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

[Adam]

“But after I am raised up, I will go before you to Galilee.”~Mk 14:28
But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see him, just as he told you. ~Mk 16:7
Though Mark proclaims that the Risen Lord would meet the disciples in Galilee, the text ends with the women at the tomb fleeing in fear without any post-Easter appearances being narrated. The problem produced the secondary spurious endings.....

The Gospel of John has no tradition about the resurrected Jesus going ahead of the disciples to Galilee and appearing to them there. And yet what do we find in Ch 21 but a nice Galilee appearance by the resurrected Jesus.
The appearance of the Risen Lord at the lake in Jn 21:1-14, though modified in pretty obvious ways by the redactor as pointed out by Bultmann (The Gospel of John, p.703), would seem to me to very much the ending to Mark we would expect.
How the Galilee ending got detached from Mark, and imported into the strange Johannine postscript I don't pretend to know, if that's what happened.

I got bored with the usual start that incorrectly has Matthew and Luke having our Mark (to 16:8) at their disposal to work with, but fortunately I skipped to the end where gs correctly reattaches John 21:1-14 [more or less] to Mark 16:8 as the missing ending.

[JoeWallack]

JW:
And now the most likely source for GJohn

Mark 16:1-8	Matthew 28:1-8	Luke 24:1-9	John 20:1-13	Favors GMark as source	Favors GMatthew as source	Favors GLuke 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.	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.	24.1 But on the first day of the week, at early dawn, they came unto the tomb, bringing the spices which they had prepared.	20.1 Now on the first [day] of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, while it was yet dark, unto the tomb,	-	Mary Magdalene	-
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.	24.2 And they found the stone rolled away from the tomb.	and seeth the stone taken away from the tomb.	-	-	Similar length
-	-	-	20.2 She runneth therefore, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we know not where they have laid him. 20.3 Peter therefore went forth, and the other disciple, and they went toward the tomb. 20.4 And they ran both together: and the other disciple outran Peter, and came first to the tomb; 20.5 and stooping and looking in, he seeth the linen cloths lying; yet entered he not in. 20.6 Simon Peter therefore also cometh, following him, and entered into the tomb; and he beholdeth the linen cloths lying, 20.7 and the napkin, that was upon his head, not lying with the linen cloths, but rolled up in a place by itself. 20.8 Then entered in therefore the other disciple also, who came first to the tomb, and he saw, and believed. 20.9 For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise from the dead. 20.10 So the disciples went away again unto their own home.	-	The disciples go to Galilee (home).	-
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.	24.3 And they entered in, and found not the body of the Lord Jesus. 24.4 And it came to pass, while they were perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in dazzling apparel:	20.11 But Mary was standing without at the tomb weeping: so, as she wept, she stooped and looked into the tomb; 20.12 and she beholdeth two angels in white sitting, one at the head, and one at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain.	-	-	Two angels
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.	24.5 and as they were affrighted and bowed down their faces to the earth, they said unto them, Why seek ye the living among the dead? 24.6 He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee, 24.7 saying that the Son of man must be delivered up into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again. 24.8 And they remembered his words,	20.13 And they say unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? She saith unto them, Because they have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid him.	-	-	-
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.	24.9 and returned from the tomb, and told all these things to the eleven, and to all the rest.	-	-	-	-

JW:
It looks like the parallels between GMatthew and GLuke to GJohn are better than the parallels between GMark to GJohn here.

Conclusion = GMatthew and GLuke were more likely sources to GJohn here than GMark.



Joseph

The New Porphyry

[JoeWallack]

JW:
For fans of the Textual Criticism question of the likely original ending of GMark, foremost proponent of the LE, James Snapp, has a detailed article regarding 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]

The Manuscript has little textual criticism value for the ending of GMark because of its date but is a novelty due to the rarity of preserved Greek manuscripts that end at 16:8.

