Freethought & Rationalism Archive

rhutchin · 04-10-2010, 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

JW:
What follows is Part 4.2.3-4 of a preliminary draft of:

Mark 16:9-20 as Forgery or Fabrication by Richard Carrier, Ph.D. (2009)

written for ErrancyWiki

posted here for commentary. I'll gradually post the other portions of his draft here. Enjoy!:

Quote:

4.2.3 The Terry Thesis

Bruce Terry again claims there is nothing odd about so many unusual phrases, for even in Mark 15:42-16:6 “there are nine phrases” that appear nowhere else in Mark.[18] But that’s not true. Terry chooses as ‘phrases’ entire clauses, which obviously will be unique, since authors tend not to repeat themselves. Hence he is either being disingenuous, or he doesn’t understand what a ‘common phrase’ is. Phrases like “after these things,” “those with him,” “seen by,” “whole world,” “get well,” “and then,” “[#] of
them,” and “from whom” are entirely generic phrases that authors tend to use frequently, or certainly often enough to expect to see them at least a few times in over six hundred verses, unless they are not phrases the author uses. Which is exactly why their presence in the LE tells us Mark didn’t write it. And this conclusion follows with force because there are so many of these oddities, and some go against Mark’s own preferences, e.g. using para instead of ek in “cast out from,” and using prôtê sabbatou instead of tê mia tôn sabbatôn to say “first day of the week.”

In contrast, almost none of Terry’s ‘examples’ are generic phrases—and what generic structure we can discern among them is often confirmed in Markan style elsewhere. For example, he claims “now evening having come” (êdê opsias genomenês) is a unique ‘phrase’ but what’s actually generic in this phrase is êdê [x] genomenos, “now [x] having come,” which Mark uses two other times (Mark 6:35 and 13:28). So this is not unique in 15:42. Likewise, Terry claims “know from” (ginôsko apo) is a unique phrase, but it’s not, as Mark 13:28 has “learn from” (apo mathete), the exact same grammatical construction, just employing a different verb, while the same verb was not unknown to Mark (who used it at least three times, just never in a context that warranted the preposition). Meanwhile, “roll on” (proskulio epi) isn’t a generic phrase at all—it’s just an ordinary verb with preposition, and Mark uses verbs with epi to describe placing objects on things quite a lot (e.g. Mark 4:5, 4:16, 4:20, 4:21, 4:26, 4:31, 6:25, 6:28, 8:25, 13:2, 14:35), so there is nothing unique about that here, either. And there is nothing generic whatsoever about “the door of the tomb” or “white robe.” These are highly specific constructions, using established Markan words. For leukos (“white”) and stolê (“robe”) appear elsewhere in Mark, and mnemeion (“tomb”) appears six other times in Mark (and the equivalent mnêma three other times), and thura (“door”) likewise appears six other times. Likewise, “be not afraid” (me ekthambeisthe) is not a generic clause, but a whole sentence (it is an imperative declaration), none of which is unusual for Mark, who routinely uses mê for negation and uses the exact same verb (ekthambeô) in 9:15. Similarly, “come very early” (lian prôi exerchomai) is not a generic phrase, either, it’s just a verb with a magnified adverb of time, nor is it an unusual construction for Mark, who has “go very early” (lian prôi exerchomai) in 1:35, and who otherwise uses prôi and lian
several times, and erchomai often.

That leaves only two unusual phrases in verses in 15:42-16:6: mia tôn sabbatôn, literally “on the first [day counting] from the Sabbaths” (i.e. “first day of the week”) and en tois dexiois (“on the right”). The former simply paraphrases the Septuagint (Psalm 24:1), which Mark is known to do (e.g. Psalm 22 all throughout Mark 15:16-34). Only the latter is very unexpected as Mark otherwise (and quite often) uses ek dexiôn to say “on the right.” So these two phrases are unique to 15:42-16:6. It’s just that 2 unique generic phrases in 12 verses is simply not enough to doubt their authorship. But 9 unique generic phrases definitely is, especially in conjunction with all the other deviations: the Markan vocabulary that’s missing, the non-Markan vocabulary that’s present, the un-Markan frequencies of Markan words, and the un-Markan idioms where Mark has established a completely different practice. It is all these oddities combined that makes for a vanishingly small probability of Markan authorship. Indeed, if this is not enough evidence to establish the LE wasn’t written by Mark, then we should just assume everything ever written in the whole of Greek history was written by Mark.

4.2.4. Agreements of Style

Though there are several Markan words and phrases in the LE, there are not enough to be peculiar. Most are words and phrases common to all authors and thus not unique to Mark. Excluding those, there are only a very few agreements with Markan style in the LE which can be considered at all distinctive. And yet there are as many agreements with the distinctive style of all the authors of the NT (including both the Gospels and Epistles)—very much unlike Mark. Kelhoffer (in MAM, pp. 121-22, 138-39) lists over forty stylistic similarities with all four Gospels (and Acts). Notably those drawn from Mark show more deviation from Markan style, using different words and phrases to say the same things, while exact verbal borrowing from the other Gospels is frequent. It is thus more probable that the LE’s author was influenced by NT style as a whole (see section 4.3 next), because the similarities to Markan style are no greater than similarities to the rest of the NT, whereas the deviations from Markan style are frequent and extreme. This aspect of the LE’s style is very probable if the author of the LE knew the NT, but much less probable if the LE had been written by Mark.

