow Jesus (e.g., the women of 
15:41).  So, a promise of being reunited with Jesus in Galilee 
seems not at all strange to me.

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.
Ah, well.  That is the question.  You may think it necessary, but 
did Mark?  We have to have more than our own wishes to make 
such a decision, yes?

>   Removal of the verses in both cases leaves a text which reads more
> smoothly. 
I fail to see any disruption at either point.  Commentators 
sometimes propose that both verses are Markan modifications of 
his tradition. But that's something other than saying that they are 
post-Markan interpolations.  The one doesn't at all support the 
other.

>   The reason for the emendations is clearly to rehabilitate Peter who was
> so denigrated by the denial story. . . . . . .
>   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.
I admire your confidence ("abundantly clear")! But it seems to me 
that you succeed only in producing a simple text, not necessarily 
the author's.  It would require more time and space than I can take 
up here to make the case adequately, but GMark has come to be 
seen by many recent scholars as having impressive subtlety and a 
certain complexity.  In particular, a case can be made that GMark 
is characterized by irony and clear authorial purpose in shape of 
the narrative and other features.  It seems to have been written in 
part to address Christians about being persecuted for their faith. As 
noted by others, the treatment of Peter seems perhaps intended to 
provide and "exhibit A" example of an apostate who is re-accepted 
by Jesus.  This may have been intended to address a church that 
was experiencing or had experienced some persecution and some 
apostasy, to promote the idea of repentant apostates being 
received back.
In fact the earliest evidence confirmatory evidence for the text of 
Mark at 14:28 is Matt 26:32, which implies strongly that Matt had a 
text of Mark with 14:28 in it.  Luke 22:31-34 is a rephrasing of this 
scene, but supports the idea of Peter's rehabilitation being known 
to Luke also.
Larry Hurtado

L. W. Hurtado
University of Edinburgh,
New College
Mound Place 
Edinburgh, Scotland EH1 2LX
Phone: 0131-650-8920
Fax: 0131-650-6579
E-mail:  L.Hurtado AT ed.ac.uk