Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Posted: **Wed Dec 21, 2016 1:11 pm**

So Larry Hurtado:

Mark 16:8 does not depict the women as disobeying and failing to do what they were told to do–to go to Peter and the Twelve with news of Jesus’ resurrection. Instead, “they said nothing to anyone” should be read as meaning that they said nothing to anyone else.
https://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2016 ... l-of-mark/

This interpretation seems the perfect move, by Mark, to justify why so much historical silence about the death of Jesus and the news of the his resurrection: the women were deliberately silent to give the news only to Peter and co in Galilee, as per divine command.

Note that often Jesus commanded to say his miracles only to high priest even if the high priest was been not believer in these miracles. Therefore, contra Hurtado, Peter is not forgiven by the fact that the women did inform him about the resurrection. The risk is still there that Peter is blind just as the high priest when informed about the Jesus miracles.

Posted: **Wed Dec 21, 2016 6:25 pm**

Larry's scholarly research with remarkable consistency produces findings that are entirely consistent with his orthodox Christian faith. It would seem to follow from his interpretation here that the angel wanted the apostles themselves to be the first to proclaim the message to everyone -- as per Acts, I suppose.

Posted: **Wed Dec 21, 2016 10:51 pm**

neilgodfrey wrote:Larry's scholarly research with remarkable consistency produces findings that are entirely consistent with his orthodox Christian faith. It would seem to follow from his interpretation here that the angel wanted the apostles themselves to be the first to proclaim the message to everyone -- as per Acts, I suppose.

The risk of apologetics is there, effectively. But I wonder:
what is more probable?

1) that was Mark the only author in all the Antiquity to consider worthy of faith the witness of the women, at the point to introduce them in his final ?

2) or that Mark was deliberately caustic against Peter and co, by making them apostles (in the Galilee of Gentiles) sent by women ???

If even a woman is a superior witness of the Risen Christ than Peter and co, then how much superior is Paul who is already in Galilee (of the Gentiles) because sent directly by the Risen Christ ?

Posted: **Thu Dec 22, 2016 12:48 am**

And note that Larry Hurtado is correct, in my view, to argue that the women didn't fail because their function was to link strictly the resurrection of Jesus with the his death on the cross.

From that point in the story, the women sent Peter and his disciples to Galilea to see the risen Christ. That is the beginning of the historical Gospel: the historical fact that the Christianity started when Peter and the Pillars saw the risen archangel Christ.

But if I am correct that Peter is saying the truth in Mark 14:71

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2815&p=62619#p62619

then all what Peter and his disciples know when he arrives in Galilee of Gentiles (as sent there from the women) is only that :

Jesus Christ is crucified and risen (precisely what the women witnessed and told him).

Was this precisely the way by ''Mark'' to explain why the Gospel preached by the historical Peter, Paul, etc, was so reduced to the minimal essential (Crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. Period) ?

Posted: **Fri Dec 23, 2016 1:52 am**

Larry Hurtado's reading does seem clearly possible, which indicates how deeply ambiguous the ending of Mark at 16:8 is.

Andrew Criddle

Posted: **Fri Dec 23, 2016 2:02 am**

andrewcriddle wrote:Larry Hurtado's reading does seem clearly possible, which indicates how deeply ambiguous the ending of Mark at 16:8 is.

It seems, from your words, that you are doing the following implication:

the LH's reading is possible --> the ending at 16:8 is ambiguous.

I agree and accept personally the premise (that the women didn't fail) but it is precisely in virtue of this that I don't see the ending at 16:8 as ambiguous.

Posted: **Fri Dec 23, 2016 2:06 am**

Giuseppe wrote:
andrewcriddle wrote:Larry Hurtado's reading does seem clearly possible, which indicates how deeply ambiguous the ending of Mark at 16:8 is.
It seems, from your words, that you are doing the following implication:

the LH's reading is possible --> the ending at 16:8 is ambiguous.

I agree and accept personally the premise (that the women didn't fail) but it is precisely in virtue of this that I don't see the ending at 16:8 as ambiguous.

IMO the ending is ambiguous because although LH's reading might well be right, other readings might also be right. e.g. The women did not tell anyone about the events of Mark 16 until years afterwards.

