Be Afraid. Be Very Afraid For. Confirmation 16:8 Original

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 905
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Be Afraid. Be Very Afraid For. Confirmation 16:8 Original

Post by JoeWallack » Sat Dec 21, 2013 11:15 am

Be Afraid. Be Very Afraid For. Internal Confirmation That 16:8 Is The Original Ending

Like Father, like son (of man). F(ing)Lie Too. Be Afraid. Be Very Afraid

JW:
Apologists who have Faith that 16:8 is not the original ending of "Mark" usually make the claim that because 16:8 ends with the Greek word "for" this is either proof that it was not the original ending or at least makes it extremely unlikely. I'm Am afraid that there is currently no shortage (think JM) of Internet Apologists arguing that a Lost version of the ending of "Mark" should have its own series. Each different argument is not outstanding in its own Way.

Recently, on this unholy Forum, our own Bernard has gone the other way (not that there is anything wrong with that), arguing that 15:39 is the original ending:

Empty Tomb in Mark's gospel not written by original author

and boldly proclaims:
In view of the aforementioned points (foremost the first one), I think there is more than enough for claiming "Mark" did not write the 'empty tomb' passage.
JW
So as Vincent Price said in the classic SNL Liberace sketch "Now I'm getting it from both sides":

Liberace/JFK (in unison): Been there, done that.

So, on to the defense that 16:8 is the original ending. Bernard presents supposed "clues" that 16:8 is not the original ending. As near as I can tell all he has done is present an Inventory of supposed evidence against 16:8 as original and ignore the evidence "for" (so to speak). There is a word to describe this behaviour. It's called "proof-texting". In fact, there is so much evidence that Bernard has ignored that 16:8 is original, compared to the supposed evidence he has presented that it is not, that I would even describe such behaviour with spin's favorite word, "naughty".

Starting with an orthodox (so to speak) presentation of Textual Criticism here we rightly divide between the External and Internal. External is considered more objective so that is normally the start. Common sub-division of the External is:
  • Manuscript = No Manuscript evidence that 15:39 is the original ending.

    Scribal = No Scribal evidence that 15:39 is the original ending.

    Patristic = No Patristic evidence that 15:39 is the original ending.

    Authority = Consensus that 15:39 is not the original ending. Note that Bernard tries to invoke Crossan as authority for 15:39 being the original ending. Does not help the conclusion as Authority as a category of evidence is clearly against 15:39 as original.
Now the above is overwhelming External evidence against 15:39. For comparison, where else would there be this much External evidence against and still a likely conclusion against the External evidence?

Actually what really gets me here is Bernard has also ignored all the usual major categories of Internal evidence as well and his specific supposed examples of non-Markan usage after 15:39 not only are consistent with Markan usage in toto but generally fit Markan style even better than the average verse in "Mark". But enough for now.


Joseph

ErrancyWiki

Bernard Muller
Posts: 2893
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Be Afraid. Be Very Afraid For. Confirmation 16:8 Origina

Post by Bernard Muller » Sat Dec 21, 2013 1:28 pm

to JW
Manuscript = No Manuscript evidence that 15:39 is the original ending.

Scribal = No Scribal evidence that 15:39 is the original ending.

Patristic = No Patristic evidence that 15:39 is the original ending.

Authority = Consensus that 15:39 is not the original ending. Note that Bernard tries to invoke Crossan as authority for 15:39 being the original ending. Does not help the conclusion as Authority as a category of evidence is clearly against 15:39 as original.
Now the above is overwhelming External evidence against 15:39. For comparison, where else would there be this much External evidence against and still a likely conclusion against the External evidence?

Actually what really gets me here is Bernard has also ignored all the usual major categories of Internal evidence as well and his specific supposed examples of non-Markan usage after 15:39 not only are consistent with Markan usage in toto but generally fit Markan style even better than the average verse in "Mark". But enough for now.
I explain my reasons here: (did you read them?)
http://historical-jesus.sosblogs.com/Hi ... b1-p82.htm
http://historical-jesus.sosblogs.com/Hi ... b1-p83.htm
and finally here, my main blog post on the topic:
http://historical-jesus.sosblogs.com/Hi ... b1-p84.htm

It's all about INTERNAL evidence.
I found out many interpolations even if they show in all the ancient manuscripts, especially in the Pauline epistles.
One example:
http://historical-jesus.sosblogs.com/Hi ... b1-p11.htm
gJohn and Revelation are also among the most reworked canonical texts.
Do you accept 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16, as written by
a) Paul before 70?
b) the original author of the epistle?
This passage shows in all ancient manuscripts.

