Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Alfaric has advanced the following reading of the final of Mark, according to a separationist reading of Mark.

The empty tomb proves not the physical resurrection (since the superior Christ had already abandoned the carnal Jesus on the cross (cfr the cry on the cross, "my god, my god why have you abandoned me?") but simply that the carnal Jesus is now at the right hand of the creator god (not the supreme god).

• So the spiritual Christ left the carnal Jesus on the cross and he ascended to the higher heavens, where the supreme god (the Father) is;

• in whiletime the carnal Jesus dies, he rises but at the moment he is only in the heaven of the creator (not the Father).

The "Galilee" working (very philonically) as the 'higher heavens' of the supreme god, then the carnal Jesus is only preceding the resurrection of all the apostles, and in this sense he is the first fruit of the general resurrection of the dead.

Therefore, in order to join a such carnal Jesus in the 'Galilee', the apostles have to die before.

Note that the separationism in Mark is a strong clue that Mark comes after Marcion (the separationism is recognized easily as an evolution of docetism).

The entire point of the ascension of the carnal Jesus at the right hand of the creator is that he works secretely there against the same creator, by emptying gradually the latter of all his spiritual substance, and in the same time sharing his secret activity with the souls of the Christian dead who ascend to the creator.

This would be explained by the Parable of the Strong Man:


The mere presence of the carnal Jesus in the heaven of the creator would be what "first binds the strong man".

Irenaeus would be commenting this separationist Mark when he wrote:


And especially here:


http://gnosis.org/library/advh1.htm

That would be the Parable of the Strong Man in nuce.

the carnal Jesus is now at the right hand of the creator god (not the supreme god).

Paul believed something along those lines, but if we're discussing Mark, that's verse 16:19.

Guild dogma is that 16:8 ends "authentic" Mark. I'm cool through 16:14. Anything south of 16:15 and you're in with the snake charmers and poison drinkers.

Yes, somebody wrote verses 16:15-20, but whoever they were they had nothing to do with the undisputed Mark (maybe hadn't even read it). Good for them if they were "separationists," and good luck to them with the rattlers.

Given what Eusebius says about Mark ending at 16:8 ("That is where the text does end, in almost all copies of the gospel according to Mark," with the rest having longer endings), I doubt there is any manuscript evidence for it, but if Mark had originally ended at 16:7, it would be in keeping with what Paul says in 1 Cor. 15:4-5 ("that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas and then to the Twelve"). It would also be more hopeful and not so disparaging to Jesus' Jewish followers.

It seems like every verse after 16:7 goes against the grain of Paul and Jesus and disparages Jesus' followers and moves on to the Gentile Mission, which seems kind of fishy to me. And while that's all I have to go on, it's the only option that doesn't contradict Paul or what Jesus says in 14:27-8, and I gather the consensus is that the author of Mark knew Paul's letters, so 16:7 seems like a suitable ending to me.

16:5 When 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. But go, tell his disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.’ ”

This just seems like a great place for Mark to end since it's in keeping with Paul (that Jesus appeared to Peter and the Twelve) and with what Jesus says in 14:27-28 (that the Twelve will see him in Galilee: “You will all [which includes Judas] fall away ... But after I have risen, I will go ahead of you [which logically also includes Judas] into Galilee”). If Jesus doesn't appear to Peter and the Twelve (including Judas), then Jesus would be a liar, and that is what 16:8-20 makes him. Only ending Mark at 16:7 resolves this and is in line with what Paul and Jesus say.

So my guess is that the idea that Jesus appeared to Judas (as suggested by 14:27-28) had to go (thus the reference to "the Eleven" in 16:14), and the Gentile Mission had to take precedence over Jesus' Jewish followers (who are rebuked for "their unbelief and hardness of heart"). Maybe I'm wrong (and I gather the manuscripts don't support it), but for these reasons 16:8-20 seems fishy and easy to dispense with.