James Snapp goes James Snapp on the Manuscript here:

Minuscule 304, Theophylact, and the Ending of Mark

In 304, however, the Gospels-text and the commentary-text are interspersed: a segment of Scripture is followed by a segment of corresponding commentary, separated by a small dark circle
...
There is, however, a faintly written note which indicates that this is where the exemplar of 304 ended. Beginning on the very next line after the last line of commentary-text, and preceding the damage to the lower margin of the page, it runs as follows:
...
ώσπερ ξένοι χαρουσι ιδειν πατρίδα
ουτω και η γράφοντες βιβλιον τελος

As travelers rejoice on their homeland to look,
Thus also the scribe at the end of a book.
...
(1) Pending further research, 304’s testimony to the ending of Mark at 16:8 should be considered highly dubious, inasmuch as Theophylact’s Explanation of the Gospels, the main source of 304’s Gospels-text and commentary-text, continues, not only with another sentence about Mark 16:1-8, but with two more segments, the first of which explains Mark 16:9-13 (beginning with a sentence descended from one that is also found in Eusebius’ Ad Marinum, stating that the opening phrase of 16:9 should be read with a pause) and the second of which explains Mark 16:14-20.
(2) Considering the essentially Byzantine nature of the text in 304, it seems very likely that 304 was copied from a damaged exemplar which was missing its final pages, rather than that 304 echoes an exemplar which was designed to display Mark 16:8 as the final text of Mark with no further comment.

JW:
As is often the case with Snapp, his conclusion is clear, "304’s testimony to the ending of Mark at 16:8 should be considered highly dubious". His evidence and reasoning though are not. He gives no evidence that "Thus also the scribe at the end of a book" applies to anything other than 304. Thus:

• 1) 304 GMark text ends at 16:8.
  
  2) 304 GMark commentary ends at 16:8
  
  3) After 16:8 there is the formal Scribal notation indicating that this is where the Gospel text stops and the commentary starts.
  
  4) The above mentioned scribal Gospel completion comment comes right after 16:8 commentary.

His reasoning is pure apology denying/ignoring superior evidence in favor of inferior evidence. It's somewhat difficult to even state his argument here in clear terms but I think it is:

1) "Thus also the scribe at the end of a book" was the Scribe of 304's reference to the exemplar.

2) 304's exemplar was missing the LE because of damage.



Joseph

The Case Of The Unidentified Servant - Part 1

[gmx]

Joe, I think the main thrust of his argument (which I agree is poorly worded) is that the commentary in 304 appears to be dependent upon a commentary which is well-known from other manuscripts (and which included commentary of the LE), and it is therefore unlikely that 304's scribe excised 16:9-20 without any comment or explanation for having done so. His argument is that it is more likely that manuscript 304 (or its exemplar) is missing its final page(s).

I have to say that on the surface (and being unfamiliar with scholarly insights regarding the manuscript) his argument seems credible.

[gmx]

My understanding is that most scholars who regard the LE as "forgery or fabrication" also regard it as a very early remedy to the problematic ending of GMark. Are there any other medieval witnesses to the short ending? My understanding is that orthodoxy resolved the issue many centuries earlier...

[perseusomega9]

Joe, I think the main thrust of his argument (which I agree is poorly worded) is that the commentary in 304 appears to be dependent upon a commentary which is well-known from other manuscripts (and which included commentary of the LE), and it is therefore unlikely that 304's scribe excised 16:9-20 without any comment or explanation for having done so. His argument is that it is more likely that manuscript 304 (or its exemplar) is missing its final page(s).

I have to say that on the surface (and being unfamiliar with scholarly insights regarding the manuscript) his argument seems credible.

Theophylact's commentary, which is the supposed source, is only 100-200 years younger than this manuscript. You find the argument that a copying of a recent commentary that just so happens to end at 16:8 as early manuscripts and commentaries tell us is credible? What a coincidence that the recent Theophylact commentary exemplar just so happened to lose the same pages as those other early manuscripts.

[gmx]

Joe, I think the main thrust of his argument (which I agree is poorly worded) is that the commentary in 304 appears to be dependent upon a commentary which is well-known from other manuscripts (and which included commentary of the LE), and it is therefore unlikely that 304's scribe excised 16:9-20 without any comment or explanation for having done so. His argument is that it is more likely that manuscript 304 (or its exemplar) is missing its final page(s).

I have to say that on the surface (and being unfamiliar with scholarly insights regarding the manuscript) his argument seems credible.