Cordially, Bernard
Last edited by Bernard Muller on Sat Dec 21, 2013 4:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed

Bernard Muller
Posts: 2893
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Be Afraid. Be Very Afraid For. Confirmation 16:8 Origina

Post by Bernard Muller » Sat Dec 21, 2013 1:50 pm

to JW,
It seems to me you think if a string of words shows in all the earliest manuscripts or papyri we know about, this cannot be an interpolation. I do not agree with that. Interpolations could have happened much earlier than the 3rd century and early enough to be incorporated in all ancient written copies at our disposal, especially for the interpolations with extreme theological/christological importance.
As for Mark's empty tomb, I wrote it was not by the original author. But it was added very soon (because gMatthew, gLuke & gJohn copy it), even possibly before the gospel got published for outsiders.

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed

User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 905
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Re: Be Afraid. Be Very Afraid For. Confirmation 16:8 Origina

Post by JoeWallack » Wed May 07, 2014 8:01 am

Be Afraid. Be Very Afraid For. Like Father, like Son. F(ing)LY 2. Confirmation 16:8 Original Ending

JW:
Arguing that the original ending of GMark was likely lost seems to be a popular pastor time of Christian Bible Scholarship (CBS). Here is the latest to try and make resurrection sighting the earliest:

Philip Jenkins on Mark’s Original Ending
If it really was meant to end at 16:8, Mark may be the greatest anti-Christian, anti-Jesus movement, tract ever written. It could scarcely have been so highly regarded as it was, still less accepted as the basis of other traditions.

The obvious suggestion is that the gospel as it stands was meant to be followed by some kind of resurrection appearance specifically involving Peter and, based on the text, one that occurred in Galilee rather than Jerusalem. Incidentally, that final component need not have taken written form: it might have been a verbal presentation.

One early text supplies exactly what we would expect at that point. The second century Gospel of Peter was popular in the early church, although it later dropped out of use, and today it survives only in incomplete form. (It was rediscovered only in the 1880s). Not a wholly independent work, it mainly relies on the canonical gospels, but also draws on the Jewish-Christian gospel tradition. Its ending demands attention, as its tomb scene is precisely Mark’s, with the women at the tomb receiving news of the Resurrection, then fleeing in fear. They do not see Jesus directly. “Peter” then reports that

Then the women fled frightened. Now it was the final day of the Unleavened Bread; and many went out returning to their home since the feast was over. 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. 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 … (Raymond Brown’s translation)

It’s very likely indeed that the next scene would have been something very much like John 21, with a Resurrection appearance (a) to Peter (b) in Galilee. If the ending of Mark’s gospel actually did exist and then was lost, this is presumably just what it would have looked like. (Rudolf Bultmann was one famous scholar who argued this).
JW:
Jenkins' argument has the following major problems:
  • 1) There is no primary, extant or direct evidence supporting a lost ending.

    2) Jenkins than has to resort to secondary Literary Criticism arguments. His key argument is that subsequent Gospel communities would have wanted a resurrection sighting ending in their Gospel narrative. This is a logical argument. However, what the author of GMark would have wanted for an ending is a better argument than what subsequent orthodox Christians would have wanted for an ending. Jenkins has already confessed that having no resurrection sighting in GMark by the Disciples is completely consistent with the rest of GMark.

    3) Jenkins (and the rest) takes as evidence of a lost ending other Gospel endings that they claim are how GMark would have ended. Similar to 2) though this is only primary evidence of what the subsequent author thought. Defenders of the lost ending now claim that it has been partially preserved in GJohn, GPeter and G Matthew and God knows where else. We are also blessed with multiple forged endings to GMark. This variation contradicts Jenkins' supposed point that there was an obvious ending to "Mark".
I would suggest that we indulge these CBS Apologists to get it our of their system (so to speak) and put all of them and their competing theories on a deserted island in order to determine a winner, and call it "Lost Endings".

Nota Benefit - McGrath is one of the purveyors of "The Lost" theory which is an illustration of his scholarly hypocrisy. He features trying to make fun of Mythicists, conceding that they do have parallels but they have not demonstrated source. In trying to argue for a lost ending though he does not even have a parallel. Whoops.


