The women didn't fail in Mark 16:8

[Ben C. Smith]

So, what do you think?

If Mark wished to say that the women said nothing to anyone except Peter and the other disciples, how would he have written it?

A - And they said nothing to anyone
or
B - And they said nothing to anyone except (εἰ μὴ) Peter and the other disciples

I think you are right, and reading A as if it were B seems like wishful thinking to me.

I agree. However, I don't think Mark ended with verse 8. It simply makes no sense. The angel can't be wrong. Jesus was resurrected and Peter and the other disciples would have seen Jesus in Galilee. Presumably these women were from Galilee also. Are we to believe that even after Jesus appeared to Peter and the other discples the women still said nothing because they were afraid? No. It simply doesn't make sense to say that 16:8 is the last verse that Mark wrote.

More was written, but somehow exactly what happened was lost to history.

That is also my suspicion. I have virtually given up on trying to justify 16.8 to myself as the intended finale to the gospel. I keep intending to write up something about this, especially for Kunigunde (who has asked me about it), but cannot seem to get around to it.

[JoeWallack]

So Larry Hurtado:

Mark 16:8 does not depict the women as disobeying and failing to do what they were told to do–to go to Peter and the Twelve with news of Jesus’ resurrection. Instead, “they said nothing to anyone” should be read as meaning that they said nothing to anyone else.
https://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2016 ... l-of-mark/

This interpretation seems the perfect move, by Mark, to justify why so much historical silence about the death of Jesus and the news of the his resurrection: the women were deliberately silent to give the news only to Peter and co in Galilee, as per divine command.

Note that often Jesus commanded to say his miracles only to high priest even if the high priest was been not believer in these miracles. Therefore, contra Hurtado, Peter is not forgiven by the fact that the women did inform him about the resurrection. The risk is still there that Peter is blind just as the high priest when informed about the Jesus miracles.

JW:
Ironically, I think this type (Hurtado's) of ridiculous/dishonest explanation is actually a result of improved Christian Bible scholarship. Modern Christian Bible scholarship is no longer in denial about the problem 16:8 creates for orthodox Christianity and thus feels compelled to start [shine that turd]manufacturing apologies for it[/shine that turd]. Hurtadoh!'s is just the latest.

Hurtadoh! writes:

Part of my argument was that Mark 16:8 does not depict the women as disobeying and failing to do what they were told to do–to go to Peter and the Twelve with news of Jesus’ resurrection. Instead, “they said nothing to anyone” should be read as meaning that they said nothing to anyone else. This is a view of 16:8 that has gained endorsement over recent years, but it may still be a minority opinion. So, it’s encouraging to have Aernie’s endorsement in his newly published article.

Here is the offending text:

Mark 16:8

Strong's	Transliteration	Greek	English	Morphology
2532 [e]	kai	καὶ	And	Conj
1831 [e]	exelthousai	ἐξελθοῦσαι	having gone out,	V-APA-NFP
5343 [e]	ephygon	ἔφυγον	they fled	V-AIA-3P
575 [e]	apo	ἀπὸ	from	Prep
3588 [e]	tou	τοῦ	the	Art-GNS
3419 [e]	mnēmeiou	μνημείου,	tomb.	N-GNS
2192 [e]	eichen	εἶχεν	possessed	V-IIA-3S
1063 [e]	gar	γὰρ	indeed	Conj
846 [e]	autas	αὐτὰς	them	PPro-AF3P
5156 [e]	tromos	τρόμος	trembling	N-NMS
2532 [e]	kai	καὶ	and	Conj
1611 [e]	ekstasis	ἔκστασις·	amazement,	N-NFS
2532 [e]	kai	καὶ	and	Conj
3762 [e]	oudeni	οὐδενὶ	to none	Adj-DMS
3762 [e]	ouden	οὐδὲν	nothing	Adj-ANS
3004 [e]	eipan	εἶπαν·	they spoke;	V-AIA-3P
5399 [e]	ephobounto	ἐφοβοῦντο	they were afraid	V-IIM/P-3P
1063 [e]	gar	γάρ.	indeed.	Conj

Note that the underlying Greek is a double negative. In general in Greek and specifically for "Mark" (author) the double negative is used for emphasis. So here, a better translation would be, "They did not tell anyone. Yes, I mean "anyone"." Trying to avoid all the supporting context is pathetic/comical. So Hurtado deserves something more than a spanking.