Theophylact's commentary, which is the supposed source, is only 100-200 years younger than this manuscript. You find the argument that a copying of a recent commentary that just so happens to end at 16:8 as early manuscripts and commentaries tell us is credible? What a coincidence that the recent Theophylact commentary exemplar just so happened to lose the same pages as those other early manuscripts.

Hmmm... I don't believe the commentary ends at 16:8... Joe's post included the following:

(1) Pending further research, 304’s testimony to the ending of Mark at 16:8 should be considered highly dubious, inasmuch as Theophylact’s Explanation of the Gospels, the main source of 304’s Gospels-text and commentary-text, continues, not only with another sentence about Mark 16:1-8, but with two more segments, the first of which explains Mark 16:9-13 (beginning with a sentence descended from one that is also found in Eusebius’ Ad Marinum, stating that the opening phrase of 16:9 should be read with a pause) and the second of which explains Mark 16:14-20.

I took this to mean that Theophylact's commentary is widely known from earlier manuscripts to cover the entire long version of Mark's final chapter (16:1-20).

My second point was that as far as I am aware, there is no medieval greek manuscript tradition (other than this manuscript) for the short ending of Mark's gospel. Can anyone counter that?

[andrewcriddle]

Theophylact on Mark 16 is online here

Andrew Criddle

[JoeWallack]

JW:
John Kesler had an interesting observation at Paul Davidson's site (and if you haven't been there it is definitely worth enjoying):

https://isthatinthebible.wordpress.com/ ... mment-1329

I wonder of Matthew 28:17 is relevant:

17When they saw him, they worshipped him; but some doubted.

The word “some” is not in the text, but some translators, like those of the NRSV above, believe it is implied. Others think that the same “they” who worshipped Jesus doubted.

Matthew 28:17

Strong's	Transliteration	Greek	English	Morphology
2532 [e]	kai	καὶ	And	Conj
3708 [e]	idontes	ἰδόντες	having seen	V-APA-NMP
846 [e]	auton	αὐτὸν	him	PPro-AM3S
4352 [e]	prosekynēsan	προσεκύνησαν,	they worshiped;	V-AIA-3P
3588 [e]	hoi	οἱ	some	Art-NMP
1161 [e]	de	δὲ	however	Conj
1365 [e]	edistasan	ἐδίστασαν.	doubted.	V-AIA-3P

JW:
Every translation I've seen uses "some" as above yet the underlying Greek word is "οἱ" which is just the definite article. The International Critical Commentary (ICC), which I think is generally thought to be the best commentary, says "some" is the likely meaning because the phrase "οἱ δὲ" (the however) usually indicates a change in subject. Here, from the disciples who worshiped, to the group that doubted. The ICC says omission of "some" is an unlikely meaning because even though the Greek word for "some" is usually used, there are instances of "some" being meant by only using "οἱ δὲ". It seems to me though that GMatthew's wording is unusual and both meanings are possible. As always I would be especially interested in what Ben thinks here.

There is significant textual variation here but it involves the addition of a personal pronoun after "worshiped". When the Greek word is used without a personal pronoun it normally refers to worship of God. When it is intended to refer to Jesus it normally has the personal pronoun added to distinguish. Textual Criticism indicates the likely original omission of the personal pronoun here which is than a second interesting issue here. Most readers, especially Christians, would think that the meaning above, even without the personal pronoun, is that they worshiped Jesus. The usual meaning of the usage though would support a meaning of worshiping God at this point.

The point of mentioning the earlier observation here of doubting, whether or not it was all the disciples or some, is to consider it as External evidence for the likely original ending of GMark. To frame the question in a pleasing way to Ben, if you accept Markan priority and a Markan opinion in general of the Disciples that is lower than that of GMatthew's, than which is more likely:

• 1) GMark explicitly shows all Disciples as abandoning Jesus. GMatthew explicitly shows a post resurrection meeting between Jesus and the Disciples but indicates there are still doubts.
  
  or
  
  2) GMark explicitly shows a post resurrection meeting between Jesus and the Disciples without indicating any remaining doubts. GMatthew explicitly shows a post resurrection meeting between Jesus and the Disciples but indicates there are still doubts.

