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.
gryan
Posts: 1120
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:11 am

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

Post by gryan »

Mary Magdalene is not faithful in shorter Mark:

Mark 16:1-8
When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so they could go and anoint the body of Jesus. 2Very early on the first day of the week,a just after sunrise, they went to the tomb. 3They were asking one another, “Who will roll away the stone from the entrance of the tomb?” 4But when they looked up, they saw that the stone had been rolled away, even though it was extremely large.

5When they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed. 6But he said to them, “Do not be alarmed. You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here! See the place where they put Him. 7But go, tell His disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see Him, just as He told you.’ ”

8So the women left the tomb and ran away, trembling and bewildered. And in their fear they did not say a word to anyone.

She is faithful in the longer ending (Cf John 20:10–18)

Mark 16:9-11
Early on the first day of the week, after Jesus had risen, He appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from whom He had driven out seven demons. 10She went and told those who had been with Him, who were mourning and weeping. 11And when they heard that Jesus was alive and she had seen Him, they did not believe it.
StephenGoranson
Posts: 2308
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:10 am

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

Post by StephenGoranson »

Bringing spices to annoint the body, unfaithful?
gryan
Posts: 1120
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:11 am

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

Post by gryan »

StephenGoranson wrote: Tue Jul 05, 2022 7:20 am Bringing spices to annoint the body, unfaithful?
Yes, she and Mary mother of James [son of Alphaeus/the pillar James, not to be confused with James the Less/James the Lord's brother], and Salome [mother of the brothers Zebedee] were all told to tell, but they did not tell because they were afraid. Anointing with spices is human care. They were not prepared for a divine revelation!

The take home message of Mark's shorter version is that Cephas/Peter and the 12 and James [son of Alphaeus/the pillar] and the rest of the apostles came to faith because of direct revelation of their own experience, and without benefit of these women in their lives.

This explains why no women were mentioned in 1 Cor 15:7-9:

3For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4that He was buried, that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that He appeared to Cephasa and then to the Twelve. 6After that, He appeared to more than five hundred brothers at once, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7Then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles. 8And last of all He appeared to me also, as to one of untimely birth.

9For I am the least of the apostles and am unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

---------

I look at Mark and 1 Cor/Gal as the oldest sources. The emphasis on the faithfulness of Mary Magdalene was narrated later, in the longer ending and in Luke for example.

Luke 24:9-11
And when they returned from the tomb, they reported all these things to the Eleven and to all the others. 10It was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the other women with them who told this to the apostles. 11But their words seemed like nonsense to them, and they did not believe the women.

Plausible reconstruction of tradition history?
gryan
Posts: 1120
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:11 am

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

Post by gryan »

PS. Maybe Luke's version contradicts Mark's shorter version intentionally in order to correct it. And maybe the correction is based on what really happened: Mary Magdalene received a vision of an angel with other women present, and she told about it faithfully. And she also received a visitation from the risen Christ first.
User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1594
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Speculating on Irenaeus' Supposed Reference To The LE

Post by JoeWallack »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lh4mDKnijlI

JW:
Mark’s Endings in Context: Paratexts and Codicological Remarks by Mina Monier ORCID
His Markan argumentum also tells us nothing about the events found in the Long Ending. In the argumenta to the other three Gospels, the author highlights Jesus’s post-resurrection apparitions, the basic remarks of his commandments to the disciples, and his ascension (in Luke). It is implausible that ignoring Jesus’s apparitions and ascension in Mark’s argumentum is due to considering them as insignificant details.
The lack of any reference to the events in the Long Ending was perceived to be so problematic that later copyists amended the ending of the argumentum by adding:
Καὶ ἐφάνη [πρῶτον]7 Μαρίᾳ τῇ Μαγδαληνῇ, καὶ ἀνελήφθη εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν καὶ ἐκάθισεν ἐκ δεξιῶν τοῦ θεοῦ. Τέλος τοῦ κατὰ Μάρκον εὐαγγελίου. Στίχοις ͵αχ΄8
He appeared [first] to Mary Magdalene, and was ascended to heaven and sat down at the right hand of God. The end of the Gospel according to Mark. Stichoi 1600.
Unlike the style of the author of the original argumentum, the cautious redactor who added this text did not try to write his own summary, but strictly copied Mark 16:9b and 16:19b. Then, the redactor stated that this was the end of the Gospel of Mark, giving the stichoi number as well, in a statement that is usually found as a subscription to the entire Gospel, not an argumentum. The plausible explanation for this is the redactor’s intention to emphatically assert that this is the correct ending of the Gospel.
Note (with interest) that this just happens to include most of what Irenaeus of Lyons (yes, "Lyons") supposedly referred to at the ending of GMark:

Making Up Shit From A Language I Can't Read
towards the conclusion of his Gospel, Mark says: So then, after the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven, and sits on the right hand of God
Regarding the timing of the LE, Irenaeus is the first witness to the LE c. late 2nd century. Eusebius witnesses the entire LE around 300 and presumably it had been around as long as he or anyone he knew could remember. So a possible sequence of the LE muscling its way into the Text:
  • 1) GMark originally ended at 16:8 with Epic Failure.