Of course, such agreement can also be found by mere chance between any two authors. But it’s even more likely when a later author has been influenced by the earlier one, and an author familiar with the whole NT could easily exhibit influence from all its authors, Mark included. This would be all the more likely if the author of the LE deliberately attempted to emulate Markan style (as a forger would be inclined to do), but if that was his intent, his effort was marvelously incompetent. For as we’ve seen, the disagreements of style are so enormous they far outweigh any agreement there may be. In fact, the deviations are so abundant and clear, they actually argue against the original author of the LE intending it to be used as a forgery—the ‘forger’ would then instead be some third party who attempted to pass off the LE as belonging to Mark. It’s also possible the LE became attached to Mark by accident (whereas the SE can only have been a deliberate forgery). I have already presented evidence (in section 4.1. above) and will present more (in following sections) that the author of the LE did not write it as an ending to Mark but as a harmonizing summary of the appearances in all four Canonical Gospels, originally in a separate book (quite possibly a commentary on the Gospels), which was simply excerpted and attached to Mark by someone else (whether deceitfully or by accident).

I don't see the rationale for addressing the Terry Thesis at this point, it seems proper for an appendix chapter.

In the first paragraph under "Terry Thesis"-

"Which is exactly why their presence in the LE tells us Mark didn’t write it." is a sentence fragment. Might use "this" rather than "which" to make the point.

It has, "...and using prôtê sabbatou instead of tê mia tôn sabbatôn to say “first day of the week.” Why not state the context: "...and using prôtê sabbatou with respect to Jesus rising instead of tê mia tôn sabbatôn (used earlier with respect to the women going to the tomb) to say “first day of the week.” Obviously, the force of the argument lessens when context is applied.

Johnny Skeptic · 04-12-2010, 02:53 PM

Message to rhutchin: Regardless of what happens in this thread, it is a virtual certainty that a global flood did not occur. Even some conservative Christian experts know that. If you wish, we can discuss the global flood at the Evolution/Creation forum. In addition, if you wish, you can participate in my new thread on inerrancy at the Abrahamic Religions forum.

renassault · 04-12-2010, 11:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Message to rhutchin: Regardless of what happens in this thread, it is a virtual certainty that a global flood did not occur. Even some conservative Christian experts know that. If you wish, we can discuss the global flood at the Evolution/Creation forum. In addition, if you wish, you can participate in my new thread on inerrancy at the Abrahamic Religions forum.

Surely you must be joking! No global flood?? I thought Stephen Hawking proved it a long time ago

JoeWallack · 04-18-2010, 12:06 PM

JW:
What a nightmare...

What follows is Part 4.3.1 of a preliminary draft of:

Mark 16:9-20 as Forgery or Fabrication by Richard Carrier, Ph.D. (2009)

written for ErrancyWiki

posted here for commentary. I'll gradually post the other portions of his draft here. Enjoy!:

Quote:

4.3. Content Betrays Knowledge of the New Testament

The NT didn’t exist when Mark wrote, yet the LE not only betrays knowledge of the Canonical NT (allfour Gospels and Acts), it assumes the reader is aware of those contents of the NT or has access to them. As noted in section 4.2.1, this makes no sense coming from Mark, and very little sense coming from anyone at all, except someone who already knew all the stories related in the other three Gospels
(and Acts) and who thus set out to quickly summarize them, knowing full well the reader could easily find those accounts and get all the details omitted here (or would already know them). Mark never writes with such an assumption. But a commentator writing a separate summary of the Gospel appearances in the NT would write something exactly like this. That the LE exhibits stylistic similarities with the whole NT, including the Epistles (as just surveyed in section 4.2), further supports the conclusion that the author of the LE knew the whole NT, and in fact was so influenced by it as to have adopted many elements of its diverse style. The author of the LE therefore cannot have been Mark.

James Kelhoffer (in MAM, esp. pp. 48-155) has already extensively proved the LE used the other three Gospels (and Acts) and has refuted every critic of the notion. I will only summarize some of the evidence here. But from this and all that Kelhoffer adds, it’s very improbable these elements would exist in the LE unless the author of the LE knew the Canonical NT and intended his readers to have access to it themselves.

4.3.1. The LE’s Use of the NT

As Joel Marcus observes, the LE looks like “a compressed digest of resurrection appearances narrated in other Gospels” (MNT, p. 1090), so compressed, in fact, it “would not make sense to readers who did not know” the other Gospels and Acts. Indeed. The entire content of the LE is a pastiche of elements drawn from the three other Gospels, stitched together in a new way that eliminates contradictions
among their different accounts, and written in the writer’s own voice (not copying the other Gospels verbatim):

16:9b Jesus appears (a) to Mary Magdalene (b) alone (c) on the first day of the

week (John 20:1, 14-18)

16:9c from whom he had cast out seven demons (Luke 8:2)

16:10a she goes to tell the men (Luke 24:9-10; John 20:18)

16:10b as they are mourning and weeping (John 16:20; Matthew 9:15)

16:11 the men refuse to believe her (Luke 24:11)

16:12 Jesus appears (a) in a different form (b) to two of them (c) on a road

(Luke 24:13–32)

16:13a those two return and tell the others (Luke 24:34-35)

16:13b who still don’t believe them (fr. John 20:24-25; Luke 24:36-41)

