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

[JoeWallack]

JW:
There has been some new evidence lately in support of 16:8 as the original ending of GMark so time to resurrect what I think is the continuing best article on the subject:

Mark 16:9-20 as Forgery or Fabrication by Richard Carrier, Ph.D. (2009)

This "new" evidence has generally been around for a while but existed in languages other than Greek. Concluders of 16:8 generally would have had little interest in pursuing these as evidence as the 16:8 conclusion is based on quality and the quality of this new evidence, due to lack of specific Textual Criticism context, lack of early age and non-Greek language, would be minor.

Concluders of 16:9-20(LE) though base their arguments on quantity. Foremost proponent of LE, James Sapp, oh, Snapp, is typical of concluders of LE, in that during his crusade for evidence in favor of LE, by being willing to look everywhere and do anything to find evidence (in favor) he did accidentally discover the weapons of mass destruction, a cure for Ebola and The Holy Grail, but had no interest in making public any new evidence in favor of 16:8.

For those who are still not aware, our own private Benjamin Smith has a rather excellent basic presentation of External evidence on the subject here:

The endings of the gospel of Mark

Recent evidence for 16:8 as original is:

Theodore of Mopsuestia

Theodore the Interpreter (ca. 350 – 428) was bishop of Mopsuestia (as Theodore II) from 392 to 428 AD. He is also known as Theodore of Antioch, from the place of his birth and presbyterate. He is the best known representative of the middle School of Antioch of hermeneutics.

Theodore of Mopsuestia, Commentary on the Nicene Creed (1932) pp.18-116

Chapter VII.
...
It is with justice, therefore, that in accordance with the words of the Apostle our blessed Fathers first mentioned the principal benefit of the Economy of Christ in saying: And rose from the dead, and then added the sentence: And ascended into heaven. It was necessary that after having known that He rose from the dead we should also know where He is after His resurrection. As the Sacred Book, after saying that God made Adam, added how, from what, and also in which locality He placed him to lead his earthly life, so also in the case of Christ our Lord who was assumed from us and was according to our nature, because after (our blessed Fathers) said that He rose from the dead they rightly added that He ascended into heaven so that we should learn that He moved into an immortal nature and ascended into heaven, as it was necessary for Him to be high above all. All the evangelists narrated to us His resurrection from the dead and with it they ended their respective Gospels, because they knew that it was sufficient for us to learn that He rose from the dead, moved to an immortal and immutable life and gave us the hope of participating with Him in the future good things. The blessed Luke, however, who is also the writer of a Gospel, added that He ascended into heaven 199 so that we should know where He is after His resurrection. It is also known that he taught us this at the beginning of his teaching when he wrote the Acts of the Apostles,200 where he further added the rest of the facts, one after another, as it fitted the sequence of the narration.

Mark 16:19

So then the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken unto them, was received up into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of God.

It looks like Theo Mo was either unaware of the LE or did not think it original.



Joseph

ErrancyWiki

[Ben C. Smith]

For those who are still not aware, our own private Benjamin Smith has a rather excellent basic presentation of External evidence on the subject here:

The endings of the gospel of Mark

Thanks for the plug, Joe. I hasten to add that my thinking has progressed considerably in the nearly ten years since I first created that page. To wit, I would no longer phrase the following statement as it stands:

I regard the external evidence, on its own merits, as split. It is true that the longer ending eventually came to dominate both east and west. However, I see a certain drive to remedy the abrupt ending of Mark at 16.8 in the history of the text. If we somehow knew that Mark originally ended at 16.8, but did not know anything about subsequent church and manuscript history, I think that we could probably have predicted that an ad hoc ending of some kind would eventually take over. The shorter ending, if nothing else, testifies to a desire to fill in the obvious gap at the end of Mark.

Though I still think the internal evidence clinches the secondary nature of Mark 16.9-20, and though I still think that it is even stronger in that direction than the external evidence is, I now hold that the external evidence, too, is best explained on its own merits as the abrupt ending being remedied by the longer ending (usually) or by the shorter ending (sometimes). In other words, I no longer regard the external evidence as "split" in the either/or way that I worded it above; I think it is an argument in favor of the abrupt ending.

