On the Longer Ending

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Charles Wilson
Posts: 2099
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: On the Longer Ending

Post by Charles Wilson »

Ben --

Do you believe, then, that the ability to handle snakes, swallow poison to no ill effects, etc., was a NEW Effect from the Resurrection?

Best,

CW
Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 2110
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: On the Longer Ending

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin »

Paul the Uncertain wrote: Wed Sep 20, 2017 11:12 pm Verses 16:9-20 do not in my opinion form a single coherent unit, but rather comprise two chunks, 16:9-14, a dramatically strong build of three, and 16:15-20, a second progression of three. The first chunk is thoroughly grounded in what has preceded it, while the second is not.

https://uncertaintist.wordpress.com/201 ... -one-unit/

Although the low-level language features in both chunks differ from what's used earlier, that's not unusual for climactic material ("curtain scenes"). It can be especially effective for a character to find a "new voice" at curtain (for example, the long-suffering newly widowed wife in Death of a Salesman). Mark's narrator is a character.

That doesn't resolve the questions of the OP, but it does largely isolate them by chunk, which may help in their analysis. The distinctive pronoun usage is concentrated in 9-14, while the ad hoc signs claims are entirely confined to 15-20.
I tend to disagree with some points, but I found your three posts on the longer ending really interesting. While I see your arguments in favour of two chunks, I think there also others.

- the theme of faith runs heavily through both parts

- besides „ekeinos/kakeinos“ both texts (16:10, 16:12, 16:15) use πορεύομαι as Carrier also observed
In the LE, poreuomai ("to go") is used three times, but never once in the rest of Mark (Mark only ever uses compound forms), which is "the more remarkable, as it is in itself so common a word," used 74 times in the other Gospels alone, and in Mark "occasions for its use occur on every page."

- both parts lack Mark's typical „kai“ and prefer „de“ to introduce new thoughts

9 Ἀναστὰς δὲ πρωῒ πρώτῃ σαββάτου ἐφάνη πρῶτον Μαρίᾳ τῇ Μαγδαληνῇ, παρ’ ἧς ἐκβεβλήκει ἑπτὰ δαιμόνια. 10 ἐκείνη πορευθεῖσα ἀπήγγειλεν τοῖς μετ’ αὐτοῦ γενομένοις πενθοῦσιν καὶ κλαίουσιν· 11 κἀκεῖνοι ἀκούσαντες ὅτι ζῇ καὶ ἐθεάθη ὑπ’ αὐτῆς ἠπίστησαν. 12 Μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα δυσὶν ἐξ αὐτῶν περιπατοῦσιν ἐφανερώθη ἐν ἑτέρᾳ μορφῇ πορευομένοις εἰς ἀγρόν· 13 κἀκεῖνοι ἀπελθόντες ἀπήγγειλαν τοῖς λοιποῖς· οὐδὲ ἐκείνοις ἐπίστευσαν. 14 Ὕστερον [δὲ] ἀνακειμένοις αὐτοῖς τοῖς ἕνδεκα ἐφανερώθη καὶ ὠνείδισεν τὴν ἀπιστίαν αὐτῶν καὶ σκληροκαρδίαν ὅτι τοῖς θεασαμένοις αὐτὸν ἐγηγερμένον οὐκ ἐπίστευσαν. 15 καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς· πορευθέντες εἰς τὸν κόσμον ἅπαντα κηρύξατε τὸ εὐαγγέλιον πάσῃ τῇ κτίσει. 16 ὁ πιστεύσας καὶ βαπτισθεὶς σωθήσεται, ὁ δὲ ἀπιστήσας κατακριθήσεται. 17 σημεῖα δὲ τοῖς πιστεύσασιν ταῦτα παρακολουθήσει· ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί μου δαιμόνια ἐκβαλοῦσιν, γλώσσαις λαλήσουσιν καιναῖς, 18 [καὶ ἐν ταῖς χερσὶν] ὄφεις ἀροῦσιν κἂν θανάσιμόν τι πίωσιν οὐ μὴ αὐτοὺς βλάψῃ, ἐπὶ ἀρρώστους χεῖρας ἐπιθήσουσιν καὶ καλῶς ἕξουσιν. 19 Ὁ μὲν οὖν κύριος Ἰησοῦς μετὰ τὸ λαλῆσαι αὐτοῖς ἀνελήμφθη εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ ἐκάθισεν ἐκ δεξιῶν τοῦ θεοῦ. 20 ἐκεῖνοι δὲ ἐξελθόντες ἐκήρυξαν πανταχοῦ, τοῦ κυρίου συνεργοῦντος καὶ τὸν λόγον βεβαιοῦντος διὰ τῶν ἐπακολουθούντων σημείων.