Joseph

The Israeli/Arab Conflict - The Balfour Declaration - 1917

[Ben C. Smith]

JW:
John Kesler had an interesting observation at Paul Davidson's site (and if you haven't been there it is definitely worth enjoying):

https://isthatinthebible.wordpress.com/ ... mment-1329

I wonder of Matthew 28:17 is relevant:

17When they saw him, they worshipped him; but some doubted.

The word “some” is not in the text, but some translators, like those of the NRSV above, believe it is implied. Others think that the same “they” who worshipped Jesus doubted.

Matthew 28:17

Strong's	Transliteration	Greek	English	Morphology
2532 [e]	kai	καὶ	And	Conj
3708 [e]	idontes	ἰδόντες	having seen	V-APA-NMP
846 [e]	auton	αὐτὸν	him	PPro-AM3S
4352 [e]	prosekynēsan	προσεκύνησαν,	they worshiped;	V-AIA-3P
3588 [e]	hoi	οἱ	some	Art-NMP
1161 [e]	de	δὲ	however	Conj
1365 [e]	edistasan	ἐδίστασαν.	doubted.	V-AIA-3P

JW:
Every translation I've seen uses "some" as above yet the underlying Greek word is "οἱ" which is just the definite article. The International Critical Commentary (ICC), which I think is generally thought to be the best commentary, says "some" is the likely meaning because the phrase "οἱ δὲ" (the however) usually indicates a change in subject. Here, from the disciples who worshiped, to the group that doubted. The ICC says omission of "some" is an unlikely meaning because even though the Greek word for "some" is usually used, there are instances of "some" being meant by only using "οἱ δὲ". It seems to me though that GMatthew's wording is unusual and both meanings are possible. As always I would be especially interested in what Ben thinks here.

Matthew seems to me to be writing very awkwardly here. In my experience, by far the most common use of οἱ δὲ is to switch cleanly from one subject to another, as earlier in Matthew 27.22-23, for example:

Pilate said to them, "Then what shall I do with Jesus who is called Christ?" They all said, "Let Him be crucified!" And he [ὁ δὲ] said, "Why, what evil has He done?" But they [οἱ δὲ] kept shouting all the more, saying, "Let Him be crucified!"

This is unambiguous. There is no overlap between Pilate and "all" of those beseeching him to crucify Jesus. The meaning of "some" for οἱ δὲ generally applies when there has been a preceding , as in Acts 14.4:

But the multitude of the city was divided; and some [οἱ μὲν] sided with the Jews, and some [οἱ μὲν] with the apostles.

Notice that this again cleanly switches between two completely different and nonoverlapping groups: those supporting the Jews and those supporting the apostles, even though both groups belong to the "multitude". But in Matthew 28.17 it is not clear, to me at least, which two groups are being contrasted. Because Matthew has not been clear, I am not sure we can rule any of the following three options out:

1. The 11 disciples worshipped, and the 11 disciples also doubted.
2. The 11 disciples worshipped, and some of the 11 disciples doubted.
3. The 11 disciples worshipped, and other (as yet unintroduced) people doubted.

My best guess is that Matthew meant the middle option, because that one preserves the contrast between two groups (unlike #1) without relying on offstage characters (unlike #2), but I am not going to bet anything on that outcome.

The point of mentioning the earlier observation here of doubting, whether or not it was all the disciples or some, is to consider it as External evidence for the likely original ending of GMark. To frame the question in a pleasing way to Ben, if you accept Markan priority and a Markan opinion in general of the Disciples that is lower than that of GMatthew's, than which is more likely:

• 1) GMark explicitly shows all Disciples as abandoning Jesus. GMatthew explicitly shows a post resurrection meeting between Jesus and the Disciples but indicates there are still doubts.
  
  or
  
  2) GMark explicitly shows a post resurrection meeting between Jesus and the Disciples without indicating any remaining doubts. GMatthew explicitly shows a post resurrection meeting between Jesus and the Disciples but indicates there are still doubts.

Well, obviously I would select #1 as more likely. But I do not think these two options are necessarily exhaustive.

Ben.