The "original" ending of Mark (present the cases)

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Paul the Uncertain
Posts: 994
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:25 am
Contact:

Re: The "original" ending of Mark (present the cases)

Post by Paul the Uncertain »

Firstly, what is meant by "original"? I have come to the conclusion that Canonical Mark contains many alterations that were not part of the earliest form of the Gospel.
Why would the earliest version of any work enjoy a privilege as to authenticity?

Ah, the gospels are different. God revealed his word to men, and therefore the earliest version is sacred? That used to be a more popular view, but either it's less popular now, or its living scholarly adherents tend to confine their public remarks to "methodological naturalism."

If written by people, and nothing is known about any of the authors, including their writing "process," then perhaps the gospels went through "drafts" or editions. Even then, authority is tricky and not necessarily unambiguously attached to any one specific version of a work.

A popular modern harmony of the gospels, the stage show Godspell, has a distinct indisputably (as in legally enforceable) current authoritative version (there have been other earlier similarly enforceably authoritative versions) which dates from about 40 years after the "original" (a workshop production at Carnegie-Mellon in Pittsburgh). Its claim to authenticity rests heavily on the supervisory participation of Steven Schwartz, the composer of (all but one number of) the first Broadway version, who worked closely back then with the (mostly) original company, but wasn't among them at the very beginning in Pittsburgh.

That recency instead of priority is a feature, not a bug. The "revival" version is clearly the preferred version over the 1970's versions, which didn't even have a set score, much less the hugely popular "Beautiful City" number. (Some day, if I ever get a round tuit, I'll write an essay about how disputed verses 16:9-14 are the prototype for "Beautiful City..." where 16:15-20 prefigure the spurious "resurrection scene" that is so obviously missing from canonical Godspell, but some productions manage to work in anyway.)

I can sort all that out because Schwartz is interested in theatrical history, and so makes a lot of source material readily available. In 2000 years, though? Somebody will find a text, gawdnose what edition or version of the show but authentic none the less, and speculate about an "original" that we the living know simply does not exist.
Post Reply