In Search of Original "Mark". Myths, Monsters and OxyMarkons

[JoeWallack]

JW:
The Gospel of "Mark" has (not) long been considered the original Gospel. No one knows where it came from or why. Despite it having no known authority it now has ultimate authority for exactly 1/3 of the World's population which is the exact % that the Canon it created says will be under the influence of Satan.

Strangely, with its high percent of the impossible and contradictions, it can only prove that it contains fiction. It can not prove any history since we have no certain history to compare it to. Likewise, it can only prove that whatever was originally written has been changed since all ancient manuscripts are different. It can not prove what was original since we have no original to compare it to. Until now:

Bible Searchers now claim that an early fragment of the Gospel of "Mark" has risen up from the Holy Sea and provides evidence for an original Gospel of "Mark". The Least Reverend James Snapp (oh no he di-int) Jr. chronicles the channel of discovery here:

First-century Mark: A Timeline

Perhaps the most credible Bible Searcher on this side (above) of the ocean, Daniel Wallace, was the first to reveal the fragment publicly stating that due to a confidentiality agreement preventing him from saying anything, he was saying everything. After stating that he could not give any evidence he gave evidence stating that a fragment of the Gospel of "Mark" had been discovered that a leading pal, er, paleographer had confidently dated to the first century or 80 CE, whichever is earlier.

Bible Searchers now claim that this fragment was written during the life of witnesses to whatever was originally written and is therefore proof of whatever was originally written or whatever was originally written is proof of this fragment.

Subsequently, while confirming that he was bound by a confidentiality agreement which prevented him from saying anything, Daniel Wallace further stated that it was expected that this fragment would be published in 2013. No one knows who owns the fragment or where it is but everyone knows that the fragment is owned by the Green Collection and will not be published until at least 2017 making this fragment increasingly older!

Real Bible Scholarship recognizes that the multiple anachronisms in GMark securely date it to post 70 CE. If 80 CE is within the range of possible dates for this fragment based on real evidence could this fragment be from original "Mark"?

In Search Of goes in search of - Original "Mark". I'm your host:


Joseph

ErrancyWiki

[Peter Kirby]

Why would the original Gospel of Mark be turned into a mummy mask's wrappings/cartonage some 10-40 years later? Even 70 years later, it should be holding up well. [One of the bits of info 'leaked' is that one method of dating the manuscript was by looking at the latest date in a terminus a quo, like checking the dates on coins to be sure that the stash must have been made some short time after the newest coin. All of it apparently fits a first century date, so that's the dating of the mask and not just the manuscript.]

The usage of the 'fragment' essentially as garbage, combined with the absence of a stretch of time for the manuscript to fall into disrepair, and with the fact that the rest of the "manuscript of Mark" would have to be disposed in some other way (since it is not in the cartonage - and we would find it if it were there) while still using different papyri to stuff the mask (and how does that make sense?), leads me to suspect strongly [guess I'll have to wait until 2017!] that this 'fragment' is complete or nearly so. I suspect it is a talismanic papyri, the kind of which we have many examples from Egypt. It has some words/letters in common with Mark [remember 7Q5?], and it might even be an extract from that gospel [guess I'll have to wait until 2017 for that too!]. The paleography might not even rule out a date of AD 80.

[JoeWallack]

Bible Searchers have (not) long been aware of the Alexamenos graffito:

The Alexamenos graffito (also known as the graffito blasfemo)[1]:393 is an inscription carved in plaster on a wall near the Palatine Hill in Rome, now in the Palatine Antiquarium Museum. It is alleged to be among the earliest known pictorial representations of the Crucifixion of Jesus, together with some engraved gems.[2]
The image depicts a human-like figure affixed to a cross and possessing the head of a donkey. In the top right of the image is what has been interpreted as either the Greek letter upsilon or a tau cross.[1] To the left of the image is a young man, apparently intended to represent Alexamenos,[3] a Roman soldier/guard, raising one hand in a gesture possibly suggesting worship.[4][5] Beneath the cross is a caption written in crude Greek: Αλεξαμενος ϲεβετε θεον. ϲεβετε can be understood as a variant spelling (possibly a phonetic misspelling)[6] of Standard Greek ϲεβεται, which means "worships". The full inscription would then be translated as "Alexamenos worships [his] God".[6][7][8]

Apologists recognize the connection to the Christian Bible but spin the "graffiti" as non-Christians making fun of Christians. Bible Searchers have had no more interest in trying to make a serious connection here than Fox News has had in reprimanding Bill O'Reilly for lying (who is now claiming he was The (Very) Young Reporter at the Tomb).