16:14a Jesus appears (a) to the Eleven (b) indoors (c) in a context of taking food

(Luke 24:33-43; and combining John 20:19-29 and 21:5-14)

16:14b and remarks on their unbelief (Luke 24:38-39; John 20:26-29)

16:15 delivers the Great Commission (Matthew 28:19; Acts 1:8; Mark 6:12;

with direct verbal similarities in Mark 14:9; Matthew 24:14, 26:13)

16:16 emphasizes salvation and judgment (Acts 2:38, 16:31-33; John 3:18-21)

16:16 and the necessity of baptism (Acts 2:38-43; Matthew 28:19; John 3:5)

16:17a their powers will be a sign (Acts 2:43, 4:30, 5:12, 14:13)

16:17a casting out demons in his name (Mark 6:7, 6:13, 9:38-40; Luke 9:1,

10:17; Acts 5:16, 8:7, 16:18, 19:12-17; Matthew 7:22)

16:17b speaking with new tongues (Acts 2:4, 10:45-46, 19:6; 1 Cor. 14)

16:18a picking up serpents (Luke 10:19; Acts 28:2-6)

16:18c laying hands on the sick (Mark 5:23, 6:5; Luke 9:1-2; Acts 5:16, 6:6,

8:7, 9:17, 14:13, 19:11-12, 28:8; James 5:14-15)

16:19a Jesus ascends to heaven (Luke 24:51; John 20:17; Acts 1:2, 1:9-11)

16:19b sits down at the right hand of God (Acts 7:55-56, 5:31, 2:33; Rom. 8:34;

Eph. 1:20; Heb. 1:1; Col. 3:1; Mark 12:35-37, 14:62)

16:20a the disciples go out and preach everywhere (Mark 6:12; Luke 9:6,

24:47; Acts 1:4, 1:8, 2ff.)

16:20b and Jesus confirms the word by the signs that followed (Acts 14:3; Heb.

2:2-4)

The only element of the LE that doesn’t derive from the other three Gospels is the remark about ‘drinking deadly poison’ without effect. Papias claimed it was being said several generations after Mark that Justus Barsabbas (of Acts 1:23) drank poison without harm “by the grace of the Lord,” the only reference to such a power in early Christian literature.[19] How that would influence the LE is anybody’s guess. But the LE’s claim is more likely an inference from Luke 10:19, in which Jesus says “I have given you authority to tread upon serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy, and nothing shall in any way hurt you” (emphasis mine), which would certainly include poisons, especially given the juxtaposition of immunity to poisonous animals. Luke mentions scorpions and snakes, the LE snakes and poison, hence the substitution would be an easy economization of the whole thought of Luke 10:19.

The LE thus looks unmistakably like a summary of Matthew, Luke, Acts, and John—particularly Luke-Acts and John (whose styles also influenced the vocabulary and grammar of the LE, as noted in section 4.2), notably the two last Gospels to be written, and only ever logically found together in the canonical NT. Contrary to a common assumption, there is evidence that the traditional canon was assembled in
codex form already by the mid-2nd century (even though not yet declared the official NT by any particular authority).[20] But that’s still long after Mark would have died. One element is a near giveaway: the phrase ‘two of them’ (16:12) is verbatim: duo hex autôn, “two of them,” in fact a very unusual way to say this, yet found verbatim in Luke 24:13, the very story being alluded two here. That
suggests direct influence from Luke’s actual narrative. Kelhoffer (in MAM, pp. 140-50) adduces many more direct lifts from Luke-Acts and the other Gospels.

In fact, the LE would make no sense to a reader who had no access to the NT. Why is Mary suddenly alone? How did Jesus appear to her? Where? What did he say? Who are “the two men” and why are they traveling in the country? And what is meant by Jesus appearing “in a different form,” and why does he appear in that way only to them? Why in fact are there only “the eleven”? It’s commonly
forgotten that Mark never narrates or even mentions Judas’ death, nor specifically describes him as expelled from the group or in any other way less likely to see the risen Jesus (as 1 Cor. 15:5 implies he did), so if he were the author of the LE, his narrative would be inexplicably missing a major plot point. The LE clearly assumes familiarity with the NT explanations of Judas’ death and thus absence at the
appearance to the Disciples (e.g. Acts 1:17-26), and is obviously alluding to the appearance of Jesus to Mary Magdalene in John (a story not told in Matthew or Luke) and to the appearance of Jesus in disguise to Cleopas and his companion on the road to Emmaus in Luke (a story not told in Matthew or John). To a reader unfamiliar with those tales, the LE’s narrative is cryptic and frustratingly vague, and
essentially inexplicable. Why would anyone write a story like that? Only someone who knew the other stories—and knew his audience would or could as well.

The LE is not only a pastiche of the other Gospel accounts, it’s also an attempt at harmonization. To make the narrative consistent, the LE’s author did not incorporate every element of the canonical stories (which would have been logically impossible, or preposterously convoluted). He also deliberately conflates several themes and elements in the interest of smoothing over the remaining
contradictions, giving the appearance of a consistent sequence of events—and forcing the whole into a narratively consistent triadic structure (examined below). This kind of harmonizing pastiche exemplified by the LE is an example of the very practice most famously exemplified in Tatian’s Diatessaron (begun not long after the LE was probably composed), which took the same procedure and scaled it up to the entire Gospel (only copying words verbatim rather than writing in his own voice). Kelhoffer (in MAM, pp. 150-54) discusses other examples, demonstrating that the LE fits a literary fashion of the time.

