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

[Ben C. Smith]

GMatthew follows GMark very closely to 16:8 and than abruptly does not follow the LE at all. GLuke also follows GMark closely (not as closely) to 16:8 and than abruptly stops following closely but does have some good parallels and general following. The point in favor of 16:8 as the ending is the relative change in the level of copying/following to and after 16:8.

Matthew is as clear a witness to the abrupt ending as one can hope for from unprovenanced, unreflective documents from early Christianity. The appearance to the women in 28.9-10 has every appearance of redacting and restating 28.7, and the appearance to the disciples in 28.16-20 looks like what one might put together if one had only the notices that there was supposed to be an appearance in Galilee. The only touch of color is the fact that it occurs on a mountain, a venue probably derived from the transfiguration event, and even so nothing in the gospel up to this point prepares us for "the mountain which Jesus had designated" (a backtracking, patchwork statement).

Luke is less clear, but (as you say) the level of copying does drop off at Mark 16.8.

The longer ending of Mark looks like a summary or a précis to me. It does not dig down into any one story or event, but rather skips along quickly, giving only cursory attention to each appearance. Luke, with its detailed narrative of the appearance to the eleven and the appearance to Cleopas and his companion, looks like the sort of thing the longer ending of Mark might be summarizing. This kind of argumentation is indirect, of course, relying upon one's impressions of the text; and it is not as clear as in the case of Matthew; but I think there is some merit to it.

Ben.

[Adam]

Looks like Ben agrees with me on steps one and two about the LE. The current LE is later. Which school wrote it, Ben?
The end of Matthew 28 is indeed a candidate for the original long ending, but Ben correctly points out that it is more like a replacement for an original long ending that had disappeared by the time gMatthew was written. It seems contrived as an apologetic. I would say that the writer had heard of the original ending, but could only rather sketchily recall it.
So, Ben, ready to take the plunge and accept (most of) John 21 as the true original long ending after Mark 16:8? Apostles came to Galilee in either case, ignoring Jerusalem the home base for the competition against the Galilee school?

[Ben C. Smith]

Looks like Ben agrees with me on steps one and two about the LE. The current LE is later. Which school wrote it, Ben?
The end of Matthew 28 is indeed a candidate for the original long ending, but Ben correctly points out that it is more like a replacement for an original long ending that had disappeared by the time gMatthew was written. It seems contrived as an apologetic. I would say that the writer had heard of the original ending, but could only rather sketchily recall it.
So, Ben, ready to take the plunge and accept (most of) John 21 as the true original long ending after Mark 16:8? Apostles came to Galilee in either case, ignoring Jerusalem the home base for the competition against the Galilee school?

It is not exactly a "plunge" for me. I waver back and forth constantly on whether 16.8 was supposed to be the original ending to Mark or whether an original ending got lost. But, when I am in the mode of thinking that the gospel got truncated somehow, the number one candidate for what was lost is some version of John 21. (This notion used to be somewhat common: both Harnack and Streeter, for example, suggested forms of it.) The truncated ending of the gospel of Peter would also probably preserve some of this lost ending: "But I, Simon Peter, and Andrew my brother took our nets and went away to the sea; and there was with us Levi, the son of Alphaeus whom the Lord...." Levi would be a Marcan touch, there being 5 disciples in the gospel who receive direct, narrated summons from Jesus (Peter, Andrew, James, John, Levi). Fishing is a fitting activity for Peter and Andrew to turn to again if, as Mark 16.8 affirms, the women told no one about the empty tomb; even the Johannine version of this pericope, despite it being narrated as the third resurrection appearance, makes a good deal of sense if read as a first resurrection appearance, to disciples who have no inkling that Jesus has been raised. And the Lucan version of the miraculous catch, narrated as part of the call of the disciples rather than as part of the resurrection narratives, has that bit in which Peter says, "Depart from me; I am a sinful man!" A somewhat weird reaction to witnessing a miracle, but a very natural reaction to seeing the Lord again after having denied him three times at his passion.

All of this is possible; none of it is proven. It is a speculation, but one that I am fond of when in the right mood. It is also consonant with the empty tomb narrative and the Galilean predictions in 14.28 and 16.7 existing, and I am tempted to think that there was a version of events at one time that ended at 15.39 or so. IOW, there would be an earlier version in which Jesus is vindicated on the cross and the disciples are not rehabilitated, and there would be a later version in which Jesus is vindicated by resurrection appearances and the disciples are (probably) rehabilitated, next to the sea of Galilee, in a scene that echoes and replays their original calling. Later still part of that ending is lost (truncated at 16.8), and after that the longer ending and the shorter ending are independently added as patches.

Then again, however, there are days when I find it easier to imagine 16.8 as the original ending, with all ideas about John 21 and all feeling like speculative patterns impressive only in the eye of the beholder.

Ben.