Ben.

[lsayre]

Is there any evidence from antiquity with regard to verse 15:39 being the very first ending of Mark?

[DCHindley]

Wait a minute?

Does the subject of this thread, "Mark 16:9-20 as Forgery or Fabrication by Richard Carrier", mean that you are asking whether it was the mysterious Mr. Carrier himself who forged or fabricated Mark 16:9-20?

Now I am beginning to see the relevance of the time travel tourism remark earlier by Ben. Richard Carrier must have, through his meticulous research on Greco-Roman science, discovered the secret of time travel, and was compelled by his generous heart to give modern academics the closure they seek over the abrupt ending of Mark at 16:8, to venture back to the first couple centuries to emend any copies he could lay his hands upon to add his own summation.

Alas, his travel, though successful, was not as an observer, and he has changed Markan scholarship forever, and hence contaminated the very evidence he was so anxious to relieve from scrutiny (pretty flowery, eh?).

There's just something about that always-present Cardigan sweater that makes me wonder about the guy ...

DCH

[gmx]

Perhaps the ending of Mark is less a concern when he is considered to be abbreviating and/or harmonizing Matthew / Luke. That said, the manuscript tradition around the longer ending is extremely strong, and the two early witnesses to the abrupt ending are possibly interdependent.

[JoeWallack]

JW:
More relatively recent (and not quality) evidence for 16:8 in the Syriac. Our own Dr. Richard Carrier has this to say about the Syriac:

Mark 16:9-20 as Forgery or Fabrication by Richard Carrier, Ph.D. (2009)

In Syriac

The SE and LE are also absent from the oldest Syriac manuscript (an erased palimpsest of the late 4th century), the Sinaitic Syriac. The LE finally appears in the Syriac tradition a century later, the earliest being the Curetonian Syriac (dated to the 5th century), which shows signs of revision from a Greek exemplar, unlike the Sinaitic which appears to be more original and, unlike the Curetonian, shows direct influence from (or upon) the Diatessaron, which rather supports the conclusion that the original Diatessaron also lacked the LE (see section 5.3.3).31 The fact that other translations whose early representatives lack the LE were ultimately derived from the earliest Syriac confirms that the original Syriac tradition lacked the LE (see section 5.1.6).

JW:
A bit overstated I think. Dr. Carrier is trying to present a summary of the evidence and emphasize the qualitative.

A recent Syriac article here:

Book Review: The Gospel of Mark in the Syriac Harklean Version (2015)

indicates manuscripts against LE in quantity.

Peter J. GurryJuly 27, 2015 4:58 p.m.

Of the eight manuscripts that have Syriac marginalia, it appears that all introduce the shorter ending in the margin with “It is given somewhere...” All but two of these same eight mark the longer ending with the marginal note: “In a few of those more accurate manuscripts, the Gospel of Mark finishes at ‘for [they were afraid].’ But in others, instead, they add even...”

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

[JoeWallack]

JW:
And listen to this (waiving arms around on Textual Criticism sidelines like "John" Madden). Even more recent (not) quality evidence for 16:8 from Secret Agent Man:

Julian’s Contra Galilaeos and Cyril’s Contra Iulianum: Two Witnesses to the Short Ending of Mark 1
John Granger Cook LaGrange College

2.2. Cyril
Cyril responds, in part, that there were four Marys (the mother of Jesus, Mary Magdalene,
Mary of Cleophas, and Mary of James and Joses). He argues that the journey to the tomb in
Matthew (28:1) of Mary Magdalene and Mary of James was different from that of the women
in Mark (16:1), whom he identifies as Mary of James and Salome. He refers, with regard to
Matthew, to the angel’s appearance to the women and the command to tell the disciples about
Christ’s resurrection, Christ’s appearance to them, and their subsequent announcement to the
disciples that they should go to Galilee (Matt 28:5, 7, 8–11). Cyril continues32

"Mark, however, as I mentioned, “in the morning immediately after the sun came up, with
aromatic spices,” says, “the women came and saw a young man and heard that the Messiah had
risen and that they should go and tell his brothers that he had gone before them to Galilee.”
...[Syriac]

His next and final statement (in the MS) is decisive:

"[Mark] did not say that the Messiah appeared to them, nor that they said anything to the
disciples; for [gyr = γάρ] they told no one anything.