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: On the Longer Ending

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Charles Wilson wrote: Thu Sep 21, 2017 11:49 am Ben --

Do you believe, then, that the ability to handle snakes, swallow poison to no ill effects, etc., was a NEW Effect from the Resurrection?

Best,

CW
I imagine it was rather regarded as a revival, intensification, and democratization of powers such as those attributed to ancient prophets like Elijah and Elisha.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 3411
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: On the Longer Ending

Post by DCHindley »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Thu Sep 21, 2017 11:34 am A few random potential parallels to the longer ending:

Eusebius, History of the Church 3.39.9: That Philip the apostle lived in Hierapolis together with his daughters has been made clear before. But as regards them let it be noted that Papias, their contemporary, mentions a wondrous account that he received from the daughters of Philip. For he recounts a resurrection from the dead in his time, and yet another paradox about Justus who was surnamed Barsabbas, as having drunk a deadly poison and yet, through the grace of the Lord, suffered no harm.

Philip of Side: The aforesaid Papias reported as having received it from the daughters of Philip that Barsabas who is Justus, tested by the unbelievers, drank the venom of a viper in the name of the Christ and was protected unharmed.

Justin Martyr, 1 Apology 45: ...of the strong word which his apostles, having gone out away from Jerusalem, preached everywhere.

Justin Martyr, Dialogue 76.6: And again in other words he said: I give you authority to tread down upon snakes and scorpions and scolopendras, and upon all the power of the enemy.

Luke 10.19: Behold, I have given you authority to tread upon snakes and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy, and nothing will injure you.

Also, Armenian Manuscript Etchmiadsin 229 (Matenadaran 2374) has a note between Mark 16.8 and 16.9: "Of Ariston the Elder," which puts one in mind of how Papias refers to a certain Aristion in the same breath as a certain John the Elder.
Having researched the effect of snake poison if consumed via mouth (let's just say we suspected a relative's death was enhanced by poison, for an insurance payout - and no, the suspect was not a relative, but her son raised poisonous snakes as a hobby/business), the funny and ironic thing is, snake poison does not seem to harm one if ingested. I think that there would have to be an ulcer or bleeding gums to give the poison access to someone's bloodstream.

DCH
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: On the Longer Ending

Post by Ben C. Smith »

DCHindley wrote: Thu Sep 21, 2017 5:31 pmHaving researched the effect of snake poison if consumed via mouth (let's just say we suspected a relative's death was enhanced by poison, for an insurance payout - and no, the suspect was not a relative, but her son raised poisonous snakes as a hobby/business), the funny and ironic thing is, snake poison does not seem to harm one if ingested.
That is exactly as I understand it. Poison and venom are not the same thing. Venom requires entry into the bloodstream.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Paul the Uncertain
Posts: 994
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:25 am
Contact:

Re: On the Longer Ending

Post by Paul the Uncertain »

KK

Thank you for the kind words. I am content that the blog series might raise an unpopular hypothesis to a level where it is taken seriously. Persuasion may be too much to hope for in a informal setting.

On the OP, I don't have anything to add about the low-level features. I expect any writer to ramp up the diction near the close of a work, so regardless of how many cooks were actually in the kitchen and when, this is the end of the work, thus different diction is to be expected here, compared with the rest of the work.