JW:
Everyone is welcome to comment except for Harvey Dubish.

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

rhutchin · 04-18-2010, 05:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

JW:
What a nightmare...

What follows is Part 4.3.1 of a preliminary draft of:

Mark 16:9-20 as Forgery or Fabrication by Richard Carrier, Ph.D. (2009)

written for ErrancyWiki

posted here for commentary. I'll gradually post the other portions of his draft here. Enjoy!:

Quote:

4.3. Content Betrays Knowledge of the New Testament

The NT didn’t exist when Mark wrote, yet the LE not only betrays knowledge of the Canonical NT (allfour Gospels and Acts), it assumes the reader is aware of those contents of the NT or has access to them. As noted in section 4.2.1, this makes no sense coming from Mark, and very little sense coming from anyone at all, except someone who already knew all the stories related in the other three Gospels
(and Acts) and who thus set out to quickly summarize them, knowing full well the reader could easily find those accounts and get all the details omitted here (or would already know them). Mark never writes with such an assumption. But a commentator writing a separate summary of the Gospel appearances in the NT would write something exactly like this. That the LE exhibits stylistic similarities with the whole NT, including the Epistles (as just surveyed in section 4.2), further supports the conclusion that the author of the LE knew the whole NT, and in fact was so influenced by it as to have adopted many elements of its diverse style. The author of the LE therefore cannot have been Mark.

James Kelhoffer (in MAM, esp. pp. 48-155) has already extensively proved the LE used the other three Gospels (and Acts) and has refuted every critic of the notion. I will only summarize some of the evidence here. But from this and all that Kelhoffer adds, it’s very improbable these elements would exist in the LE unless the author of the LE knew the Canonical NT and intended his readers to have access to it themselves.

4.3.1. The LE’s Use of the NT

As Joel Marcus observes, the LE looks like “a compressed digest of resurrection appearances narrated in other Gospels” (MNT, p. 1090), so compressed, in fact, it “would not make sense to readers who did not know” the other Gospels and Acts. Indeed. The entire content of the LE is a pastiche of elements drawn from the three other Gospels, stitched together in a new way that eliminates contradictions
among their different accounts, and written in the writer’s own voice (not copying the other Gospels verbatim):

16:9b Jesus appears (a) to Mary Magdalene (b) alone (c) on the first day of the

week (John 20:1, 14-18)

16:9c from whom he had cast out seven demons (Luke 8:2)

16:10a she goes to tell the men (Luke 24:9-10; John 20:18)

16:10b as they are mourning and weeping (John 16:20; Matthew 9:15)

16:11 the men refuse to believe her (Luke 24:11)

16:12 Jesus appears (a) in a different form (b) to two of them (c) on a road

(Luke 24:13–32)

16:13a those two return and tell the others (Luke 24:34-35)

16:13b who still don’t believe them (fr. John 20:24-25; Luke 24:36-41)

16:14a Jesus appears (a) to the Eleven (b) indoors (c) in a context of taking food

(Luke 24:33-43; and combining John 20:19-29 and 21:5-14)

16:14b and remarks on their unbelief (Luke 24:38-39; John 20:26-29)

16:15 delivers the Great Commission (Matthew 28:19; Acts 1:8; Mark 6:12;

with direct verbal similarities in Mark 14:9; Matthew 24:14, 26:13)

16:16 emphasizes salvation and judgment (Acts 2:38, 16:31-33; John 3:18-21)

16:16 and the necessity of baptism (Acts 2:38-43; Matthew 28:19; John 3:5)

16:17a their powers will be a sign (Acts 2:43, 4:30, 5:12, 14:13)

16:17a casting out demons in his name (Mark 6:7, 6:13, 9:38-40; Luke 9:1,

10:17; Acts 5:16, 8:7, 16:18, 19:12-17; Matthew 7:22)

16:17b speaking with new tongues (Acts 2:4, 10:45-46, 19:6; 1 Cor. 14)

16:18a picking up serpents (Luke 10:19; Acts 28:2-6)

16:18c laying hands on the sick (Mark 5:23, 6:5; Luke 9:1-2; Acts 5:16, 6:6,

8:7, 9:17, 14:13, 19:11-12, 28:8; James 5:14-15)

16:19a Jesus ascends to heaven (Luke 24:51; John 20:17; Acts 1:2, 1:9-11)

16:19b sits down at the right hand of God (Acts 7:55-56, 5:31, 2:33; Rom. 8:34;

Eph. 1:20; Heb. 1:1; Col. 3:1; Mark 12:35-37, 14:62)

16:20a the disciples go out and preach everywhere (Mark 6:12; Luke 9:6,

24:47; Acts 1:4, 1:8, 2ff.)

16:20b and Jesus confirms the word by the signs that followed (Acts 14:3; Heb.

2:2-4)

- 16:9b Jesus appears (a) to Mary Magdalene (b) alone (c) on the first day of the week (John 20:1, 14-18)

Mark 16:2 and John 20:1 relate Mary Magdalene going to the tomb on the first day of the week. Mark 16:9 uses unique language to refer to Christ being risen on the first day of the week that is not contained in John.