Andrew Criddle

Posted: **Fri Dec 23, 2016 8:51 am**

.
1) Well, Larry Hurtado argued that Mark 16:8 “and they said nothing to anyone” should be understand as “and they said nothing to anyone except Peter and the other disciples”.

Hurtado wrote: Part of my argument was that Mark 16:8 does not depict the women as disobeying and failing to do what they were told to do–to go to Peter and the Twelve with news of Jesus’ resurrection. Instead, “they said nothing to anyone” should be read as meaning that they said nothing to anyone else. This is a view of 16:8 that has gained endorsement over recent years, but it may still be a minority opinion. So, it’s encouraging to have Aernie’s endorsement in his newly published article.

2) In GMark is an often repeated grammatical construction with the sense of

- not ... except
- nothing ... except
- no one ... except

A few examples

2:26 how he entered the house of God, in the time of Abiathar the high priest, and ate the bread of the Presence, which it is not lawful for any but (εἰ μὴ) the priests to eat, and also gave it to those who were with him?”

5:37 And he allowed no one to follow him except (εἰ μὴ) Peter and James and John the brother of James.

6:4 And Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor, except (εἰ μὴ) in his hometown and among his relatives and in his own household.

6:5 And he could do no mighty work there, except (εἰ μὴ) that he laid his hands on a few sick people and healed them.

6:8 He charged them to take nothing for their journey except (εἰ μὴ) a staff—no bread, no bag, no money in their belts—

9:8 And suddenly, looking around, they no longer saw anyone with them but (εἰ μὴ) Jesus only.

9:9 And as they were coming down the mountain, he charged them to tell no one what they had seen, until (εἰ μὴ ὅταν) the Son of Man had risen from the dead.

9:29 And he said to them, “This kind cannot be driven out by anything but (εἰ μὴ) prayer.

10:18 And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good except (εἰ μὴ) God alone.

11:13 And seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to see if he could find anything on it. When he came to it, he found nothing but (εἰ μὴ) leaves,

13:32 But concerning that day or that hour, no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but (εἰ μὴ) only the Father.

3) So, what do you think?

If Mark wished to say that the women said nothing to anyone except Peter and the other disciples, how would he have written it?

A - And they said nothing to anyone
or
B - And they said nothing to anyone except (εἰ μὴ) Peter and the other disciples

Posted: **Fri Dec 23, 2016 9:55 am**

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: So, what do you think?

If Mark wished to say that the women said nothing to anyone except Peter and the other disciples, how would he have written it?

A - And they said nothing to anyone
or
B - And they said nothing to anyone except (εἰ μὴ) Peter and the other disciples

I think you are right, and reading A as if it were B seems like wishful thinking to me.

Posted: **Fri Dec 23, 2016 1:32 pm**

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: So, what do you think?

If Mark wished to say that the women said nothing to anyone except Peter and the other disciples, how would he have written it?

A - And they said nothing to anyone
or
B - And they said nothing to anyone except (εἰ μὴ) Peter and the other disciples
I think you are right, and reading A as if it were B seems like wishful thinking to me.

I agree. However, I don't think Mark ended with verse 8. It simply makes no sense. The angel can't be wrong. Jesus was resurrected and Peter and the other disciples would have seen Jesus in Galilee. Presumably these women were from Galilee also. Are we to believe that even after Jesus appeared to Peter and the other discples the women still said nothing because they were afraid? No. It simply doesn't make sense to say that 16:8 is the last verse that Mark wrote.

More was written, but somehow exactly what happened was lost to history.

My opinion only, of course.

Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

The women didn't fail in Mark 16:8

The women didn't fail in Mark 16:8

Re: The women didn't fail in Mark 16:8

Re: The women didn't fail in Mark 16:8

Re: The women didn't fail in Mark 16:8

Re: The women didn't fail in Mark 16:8

Re: The women didn't fail in Mark 16:8

Re: The women didn't fail in Mark 16:8

Re: The women didn't fail in Mark 16:8

Re: The women didn't fail in Mark 16:8

Re: The women didn't fail in Mark 16:8