[JoeWallack]

JW:
Moving forward in what I think is the chronological order of Gospels:

Mark 16:1-8	Peter 50-57	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. 16.2 And very early on the first day of the week, they come to the tomb when the sun was risen.	50 Now at the dawn of the Lord's Day Mary Magdalene, a female disciple of the Lord (who, afraid because of the Jews since they were inflamed with anger, had not done at the tomb of the Lord what women were accustomed to do for the dead beloved by them), 51 having taken with her women friends, came to the tomb where he had been placed. 52 And they were afraid lest the Jews should see them and were saying, 'If indeed on that day on which he was crucified we could not weep and beat ourselves, yet now at his tomb we may do these things.	No significant difference. Note the editorial reaction to GMark, an explanation for the timing of the visit
16.3 And they were saying among themselves, Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the tomb?	53 But who will roll away for us even the stone placed against the door of the tomb in order that, having entered, we may sit beside him and do the expected things? 54 For the stone was large, and we were afraid lest anyone see us. And if we are unable, let is throw against the door what we bring in memory of him; let us weep and beat ourselves until we come to our homes.'	No significant difference. More editorial reaction, expanded purpose for visit = mourning.
16.4 and looking up, they see that the stone is rolled back: for it was exceeding great.	55 And having gone off, they found the sepulcher opened.	-
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.	And having come forward, they bent down there and saw there a certain young man seated in the middle of the sepulcher, comely and clothed with a splendid robe, who said to them:	-
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!	56 'Why have you come? Whom do you seek? Not that one who was crucified? He is risen and gone away. But if you do not believe, bend down and see the place where he lay, because he is not here.	-
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.	For he is risen and gone away to there whence he was sent.'	The only significant difference here, in GPeter there is no reference to a Galilee reunion prophecy. More (strong) evidence that 14:28 and 16:7 are not original to GMark. Here we see the development of the supposed prophecy which agrees with GMatthew. In the earliest subsequent Gospels, no Jesus prediction of a Galilean reunion in GMatthew or GPeter. It is the angel at the tomb who tells the women to "Go North young son of men." They have no Galilean reunion prophecy because their source at the time, GMark, lacked it. Subsequent to GMatthew/GPeter, GMark was edited to add the related Jesus' prophecy of 14:28. The implication of a reunion was added before the explicit reunion of LE and that is why there is so much less extant support for it. Understand dear Reader.
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.	57 Then the women fled frightened.	-

It's clear that GPeter follows GMark reMarkably well for 16:1-8. Most of the additions in GPeter here are commentary on GMark's basic narrative.


Joseph

The new Porphyry Blog

[JoeWallack]

JW:
We've seen that GPeter follows GMark remarkably well for 16:1-8. But, it's generally thought that GPeter was written after GMatthew. We've already seen that GMatthew also follows GMark remarkably well for 16:1-8 so the question is, who was GPeter following, GMark, GMatthew or both?

Let's do a comparison than of the three:

Mark 16:1-8	Matthew 28:1-8	Peter 50-57	Favors GMark as source	Favors GMatthew as source
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. 16.2 And very early on the first day of the week, they come to the tomb when the sun was risen.	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.	50 Now at the dawn of the Lord's Day Mary Magdalene, a female disciple of the Lord (who, afraid because of the Jews since they were inflamed with anger, had not done at the tomb of the Lord what women were accustomed to do for the dead beloved by them), 51 having taken with her women friends, came to the tomb where he had been placed. 52 And they were afraid lest the Jews should see them and were saying, 'If indeed on that day on which he was crucified we could not weep and beat ourselves, yet now at his tomb we may do these things.	1. More than two women	1. No spices
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.	53 But who will roll away for us even the stone placed against the door of the tomb in order that, having entered, we may sit beside him and do the expected things? 54 For the stone was large, and we were afraid lest anyone see us. And if we are unable, let us throw against the door what we bring in memory of him; let us weep and beat ourselves until we come to our homes.'	1. No earthquake here or accompanying angel	-
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.	[55] And having gone off, they found the sepulcher opened. And having come forward, they bent down there and saw there a certain young man seated in the middle of the sepulcher, comely and clothed with a splendid robe, who said to them:	1. The women enter the tomb 2. The angel is inside the tomb	-
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.	56 'Why have you come? Whom do you seek? Not that one who was crucified? He is risen and gone away. But if you do not believe, bend down and see the place where he lay, because he is not here.	-	-
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.	For he is risen and gone away to there whence he was sent.'	-	-
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.	57 Then the women fled frightened.	1. No great joy 2. Lacks the direct contradiction of GMatthew	-

JW:
We can see than from the above that to 16:8 GPeter follows GMark better than it follows GMatthew = GMark 16:1-8 was likely the main source for GPeter 50-57.