Joseph

Psalm 22:17, Hebrew Text, "Like A Lion". Determining Who's Original And Who's Lion? Nahal Hever Fragment

[JoeWallack]

JW:
Another reason to accept Epic Fail @ 16:8

Strong's	Transliteration	Greek	English	Morphology
2532 [e]	kai	καὶ	And	Conj
1831 [e]	exelthousai	ἐξελθοῦσαι	having gone out,	V-APA-NFP
5343 [e]	ephygon	ἔφυγον	they fled	V-AIA-3P
575 [e]	apo	ἀπὸ	from	Prep
3588 [e]	tou	τοῦ	the	Art-GNS
3419 [e]	mnēmeiou	μνημείου,	tomb.	N-GNS
2192 [e]	eichen	εἶχεν	possessed	V-IIA-3S
1063 [e]	gar	γὰρ	indeed	Conj
846 [e]	autas	αὐτὰς	them	PPro-AF3P
5156 [e]	tromos	τρόμος	trembling	N-NMS
2532 [e]	kai	καὶ	and	Conj
1611 [e]	ekstasis	ἔκστασις·	amazement,	N-NFS
2532 [e]	kai	καὶ	and	Conj
3762 [e]	oudeni	οὐδενὶ	to none	Adj-DMS
3762 [e]	ouden	οὐδὲν	nothing	Adj-ANS
3004 [e]	eipan	ειπον·	was spoken;	V-AIA-S
5399 [e]	ephobounto	ἐφοβοῦντο	they were afraid	V-IIM/P-3P
1063 [e]	gar	γάρ.	indeed.	Conj

As the manuscript evidence indicates the singular "to none nothing was spoken" rather than "to none nothing they spoke". The singular verb as opposed to the plural gives more of a meaning of absolute silence. Use of the singular also sounds like an editorial comment here. The offending phrase is followed by a reference back to the narrative, "they were afraid indeed", but Koine Greek is a synthetic language where inflection is more important than placement in determining meaning. Also, in a mostly narrative work GMark also starts with an editorial comment.


Joseph

ErrancyWiki

[Ben C. Smith]

JW:
Another reason to accept Epic Fail @ 16:8

Strong's	Transliteration	Greek	English	Morphology
2532 [e]	kai	καὶ	And	Conj
1831 [e]	exelthousai	ἐξελθοῦσαι	having gone out,	V-APA-NFP
5343 [e]	ephygon	ἔφυγον	they fled	V-AIA-3P
575 [e]	apo	ἀπὸ	from	Prep
3588 [e]	tou	τοῦ	the	Art-GNS
3419 [e]	mnēmeiou	μνημείου,	tomb.	N-GNS
2192 [e]	eichen	εἶχεν	possessed	V-IIA-3S
1063 [e]	gar	γὰρ	indeed	Conj
846 [e]	autas	αὐτὰς	them	PPro-AF3P
5156 [e]	tromos	τρόμος	trembling	N-NMS
2532 [e]	kai	καὶ	and	Conj
1611 [e]	ekstasis	ἔκστασις·	amazement,	N-NFS
2532 [e]	kai	καὶ	and	Conj
3762 [e]	oudeni	οὐδενὶ	to none	Adj-DMS
3762 [e]	ouden	οὐδὲν	nothing	Adj-ANS
3004 [e]	eipan	ειπον·	was spoken;	V-AIA-S
5399 [e]	ephobounto	ἐφοβοῦντο	they were afraid	V-IIM/P-3P
1063 [e]	gar	γάρ.	indeed.	Conj

As the manuscript evidence indicates the singular "to none nothing was spoken" rather than "to none nothing they spoke". The singular verb as opposed to the plural gives more of a meaning of absolute silence. Use of the singular also sounds like an editorial comment here. The offending phrase is followed by a reference back to the narrative, "they were afraid indeed", but Koine Greek is a synthetic language where inflection is more important than placement in determining meaning. Also, in a mostly narrative work GMark also starts with an editorial comment.

The manuscript evidence for Mark 16.8 is split here, as in so many other places, between εἶπον and εἶπαν. The issue is simply one of form, not of meaning, since both are aorist active; this particular verb simply has different forms for the same slot on a conjugation table. It is true that εἶπον can be either singular or plural, but it is singular only in the first person ("I spoke") and plural only in the third person ("they spoke"). The first person is ruled out here by context, so it is third person aorist active plural ("they spoke"), which is all εἶπαν can ever be, so both forms mean the same thing here.

Neither form can mean "it was spoken", because neither is in the passive voice. Both are active. The subject has to be the women in both cases.