On signs, I think concern with that sort of thing is very early: Paul talks about the charisms that are available to believers (1 Corinthians 12:1-11 and 27-31 - even if the next line implies that love is better than powerz, foreign to the sense of 16:15-20). He also writes about the signs of apostleship (2 Corinthians 12:12), not specifying what those are.

In contrast, John seems to me to be more concerned with signs of Jesus' authority. That is plausibly a later concern. The immediate problem in recruitment is for an audience to believe that the messenger is important and worth listening to. Maybe the odd miracle, live and on the spot, will help that along. Once the mesenger has your attention, a plausible next question is "what's in it for me?" if the message is true. Only then might the audience reach the question of whether the subject of the message is remarkably important, too. John also seems interested in establishing some culpability for Jesus' contemporaries failing to recognize him. That doesn't seem to be one of pseudo-Mark's concerns.

The actual narrative in 16:15-20 appears to benefit from Acts, as noted on the blog and as is emerging in discussion here. There are lots of signs in Acts, attributed to messengers. That doesn't cover everything (poison beverage immunity), but I have warm thoughts that maybe it's an influence.
perseusomega9
Posts: 1030
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 7:19 am

Re: On the Longer Ending

Post by perseusomega9 »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Thu Sep 21, 2017 6:55 pm
DCHindley wrote: Thu Sep 21, 2017 5:31 pmHaving researched the effect of snake poison if consumed via mouth (let's just say we suspected a relative's death was enhanced by poison, for an insurance payout - and no, the suspect was not a relative, but her son raised poisonous snakes as a hobby/business), the funny and ironic thing is, snake poison does not seem to harm one if ingested.
That is exactly as I understand it. Poison and venom are not the same thing. Venom requires entry into the bloodstream.
Boyscout to Troop leader: Sir is that snake poisonous

TL: No it is not.

BS: grabs snake, gets bitten and starts howling in pain

BS: I thought you said it wasn't poisonous.

TL: It's not poisonous, however, it is extremely venomous
The metric to judge if one is a good exegete: the way he/she deals with Barabbas.

Who disagrees with me on this precise point is by definition an idiot.
-Giuseppe
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: On the Longer Ending

Post by Ben C. Smith »

perseusomega9 wrote: Fri Sep 22, 2017 6:32 am
Ben C. Smith wrote: Thu Sep 21, 2017 6:55 pm
DCHindley wrote: Thu Sep 21, 2017 5:31 pmHaving researched the effect of snake poison if consumed via mouth (let's just say we suspected a relative's death was enhanced by poison, for an insurance payout - and no, the suspect was not a relative, but her son raised poisonous snakes as a hobby/business), the funny and ironic thing is, snake poison does not seem to harm one if ingested.
That is exactly as I understand it. Poison and venom are not the same thing. Venom requires entry into the bloodstream.
Boyscout to Troop leader: Sir is that snake poisonous

TL: No it is not.

BS: grabs snake, gets bitten and starts howling in pain

BS: I thought you said it wasn't poisonous.

TL: It's not poisonous, however, it is extremely venomous
Pretty sadistic Troop Leader, I would say....
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1594
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Dating the LE

Post by JoeWallack »

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: Thu Sep 21, 2017 11:07 am
MrMacSon wrote: Wed Sep 20, 2017 3:35 pm .
I place slightly different emphases to highlight points that struck me,
I agree. But in this thread I'm primarily not interested in source criticism or in questions of authenticity. It is rather to understand the main interests of the author of the LE if one can take it as an unit.
JW:
Speculating on the conditions that may have existed under which the LE was created could help answer the above in a general sense. Westcott-Hort thought that the LE received Authority under the evil & wicked Lucian Recension and this is also my guess. We also agree that for the most part, even though Lucifian's criterion was primarily what he wanted, most of his selections already existed in some (misin) form. There is no quality evidence that the LE even existed in the second century. Irenaeus of Lyons' (yes, "Lyons") supposed quote is suspect and it only exists in Latin (by an anonymous copyist), it's the earliest supposed evidence (out of place) and no subsequent Patristic defender of LE appeals to him. The Diatessaron is likewise suspect as Ephrem's related commentary is evidence the LE was not there, it is likewise out of place in time and since the purpose of the Diatessaron was to harmonize the Gospels, it would have already included the post-resurrection reunions of the other Gospels. So why add the LE which is itself a harmony of the post-resurrection reunions of the other Gospels.

