Freethought & Rationalism Archive

JoeWallack · 03-02-2010, 07:33 AM

JW:
What follows is the Introduction portion 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:

1. Introduction: Problem and Significance

Honest Bibles will tell you (in a footnote at least) that in the Gospel according to Mark all the verses after 16:8 are not found in “some of the oldest manuscripts.” In fact, it is now the near unanimous agreement of experts that all those verses were either forged or composed by some other author and inserted well after the original author composed the Gospel (I’ll call that original author “Mark,” though we aren’t in fact certain of his name). The evidence is persuasive, both internal and external. In fact, this is one of the clearest examples of Christians meddling with the manuscripts of the canonical Bible, inserting what they wanted their books to have said (and possibly even subtracting what they didn’t want it to have said, although I won’t explore that possibility here). For the conclusion that those final verses were composed by a different author and added to Mark is more than reasonably certain.

If Mark did not write verses 16:9-20, but some anonymous person(s) later added those verses, pretending (or erroneously believing) that Mark wrote them (as in fact they must have), then this Gospel, and thus the Bible as a whole, cannot be regarded as inerrant, or even consistently reliable. Were those words intended by God, he would have inspired Mark to write them in the first place. That he didn’t entails those words were not inspired by God, and therefore the Bible we have is flawed, tainted by sinful human forgery or fallibility. Even the astonishing attempt to claim the forger was inspired by God cannot gain credit. For it is so inherently probable as to be effectively certain that a real God would have inspired Mark in the first place and not waited to inspire a later forger. The alternative is simply unbelievable. And in any case, a lie cannot be inspired, nor can a manifest error,
yet this material is presented as among that which is “according to Mark,” which is either a lie or an error.[1]

This has a further, even greater consequence. Since we are actually lucky the evidence of this meddling survived, we should expect that other instances of meddling have occurred for which the evidence didn’t survive, calling into doubt the rest of the New Testament (hereafter NT). Since the survival of evidence is so unlikely for changes made before c. 150 A.D. (fifty to eighty years after the NT books were supposedly written), and in some cases even for changes made before c. 250 A.D. (well over a hundred more years later)—as we have few to no manuscripts of earlier date, and none complete, and scarce reliable testimonies—we can expect that many other changes could have survived undetected.[2] And yet alterations in the earlier period are the most likely. For when the fewest copies existed, an emender’s hope of succeeding was at its greatest, as well as his actual rate of success.

The interpolation of the Markan ending thus refutes Biblical inerrancy. As Wilbur Pickering put it:

Are we to say that God was unable to protect the text of Mark or that He just couldn’t be bothered? I see no other alternative—either He didn’t care or He was helpless. And either option is fatal to the claim that Mark's Gospel is ‘God-breathed’.[3]

The whole canon falls to the same conclusion. This dichotomy is entailed by the fact of the Markan interpolation. It forces us to fall on either of two horns, yet on neither of which can a doctrine of inerrancy survive. If God couldn’t protect His Book from such meddling, then he hardly counts as a god, but in any case such inability entails he can’t have ensured the rest of the received text of the Bible
was inerrant (since if he couldn’t in this case, he couldn’t in any), which leaves no rational basis for maintaining the inerrancy of the Bible, as then even God could not have produced such a thing. On the other hand, if God could but did not care to protect His Book from such meddling, then we have no rational basis for maintaining that he cared to protect it from any other errors, either, whether those now detectable or not. Since the Bible we now have can only be inerrant if God wanted it to be, and the evidence proves he didn’t want it to be, therefore it can’t be inerrant. It does no good to insist the Bible was only inerrant in the originals, since a God who cared to make the originals inerrant would surely care to keep them that way. Otherwise, what would have been the point? We don’t have those originals.

Only the most convoluted and implausible system of excuses for God can escape this conclusion, and any faith that requires such a dubious monstrosity is surely proven bankrupt by that very fact.

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

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

John Kesler · 03-02-2010, 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Carrier

The interpolation of the Markan ending thus refutes Biblical inerrancy. As Wilbur Pickering put it:

Are we to say that God was unable to protect the text of Mark or that He just couldn’t be bothered? I see no other alternative—either He didn’t care or He was helpless. And either option is fatal to the claim that Mark's Gospel is ‘God-breathed’.[3]

Including the long ending of Mark refutes biblical inerrancy in another way, since this appendage--along with Luke 24 and John 20--assumes a Jerusalem-based Easter appearance, while Mark 16:1-8 (and Matthew 28 and John 21) are Galilee-based. Notice the incongruity:

Quote:

Mark 16:

5 As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man, dressed in a white robe, sitting on the right side; and they were alarmed. 6 But he said to them, "Do not be alarmed; you are looking for Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has been raised; he is not here. Look, there is the place they laid him. 7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see him, just as he told you." 8 So they went out and fled from the tomb, for terror and amazement had seized them; and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.

9 [[Now after he rose early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from whom he had cast out seven demons. 10 She went out and told those who had been with him, while they were mourning and weeping. 11But when they heard that he was alive and had been seen by her, they would not believe it. 12 After this he appeared in another form to two of them, as they were walking into the country. 13 And they went back and told the rest, but they did not believe them. 14 Later he appeared to the eleven themselves as they were sitting at the table; and he upbraided them for their lack of faith and stubbornness, because they had not believed those who saw him after he had risen.