Joseph

ErrancyWiki

Bernard Muller
Posts: 2893
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Be Afraid. Be Very Afraid For. Confirmation 16:8 Origina

Post by Bernard Muller » Wed May 07, 2014 9:00 am

If it really was meant to end at 16:8, Mark may be the greatest anti-Christian, anti-Jesus movement, tract ever written.
I like that. However I would not go so far, but I certainly used gMark in this direction.
I think gMark is most revealing on how the "gospel Jesus" was created and what the eyewitnesses/companions/followers/friends of the accidental healer from Galilee and admirer of John the Baptist did not witness, did not hear and did not believe (so-called the messianic secret).
Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed

Bernard Muller
Posts: 2893
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Be Afraid. Be Very Afraid For. Confirmation 16:8 Origina

Post by Bernard Muller » Wed May 07, 2014 9:51 am

I think the ending of gMark at 16:8 fits very well with so-called messianic secret emanations in the gospel, that is the eyewitnesses not saying or telling about important alleged events or sayings in Jesus' last year.
Here are some examples:
Disciples getting gag order from Jesus:
a) NOT saying Jairus' daughter was resurrected (5:43)
b) NOT claiming Jesus was Christ (8:30)
c) NOT telling about the events on the high mountain, which included transfiguration, God saying Jesus is his Son and Moses & Elijah alive in bodily forms (9:9-10)

Disciples being ignorant or kept in ignorance:
a) NOT aware of the (Christian) meaning of Jesus' future passion (8:33)
b) NOT understanding what "rising from the dead" meant (right after seeing Moses & Elijah!) (9:10)
c) NOT asking about the meaning of (among other things) Jesus' future rising (9:32b)
d) NOT told about the Empty Tomb (16:8)

Disciples being too dumb (or "closed") to notice extraordinary events:
a) NOT "seeing" the miraculous feeding(s) (6:52, 8:4, 17-21)
b) NOT considering "walking on the sea" or/and the following stoppage of the wind as divine miracle(s) (6:52)
http://historical-jesus.sosblogs.com/Hi ... racles.htm

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed

Mental flatliner
Posts: 486
Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 9:50 am

Re: Be Afraid. Be Very Afraid For. Confirmation 16:8 Origina

Post by Mental flatliner » Wed May 07, 2014 11:40 am

JoeWallack wrote:Be Afraid. Be Very Afraid For. Internal Confirmation That 16:8 Is The Original Ending

Like Father, like son (of man). F(ing)Lie Too. Be Afraid. Be Very Afraid

JW:
Apologists who have Faith that 16:8 is not the original ending of "Mark" usually make the claim that because 16:8 ends with the Greek word "for" this is either proof that it was not the original ending or at least makes it extremely unlikely. I'm Am afraid that there is currently no shortage (think JM) of Internet Apologists arguing that a Lost version of the ending of "Mark" should have its own series. Each different argument is not outstanding in its own Way.

Recently, on this unholy Forum, our own Bernard has gone the other way (not that there is anything wrong with that), arguing that 15:39 is the original ending:

Empty Tomb in Mark's gospel not written by original author

and boldly proclaims:
In view of the aforementioned points (foremost the first one), I think there is more than enough for claiming "Mark" did not write the 'empty tomb' passage.
JW
So as Vincent Price said in the classic SNL Liberace sketch "Now I'm getting it from both sides":

Liberace/JFK (in unison): Been there, done that.

So, on to the defense that 16:8 is the original ending. Bernard presents supposed "clues" that 16:8 is not the original ending. As near as I can tell all he has done is present an Inventory of supposed evidence against 16:8 as original and ignore the evidence "for" (so to speak). There is a word to describe this behaviour. It's called "proof-texting". In fact, there is so much evidence that Bernard has ignored that 16:8 is original, compared to the supposed evidence he has presented that it is not, that I would even describe such behaviour with spin's favorite word, "naughty".

Starting with an orthodox (so to speak) presentation of Textual Criticism here we rightly divide between the External and Internal. External is considered more objective so that is normally the start. Common sub-division of the External is:
  • Manuscript = No Manuscript evidence that 15:39 is the original ending.

    Scribal = No Scribal evidence that 15:39 is the original ending.

    Patristic = No Patristic evidence that 15:39 is the original ending.

    Authority = Consensus that 15:39 is not the original ending. Note that Bernard tries to invoke Crossan as authority for 15:39 being the original ending. Does not help the conclusion as Authority as a category of evidence is clearly against 15:39 as original.
Now the above is overwhelming External evidence against 15:39. For comparison, where else would there be this much External evidence against and still a likely conclusion against the External evidence?

Actually what really gets me here is Bernard has also ignored all the usual major categories of Internal evidence as well and his specific supposed examples of non-Markan usage after 15:39 not only are consistent with Markan usage in toto but generally fit Markan style even better than the average verse in "Mark". But enough for now.


Joseph

ErrancyWiki
Aren't questions like this unanswerable until we have older copies? (I wouldn't mind having about 20 to analyze myself, and all from 50 AD, if you don't mind.)