[JoeWallack]

JW:
Another reason to accept Epic Fail @ 16:8

Strong's	Transliteration	Greek	English	Morphology
2532 [e]	kai	καὶ	And	Conj
1831 [e]	exelthousai	ἐξελθοῦσαι	having gone out,	V-APA-NFP
5343 [e]	ephygon	ἔφυγον	they fled	V-AIA-3P
575 [e]	apo	ἀπὸ	from	Prep
3588 [e]	tou	τοῦ	the	Art-GNS
3419 [e]	mnēmeiou	μνημείου,	tomb.	N-GNS
2192 [e]	eichen	εἶχεν	possessed	V-IIA-3S
1063 [e]	gar	γὰρ	indeed	Conj
846 [e]	autas	αὐτὰς	them	PPro-AF3P
5156 [e]	tromos	τρόμος	trembling	N-NMS
2532 [e]	kai	καὶ	and	Conj
1611 [e]	ekstasis	ἔκστασις·	amazement,	N-NFS
2532 [e]	kai	καὶ	and	Conj
3762 [e]	oudeni	οὐδενὶ	to none	Adj-DMS
3762 [e]	ouden	οὐδὲν	nothing	Adj-ANS
3004 [e]	eipan	ειπον·	was spoken;	V-AIA-S
5399 [e]	ephobounto	ἐφοβοῦντο	they were afraid	V-IIM/P-3P
1063 [e]	gar	γάρ.	indeed.	Conj

As the manuscript evidence indicates the singular "to none nothing was spoken" rather than "to none nothing they spoke". The singular verb as opposed to the plural gives more of a meaning of absolute silence. Use of the singular also sounds like an editorial comment here. The offending phrase is followed by a reference back to the narrative, "they were afraid indeed", but Koine Greek is a synthetic language where inflection is more important than placement in determining meaning. Also, in a mostly narrative work GMark also starts with an editorial comment.

The manuscript evidence for Mark 16.8 is split here, as in so many other places, between εἶπον and εἶπαν. The issue is simply one of form, not of meaning, since both are aorist active; this particular verb simply has different forms for the same slot on a conjugation table. It is true that εἶπον can be either singular or plural, but it is singular only in the first person ("I spoke") and plural only in the third person ("they spoke"). The first person is ruled out here by context, so it is third person aorist active plural ("they spoke"), which is all εἶπαν can ever be, so both forms mean the same thing here.

Neither form can mean "it was spoken", because neither is in the passive voice. Both are active. The subject has to be the women in both cases.

JW:
Thanks for the feedback Ben:

1) The point of Dirk Jongkind's related article Consistency is Highly Overrated is that the Critical Apparatus mislead into thinking there is mixed support here:

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

I have to confess that I have not checked manuscripts myself.

2) Regarding the meaning of the singular verses the plural, the original is likely singular and this reminds me too much of Frank in Scarface when he said "Of course not everyone follows the rules." Like "Mark".


Joseph

Review of Fundamentals of New Testament Textual Criticism by Stanley E. Porter and Andrew W. Pitts

[Ben C. Smith]

Regarding the meaning of the singular verses the plural, the original is likely singular and this reminds me too much of Frank in Scarface when he said "Of course not everyone follows the rules." Like "Mark".

But, again, if it is singular, then it is the first person singular ("I spoke"). It is not a third person singular ("she spoke"), and it is not passive ("it was spoken").

[Ben C. Smith]

I have to confess that I have not checked manuscripts myself.

This is how the "big four" codices line up on this issue:

εἶπον ("they spoke" or "I spoke"): Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Vaticanus.
εἶπαν ("they spoke"): Bezae (corrected from ἶπαν).

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

I have virtually given up on trying to justify 16.8 to myself as the intended finale to the gospel. I keep intending to write up something about this, especially for Kunigunde (who has asked me about it), but cannot seem to get around to it.

Fine

Next year I want to write a post on my blog with several scholarly opinions about the sense of Mark’s end at 16:8. But I will also present a opinion in favor of a missed ending. I surmise it will be Ben C. Smith’s case.

[Bernard Muller]

I agree. However, I don't think Mark ended with verse 8. It simply makes no sense. The angel can't be wrong. Jesus was resurrected and Peter and the other disciples would have seen Jesus in Galilee. Presumably these women were from Galilee also. Are we to believe that even after Jesus appeared to Peter and the other disciples the women still said nothing because they were afraid? No. It simply doesn't make sense to say that 16:8 is the last verse that Mark wrote.

It makes a lot of sense to me, considering the empty tomb passage has many clues saying it was a very early addition by a different author:
http://historical-jesus.info/79.html
That author had to take in consideration that no one heard anything yet about an empty tomb (or even just a tomb for Jesus), so the women, even for some stupid reason, had to keep silent about it.
Added to that, it is likely that Mk 14:28 is an early interpolation (out-of-context, no reaction from Peter).
Therefore "Mark" had only a resurrection after three days (as Jesus prophecies three times in the gospel), not before 40 hours, in a spiritual body (as the angels in heaven (Mk 12-25) & in 1 Corinthians), with no expected meeting in Galilee.

Cordially, Bernard