Verse 7 accords with Jesus' prediction in Mark 14:26-28 (see also Matthew 26:31-32 and 28:7-10,16), but is obviously contradictory to verse 14, which appears based on the Jerusalem appearances of Luke 24:36-49 and John 20:19-23:

judge · 03-03-2010, 03:57 PM

Quote:

The evidence is persuasive, both internal and external.

Quote:

If Mark did not write verses 16:9-20, but some anonymous person(s) later added those verses, pretending (or erroneously believing) that Mark wrote them (as in fact they must have), then this Gospel, and thus the Bible as a whole, cannot be regarded as inerrant,

Problem is that that minority who regard the bible as inerrant are not going to agree the evidence is persuasive, and those who agree the evidence is persuasive wouldn't give toss whether the bible is inerrant.

John Kesler · 03-04-2010, 07:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

Problem is that that minority who regard the bible as inerrant are not going to agree the evidence is persuasive, and those who agree the evidence is persuasive wouldn't give toss whether the bible is inerrant.

Ben Witherington III believes "that the Bible is both truthful and trustworthy in whatever it intends to teach us" and that we should "trust what 2 Tim. 3.16 says about the OT." But he also concludes that the original ending of Mark is lost (pp. 415 ff).

Loomis · 03-04-2010, 07:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

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

Quote:

... and thus the Bible as a whole, cannot be regarded as inerrant, or even consistently reliable. Were those words intended by God, he would have inspired Mark to write them in the first place. That he didn’t entails those words were not inspired by God, and therefore the Bible we have is flawed, tainted by sinful human forgery or fallibility.

Why does he say stupid stuff like this?

The words in blue are a huge turn-off. <edited> He sounds like he just discovered his atheism a week ago. Carrier needs to get a clue.

Dear Richard,

Of course the bible has errors. Ya know why?

BECAUSE THERE IS NO GOD.

Get over it and grow up. :banghead:

We need credible bible scholars who know how to form an argument and make a point. What we have are a bunch of idiots who can’t get out of the gate because they are still hung up with emotional artifacts. For Christ’s sake, if you want to talk about Mark then talk about Mark. Don’t drag errancy or fallibility into it; you end up sounding like Joe Wallack.

Yours truly,

Loomis

Toto · 03-04-2010, 07:55 PM

Unfortunately, there are lots of people in the US who do think that the Bible is inerrant. The article was written for a wiki that is devoted to proving them wrong.

Loomis · 03-04-2010, 08:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Unfortunately, there are lots of people in the US who do think that the Bible is inerrant. The article was written for a wiki that is devoted to proving them wrong.

Maybe it’s time for academia to leave the Believers behind and move the subject forward without them. This whole thing about errancy seems really retarded.

When I read that I feel like I'm looking in on a bunch of 15 year olds. We don’t more of the SkepticsAnnotatedBible mentality. We need good scholars who can form informed opinions on subjects like how Christianity came into existence? What did this author mean when he said this or that? And has this passage been redacted?

judge · 03-04-2010, 08:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loomis

When I read that I feel like I'm looking in on a bunch of 15 year olds. We don’t more of the SkepticsAnnotatedBible mentality. We need good scholars who can form informed opinions on subjects like how Christianity came into existence? What did this author mean when he said this or that? And has this passage been redacted?

I would have to agree with your sentiments here. As a former fundamentalist and former inerrantist looking for better answers (in a whole range of areas) I find it frustrating that too much rationalist material in this area is from those reacting against nutty religious ideas rather than coolly looking at the evidence.

WAR_ON_ERROR · 03-05-2010, 01:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loomis

When I read that I feel like I'm looking in on a bunch of 15 year olds. We don’t more of the SkepticsAnnotatedBible mentality. We need good scholars who can form informed opinions on subjects like how Christianity came into existence? What did this author mean when he said this or that? And has this passage been redacted?

I would have to agree with your sentiments here. As a former fundamentalist and former inerrantist looking for better answers (in a whole range of areas) I find it frustrating that too much rationalist material in this area is from those reacting against nutty religious ideas rather than coolly looking at the evidence.

While I'm not really sure why an inerrantist can't simply just disown the ending of Mark and call the rest of the Bible inerrant, one would have to be grossly unaware of the rest of Carrier's work to come to the conclusion you and others have come to. Carrier is obviously free to engage a range of audiences and he had just two projects to do for the errancywiki. The shallow end of the pool is just as persistent in our culture as the rest of it.

Ben

dog-on · 03-05-2010, 01:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loomis

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

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

Why does he say stupid stuff like this?

The words in blue are a huge turn-off. <edited for consistency> He sounds like he just discovered his atheism a week ago. Carrier needs to get a clue.

Dear Richard,

Of course the bible has errors. Ya know why?

BECAUSE THERE IS NO GOD.

Get over it and grow up. :banghead:

We need credible bible scholars who know how to form an argument and make a point. What we have are a bunch of idiots who can’t get out of the gate because they are still hung up with emotional artifacts. For Christ’s sake, if you want to talk about Mark then talk about Mark. Don’t drag errancy or fallibility into it; you end up sounding like Joe Wallack.

Yours truly,

Loomis

You didn't read a bit of tongue 'n cheek in this article?

I did.

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

03-04-2010, 07:55 PM	#6
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Unfortunately, there are lots of people in the US who do think that the Bible is inerrant. The article was written for a wiki that is devoted to proving them wrong.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.