Diogenes the Cynic

I am not convinced that Paul's little satellite churches had any significant Jewish membership at all. I think he distorted the LXX too much to have been credible to Jews.

Sheshbazzar

If Paul was indeed telling them to stop keeping The Sabbath, abandon the traditional Kosher laws, despise Judaism and The Temple, and start worshiping a dead/alive convicted criminal invisable zombie man as a god on Sunday's instead...
Yep, I do believe this 'Paul' would have had a certain credibility problem. :constern01:

Diogenes the Cynic

Of course, we have religious leaders now who radically distort scripture and doctrine and still manage to bring people with them. Look at David Koresh or Jim Jones - or Joseph Smith.

Sheshbazzar

And look at the reaction it caused, the thousands of diatribes, the millions of pages of contemporary commentary.

Where is a squeak of any similar ancient commentary, objection, or outrage at the defection of hundreds or thousands of synagogue attending practicing Jews to this strange new Zombie criminal god cult?

aa5874

The deterioration is irrelevant. 12 additional verses could NOT fit.

sotto voce

So if Manes tells you that it's sunny outside, does that mean that nobody else is qualified to tell you that it is sunny outside? Or is Manes indispensable and irreplaceable?

Diogenes the Cynic

I don't understand who "Manes" is supposed to be in your analogy. I haven't said that any source is indispensable, I just asked you to provide one for a particular claim.

If I haven't been clear, I'm saying the Gospel of Mark is not a reliable source of information about the words and beliefs of Jesus or the apostles.

sotto voce

Manes could be anyone who observes the sun shining.

Which was done.

Then read the whole reply.

JoeWallack

JW:
The Greek conjunctive here is normally placed between effect and cause and specifically this is the only time "Mark" places it at the end. Let's take a look at the offending verse:

http://biblos.com/mark/16-8.htm

Strong's	Transliteration	Greek	English	Morphology
2532 [e]	kai	καὶ	And	Conj
1831 [e]	exelthousai	ἐξελθοῦσαι	having gone out,	V-APA-NFP
5343 [e]	ephygon	ἔφυγον	they fled	V-AIA-3P
575 [e]	apo	ἀπὸ	from	Prep
3588 [e]	tou	τοῦ	the	Art-GNS
3419 [e]	mnēmeiou	μνημείου	tomb.	N-GNS
2192 [e]	eichen	εἶχεν	possessed	V-IIA-3S
1063 [e]	gar	γὰρ	indeed	Conj
846 [e]	autas	αὐτὰς	them	PPro-AF3P
5156 [e]	tromos	τρόμος	trembling	N-NMS
2532 [e]	kai	καὶ	and	Conj
1611 [e]	ekstasis	ἔκστασις	amazement,	N-NFS
2532 [e]	kai	καὶ	and	Conj
3762 [e]	oudeni	οὐδενὶ	to none	Adj-DMS
3762 [e]	ouden	οὐδὲν	nothing	Adj-ANS
3004 [e]	eipan	εἶπαν	they spoke;	V-AIA-3P
5399 [e]	ephobounto	ἐφοβοῦντο	they were afraid	V-IIM/P-3P
1063 [e]	gar	γάρ	indeed.	Conj

Note that the effect is first, "to none nothing they spoke", immediately followed by the cause, "they were afraid", which is immediately followed by the conjunction which should be translated above, "because/for".

The related question is whether this unusual order rises to the level of being ungrammatical, a question I've asked in the dedicated Thread:

Is the Gospel of Mark "ungrammatical" or Smooth, Sualvific and Deboanerges?

I've already provided evidence there that even if the placement is ungrammatical the usage is stylish/contrived because it is ungrammatical.

But back to the question, is it ungrammatical? In Dr. Carrier's Legendary related article:

Mark 16:9-20 as Forgery or Fabrication

Dr. Carrier indirectly refers to the issue here:

Assessment of Internal Evidence

I think Dr. Carrier should specifically address the issue because if the placement is ungrammatical than it is evidence for any alternative ending including the LE and because it is a popular argument.

Again, getting back to the question though, Wallace specifically points out the same placement in Genesis 18:15 (France finds an even better parallel with Genesis 45:3) and notes that Cox screws over Croy by finding over 1,500 ancient examples of sentences ending in "γάρ". This suggests the usage is unusual but not ungrammatical. It also suggests that such placement may have a nuanced meaning. I'll ask Dr. Carrier about it.



Joseph

ErrancyWiki

la70119

to bernard,

I have no doubt the workmen would have been goyi'im or even the soldiers themselves for Jews would be too busy preparing for the Passover or celebrating it, depending on which gospel tradition you believe is accurate. But I think they would have buried the body secure enough so that animals couldn't get to it. Josephus (Jewish War 4.317) tells us that the Jewish people were so particular about dead bodies that they even buried the crucified / impaled the same day they died (or even the day they were hanged!). If the animals or worse, the birds, could have picked at the bodies, the Jewish religious authorities would have raised a big stink and complained.

And where would crucifixions have taken place? The traditional place for Golgotha would have been unlikely at the time; Herod the Great had the old lime quarry converted into a rose garden (hence Gennath or Garden Gate) and was probably surrounded by suburbs like the Pool of Bethesda was on the other side of town. My reasoning, based on the gMatthean and gLuke-Actean narrations of what happened to Judas Iscariot, was that Romans executed their criminals at Akeldama, the Field of Blood. Think about it. Executions back then were a bloody business.

But one strange coincidence is that the Holy Sepulchre has been identified as one part of a tomb complex that included the tombs of "Saints" Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus; and this complex has been determined by some archaeologists as a or the Court Tomb of the Sanhedrin for the specific purpose of dishonourable burial of criminals convicted of capital crimes under Jewish Law.

http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/tombs358017.shtml

Which in my opinion means that by the time "Matthew" wrote his gospel, he had the short ending gMark with the denouement of gMark 15:40 through 16:8 already included. Infact, the tomb scenes of gMatthew, gLuke and gJohn are themselves strong evidences of this denouement already in existence.