But is there a case to be made that the Alexamenos graffito was not intended to be funny but was serious? That it does not just refer to the Christian Bible but has a source of the Christian Bible? Someone went to a lot of trouble considering the available resources at the time to mock Christians. This would be similar to a Ferguson protester writing a lengthy and thoughtful letter to the Editor of The New York Times instead of just putting a cap in a cop's ass.

In addition to GMark's use of the name "Alexander" in close proximity to the supposed crucifixion a Bible Searcher has now discovered evidence, which has always been known, to support the Alexamenos graffito as being serious and having a source of the original Gospel:

Consistency is Highly Overrated

An example from the Gospel of Mark. Nine times we find the third person plural ‘they said’, ειπον / ειπαν. In NA26/27 it is spelled consistently ειπαν. In each of the nine cases there is manuscript support for ειπαν but in two cases this support is unusually slim, 11:6 and 16:8. In the latter ειπαν is only read by Bezae, all other witnesses read ειπον

Mark 16:8

And they went out, and fled from the tomb; for trembling and astonishment had come upon them: and they said nothing to any one; for they were afraid. (ASV)

For those who need points sharply explained (like outhouse), "ειπον" is singular as in "nothing was said to anyone". Now the silence is absolute rather than just relative to these women. Consistent with the rest of GMark and Paul. No one had a source of historical witness for the supposed resurrection. This is relevant to many Threads here:

Mark's DiualCritical Marks. Evidence Of Intentional Fiction

Was Paul the First to Assert that Jesus was Crucified?

The Word According To Garp. Big Editing in the First Gospel

Be Afraid. Be Very Afraid For. Internal Confirmation That 16:8 Is The Original Ending

"Mark"=Simple Fish Story or Smooth Sualvific and Deboanerges

[I'm not making this up]Dirk Jongkind[/I'm not making this up] points out that the only other use of the offending word ειπον by "Mark" is at 11:6. I've pointed out Ad Nazorean in this unholy Forum that "Mark" appears to have a literary technique of restricting usage of the same word in order to connect pericopes with the same theme:

Mark 11

1 And when they draw nigh unto Jerusalem, unto Bethphage and Bethany, at the mount of Olives, he sendeth two of his disciples,

2 and saith unto them, Go your way into the village that is over against you: and straightway as ye enter into it, ye shall find a colt tied, whereon no man ever yet sat; loose him, and bring him.

3 And if any one say unto you, Why do ye this? say ye, The Lord hath need of him; and straightway he will send him back hither.

4 And they went away, and found a colt tied at the door without in the open street; and they loose him.

5 And certain of them that stood there said unto them, What do ye, loosing the colt?

6 And they said unto them even as Jesus had said: and they let them go.

"They said" here than should be "it was said". A strange choice of grammar here since a plural is doing the speaking. We do have something more than just an interesting parallel though between 11:6 and 16:8. In 11:6 we have the donkey that is temporarily used by God:

The Lord hath need of him; and straightway he will send him back hither

Likewise Jesus is used by God and afterwards returned to where he came from:

• 1:9 And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee,

  16:7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter, He goeth before you into Galilee

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

[Peter Kirby]

Quoted from Peter Gurry, on Facebook (NT textual criticism discussion group):

A list of Scott Carroll’s “discoveries” from 2011–present has just been posted online (or at least I just found it). Almost 40 Biblical papyri are listed along with lots of classical texts. The first page claims that “All of the items have been carefully analyzed and the details regarding dates and the significance of the texts are based on a close study of all known databases. These have been further verified by world-renowned colleagues.” 24th on the list of Biblical papyri is “Gospel of Mark late 1c–early 2c.” So there you have it (from the source?): the 1st century Mark fragment is now 1st–2nd century. The PDF is available at http://ancientassetinvestments.com/about-dr-scott

[andrewcriddle]

Quoted from Peter Gurry, on Facebook (NT textual criticism discussion group):

A list of Scott Carroll’s “discoveries” from 2011–present has just been posted online (or at least I just found it). Almost 40 Biblical papyri are listed along with lots of classical texts. The first page claims that “All of the items have been carefully analyzed and the details regarding dates and the significance of the texts are based on a close study of all known databases. These have been further verified by world-renowned colleagues.” 24th on the list of Biblical papyri is “Gospel of Mark late 1c–early 2c.” So there you have it (from the source?): the 1st century Mark fragment is now 1st–2nd century. The PDF is available at http://ancientassetinvestments.com/about-dr-scott

The page is down but can be accessed at http://web.archive.org/web/201503090758 ... -dr-scott/
http://web.archive.org/web/201505160910 ... veries.pdf

Andrew Criddle

[Peter Kirby]

Thanks, Andrew.