JW:
Cook than argues (well) for broader Textual Criticism evidence from Cyril than Cyril just
indicating that his/manuscripts he was aware of ended at 16:8:

Since he does not challenge Nestorius’s reference to Mark 16:20
(to be discussed below), it is difficult to believe that he did not know the L.E. The
conclu-sion, however, is nearly inescapable: Cyril’s neglect of the L.E. in controversy
with Julian and in his commentary on John indicate that he had serious doubts about
the authenticity of the text.

So than Cyril was likely aware of the LE (Cook mentions contemporary Eastern Patristics
likewise aware of but rejecting) but thought that 16:8 was original.

Thus we can add to support of 16:8:

1) Cyril of Alexandria

Cyril of Alexandria (Greek: Κύριλλος Ἀλεξανδρείας; c. 376 – 444) was the Patriarch of Alexandria from 412 to 444. He was enthroned when the city was at the height of its influence and power within the Roman Empire. Cyril wrote extensively and was a leading protagonist in the Christological controversies of the later 4th and 5th centuries.

2) [wiki]Julian (emperor)[/wiki]

Julian (Latin: Flavius Claudius Iulianus Augustus, Greek: Φλάβιος Κλαύδιος Ἰουλιανὸς Αὔγουστος;[1] 331/332[2] – 26 June 363), also known as Julian the Apostate, was Roman Emperor from 361 to 363, as well as a notable philosopher and author in Greek.[3]

Again, not quality evidence for 16:8 as Cyril is early 5th century East and confirming Eusebius. Julian is earlier but likely less of a textual critic than Cyril and according to the article likely used Eastern Manuscripts. And still after Eusebius.


Joseph

ErrancyWiki

[JoeWallack]

JW:
I'm doing what Sarah Michael Palin should have done, I'm going Blogue! (and I can see the Rogue ending to the Gospel of Mark from here):

The New Porphyry
The Case of the Missing Ending of the Gospel of Mark.



Everyone is welcome to comment except for Harvey Dubish.


Joseph

ErrancyWiki

[shunyadragon]

I do not consider Mark 16:9-20 a forgery nor fabrication in the context of the evolution an origin of all NT scripture. Sure, I believe it is a later edition to the gospel, but all the gospels are the product of evolution of cut and paste text between sources and gospels, translation issues, additions and deletions from earlier versions going back to the hypothetical gospel Q and oral traditions. Most of the books and letters of the NT lack the provenance that would consider them original and recognized as having a known author without possible and known editing and editions.

One of the clear glaring issues of Christianity is the weakness of the provenance of the scripture itself, and the early history, as traditionally claimed. This includes much of the Old Testament.

Judaism has similar problems resolved by severe pragmatism and midrash with a dose of convenient agnosticism.

[iskander]

I do not consider Mark 16:9-20 a forgery nor fabrication in the context of the evolution an origin of all NT scripture. Sure, I believe it is a later edition to the gospel, but all the gospels are the product of evolution of cut and paste text between sources and gospels, translation issues, additions and deletions from earlier versions going back to the hypothetical gospel Q and oral traditions. Most of the books and letters of the NT lack the provenance that would consider them original and recognized as having a known author without possible and known editing and editions.

One of the clear glaring issues of Christianity is the weakness of the provenance of the scripture itself, and the early history, as traditionally claimed. This includes much of the Old Testament.

Judaism has similar problems resolved by severe pragmatism and midrash with a dose of convenient agnosticism.

Good morning and welcome.

It is plain silly to say it is a forgery because Mark 16:9-20 is missing in some copies . Is the resurrection a fabrication? It is not a fabrication if one is a believer , and it is a fabrication if one is not a believer.