Is Mark 16:7 an interpolation within an interpolation?

[lsayre]

If I'm reading him correctly, Martijn Linssen likely sees Mark 15:37 as the original ending, whereby with this I concur. But then along came the interpolation that spans from 15:38 through 16:8. And later still came the addition of 16:9-20. But I see verse 16:7 as a necessary redactional stitch added as a lead-in by whomever added 16:9-20, as the text seems to me to flow much more logically from 16:6 through 16:8 if 16:7 is not present.

Thus my question: Are there any early Greek MSS which end at 16:8, and for which 16:7 is not present?

16:7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going before you to Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.”

As if 16:7 is found to be not present in some early MSS fragments, this would lend strong credence to the presumption that 15:38 through 16:8 were later additions.

[mlinssen]

If I'm reading him correctly, Martijn Linssen likely sees Mark 15:37 as the original ending, whereby with this I concur. But then along came the interpolation that spans from 15:38 through 16:8. And later still came the addition of 16:9-20. But I see verse 16:7 as a necessary redactional stitch added as a lead-in by whomever added 16:9-20, as the text seems to me to flow much more logically from 16:6 through 16:8 if 16:7 is not present.

Thus my question: Are there any early Greek MSS which end at 16:8, and for which 16:7 is not present?

16:7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going before you to Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.”

As if 16:7 is found to be not present in some early MSS fragments, this would lend strong credence to the presumption that 15:38 through 16:8 were later additions.

Hi lsayre, almost correct: I see "something like Mark 15:37, or similarly Luke 23:46" - or John 19:30 - as the original ending of the Chrestian story.
In essence, that ended with the death of IS, leaving the reader enraged, disillusioned, and outraged at the Judeans / Judaics.
But Mark ended at 16:8 originally, he just takes the existing story and adds Mark 15:38-16:8 to that, inventing the resurrection all by himself

16:7 ἀλλὰ (But) ὑπάγετε (go), εἴπατε (say) τοῖς (the) μαθηταῖς (disciples) αὐτοῦ (of Him) καὶ (and) τῷ (-) Πέτρῳ (to Peter) ὅτι (that) Προάγει (He goes before) ὑμᾶς (you) εἰς (into) τὴν (-) Γαλιλαίαν (Galilee); ἐκεῖ (there) αὐτὸν (Him) ὄψεσθε (will you see), καθὼς (as) εἶπεν (He said) ὑμῖν (to you).”

It fits in well with Mark's goal: to continue the story, to pick up the dead end of Chrestianity, and to carry over from Jesus - to Peter, in this case.
NA28 doesn't have any omissions for this verse, nor do I know of any

1And the Sabbath having passed, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices, that having come, they might anoint Him. 2And very early on the first day of the week, they come to the tomb, the sun having arisen. 3And they were saying among themselves, “Who will roll away the stone for us from the door of the tomb?” 4And having looked up, they see that the stone has been rolled away; for it was extremely large. 5And having entered into the tomb, they saw a young man clothed in a white robe, sitting on the right; and they were greatly amazed. 6And he says to them, “Do not be amazed. You seek Jesus, the Nazarene, the One having been crucified. He is risen! He is not here! Behold the place where they laid Him. 7But go, say to His disciples and to Peter that He goes before you into Galilee; there you will see Him, as He said to you.” 8And having gone out, they fled from the tomb, for trembling and amazement had seized them. And they spoke nothing to anyone; for they were afraid

I don't mind dropping 7, but it is an awfully skinny story this way, although that would fit in with Markan drama perhaps: A-B, A-B, you seek - he's risen, he's not here - look at the place.
Regarding 7, it's not a very smooth verse indeed but it is the only verse in which "the damn women" are tasked - and they royally screw up that task in the next verse, and the Markan ending pivots around the Chrestian women neglecting their duty

THEY are the sole reason that no Chrestian had ever heard of Jesus rising from the grave, they need to be blamed, they ruined it all for everyone, it was their fault and theirs alone: they had a task, a bloody simple one at that, and they completely busted it

And it is evident how Luke shifts the blame from the women to the disciples and how Matthew cuts both strategies short with his incredibly dumb and clumsy "Greetings". And the longer ending is a conflation of Luke, and IIRC it's very Lukan lingo as well, certainly not Markan

So no, 7 is essential to the entire Markan ending

[lsayre]

I'm of the opinion that whenever Peter (who may be a completely different character from Cephas) appears within a NT text (as Peter) one should at least pause a moment to reflect upon the potential of flashing backward in time whereby to witness the hand of a proto-orthodox scribe grinning ear to ear while holding a 'nearly' freshly inked quill.