Attached it here.

[Blood]

"Ancient Assets Investments." Where is the barfing emoticon when you need it?

[JoeWallack]

Bible Searchers have long noted that the author of the Gospel of Mark, "Mark", has a literary style of assigning a specific emotion to a character at the beginning and ending of a pericope. Legendary Bible Searcher Father Raymond Brown confessed that one such example is the emotion of "amazement" assigned to Pilate the first and last time he meets Jesus (live and dead):

15

15:5 But Jesus no more answered anything; insomuch that Pilate marvelled.

15:44 And Pilate marvelled if he were already dead: and calling unto him the centurion, he asked him whether he had been any while dead.

In a possibly related story (so to speak) there is a potential early witness to the Gospel of Mark, Secret Mark, long shunned by Traditional Bible Searchers as a probable forgery. Until relatively recently there was no hard evidence either way and the only thing proven was that Traditional Bible Searchers did not want it to be authentic. It has now been shown that the actual manuscript does in fact exist so there is hard evidence in support of the authenticity of Secret Mark and no hard evidence against. Apparently even Wiki Leaks was afraid to publish this one.

Can we find support in Secret Mark for "Mark's" literary technique, identified above, of tagging the same emotion on a character at the beginning and end of a section of the Gospel? In Search Of Original Mark goes in search of the G-spot of Mark, the missing love in GMark.

Everyone is free to read what follows except for Bart Ehrman who first must pay me $ 10...

Critical Bible Searcher JoeWallack, along with others, points out that Paul appears to be a major source for "Mark". One of Paul's most famous sayings is:

Galatians 5

24 And they that are of Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with the passions and the lusts thereof.

It has long been observed that GMark in the big picture rightly divides the first half as a teaching and healing ministry set in Galilee and the second half as a passion ministry set in Judea. JoeWallack notes the described framing technique of GMark in the teaching and healing ministry as follows:

1

41 And being moved with anger, he stretched forth his hand, and touched him, and saith unto him, I will; be thou made clean.

Critical textual criticism favors "anger" as likely original here. Note that this is the first individual healing story once Jesus starts his Galilean road show. Next:

3

5 And when he had looked round about on them with anger, being grieved at the hardening of their heart, he saith unto the man, Stretch forth thy hand. And he stretched it forth; and his hand was restored.

Note that the next individual healing story is set in Gerasa, outside of Galilee. So we appear to have Jesus with the emotion of anger at the start and end of the original Galilean ministry. This ties to Paul as before Jesus can crucify his passion (perhaps best illustrated by "anger") he first must have passion.

The question is than, did "Mark" likewise frame Jesus' passion ministry with an appropriate emotion at the start and end? We get off (so to speak) with a good start (so to speak):

10

21 And Jesus looking upon him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.

Note that this is the first individual story once Jesus enters Judea. Can we find evidence for the emotion of love pinned on Jesus somewhere else in Judea? Not apparently in Canonical Mark. But there is evidence for this in Secret Mark!:

Secret Mark

And after six days Jesus told him what to do and in the evening the youth comes to him, wearing a linen cloth over his naked body
...
And the sister of the youth whom Jesus loved

Note the matches to a portion of GMark:

14

51 And a certain young man followed with him, having a linen cloth cast about him, over [his] naked [body]: and they lay hold on him;

Secret Mark provides evidence than, due to the other parallels, that this part of Canonical Mark did originally have an emotion here of love assigned to Jesus. And, as this point in GMark marks the end of Jesus' (voluntary) movement in Judea it would fit "Mark's" demonstrated technique of using the same emotion to frame a connected part of the narrative.

As far as Paul, it provides a nice connected theme that Jesus displays anger (passion) in his original ministry but than transitions to an emotion of love before his passion thereby crucifying his passion and not displaying any emotion during it. 40 days, Love one another. Game, setting and match.



Joseph

ErrancyWiki

[Clive]

"Mark" appears to have a literary technique .... (s?)

Might this be the equivalent of a fingerprint, to identify an author or at least a school?