    2) The original Argumenta for GMark accepts that it ended at 16:8.

    3) The Argumenta is edited at a minimum just to show the most important theological point, Jesus' mission (so to speak) is a success. The sacred text however is not changed.

    4) Subsequent editors of the Argumenta claim that part/all of the Argumenta should be part of the text (as above).

    5) The Argumenta is gradually expanded to give GMark a fuller post resurrection story.

    6) The full of it Argumenta is used to support a fuller ending for the text.
For those who need points sharply explained Irenaeus' quote above may indicate a stage of development in the LE. In Irenaeus'
time what he quotes above may be all there was of the LE at that time, at least in texts Irenaeus knew. In any Greek case, his quote is
only primary evidence for the quote and not for the LE in total. Oh snapp!


Joseph

"Although Herzl stressed in his writings that his project was based on “the highest tolerance” with full rights for all, what was meant was no more than toleration of any minorities that might remain after the rest had been moved elsewhere." - Neil Godfree

Skeptical Textual Criticism
Maestroh
Posts: 169
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2016 10:03 am

Re: Vaticanus and Sinaiticus

Post by Maestroh »

gryan wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 7:31 am Steven Avery:

I see from various web sources that you base your dating on stained pages and torn pages.

Have any professional textual critics responded to your hypothesis with a refutation?
No, because textual critics don't wear tinfoil hats and are not King James Onlyists.
User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1594
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Everybody Move To The Right

Post by JoeWallack »

Price Tag

JW:
Additional Argumenta evidence that 16:8 is original:
Mark’s Endings in Context: Paratexts and Codicological Remarks by Mina Monier ORCID
This is not the only expansion of the short argumentum. In GA 2145[13th C] and 776[11th C], we have a lengthy expansion, entitled δύναμις τοῦ κατὰ Μάρκον εὐαγγελίου. In this δύναμις text, the author carefully follows the account of Jesus’s life as it appears in Mark’s Gospel, yet the part that summarises Mark 16 is again problematic, especially in the transition between the short and Long Endings of Mark:
εἶδον ἄγγελον ἐν τῶ μνημείω, καὶ ἐφοβήθησαν. ὁ λίθος τοῦ μνήματος ἀπεκυλίσθη, καὶ τὸ σῶμα ἠγέρθη ἐν τρι’ημέρω. Ἀναστάς ὁ Χριστός ὤφθη Μαρία ἀφ’ ῆς τὰ ἐπτὰ δαιμόνια ἐξέβαλεν …
They saw an angel in the tomb, and they were afraid. The stone of the tomb was rolled away, and the body was risen in three days. As Christ rose, he appeared to Mary, from whom he cast out seven demons…
According to this order, the stone was rolled after the arrival of the fearful women, and somehow the resurrection took place afterwards. By moving swiftly between ἠγέρθη and ὤφθη, the author left no time gap between the resurrection and the apparition to Mary (16:9), to interweave the Long Ending with the original text. The Long Ending becomes securely integrated in this extended version of the original argumentum. From the redaction of the “Eusebian” argumentum, we learn that the diversity of the Markan endings led to a diversity of the argumentum’s endings.

Joseph

"Shooting eight Jewish civilians in Jerusalem – leaving two critically injured, including a pregnant woman – is not resistance. It’s terrorism." - Jessie J

Skeptical Textual Criticism
User avatar
billd89
Posts: 1347
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2020 6:27 pm
Location: New England, USA

Re: "Coin Evidence" ??!

Post by billd89 »

I hate this website, but here's what they're touting:

Quickly unearthing the remains of a first-century synagogue just an incredible 30 cm under the surface, they found coins dating back to between 5 and 63 AD. A coin minted in 29 AD shows an impression of Jesus teaching in the synagogues during his public life, as recorded in Matthew 4:23 and Mark 1:39 in the New Testament.

That's false. otoh, the Magdala website is cleverly promotional but not misinformative:
... A coin minted in 29 AD leaves the impression of Jesus teaching in the synagogues during his public life (Mt 4:23, Mk 1:39)

For those whose English comprehension is somewhat challenged, "shows an impression" means "illustrates a picture of" -- which is rather definite. otoh, "leaves an impression" means "suggests" or "implies something like" which is merely associative, similar, evocative -- Not direct nor definitely the same thing.
Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 2110
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: "Coin Evidence" ??!

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin »

billd89 wrote: Thu Oct 27, 2022 7:26 am I hate this website, but here's what they're touting:

A coin minted in 29 AD shows an impression of Jesus teaching in the synagogues during his public life, as recorded in Matthew 4:23 and Mark 1:39 in the New Testament.

This must be the coin that Peter fished to pay the temple tax :cheers:
User avatar
billd89
Posts: 1347
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2020 6:27 pm
Location: New England, USA

Post by billd89 »

Image
Post Reply