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.
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 »

Disciples often struggle to understand new and vigorous ideas. Stupid ideas are never a problem , even for the gifted pupils.
Solo
Posts: 156
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 9:10 am

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

Post by Solo »

I have been mapping out pericopes in Mark that Matthew perceived as offensive specifically to the messianic dignity of Jesus and either modified them or omitted them. On the short list, there is the failure of the Baptist to recognize Jesus, the credit given by 'those close to Jesus' to the rumours of his being out of his mind, the Bethsaida two-step cure of the blind man, Jesus repudiating Christ's Davidian lineage and the reference to the dead body of Jesus as 'corpse' (ptōma) in narrating the action of Pilate.

Thanks to the discussion in this thread, and specifically on the meaning of 'proagō' in Mk 14:28, I have come upon another small but very curious piece od Matthew's editing of Mark.


Mt 14:22 Then he made the disciples get into the boat and go before him to the other side, while he dismissed the crowds.
καὶ εὐθέως ἠνάγκασεν τοὺς μαθητὰς ἐμβῆναι εἰς τὸ πλοῖον καὶ προάγειν αὐτὸν εἰς τὸ πέραν ἕως οὗ ἀπολύσῃ τοὺς ὄχλους

Mk 6:45 Immediately he made his disciples get into the boat and go before him to the other side, to Beth-sa'ida, while he dismissed the crowd.
καὶ εὐθὺς ἠνάγκασεν τοὺς μαθητὰς αὐτοῦ ἐμβῆναι εἰς τὸ πλοῖον καὶ προάγειν εἰς τὸ πέραν πρὸς Βηθσαϊδάν ἕως αὐτὸς ἀπολύει τὸν ὄχλον

I don't think the source of Matthew's writing here is a great mystery. He had copied Mark practically word for word. But why would he omit the final destination of the voyage ? No big mystery either, I don't think.

Mat 14:34 And when they had crossed over, they came to land at Gennesaret.
καὶ διαπεράσαντες ἦλθον ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν εἰς Γεννησαρέτ
Mk 6:53 And when they had crossed over, they came to land at Gennesaret....
καὶ διαπεράσαντες ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν ἦλθον εἰς Γεννησαρὲτ

Well, well, what a big embarrassment if Jesus was in the boat! But it appears that Jesus' forgetting where he was going (spatio-temporal disorientation being a classical side-effect of an excited pneumatic) was no problem for Mark because his Jesus was a composite sketch of the members of his community. Matthew, on the other hand, evidently had bigger ambitions than teaching intelligent psychos how to manage their demons through a clever allegory.

Best,
Jiri
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

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

Post by Secret Alias »

Matthew is more original here. Bethsaida was not the destination. Bethsaida = temple of Jerusalem = house of demon(s) שֵׁידָא
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1594
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

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

Post by JoeWallack »

JW:
Regarding the External evidence for the likely original ending of GMark Apologists posture that the evidence for 16:8 as original is mainly confined to Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. If we look though at the early high quality External evidence we see that the majority of it favors 16:8 as original:

Date Description Evidence For Commentary
c. 300 Eusebius Textual Criticism of Markan ending 16:8 as original Provides evidence that in his time the qualitative and quantitative evidence clearly supports 16:8 as original and he thinks it is. Lays the groundwork though for changing the Manuscript tradition by saying that either 16:8 or the LE is an acceptable ending.
c. 350 Codex_Sinaiticus 16:8 as original Coordinates with Eusebius that the contemporary and quality manuscripts support 16:8 as original. ReMarkable for the extensive editing of subsequent Christian forgeries to the 12th century, yet no addition of the LE, indicating that long after scribes still recognized a significant tradition of 16:8 as original.
c. 350 Codex Vaticanus 354 16:8 as original Again, coordinates with Eusebius
c. 400 Jerome 16:8 as original Indicates that 100 years after Eusebius the evidence for 16:8 as original is the same. Goes beyond Eusebius saying that use of either ending is acceptable to indicating that use of the LE is preferable by using the LE in his Vulgate. Because of this, all subsequent Manuscripts will have significantly reduced weight as evidence.
c. 400 Codex Washingtoniensis LE as original but Contains the Freer Logion which is evidence that at this time Markan text after 16:8 was still a work in progress. Jerome confirms that the ending here was also in other Manuscripts.
c. 400 Codex Bobiensis LE as original but The Greek portion has the LE but the accompanying Latin has only the Short Ending after 16:8
c. 750 Codex Regius 16:8 as original Has a separation after 16:8 indicating that most earlier manuscripts ended at 16:8. Then provides the Short Ending followed by the Long Ending. Note that I list Codex Regius here even though there are a few earlier Manuscripts because those Manuscripts are mainly Byzantine text type while Codex Regius is mainly the superior Alexandrian text type.
Post Codex Regius Large majority of Manuscripts LE as original Most are long after Codex Regius and are the inferior Byzantine text type and thus have relatively little evidential weight.

