Kata Markon

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

Two short responses to Ron Price's latest:
--With most (?) scholars, I do not take the "Fayyum Fragment" to 
be a portion of Mark, but assume it to be something else. [By the 
way, it is very interesting that it is a portion of a scroll, not a codex, 
for the latter was much preferred by early Christians for biblical 
texts.]
--If, as Price proposes, an alleged interpolation of Mark 14:28 took 
place within the first 10-15 yrs after GMark's composition, i.e., so 
early that it was already there in the copies used by Matt & Luke, 
this means that the only basis for judging the conjectural 
emendation is our larger reading of GMark, esp. in this case our 
sense of how the author intended to treat Peter (and the 12).  Ron 
Price is confident in his reading of GMark as originally simply 
intending denigation.  I do not share his confidence in this reading 
of GMark.  It would require of an advocate of either reading more 
detailed argumentation than can be given here without abusing the 
protocols of this list.  My aim has been simply to indicate that 
there are problems with the conjecture that 14:28 and 16:7 are 
secondary interpolations.
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