[mlinssen]

I'm of the opinion that whenever Peter (who may be a completely different character from Cephas) appears within a NT text (as Peter) one should at least pause a moment to reflect upon the potential of flashing backward in time whereby to witness the hand of a proto-orthodox scribe grinning ear to ear while holding a 'nearly' freshly inked quill.

Well, name me one disciple who gets great publicity; all disciples behave like fools, and they already do so in Thomas - where it is their entire function, as they're nothing but pretext to rile IS into a lashing out on Judaism

Check all disciples in all of the NT:

viewtopic.php?p=150911#p150911

They all do nothing, or something that is at least embarrassing.
Tell me just this: if not to Peter, then which disciple should the carry over have been to?

[Stuart]

Isayre,

There are no known manuscripts with a lacunae missing verse 16:7, καὶ τῷ Πετρῳ is present in all.

Mark 16:6-8 is essentially a retelling of Matthew 28:6-8, or the other way around from the original. Mark added "and Peter" to his narrative (beyond what was in his source), while Matthew extended his storyline by having the women be joyous and telling the disciples, rather than afraid. The reason I think Matthew changed is that the fear (φοβέω) of the women, which kept them from reporting the in Mark 16:8 has migrated to Jesus' words to the disciples in 28:10. But the similarity and retelling in Matthew makes it clear Peter was added to Mark, as it doesn't really fit; his story ends at verse 14:72. And Peter is not really necessary in the long ending either. And it doesn't really fit Mark's presentation of Peter.

My WAG is that καὶ τῷ Πετρῳ was added very early (2nd century), either migrating from a marginal comment or by pious scribe. This must have happened very early, such that there is no trace in the manuscript record. But the rest of 16:7 looks very much part of a common tradition (i.e., source) Mark shares with Matthew.

[lsayre]

Stuart,

Is it possible that an ur-Mark (or proto-Mark) ended at 15:37?

[Stuart]

Isayre,

My view is Mark 16:1-8 is fairly close to the "original" prototype gospel. I more or less buy the circular storyline, starting in Galilee (see 1:9 and 1:14) and ending with being told to go to Galilee, that is the beginning (of the gospel) to see Jesus. Basically, the theme of the empty tomb is spelled out in Luke 24:4-5 (attested in the Marcionite version as well), that you cannot find Jesus among the dead, rather among the living (see Mark 12:27, which ties this concept to the resurrection). So, we begin again in Galilee.

I said "original" in quotes for a reason. By the time the synoptic gospels are written (and I include the Marcionite) the prototype had already evolved and was beginning to fill in the details (names, places, motivations of actors, etc.). Mark however, stayed comparatively true to the circular outline, while Matthew and the Marcionite (first edition of Luke) authors felt the need to expand upon and explain the ending, taking it away from the original baptism ritual meaning.

My WAG is the prototype, which spread among the monastic like communities of the early movement, was probably a play they put on for initiates. It was likely shorter with much less character development than even Mark. The circular story around the baptism (death and resurrection) suggests that it might have been performed before a group of initiates undertook their baptism to become formal member of their (encratic) community. The prototype took on slightly different forms (why I put "original" in quotes), thanks to the miracle of time and distance (communities were relatively isolated leading to local variant versions) to become the basis of the repurposed evangelical document we know of as the gospels. This repurposing for evangelism found it's way in the document (e.g., Mark 1:14, 13:10, 14:9; see also Luke 4:43, 9:6 and importantly 24:47; and all synoptic gospels' mission orders to the twelve). In the process the baptism was replaced by this message. The Marcionite gospel, then Matthew, John and later Luke, all interjected sectarian takes and explanations of theological understanding as well as targeted character assassinations of their rival sects. They lost the essence of the original Baptism-Death-Resurrection to start again at the point of origin (i.e., Galilee) except Mark, which was composed with considerably less sectarian material. But as we see with καὶ τῷ Πετρῳ, Mark was not without a catholic layer.

That is my take on it.

[lsayre]

Thank you Stuart!