While both John and Mark relate Mary's experiences, this is not personal information that only John alone would have had. Both John and Mark give the reader information about that event not recalled by the other writer. Each account is clearly unique and does not require that Mark have read John's account first. So different are the accounts that we cannot conclude that Mark's account was drawn from John's account.

- 16:9c from whom he had cast out seven demons (Luke 8:2)

This is not personal information that only Luke alone would have had. Given that Luke tells us he interviewed people to get his information, we can easily conclude that Mark did not have to read Luke in order to learn this information. It is just as likely that Mary Magdalene told of her experience in meeting Jesus often to many people. One might quibble that Mark does not describe Mary Magdalene as the one from whom Jesus had cast out seven demons earlier in his gospel, but that merely heightens the reader's interest in Jesus' decision to reveal Himself first to Mary after His resurrection.

- 16:10a she goes to tell the men (Luke 24:9-10; John 20:18)

Luke 24:9-10; John 20:18 refer to two different events. Luke has nothing to do with the issue at hand. John and Mark are speaking of the same event but each gives very unique information such that no one can conclude that Mark's source was John's account.

- 16:10b as they are mourning and weeping (John 16:20; Matthew 9:15)

John and Matthew recall instances where Jesus predicted that the disciples would mourn. Given that Peter is the alleged source of the information for Mark, there is nothing surprising that Mark should know that the disciples were mourning after the crucifixion of Jesus.

- 16:11 the men refuse to believe her (Luke 24:11)

Luke and Mark are talking about two different events. Luke's account refers to the women telling of the empty tomb. Mark's account refers to Mary's telling of Jesus being alive. Regardless, Mary would be the source of this information and Mark does not need Luke's account to know this. Certainly, Mark does not not mirror Luke's account.

Judging by the first items on the list, it is obvious that this list is very superficial and provides proof of nothing. If there is a legitimate argument to be made, it is not made by this list.

Johnny Skeptic · 04-19-2010, 09:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Judging by the first items on the list, it is obvious that this list is very superficial and provides proof of nothing. If there is a legitimate argument to be made, it is not made by this list.

In your opinion, is the claim that God inspired and preserved the originals free of errors except for obvious copyist and scribal errors legitimate? If so, if you wish, we can discuss inerrancy in a thread at the Abrahamic Religions forum.

rhutchin · 04-19-2010, 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

JW:
What follows is Part 4.3.1 of a preliminary draft of:

Mark 16:9-20 as Forgery or Fabrication by Richard Carrier, Ph.D. (2009)

written for ErrancyWiki

posted here for commentary. I'll gradually post the other portions of his draft here. Enjoy!:

...

The only element of the LE that doesn’t derive from the other three Gospels is the remark about ‘drinking deadly poison’ without effect...

There is virtually nothing (with maybe 2-3 exceptions) that we read in Mark that is not also found in the other gospels (and this holds even excluding the gospel of John). Matthew is an expansion of Mark and repeats perhaps 90 percent of Mark. Luke repeats events in Mark that Matthew ignores so that 99 percent of Mark can be found in Matthew and Luke. To find this pattern repeated in the LE is not remarkable. Why should it be?? The preaching of the gospel by the apostles and disciples which certainly consisted of everything we find in the gospels was carried out for years before Mark writes the first account and this thought to derive from the preaching of Peter. As both Matthew and Luke were written after Mark's account, it is not surprising that Matthew and Luke should freely borrow from Mark.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Draft Continued

The LE thus looks unmistakably like a summary of Matthew, Luke, Acts, and John—particularly Luke-Acts and John...

So does Mark's chapter 1. Should we then presume that the first chapter of Mark was not written by Mark? Unfortunately, it is the LE that has gone missing from some copies and this fires up the imagination to explain what this means. Unfortunately, Mark begins his gospel with a summary of events recorded in greater detail elsewhere, so we should not be surprised to see Mark employ a similar method at the end.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Draft Continued

...One element is a near giveaway: the phrase ‘two of them’ (16:12) is verbatim: duo hex autôn, “two of them,” in fact a very unusual way to say this, yet found verbatim in Luke 24:13, the very story being alluded two here. That suggests direct influence from Luke’s actual narrative...

Mark has dusin hex autôn, so not exactly verbatim. Nonetheless, this story was surely repeated among the disciples often. It is not information that we should expect to become known only after Luke's account is circulated.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Draft Continued

In fact, the LE would make no sense to a reader who had no access to the NT. Why is Mary suddenly alone? How did Jesus appear to her? Where? What did he say? Who are “the two men” and why are they traveling in the country? And what is meant by Jesus appearing “in a different form,” and why does he appear in that way only to them? Why in fact are there only “the eleven”?

Perhaps, it might make less sense to the reader, but chapter one is similarly obtuse. Perhaps, this prompted Matthew to take Mark and expand it to include greater detail. Mark refers to "the eleven" showing us that he is aware of Judas' absence even if he does not tell the reader what happened to Judas. Certainly, Mark does not flatter Judas elsewhere in his account.

Mr 3:19 And Judas Iscariot, which also betrayed him:...
Mr 14:10 And Judas Iscariot, one of the twelve, went unto the chief priests, to betray him unto them.
Mr 14:43 And immediately, while he yet spake, cometh Judas, one of the twelve, and with him a great multitude with swords and staves, from the chief priests and the scribes and the elders.

