Kata Markon

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

Prof. Hurtado wrote:

>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.

Prof. Hurtado,
  I fully accept this.

>  I do rather 
>strongly think that this is a crucial criterion that you overlook here.

  Far from overlooking it, I recognized "conjectural emendation" (which
I roughly take to mean conjecture without textual evidence) as a
category sufficiently important and separate to demand a set of criteria
for its acceptance, my proposal for which I proceeded to set out. Just
to put this in context, I believe it is necessary to appeal to
conjectural emendation in Mark, John and the Corinthian correspondence,
but nowhere else in the NT.

I wrote:

>>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.

You replied:
>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?

  I have no "wishes" in this matter. I am trying to act as an impartial
historian.
  But elsewhere the author of Mark demonstrates that he does not like a
prophecy of Jesus to be unfulfilled. For realizing that Jesus' prophecy
in 9:1 had *not* been fulfilled, he appended the Transfiguration story
in order to make his readers think that in some way the prophecy *had*
been fulfilled. In case anyone might miss the connection, he gave a
broad hint ("Six days later.....").
  This makes it especially unlikely that he would have left an
unfulfilled prophecy in 14:28 and 16:7.

I wrote:
>>   Removal of the verses [ 14:28 & 16:7 ] 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.

I can only beg to differ here. These commentators are asserting (in
part) that the two verses were written by someone other than the author
of the surrounding verses, which (in part) is what I am claiming. Thus
it seems to me that the one does *in part* support the other.

>GMark has come to be seen by many recent scholars as having 
>impressive subtlety and a certain complexity.

Yes, indeed. Mark 9:1 and the Transfiguration constitute an excellent
example of this.

> ....... 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.

  Agreed.
 
> ....... the treatment of Peter seems perhaps intended to 
>provide and "exhibit A" example of an apostate who is re-accepted 
>by Jesus. 

  The family of Jesus gets no such re-instatement in Mark, nor do the
sons of Zebedee. A more consistent hypothesis is that all the original
leading followers of Jesus were being deliberately denigrated, as
(first?) pointed out by E.Trocme in _The Formation of the Gospel
according to Mark_. This antagonism was related to a rejection of their
Christology, and almost certainly derived directly or indirectly from
Paul's attitude to the "pillars".

>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.

  But that's not really surprising, surely. The paucity of textual
evidence that 14:28 was interpolated suggests that the interpolation (if
that's what it is) must have taken place very early in the life of the
gospel. At most the evidence of the text of Matthew proves that the
interpolation must have taken place within the first 15 years or so of
the existence of Mark (between 70 CE and 85 CE approx.).
  Also I think the claim in the first half of your sentence needs some
qualification. Am I not right in thinking that the Fayyum fragment is as
early as the earliest extant MS of Matthew? Do you not therefore have to
assume that the Fayyum fragment is *not* from a copy of Mark in order to
claim Matthew as the (sole) earliest confirmatory evidence?

Ron Price

Weston-on-Trent, Derby, UK

e-mail:  ron.price AT virgin.net

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