Joseph

The New Porphyry

[JoeWallack]

JW:
And now a comparison of the LE with post-resurrection narrative in The Gospel of Peter (the part that is extant):

Mark 16:9-20	Peter 58-60	Parallels?
16:9 Now when he was risen early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from whom he had cast out seven demons. 16:10 She went and told them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept. 16:11 And they, when they heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, disbelieved. 16:12 And after these things he was manifested in another form unto two of them, as they walked, on their way into the country. 16:13 And they went away and told it unto the rest: neither believed they them. 16:14 And afterward he was manifested unto the eleven themselves as they sat at meat; and he upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them that had seen him after he was risen. 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to the whole creation. 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that disbelieveth shall be condemned. 16:17 And these signs shall accompany them that believe: in my name shall they cast out demons; they shall speak with new tongues; 16:18 they shall take up serpents, and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall in no wise hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover. 16:19 So then the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken unto them, was received up into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of God. 16:20 And they went forth, and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word by the signs that followed. Amen.	58 Now it was the final day of the Unleavened Bread; and many went out returning to their home since the feast was over. 59 But we twelve disciples of the Lord were weeping and sorrowful; and each one, sorrowful because of what had come to pass, departed to his home. 60 But I, Simon Peter, and my brother Andrew, having taken our nets, went off to the sea. And there was with us Levi of Alphaeus whom the Lord	-

JW:
The big difference here is the timing. In GPeter, the eight days of Passover are over when the narrative continues. Note that if there was a post-resurrection appearance in GPeter, it came later than post-resurrection appearances in the LE. For a subsequent author to GMark, who wants a post-resurrection reunion, this is a more gradual edit to one, than the LE. GPeter accepts the ending of its base, 16:8, where the women do not tell. The author needs to add an entire pericope just to explain the supposed circumstances of how the disciples did learn that Jesus was resurrected.

Also related to GPeter's acceptance of 16:8 as the ending is that since it is accepted that the women did not tell anyone, the author needs a supposed witness to tell, hence GPeter is written in the first person (Peter). GPeter accepts that Peter had totally given up on Jesus including not believing that he would be resurrected.

Another difference is that GPeter refers to the twelve disciples while the LE refers to eleven.

Summary of points indicating that GPeter's source of GMark did not have the LE:

• 1) GPeter follows GMark remarkably well to 16:8.
  
  2) The timing of the post-resurrection narrative in GPeter is completely different from the timing of the LE.
  
  3) There are no significant parallels here between GPeter and the LE.
  
  4) GPeter is more of a reaction to 16:8 than the LE is.

Conclusion = GPeter is evidence for 16:8 as original.



Joseph

The New Porphyry

[Bernard Muller]

GPeter was written, in my view, after were known, certainly gMatthew (the guarded tomb, without the two reappearances (to the women & then to the disciples), added early 2nd century) and gLuke (involvement of Herod) and gJohn (the day before Passover & "purple") and gMark without the LE ('who will open the tomb?', "purple").
The author eliminated the reappearance to the disciples in Jerusalem (as in gLuke & gJohn) because conflicting with the then endings of gMark & gMatthew, probably considered more trustworthy than gLuke & gJohn in the gPeter audience.

Cordially, Bernard

[JoeWallack]

JW:
I've just completed my article at my blog regarding The Gospel of Peter as witness to 16:8 as the original ending:

The Original Ending of the Gospel of Mark - 2nd Century Patristic Witness - The Gospel of Peter

Enjoy!



Joseph

The New Porphyry Blog

[Bernard Muller]

to Joe,
I cannot see your three images that you have under "Let's do a comparison than of the three:".

I still think the author of gPeter was following gMatthew (the guarded tomb) as much as gMark (plus some from bits from gJohn & gLuke), according to the whole part of gPeter known to us.
But gPeter is good evidence the two reappearances did not exist in gMatthew then. And since gMatthew follows gMark, that gMatthew without the reappearances is good evidence there was no LE yet in gMark. (the latest remark is independent of the author of gPeter following a gMark without LE, but consolidates our conclusion)

Cordially, Bernard

[JoeWallack]

to Joe,
I cannot see your three images that you have under "Let's do a comparison than of the three:".

I still think the author of gPeter was following gMatthew (the guarded tomb) as much as gMark (plus some from bits from gJohn & gLuke), according to the whole part of gPeter known to us.
But gPeter is good evidence the two reappearances did not exist in gMatthew then. And since gMatthew follows gMark, that gMatthew without the reappearances is good evidence there was no LE yet in gMark. (the latest remark is independent of the author of gPeter following a gMark without LE, but consolidates our conclusion)

Cordially, Bernard

JW:
All of my analysis in the article at my blog:

The Original Ending of the Gospel of Mark - 2nd Century Patristic Witness - The Gospel of Peter

can be found be found in my last few posts here. Post 43792 illustrates that GPeter clearly follows GMark closer to 16:8 than it follows GMatthew to 28:8.


Joseph

The New Porphyry