Mark 16:9-20 as Forgery or Fabrication by Richard Carrier

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
shunyadragon
Posts: 32
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2015 6:50 pm

Re: Mark 16:9-20 as Forgery or Fabrication by Richard Carrie

Post by shunyadragon » Mon Nov 09, 2015 11:15 am

iskander wrote: Good morning and welcome. :)

It is plain silly to say it is a forgery because Mark 16:9-20 is missing in some copies . Is the resurrection a fabrication? It is not a fabrication if one is a believer , and it is a fabrication if one is not a believer.
As far as the Resurrection goes, objectively it could be fabrication, but not necessarily so. Some scholars like Crossan, and Bart Ehrman believe it is or may be a fabrication.
go with the flow the river knows . . .

Frank

I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

iskander
Posts: 2091
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:38 pm

Re: Mark 16:9-20 as Forgery or Fabrication by Richard Carrie

Post by iskander » Mon Nov 09, 2015 12:16 pm

shunyadragon wrote:
iskander wrote: Good morning and welcome. :)

It is plain silly to say it is a forgery because Mark 16:9-20 is missing in some copies . Is the resurrection a fabrication? It is not a fabrication if one is a believer , and it is a fabrication if one is not a believer.
As far as the Resurrection goes, objectively it could be fabrication, but not necessarily so. Some scholars like Crossan, and Bart Ehrman believe it is or may be a fabrication.
Why do you think some people believe in the resurrection of the dead and others don't?.

Doctor Leila Leah Bronner says in ,A Journey to Heaven: The Jewish Search for Life Beyond .
My contention is that one finds precursors of belief in a bodily resurrection at an early point in biblical history, and these ideas go on to be further developed to a much greater degree within later biblical tradition.
http://www.bibleandjewishstudies.net/ar ... erlife.htm

Perhaps Mark was a late developer trying to emerge from the precursor stage .

User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 5408
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Mark 16:9-20 as Forgery or Fabrication by Richard Carrie

Post by Peter Kirby » Mon Nov 09, 2015 1:17 pm

iskander wrote:It is not a fabrication if one is a believer , and it is a fabrication if one is not a believer.
There's more truth in something my grandma would say:

"Dinner's ready if you like. Dinner's ready if you don't like."
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown

iskander
Posts: 2091
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:38 pm

Re: Mark 16:9-20 as Forgery or Fabrication by Richard Carrie

Post by iskander » Mon Nov 09, 2015 1:27 pm

Peter Kirby wrote:
iskander wrote:It is not a fabrication if one is a believer , and it is a fabrication if one is not a believer.
There's more truth in something my grandma would say:

"Dinner's ready if you like. Dinner's ready if you don't like."
If the reader is not a believer there is no need to say anything to understand that resurrection is not true..
If the reader is a believer ...,

shunyadragon
Posts: 32
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2015 6:50 pm

Re: Mark 16:9-20 as Forgery or Fabrication by Richard Carrie

Post by shunyadragon » Mon Nov 09, 2015 2:24 pm

[quote="iskanderWhy do you think some people believe in the resurrection of the dead and others don't?.

Doctor Leila Leah Bronner says in ,A Journey to Heaven: The Jewish Search for Life Beyond .
My contention is that one finds precursors of belief in a bodily resurrection at an early point in biblical history, and these ideas go on to be further developed to a much greater degree within later biblical tradition.
http://www.bibleandjewishstudies.net/ar ... erlife.htm

Perhaps Mark was a late developer trying to emerge from the precursor stage .[/quote]

The belief in Resurrection was common throughout the history of the religions of the Middle East and particularly in Rome. Example: The Resurrection of Julius Caesar on the day of the Liberalia. Therefore it was popular when Christianity became a Roman Religion. It is unpopular outside Christianity.
go with the flow the river knows . . .

Frank

I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 6146
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Mark 16:9-20 as Forgery or Fabrication by Richard Carrie

Post by MrMacSon » Mon Nov 09, 2015 3:22 pm

Resurrection is now an unpopular notion outside Christianity.

When did resurrection become a predominantly or an exclusively Christian thing?

iskander
Posts: 2091
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:38 pm

Re: Mark 16:9-20 as Forgery or Fabrication by Richard Carrie

Post by iskander » Mon Nov 09, 2015 3:56 pm

shunyadragon wrote:[quote="iskanderWhy do you think some people believe in the resurrection of the dead and others don't?.