User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 905
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Re: Be Afraid. Be Very Afraid For. Confirmation 16:8 Origina

Post by JoeWallack » Wed Nov 12, 2014 2:32 pm

JW:

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 ἐφοβοῦντοthey were afraid V-IIM/P-3P
1063 [e] gar γάρ. indeed. Conj

JW:
The combination of quality External support and leading traditional Internal support already makes 16:8 the most likely original ending. The best traditional reason to doubt 16:8 as original (ending) is that the final word "gar" (γάρ) is a very unusual word to use at the end of a writing. We have the following reasons though to lessen this doubt and have faith in "gar":
  • 1) In general, "gar" is a common word.

    2) In general, GMark is full of unusual/artistic literary touches.

    3) Specifically, the end of GMark here has multiple doubling, two women, gone out/fled, tomb/possessed, trembling/amazement, to none/nothing and "gar" used twice.

    4) While "gar" is a common word, "Mark's" (author) likely major source Paul, does use the offending word in a verse that parallels well with 16:8:
1 Corinthians 2:2

Strong's Transliteration Greek English Morphology
3756 [e] ou οὐ nothing Adv
1063 [e] gar γὰρ indeed Conj
2919 [e] ekrina ἔκρινά I decided V-AIA-1S
5100 [e] ti τι anything IPro-ANS
1492 [e] eidenai εἰδέναι to know V-RNA
1722 [e] en ἐν among Prep
4771 [e] hymin ὑμῖν you, PPro-D2P
1487 [e] ei εἰ if Conj
3361 [e] μὴ not Adv
2424 [e] Iēsoun Ἰησοῦν Jesus N-AMS
5547 [e] Christon Χριστὸν Christ, N-AMS
2532 [e] kai καὶ and Conj
3778 [e] touton τοῦτον Him DPro-AMS
4717 [e] estaurōmenon ἐσταυρωμένον. having been crucified. V-RPM/P-AMS

As I've mentioned before, GMark looks like a preQuelle to Paul in general and especially here. At 16:8 the final vestiges of the disciples decide not to proclaim the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus at the end of the supposedly historical account. This is the ending point of the disciples per "Mark" but the starting point for Paul who begins his Gospel by deciding to proclaim the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. In addition, there is one final (so to speak) reason for "Mark" to end the disciples career with "gar" and use it to begin Paul's:
A male convert to Judaism is referred to by the Hebrew word ger (Hebrew: גר‎, plural gerim) and a female convert is a giyoret. The word is related to the term "proselyte" which is derived from the Koine Greek Septuagint translation of the Bible. In Karaite Judaism a Ger is a non-Jew who has yet to fully convert to Judaism. After a Ger converts to Judaism, they are no longer considered a Ger but a full-fledged Jew.[8]
And so "Mark" ends his Gospel with the beginning for Paul, taking the "gar" and proclaiming the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus to the Gentiles.

Bonus material for Solo (and KK) - How does "Mark" show that while live Jesus was delivered to "The Jews", dead Jesus was delivered to the Gentiles?

Word.


Joseph

ErrancyWiki

perseusomega9
Posts: 342
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 7:19 am
Contact:

Re: Be Afraid. Be Very Afraid For. Confirmation 16:8 Origina

Post by perseusomega9 » Wed Nov 12, 2014 2:44 pm

"Bonus material for Solo (and KK) - How does "Mark" show that while live Jesus was delivered to "The Jews", dead Jesus was delivered to the Gentiles?"

When Jesus was asleep in the boat at sea when the storm arose?

perseusomega9
Posts: 342
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 7:19 am
Contact:

Re: Be Afraid. Be Very Afraid For. Confirmation 16:8 Origina

Post by perseusomega9 » Wed Nov 12, 2014 2:45 pm

JoeWallack wrote:[
As I've mentioned before, GMark looks like a preQuelle to Paul in general and especially here. At 16:8 the final vestiges of the disciples decide not to proclaim the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus at the end of the supposedly historical account. This is the ending point of the disciples per "Mark" but the starting point for Paul who begins his Gospel by deciding to proclaim the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. In addition, there is one final (so to speak) reason for "Mark" to end the disciples career with "gar" and use it to begin Paul's:

And so "Mark" ends his Gospel with the beginning for Paul, taking the "gar" and proclaiming the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus to the Gentiles.

Bonus material for Solo (and KK) - How does "Mark" show that while live Jesus was delivered to "The Jews", dead Jesus was delivered to the Gentiles?
you'd like Tom Dykstra's new book.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Majestic-12 [Bot], Secret Alias and 66 guests