Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 02-17-2011, 10:52 AM

Mark’s Missing Ending: Clues from the Gospel of John and the Gospel of Peter by James McGrath

This is a really fluffy piece of speculation, by a religious studies professor who specializes in science fiction and popular culture.

There are some pertinent comments on McGrath's blog, including a detailed explanation of why Mark does not reflect "oral tradition" from C.J. O'Brien, which seems to have sailed right over McGrath's head.

show_no_mercy · 02-17-2011, 11:40 AM

Since there doesn't seem to be any tradition of an empty tomb, then it would be safe to say that the entire ending of Mark is his invention. All of the elements necessary in the narrative to build up to the empty tomb also make their first appearance in Mark. Like the/a νεανισκος fleeing naked and being present at the tomb, the disciples abandoning Jesus at the cross, only women being present at the cross (thus only they would know where he was buried), Mr. Deus Ex Machina J of Arimathea, and most importantly the anachronistic "rolling" of the rock in front of the tomb.

There's no evidence that any of these elements were present in Christian tradition prior to Mark. But once Mark is introduced they become embellished. So appealing to tradition to fill in the "missing" ending seems to be a bit premature.

John Kesler · 02-17-2011, 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

There are some pertinent comments on McGrath's blog...

I like this admission by McGrath:

Quote:

Ed, my best guess is that the earliest tradition reflected a religious experience by Peter which he then shared with others, at least some of whom may have had experiences of their own. This presumably happened after they fled to Galilee. The varied settings of appearances in Gospels may reflect the fact that our earliest example of such a tradition included no specific geographical setting - but perhaps precisely because there was no authoritative tradition concerning that, Gospel authors felt free to try to have Jesus appear to people as early as possible, to as many people as possible, and in other ways make the testimony seem more solid.

Despite what apologists will often say, the evidence is rather confused, even about as basic matters as whether the person the apostles saw looked like Jesus or not! And while we may have good reason to accept that religious experiences did in fact contribute to the origin of Christian belief in Jesus' resurrection, the nature of those experiences is something that we can do little more an speculate about.

February 16, 2011 7:33 PM

aa5874 · 02-17-2011, 03:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Since there doesn't seem to be any tradition of an empty tomb, then it would be safe to say that the entire ending of Mark is his invention. All of the elements necessary in the narrative to build up to the empty tomb also make their first appearance in Mark. Like the/a νεανισκος fleeing naked and being present at the tomb, the disciples abandoning Jesus at the cross, only women being present at the cross (thus only they would know where he was buried), Mr. Deus Ex Machina J of Arimathea, and most importantly the anachronistic "rolling" of the rock in front of the tomb.

There's no evidence that any of these elements were present in Christian tradition prior to Mark. But once Mark is introduced they become embellished. So appealing to tradition to fill in the "missing" ending seems to be a bit premature.

Are you implying that no author of antiquity could have invented a story about a character called Jesus who was RAISED from the dead?

We know Marcion INVENTED his Son of God that was a PHANTOM who came to earth WITHOUT BIRTH sometime in the 2nd century and it can be deduced that Gods, Sons of Gods, and Gods born of Virgins were INVENTED.

It must be understood the Jesus story was NOT the origin of people who called themselves Christians or were called Christians by others.

The word "Christ" predates the Jesus stories by hundreds of years and people who BELIEVED in God ALONE were called Christians. Belief in God predates the Jesus stories.

And further there is NO credible source of antiquity that can show gMark was written BEFORE the "Memoirs of the Apostles" as stated in the writings of Justin Martyr.

But, the Short-ending of gMark is NOT lost. It can be found in the Codex Sinaiticus.

DCHindley · 02-18-2011, 07:30 AM

Good news,

The lost ending of Mark has recently been found behind a radiator in the dining room where the last supper was held, along with several pieces of liver and a large quantity of peas and carrots. Details at 11:00pm.

DCH

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Mark’s Missing Ending: Clues from the Gospel of John and the Gospel of Peter by James McGrath

This is a really fluffy piece of speculation, by a religious studies professor who specializes in science fiction and popular culture.

There are some pertinent comments on McGrath's blog, including a detailed explanation of why Mark does not reflect "oral tradition" from C.J. O'Brien, which seems to have sailed right over McGrath's head.

02-17-2011, 10:52 AM	#1
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	The lost ending of Mark Mark’s Missing Ending: Clues from the Gospel of John and the Gospel of Peter by James McGrath This is a really fluffy piece of speculation, by a religious studies professor who specializes in science fiction and popular culture. There are some pertinent comments on McGrath's blog, including a detailed explanation of why Mark does not reflect "oral tradition" from C.J. O'Brien, which seems to have sailed right over McGrath's head.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-17-2011, 11:40 AM	#2
show_no_mercy Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Dancing Posts: 9,940	Since there doesn't seem to be any tradition of an empty tomb, then it would be safe to say that the entire ending of Mark is his invention. All of the elements necessary in the narrative to build up to the empty tomb also make their first appearance in Mark. Like the/a νεανισκος fleeing naked and being present at the tomb, the disciples abandoning Jesus at the cross, only women being present at the cross (thus only they would know where he was buried), Mr. Deus Ex Machina J of Arimathea, and most importantly the anachronistic "rolling" of the rock in front of the tomb. There's no evidence that any of these elements were present in Christian tradition prior to Mark. But once Mark is introduced they become embellished. So appealing to tradition to fill in the "missing" ending seems to be a bit premature.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.