Doctor Leila Leah Bronner says in ,A Journey to Heaven: The Jewish Search for Life Beyond .
My contention is that one finds precursors of belief in a bodily resurrection at an early point in biblical history, and these ideas go on to be further developed to a much greater degree within later biblical tradition.
http://www.bibleandjewishstudies.net/ar ... erlife.htm

Perhaps Mark was a late developer trying to emerge from the precursor stage .
The belief in Resurrection was common throughout the history of the religions of the Middle East and particularly in Rome. Example: The Resurrection of Julius Caesar on the day of the Liberalia. Therefore it was popular when Christianity became a Roman Religion. It is unpopular outside Christianity.[/quote]


Thank you,
Resurrection signifies that man in his totality, body and soul, is immortal.
The union of body and soul is what makes us greater than the angels. As Moshe Rabbeinu pointed out to the angels, it is because of this unique body-soul union that the Jewish Nation received the Torah (Shabbat 88b-89a). This union manifests itself in the 13th Principle, according to which the body, in a sense, attains immortality along with the soul.
Why a member of a religion that believes in bodily resurrection should feel the need to question the same belief in another religion?
http://www.aish.com/jl/p/mp/48929597.html

shunyadragon
Posts: 32
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2015 6:50 pm

Re: Mark 16:9-20 as Forgery or Fabrication by Richard Carrie

Post by shunyadragon » Tue Nov 10, 2015 7:54 am

iskander wrote: Why a member of a religion that believes in bodily resurrection should feel the need to question the same belief in another religion?
http://www.aish.com/jl/p/mp/48929597.html
In terms of Christian belief, the belief in the exclusiveness of Christianity does naturally exclude the belief in the Resurrection in other religions.
go with the flow the river knows . . .

Frank

I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1286
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

2nd Century Patristic Evidence - GMatthew

Post by JoeWallack » Wed Nov 11, 2015 10:28 am

JW:
The argument for LE is generally based on quantity and supposed 2nd century Patristic evidence. I assume, as does authority, that GMark was written first and that GMatthew used GMark as a primary source. GMatthew often follows GMark closely. Metzger does not mention GMatthew as evidence against LE as he generally avoids arguments from silence. Modern arguments against LE generally do. The potential strength of GMatthew as evidence here is the quality of age. This would not only be the earliest known Patristic evidence but the earliest External evidence. This is especially applicable to arguments for LE as their primary claimed evidential quality is age, specifically, early Patristic references.

The weakness of GMatthew here as evidence is it is indirect but this is offset by the width (scope) of the evidence:
  • 1) Generally follows GMark closely.

    2) Specifically follows what comes before LE (16:1-8) closely.

    3) Does not follow 16:9-20.
This is evidence that GMatthew did not follow the LE because it was not there at the time GMatthew copied from GMark:

Mark 16:1-8 Matthew 28:1-8 Significant Difference
16.1 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the [mother] of James, and Salome, bought spices, that they might come and anoint him. 28.1 Now late on the sabbath day, as it began to dawn toward the first [day] of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre. GMark has Salome and the women bring spices
16.2 And very early on the first day of the week, they come to the tomb when the sun was risen. 16.3 And they were saying among themselves, Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the tomb? 16.4 and looking up, they see that the stone is rolled back: for it was exceeding great. 28.2 And behold, there was a great earthquake; for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled away the stone, and sat upon it. GMatthew has an earthquake and an angel rolls the stone away
16.5 And entering into the tomb, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, arrayed in a white robe; and they were amazed. 28.3 His appearance was as lightning, and his raiment white as snow: 28.4 and for fear of him the watchers did quake, and became as dead men. -
16.6 And he saith unto them, Be not amazed: ye seek Jesus, the Nazarene, who hath been crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold, the place where they laid him! 28.5 And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye; for I know that ye seek Jesus, who hath been crucified. 28.6 He is not here; for he is risen, even as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay. -
16.7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter, He goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you. 28.7 And go quickly, and tell his disciples, He is risen from the dead; and lo, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you. -
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. 28.8 And they departed quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy, and ran to bring his disciples word. In GMark the women don't tell. In GMatthew they do.

JW:
GMark to 16:8 sure looks like GMatthew's source to 28:8. Most of the content and nouns are the same or at least similar and both have the strong emotion of fear/amazement for flavor. The only significant difference is the last line of each where GMatthew's women run to tell as opposed to GMark's woman who run not to tell.

We have the following reasons to think that GMatthew, did not have the LE in his copy of GMark:
  • 1) GMark in general is GMatthew's source. There is little of the LE in GMatthew.

    2) GMatthew closely follows GMark to 16:8 (see 1).

    3) GMatthew flips the key assertion of 16:8, "ran and told no one", to "ran and told everyone", to change the expectation of what follows.

Joseph

The New Porphyry

User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 6146
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Mark 16:9-20 as Forgery or Fabrication by Richard Carrie

Post by MrMacSon » Wed Nov 11, 2015 1:58 pm

shunyadragon wrote:
iskander wrote: Why a member of a religion that believes in bodily resurrection should feel the need to question the same belief in another religion?
http://www.aish.com/jl/p/mp/48929597.html
In terms of Christian belief, the belief in the exclusiveness of Christianity does naturally exclude the belief in the Resurrection in other religions.
The issue for people trying to determine the history of the development of Christian theology is whether Christianity might have been influenced by preceding or concurrent theologies.

Post Reply