Solo

I would appreciate some comments to the proposition that the last sentence in Mk 16:8 which ends against all expectations with a conjuction ('γαρ') is an intentional bridge back to 1:2 which I am led to believe was the first verse of the original version of gospel.

16:8 καὶ ἐξελθοῦσαι ἔφυγον ἀπὸ τοῦ μνημείου εἶχεν δὲ (γὰρ) αὐτὰς τρόμος καὶ ἔκστασις καὶ οὐδενὶ οὐδὲν εἶπον ἐφοβοῦντο γὰρ ....

(ESV) And they went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had seized them, and they said nothing to anyone, (for) they were afraid.


1:2 καθὼς γέγραπται ἐν τῷ Ἠσαΐᾳ τῷ προφήτῃ ἰδοὺ ἀποστέλλω τὸν ἄγγελόν μου πρὸ προσώπου σου ὃς κατασκευάσει τὴν ὁδόν σου

(for) ...as it is written in Isaiah the prophet, "Behold, I send my messenger before your face, who will prepare your way,...


Mark's gospel seems to be circular: the "messenger" who was before the women's faces in 16:5-7 morphs seemlessly into John the Baptist as the voice crying in the wilderness....

What is the Markan allegory about ? I believe Mark's magical mystery tour was pre-scribed by Paul in Rom 6:3

Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?

What do people think ? Was the γαρ (for) intended to be shared between the two verses (which by some unknown magic becomes one verse !!!) or am I a voice crying in the (exegetical) wilderness ?

Best,
Jiri

dog-on

I always thought that the ending at 16:8 fit beatuifully and your analysis does not seem far fetched. Kind of a Row, Row, Row your Christ...

avi

I don't present this to contradict your novel interpretation, Jiri, but it does appear to me, that ancient folks were also concerned about the abruptness of the original ending, if what we find in Codices Vaticanus and Sinaiticus indeed represents the "original" text of Mark. How do you reconcile your interpretation with the insertion added above?

avi

Toto

The insertion is translated here

The motive seems obvious.

avi

Sorry, I don't get it!!!

manuscript 1: text abc
manuscript 2: text abc + 1234
manuscript 3: text abc + xyz

Do we know with some degree of certainty, which of these three manuscripts is the authentic, original version? I don't know whether the scissors preceded the ink quill, or vice versa.

As far as I am aware, none of the extant Papyrus collections, e.g. Bodmer P45, contain the pertinant verse Mark 16:8.

avi

Solo

Thanks, avi.

I know about the expansion in the Alexandrian but I am not much concerned about it, since most of the mss end in the conjunction at 16:8. The intent of the annex, as Toto says, "seems obvious" - to contradict what the verse says - the women ran away and did not tell anything to anyone.

I noted a similar editing maneouvre to overwrite a verse's intent in the Alexandrian text at 3:16. You would note there that Simon's renaming cannot be related back to the ordination of the twelve in verse 14, which the editor wants to do (it's 'Simoni'/dative where you'd expect 'Simona'/accusative, as are the rest of the apostles), so he simply copies the ordination into the verse again. There is an interesting psychology at work here. The copyists would not overwrite the original text (it's scripture !) but insert opinions and 'guidance' into it when they received the holy spirit's permission.

But back to 16:8: The original Mark may have had a good reason not to have the women say 'nothing to nobody' - think of it as part of the Markan Messianic secret !

Best,
Jiri

JonA

Good to see people thinking!

If you don't mind, though, may I ask why you think Mark would have written a 'circular' gospel?

Is there any clear theological purpose served in creating a circular gospel, or are you just proposing this hypothesis on the basis of the odd language at the end of Mark?

Jon

aa5874

What you call "thinking" appears to be "speculation". Some people here think an hypothesis is imagination based.

One cannot assume they can know the mental state of an UNKNOWN author and speculate about what an UNKNOWN author would have written or said.

ApostateAbe

Welcome to the forum, JonA. Please ignore aa5874 (most of us do). You will find all kinds of bizarre hypotheses around here, and no hypothesis is too strange. If you have any unusual ideas about the New Testament dancing around in your head, clamoring to get out, then you can release it here.

Sheshbazzar

Welcome to the forum, JonA. Please ignore ApostateAbe (most of us do) You will find a lot of people exploring non-orthodox explanations rather than trying to shovel the same old Christian apologetic crap that Abe tries so hard to load off on us. Grab a cold one and enjoy the show!