The LE indicates only that the story of Judas was well known and not necessary to repeat with reference to the eleven sufficient for the reader to be made aware of that which he already knew without Mark telling him again.

JoeWallack · 04-27-2010, 07:34 AM

JW:
What follows is Part 4.3.2-3 of a preliminary draft of:

Mark 16:9-20 as Forgery or Fabrication by Richard Carrier, Ph.D. (2009)

written for ErrancyWiki

posted here for commentary. I'll gradually post the other portions of his draft here. Enjoy!:

Quote:

4.3.2. Testing the Reverse Thesis

Confirmation of this conclusion comes from the fact that the thesis doesn’t work in reverse. Though the LE clearly exhibits knowledge of the NT Gospels, the NT Gospels show no knowledge of the LE. Luke and Matthew follow Mark closely up to verse 16:8, but then diverge completely. What themes they share with the LE have no similar order or context between them, or with the LE. The LE harmonizes
them, but they fail to retain any of the LE’s harmony. Thus, we can prove the LE was aware of their divergent accounts (so as to harmonize them), but the same evidence argues against the NT being aware of the LE (because no element of that harmony was retained in them).

Instead, the LE appears to be a coherent narrative unit inspired by the NT. It depicts three resurrection appearances, in agreement with John 21:14, which says Jesus appeared three times. And all three appearances have a related narrative structure: all three involve an appearance of Jesus (16:9, 16:12, 16:14), followed by a report or statement of that fact, always to the Disciples (16:10, 16:13, 16:14),
which the first two times is met with unbelief (16:11, 16:13), while the third time the Disciples are berated for that unbelief, when Jesus finally appears to them all (16:14). This running theme of doubt also appears in the other Gospels, but in entirely different ways, showing no cognizance of the LE (Matthew 28:16-17, Luke 24:10-11 and 24:36-41, and John 20:24-28). The author of the LE clearly
intended to harmonize the three other accounts by merging them together in a semblance of a coherent sequence, a sequence that makes no sense except at the hands of someone who knew the three other Gospels and had in mind to unite and harmonize their accounts while glossing over their discrepancies.

One might hypothesize that this shared theme of doubt, as well as other shared themes (e.g. Mark 16:15-20 summarizes the “commission” theme present in the other three Gospels: Luke 24:46-47, John 20:23, Matthew 28:18-20), indicates the LE was the source for the Gospels. But that fails to fit. Those later authors must have each chosen coincidentally to drop entirely different elements and to
completely rewrite the rest, all in a different order, and in consequence repeatedly and irreconcilably contradicting Mark, which all makes far less sense than the opposite thesis, that the author of the LE was harmonizing their accounts after the fact. The LE also lacks the details that are necessary to make sense of each story, and thus assumes those details were already in print. So the LE more likely
abbreviates the Gospel narratives. Those narratives are far less likely to be embellishing the LE. Moreover, the LE summarizes the appearances and events in all of the Gospels, whereas none of those Gospels used all of the LE, but each must have chosen different parts to retain. They instead seem unaware of the other appearances and events related in the LE. It’s thus improbable that the Gospels
used the LE (but conveniently left out exactly those stories that the other Gospels left in, completely altered what they included, and sharply contradicted Mark in the process) but very probable that the LE used the Gospels (smartly changing or leaving out the details that contradict each other). The result, as noted, is a situation in which none of the Gospels follow the LE even in outline, while the LE follows all three Gospels, though only as closely as is logically possible, assembling all their diverse stories into a single narrative. The coincidence is unbelievable on any other theory.

4.3.3. The Robinson Thesis

Maurice Robinson attempts to argue the LE was composed by Mark because it employs the rhetorical storytelling devices of self-emulation by which Mark is well known to have composed his Gospel, e.g. as shown by Randel Helms in Gospel Fictions (1988). However, the triadic structure just revealed (in section 4.3.2) and the harmonizing pastiche of material using the sources tabulated (in section 4.3.1)
explains far better all the details Robinson implausibly claims emulate earlier sections of Mark. Moreover, a forger could just as easily parody Mark as Mark himself could, thus even if correct, the Robinson thesis fails to independently establish that the LE was written by Mark.

In his first example (Mark 1:32-39, cf. Black, PEM, pp. 68-69) many of the parallels Robinson adduces are specious (i.e. one must stretch the imagination to see a meaningful connection) and few make any literary sense (i.e. there is no intelligible reason for the parallels and reversals being alleged), while any connections we might expect to exist on his thesis (e.g. resisting serpents and poisons, the role of laying on hands, the significance of baptism, the theme of doubt, the first day of the week, appearing “in a different form,” etc.) are all absent. Not that all of these would be expected, of course, but some at least should be, e.g. Robinson’s claim of an earlier parallel use of exorcism and healing entails the matching third component (immunity to poison) should be present. Otherwise the ending does not match the beginning. All we have are generic elements repeated throughout Mark and the whole NT.

There is a better case to be made that Mark 16:1-8 reverses 1:1-9, which would instead argue that verse 8 is the original ending—as framing a story this way (ending it by reversing the way it began) was a recognized literary practice of the era (called an ironic inclusio), and would neatly explain many of the peculiar features of the OE (as a manifestation of irony, a device Mark uses repeatedly), making them intelligible, in exactly the way Robinson’s theory does not make 16:9-20 any more intelligible in light of 1:32-39.[20a] This is not to argue Mark did end at verse 8, only that Robinson’s thesis is less plausible than applying his own method to arguing Mark did end at verse 8.

