In that thread, Stephan advances an argument that Mark's original testimony is that Jesus / Christ / Messiah disappears into the void after his death. There is no resurrection, and there are no post-resurrection appearances. It's an interesting thread...
However, this topic is specifically to discuss the following:
- given the puzzling textual pedigree of Mark 16, what is the confidence factor for the originality of any of Mk 16:1-8 ?
- does Mk 16:1-8 read better / make more sense without verses 6 and / or 7 ?
- what is the earliest known reference to Mk 16:6 or Mk 16:7 ?
- what is the historical exegetical view on the meaning / originality of Mk 16:6-7, and more broadly, Mk 16:1-8 ?
- what is the current academic view on the meaning / originality of Mk 16:6-7, and more broadly, Mk 16:1-8 ?
- if Mark 16:6-7 were to be considered an interpolation, what would that imply in terms of the orginality of the other 15 chapters ?