I have faith the answer is the Lection in the following steps:
  • 1) 3rd century = Sections of GMark are read in Church.

    2) Having GMark end at 16:8 was generating complaints ("Run Away!").

    3) Problem = It was forbidden to read non-Scripture in Church.

    4) Solution = It became a Tradition (of men, not God) to read a summary of the post-resurrection reunions of the other Gospels after 16:8. As the Chef Priest would say, "Very simple, very easy, very nicea." A post-resurrection reunion for GMark that is Scripture (well kinda, sorta).

    5) This Lection reading muscles its way into Manuscripts and there are plenty of extant Manuscripts that indicate the LE was a separate Lection from 16:8.

    6) Lucian has his source for (mis)claiming the LE as official text.

Joseph

The New Porphyry
Charles Wilson
Posts: 2099
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: On the Longer Ending

Post by Charles Wilson »

DCHindley wrote: Thu Sep 21, 2017 5:31 pmHaving researched the effect of snake poison if consumed via mouth, the funny and ironic thing is, snake poison does not seem to harm one if ingested. I think that there would have to be an ulcer or bleeding gums to give the poison access to someone's bloodstream.
I'm trying to construct an understanding of a "Literalist" POV and whether such a view is Original to the text or Derivative. DCH, I'm not saying you are a literalist but that you make a judgment as to either the Author(s) of such a POV or to the early generations responsive/understanding of the text.

[18] they will pick up serpents, and if they drink any deadly thing, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover."

I asked Ben Smith about this:

"I imagine it was rather regarded as a revival, intensification, and democratization of powers such as those attributed to ancient prophets like Elijah and Elisha."

Both of these responses are good. They point to followers of the Doctrines that came AFTER the texts were promulgated. What of the Texts themselves? I keep coming across the idea that the Originals were completely different - the TRANSVALUATION Thesis.

Acts 28: 3 - 6:
[3] Paul had gathered a bundle of sticks and put them on the fire, when a viper came out because of the heat and fastened on his hand.
[4] When the natives saw the creature hanging from his hand, they said to one another, "No doubt this man is a murderer. Though he has escaped from the sea, justice has not allowed him to live."
[5] He, however, shook off the creature into the fire and suffered no harm.
[6] They waited, expecting him to swell up or suddenly fall down dead; but when they had waited a long time and saw no misfortune come to him, they changed their minds and said that he was a god.

Is this a literal story? There is no doubt that "immediate followers" that came in contact with Acts saw it as such. The question still remains: Is this the Intention of Meaning for this Story? I find it a colossal mistake to think this way yet that is what has happened through the centuries. I find it difficult to even tie it to a variation of the snake in the Garden of Eden.

The LE appears intentional to me. It was grafted onto the Empty Tomb (itself a grafted story). The drinking of poison points to something and that something makes sense in the Roman Thesis to me. The snake attaching itself to "Paul" and being thrown into the fire points to Mucianus dealing with the Roman Senate - the bundle of sticks being a reference to the "Fasces". This is Historical. It may also be wrong but it makes more sense than Post-Transvaluation. The "elephant/camel/rope through the eye of a needle" is another example.

Help me out here. How do I get to the Author having the Intentionality that followers gave the texts? "Existence is not a predicate" and assuming "Jesus" does not guarantee that the meaning accrues. If "Antonius Primus" => "Snake" in the LE and Acts, the NT Thesis is not at all about what we think it is.

How do I get there?

Thanx,

CW
Post Reply