Similarly Robinson’s attempt to see parallels elsewhere in Mark (in Black, PEM, pp. 70-72) are either contrived (“appointing the twelve” is supposed to parallel “appearing to eleven” even though neither verb nor number are the same; Mark 6:13 refers to healing by anointing with oil, not laying on hands, which actually argues against the connection Robinson claims), or simply erroneous (e.g. he
mistakenly claims Mark 3:15 contains a reference to healing). The features he claims as parallels are also nonsensically out of order and lack any of the precise cues typical of Mark’s practice of emulation. As with Robinson’s first hypothesis, none of the features actually peculiar to the LE (e.g. immunity to poisons, damning the unbaptized, appearing “in a different form,” etc.) are explained this way, whereas every feature (these and the ones Robinson singles out) are already explained (and explained much more plausibly, thoroughly, and accurately) by the triadic harmonization thesis.

I am normally quite sympathetic to the kind of analysis Robinson attempts, but his applications fail on every single relevant mimesis criterion (order, density, distinctiveness, and interpretability). The patterns he claims to see simply aren’t there. There are only generic elements ubiquitous throughout early Christian and NT literature. In fact, every feature Robinson identifies is not only explicable on the
theory that Mark didn’t compose the LE (but instead a harmonizer using Mark and the other Gospels did), but more explicable, particularly as the latter theory explains far more of the content of the LE (infact, all of it).

JW:
Everyone is welcome to comment except for Harvey Dubish. I think 4.3.2 needs to be toned down. Once you identify the parallels between the LE and the other Canonical resurrection sightings you can not simply conclude that the other sightings show no knowledge of the LE. Ben appetite RH.

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

JoeWallack · 03-11-2011, 09:46 AM

JW:
Dr. Richard Carrier's complete article has now been posted at ErrancyWiki

Mark 16:9-20 as Forgery or Fabrication by Richard Carrier, Ph.D. (2009)

I have faith that it is immediately the best article ever written on the subject. This is because the consequences of the original ending at 16:8 and subsequent forgery/fabrication attempts are so devastating to the Assertians of Christians that no one other than Textual Critics and Apologists (DCH, look out!) have written significantly on the subject. What we tend to see instead are desperate attempts by Christian authors to avoid either 16:8 as original ending and/or what that means:

The Function of Mark 16:8 Stephen Carlson

More on Mark 16:8 Larry Hurtado

Dr. Carrier's article is a good works in progress and correspondents here are welcome to comment on it in this Thread or at the related ErrancyWiki Talk Page:

Mark 16:9-20 as Forgery or Fabrication by Richard Carrier, Ph.D. (2009) Talk Page

The article is sufficiently valuable that it has protection status at ErrancyWiki and only Admins can edit it. It can certainly be improved and Dr. Carrier is very good at considering constructive criticism. I think the biggest improvement needed now is to change the explanation of why the forged/fabricated ending is important.

Dr. Carrier presents it as an Errancy issue but I think the most important issue is an Evidential one. Of course here in the Real World resurrections are Impossible so it does not matter what level of evidence the Gospels provide for it. But step into the Christian world where resurrections are possible and the Gospels as evidence do matter. The single key belief which defines Christianity is belief in the resurrection. An original ending of 16:8 in the original Gospel narrative shows that there was no sighting of a resurrected Jesus. Thus in the Christian World, the best potential evidence for resurrection does not exist. The next best potential evidence, witness by an identified person of a resurrected Jesus, also does not exist. In contrast, "Mark" is clear that the evidence for a resurrected Jesus is based on the belief of an unidentified person which is completely consistent with "Mark's" dominant theme that belief is based on Faith and not Evidence. Observe how this "evidence" of "Mark" is closest to actual history (no resurrection). There was no known witness to a resurrected Jesus. Just a belief that Jesus was resurrected and than a belief that there were witnesses.

The forged/fabricated endings of "Mark" and the endings of the subsequent Gospels are all efforts to provide supposed evidence for the resurrection and as noted above we still see the same external pressure to avoid the lack of evidence evidenced by 16:8.

Christians are largely in denial about this problem thinking that Paul and subsequent Gospels provide the evidence for the resurrection with "Mark" just being the odd exception, but Paul is clear that his witness of a resurrected Jesus was a vision and he equates other's witness here with his (revelation). The subsequent Gospels can not provide independent support for witness of a resurrected Jesus since they are dependent on "Mark" and ironically, in the process of contradicting "Mark" here, are discrediting their primary source.

The broader problem of 16:8 for Christian Assertian is that if the Christians fabricated/forged their most important/key assertion, witness to Jesus' supposed resurrection, than potentially they could have likewise fabricated/forged any assertion.

This article shows the power of the ErrancyWiki force. We now have huge problems for Christian Assertian at both ends of the Jespecies:

Luke vs. Matthew on the Year of Christ's Birth by Richard Carrier, Ph.D. (2006)

Grievous/significant error at the start of Jesus' supposed life and at the supposed end. What else is potentially in error? Everything in between.

Interestingly, when the Internet was first created Christians saw it as an opportunity to preach Christianity where it had not been preached before and expand their numbers beyond the 1/3 of the world population which Revelation assures us is the Mark of followers of Satan. In an irony that I think the author of "Mark" would have really appreciated the Internet is having the opposite effect as the success of ideas is no longer dependent by the number of people who say them and how loud they say it. The arguments now stand or fall on their own. It's the intellectual that counts on the Internet, not emotion.

