It's an interesting question by me, if I say so myself.mlinssen wrote: ↑Sun Apr 03, 2022 12:51 amI highly doubt it. There's no reason to trust the Falsifying Fathers, and the shorter ending of Mark is very telling.
The women, the women, the women: from 15:40 till 16:8 they are in every possible place where they can be mentioned, and it is in the typical Markan way.
Mark is creating an excuse and he starts doing so at 15:40
"But there is no reason not to think that the Marcionite author would not have extended the base text, perhaps more closely adhered to in Mark"
The thing is, if you strip the women and the dumb burial, then you get to *Ev; the end at 15:39 is a beautiful open ending.
Needless to say, the Falsifying Fathers can't be trusted.
But let's suppose, for arguments sake, that *Ev indeed ended at
Mark 15:39 - would they have commented on that, and why?
Would they have made a great show out of Marcion not having the burial and the resurrection?
If so, why - and if not, then why not?
Let's suppose there's only Mark 16:8 and nothing further, to keep matters simple
1) Would the FF whine that Marcion falsified the resurrection?
A - no, because then they would have had to say where his text ended, and it would be pretty blatantly obvious that Mark 15:40-16:8 is a very longwinded attempt to blame the poor innocent women for a lie that is in the making while we're at it
B - yes, because it would prove Marcion to have removed something from the gospels, which is the only accusation against him and also one that they continuously fail hard to demonstrate. So this is a once in a lifetime chance really!
Of course they still would have to say where *Ev ended but that would be not problematic because... it doesn't really matter that Jesus is resurrected and doesn't put that to any other use but eating and drinking and boasting about his bones?
C - the end of Jesus, no matter in which version or stage you consider it, in all reality and actuality is in fact just really shit. A death without heroism, ruined by the need to throw scripture at it and it really couldn't deviate an awful lot from the boring story that Mark has, even though Matthew had his own drama, far-fetched and preposterously pathetic as it is, not to mention what he adds to Luke. But we digress.
Then the resurrection - I mean really, what to do with the women? They'll have to remain the ones the angel speaks to, and all we can do is to make the return of Jesus exciting. But then Matthew so thoroughly ruins it all!!!
D - there's nothing to do about it really, it is evident that *Ev wants to lay the blame on the Judaics by not having Jesus resurrected (let's just go with that flow shall we) and he's even willing to sacrifice the, errrrr, thingy for that?
What on earth could they have done about it? Isn't it just completely unfeasible that Marcion would have dropped the resurrection? Or do I just lack the necessary imaginative brain cells at the moment?