[JoeWallack]

JW:
It has (not) long been noted by Bible Searchers that the forged ending of GMark, 16:9-20, reads like a harmonized summary of supposed post resurrection witness in other Gospels and Acts:

Mark 16:9-20 as Forgery or Fabrication by Richard Carrier, Ph.D. (2009)
Content Betrays Knowledge of the New Testament

The NT didn't exist when Mark wrote, yet the LE not only betrays knowledge of the Canonical NT (all four Gospels and Acts), it assumes the reader is aware of those contents of the NT or has access to them. As noted in section 4.2.1, this makes no sense coming from Mark, and very little sense coming from anyone at all, except someone who already knew all the stories related in the other three Gospels (and Acts) and who thus set out to quickly summarize them, knowing full well the reader could easily find those accounts and get all the details omitted here (or would already know them). Mark never writes with such an assumption. But a commentator writing a separate summary of the Gospel appearances in the NT would write something exactly like this. That the LE exhibits stylistic similarities with the whole NT, including the Epistles (as just surveyed in section 4.2), further supports the conclusion that the author of the LE knew the whole NT, and in fact was so influenced by it as to have adopted many elements of its diverse style. The author of the LE therefore cannot have been Mark.

Bible Searchers in France say they have (not) recently discovered a Manuscript, which has only existed for a thousand years, which may help explain the path of the forged 16:9-20 (LE) from original commentary all the way to the end of GMark:

Minuscule 304

Minuscule 304 (in the Gregory-Aland numbering), A215Cμ23 (Soden),[1] is a Greek minuscule manuscript of the New Testament, on parchment. Palaeographically it has been assigned to the 12th century.[2]
...
It does not contain the text of the Longer Ending of Mark.[6]

Regarding this lack of the LE, Bible Searcher James Snapp, who recently traveled on Safari to Timbuktu based on a questionable rumor that Idi Amin Dada had made reference to the LE way back in the 20th century, has this to say:

304 does not have the subscription to the Gospel of Mark after 16:8. All things ignored considered, it is very likely that either 304 was based on a damaged exemplar, or that 304 itself has undergone damage.

This amazing conclusion by Reverend Snapp that because 304 either did or did not originally contain the LE it should likely not be counted as evidence against the LE is likely the best evidence that it should be counted as evidence against the LE.

Critical Bible Searcher JoeWallack points out that upon closer examination of the end of 304:

New Testament Manuscripts

Manuscript 304

Paris, National Library Greek 194. Soden's Cm23, A215. Contains the gospels of Matthew and Mark (only), with commentary interspersed with the text. Dated paleographically to the twelfth (von Soden, Aland) or thirteenth (Scrivener) century. Classified by von Soden based on the commentary: He lists it as having the "Anonymous Catena" on Matthew (one of only three manuscripts to have this commentary, the others being 366 and 2482) and the "Antiochene Commentary" of Victor on Mark. (Scrivener quotes Burgon to the effect that the commentary on Mark is a "modification of Victor's," however.) The Alands list 304 as Category V (Byzantine). Since the manuscript does not include Luke, it has not been studied by Wisse, but there is no particular reason to doubt the Alands' judgement. Thus there is no reason to consider 304 particularly unusual -- except for the fact that it is commonly cited in critical apparati (NA27, UBS4, etc.) as omitting the longer ending of Mark (16:9-20). Maurice Robinson has examined a microfilm of the end of the manuscript, however, and offers these observations: "[T]he primary matter [in 304] is the commentary. The gospel text is merely interspersed between the blocks of commentary material, and should not be considered the same as a 'normal' continuous-text MS. Also, it is often very difficult to discern the text in contrast to the comments....
"Following gar2 at the close of [16:8], the MS has a mark like a filled-in 'o,' followed by many pages of commentary, all of which summarize the endings of the other gospels and even quote portions of them.
"Following this, the commentary then begins to summarize the eteron de ta para tou Markou, presumably to cover the non-duplicated portions germane to that gospel in contrast to the others. There remain quotes and references to the other gospels in regard to Mary Magdalene, Peter, Galilee, the fear of the women, etc. But at this point the commentary abruptly ends, without completing the remainder of the narrative or the parallels. I suspect that the commentary (which contains only Mt and Mk) originally continued the discussion and that a final page or pages at the end of this volume likely were lost.... I would suggest that MS 304 should not be claimed as a witness to the shortest ending...."

So even per sworn proponent of the LE, Mo Robinson, 304 clearly ends the Gospel text at 16:8, even having a symbol indicating finish, and than continues by providing related commentary on the supposed post resurrection witness in the other Gospels thus creating a continuous and combined Manuscript at the same time with 16:8 as the ending of the Gospel immediately followed by related commentary of what follows in other Gospels that was missing in GMark.

Is this the missing Leink to how the LE found its way into GMark in the first place (so to speak)?:

• 1) GMark originally ended at 16:8.
  
  2) Subsequent copy ended Gospel text at 16:8 but added commentary described above after 16:8.
  
  3) Subsequent copy took commentary in 2) as ending of GMark.

Joseph

ErrancyWiki