Everyone is welcome to comment except for Harvey Dubish.

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

JoeWallack · 03-12-2011, 08:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

What we tend to see instead are desperate attempts by Christian authors to avoid either 16:8 as original ending and/or what that means:

The Function of Mark 16:8 Stephen Carlson

More on Mark 16:8 Larry Hurtado

JW:
I left out the most recent/desperate attempt at the most popular blog:

Mark’s Missing Ending: Article in The Bible and Interpretation James McGrath

Here McGrath concludes that "Mark" and his readers definitely knew what "Mark" never wrote, that there was a post-resurrection story:

Quote:

There can be no doubt that, even if the written Gospel of Mark ended at 16:8, the story known to the author and his readers did not.

Joseph

Apologist, noun. One who has been defending so much with so little for so long, they are now qualified to argue anything with nothing.

ErranyWiki

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

04-12-2010, 02:53 PM	#52
Johnny Skeptic Banned Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Florida Posts: 19,796	Message to rhutchin: Regardless of what happens in this thread, it is a virtual certainty that a global flood did not occur. Even some conservative Christian experts know that. If you wish, we can discuss the global flood at the Evolution/Creation forum. In addition, if you wish, you can participate in my new thread on inerrancy at the Abrahamic Religions forum.

03-11-2011, 09:46 AM	#59
JoeWallack Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Nazareth Posts: 2,357	JW: Dr. Richard Carrier's complete article has now been posted at ErrancyWiki Mark 16:9-20 as Forgery or Fabrication by Richard Carrier, Ph.D. (2009) I have faith that it is immediately the best article ever written on the subject. This is because the consequences of the original ending at 16:8 and subsequent forgery/fabrication attempts are so devastating to the Assertians of Christians that no one other than Textual Critics and Apologists (DCH, look out!) have written significantly on the subject. What we tend to see instead are desperate attempts by Christian authors to avoid either 16:8 as original ending and/or what that means: The Function of Mark 16:8 Stephen Carlson More on Mark 16:8 Larry Hurtado Dr. Carrier's article is a good works in progress and correspondents here are welcome to comment on it in this Thread or at the related ErrancyWiki Talk Page: Mark 16:9-20 as Forgery or Fabrication by Richard Carrier, Ph.D. (2009) Talk Page The article is sufficiently valuable that it has protection status at ErrancyWiki and only Admins can edit it. It can certainly be improved and Dr. Carrier is very good at considering constructive criticism. I think the biggest improvement needed now is to change the explanation of why the forged/fabricated ending is important. Dr. Carrier presents it as an Errancy issue but I think the most important issue is an Evidential one. Of course here in the Real World resurrections are Impossible so it does not matter what level of evidence the Gospels provide for it. But step into the Christian world where resurrections are possible and the Gospels as evidence do matter. The single key belief which defines Christianity is belief in the resurrection. An original ending of 16:8 in the original Gospel narrative shows that there was no sighting of a resurrected Jesus. Thus in the Christian World, the best potential evidence for resurrection does not exist. The next best potential evidence, witness by an identified person of a resurrected Jesus, also does not exist. In contrast, "Mark" is clear that the evidence for a resurrected Jesus is based on the belief of an unidentified person which is completely consistent with "Mark's" dominant theme that belief is based on Faith and not Evidence. Observe how this "evidence" of "Mark" is closest to actual history (no resurrection). There was no known witness to a resurrected Jesus. Just a belief that Jesus was resurrected and than a belief that there were witnesses. The forged/fabricated endings of "Mark" and the endings of the subsequent Gospels are all efforts to provide supposed evidence for the resurrection and as noted above we still see the same external pressure to avoid the lack of evidence evidenced by 16:8. Christians are largely in denial about this problem thinking that Paul and subsequent Gospels provide the evidence for the resurrection with "Mark" just being the odd exception, but Paul is clear that his witness of a resurrected Jesus was a vision and he equates other's witness here with his (revelation). The subsequent Gospels can not provide independent support for witness of a resurrected Jesus since they are dependent on "Mark" and ironically, in the process of contradicting "Mark" here, are discrediting their primary source. The broader problem of 16:8 for Christian Assertian is that if the Christians fabricated/forged their most important/key assertion, witness to Jesus' supposed resurrection, than potentially they could have likewise fabricated/forged any assertion. This article shows the power of the ErrancyWiki force. We now have huge problems for Christian Assertian at both ends of the Jespecies: Luke vs. Matthew on the Year of Christ's Birth by Richard Carrier, Ph.D. (2006) Grievous/significant error at the start of Jesus' supposed life and at the supposed end. What else is potentially in error? Everything in between. Interestingly, when the Internet was first created Christians saw it as an opportunity to preach Christianity where it had not been preached before and expand their numbers beyond the 1/3 of the world population which Revelation assures us is the Mark of followers of Satan. In an irony that I think the author of "Mark" would have really appreciated the Internet is having the opposite effect as the success of ideas is no longer dependent by the number of people who say them and how loud they say it. The arguments now stand or fall on their own. It's the intellectual that counts on the Internet, not emotion. Everyone is welcome to comment except for Harvey Dubish. Joseph ErrancyWiki

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.