Apologists try to isolate Sinaiticus and Vaticanus as the only significant quality evidence against the LE and either tend not to mention all the above early quality evidence against the LE or spread it out so it is under appreciated. When the relevant early quality evidence is laid out though as above in qualitative order one sees that the majority of this evidence favors 16:8 as the original ending.


Joseph

The New Porphyry
Solo
Posts: 156
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 9:10 am

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

Post by Solo »

JoeWallack wrote:JW:
Regarding the External evidence for the likely original ending of GMark Apologists posture that the evidence for 16:8 as original is mainly confined to Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. If we look though at the early high quality External evidence we see that the majority of it favors 16:8 as original:

Date Description Evidence For Commentary
c. 300 Eusebius Textual Criticism of Markan ending 16:8 as original Provides evidence that in his time the qualitative and quantitative evidence clearly supports 16:8 as original and he thinks it is. Lays the groundwork though for changing the Manuscript tradition by saying that either 16:8 or the LE is an acceptable ending.
c. 350 Codex_Sinaiticus 16:8 as original Coordinates with Eusebius that the contemporary and quality manuscripts support 16:8 as original. ReMarkable for the extensive editing of subsequent Christian forgeries to the 12th century, yet no addition of the LE, indicating that long after scribes still recognized a significant tradition of 16:8 as original.
c. 350 Codex Vaticanus 354 16:8 as original Again, coordinates with Eusebius
c. 400 Jerome 16:8 as original Indicates that 100 years after Eusebius the evidence for 16:8 as original is the same. Goes beyond Eusebius saying that use of either ending is acceptable to indicating that use of the LE is preferable by using the LE in his Vulgate. Because of this, all subsequent Manuscripts will have significantly reduced weight as evidence.
c. 400 Codex Washingtoniensis LE as original but Contains the Freer Logion which is evidence that at this time Markan text after 16:8 was still a work in progress. Jerome confirms that the ending here was also in other Manuscripts.
c. 400 Codex Bobiensis LE as original but The Greek portion has the LE but the accompanying Latin has only the Short Ending after 16:8
c. 750 Codex Regius 16:8 as original Has a separation after 16:8 indicating that most earlier manuscripts ended at 16:8. Then provides the Short Ending followed by the Long Ending. Note that I list Codex Regius here even though there are a few earlier Manuscripts because those Manuscripts are mainly Byzantine text type while Codex Regius is mainly the superior Alexandrian text type.
Post Codex Regius Large majority of Manuscripts LE as original Most are long after Codex Regius and are the inferior Byzantine text type and thus have relatively little evidential weight.

Apologists try to isolate Sinaiticus and Vaticanus as the only significant quality evidence against the LE and either tend not to mention all the above early quality evidence against the LE or spread it out so it is under appreciated. When the relevant early quality evidence is laid out though as above in qualitative order one sees that the majority of this evidence favors 16:8 as the original ending.


Joseph

The New Porphyry
Hi Joe,
I personally have no doubt in the original Mark ending at 16:8 but in the interest of completeness you should mention that Tatian's Diatessaron uses the LE. and Irenaeus in A.E. 3.10.5 directly quotes Mark 16:19. So the expanded Mark would have been in circulation in the 2nd century.

Best,
Jiri
gmx
Posts: 317
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2015 4:35 am

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

Post by gmx »

Solo wrote: Hi Joe,
I personally have no doubt in the original Mark ending at 16:8 but in the interest of completeness you should mention that Tatian's Diatessaron uses the LE. and Irenaeus in A.E. 3.10.5 directly quotes Mark 16:19. So the expanded Mark would have been in circulation in the 2nd century.

Best,
Jiri
And that's clearly the crux of the matter -- the early date that the LE was allegedly added, and the comparatively late date of the most ancient witnesses to Mark's text that we have available. Based on numbers of extant copies, Mark seems to have been a somewhat neglected (less copied) text than the other gospels. Why was that, and is it possibly related to the controversy concerning the ending?

For me, the interesting question is not so much whether 16:9-20 was a forgery, but more to do with the circumstances around its creation. I'm of the belief that Mark did not intentionally end his Gospel at 16:8. The women running off in terror and ignoring Jesus' instruction don't mesh as a resolution. And yes, I acknowledge that a scroll would be unlikely to be missing its final verses, and Mark would be very unlucky to have died with a dozen verses left to write (and there is no tradition around it), and finally, GMark is unlikely to have been written on a codex (where the loss of the final page would be plausible) (...subjects treated by Daniel Wallace)

As mentioned by Jiri, the Diatessaron uses the LE and Irenaeus is clearly aware of it. Obviously, the textual record of ancient Christian history which has been preserved for us is tragically incomplete, but it is interesting that we have no ancient traditions, discussions or explanations which shed any light on the various endings of Mark. It is indeed a mystery.
I saw a Naked girl ,Slowly emerge in front of me,Greek hairstyle,Very beautiful,She has a beautiful [fine] profile.; She is fine in profile. the view of profile,hard to tell.
Post Reply