JoeWallack

Like Father, like son (of man). F(ing)Lie Too. Be Afraid. Be Very Afraid.

JW:
Apologists who have Faith that 16:8 is not the original ending of "Mark" usually make the claim that because 16:8 ends with the Greek word "for" this is either proof that it was not the original ending or at least makes it extremely unlikely. Indeed, Amateur Christians on our own holy Threads here have argued the same.

When we move to a higher class of Christian though there appears to be less certainty that "for" is necessarily proof for an unoriginal ending. In the most detailed critical commentary of "Mark" that I Am aware of, The New International Greek Testament Commentary (or via: amazon.co.uk), R.T. France writes on page 672:

The question this Thread will try to answer though is is the final offending phrase of "Mark":

http://www.zhubert.com/bible?book=Ma...ter=16&verse=8

not merely proof or even extremely strong evidence that 16:8 is not original, but actually evidence For it's originality?

Let's consider other Specific usages of the offending phrase by "Mark" first (not necessarily exactly the same):

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Mark_9:6

"For he knew not what to answer; for they became sore afraid. (ASV)"

And the relevant offending Greek phrase:

"ἔκφοβοι γὰρ ἐγένοντο"

Note that the "for" is after the "afraid" again although "γὰρ" is not the last word here. France rightly notes the similarity of the phrases as ammunition that the offending phrase is within "Mark's" vocabulary. But what about comparing the Contexts, which France neglects to do:

Note the Amazing parallels between this story and the post resurrection story. In each case the followers of Jesus receive the most Amazing evidence that they specifically will receive. Jesus' Disciples see Jesus Transfigured and Jesus' women followers hear that Jesus resurrected. Both groups Fail to understand what the information means and have an extreme Negative reaction rather than a positive one. Both reactions are fear which are naturally placed at the end of the story.

In Summary than, "Mark's" use of "ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ" at the end of his Gospel not only parallels a similar usage earlier in the Gospel but also parallels the Context of the previous usage with the following Tags:

1) Amazing evidence of Jesus.

2) Witness of Disciples/Followers.

3) Reaction of Fear.

4) Failure to Speak.

At this point I leave it to the understanding of the Dear Reader to find other places in "Mark" where the above 4 step formula can be found or for extra credit where such usage can be found in "Mark" at the Beginning and End of a pericope.

Using Peter's Historical Methodology we can be certain that there wasn't any Historical Transfiguration or Resurrection so there wasn't anything for the Historical Disciples/Followers to be afraid of. Is the real Fear than that of the Apologists who are afraid that "Mark" really ends with 16:8 giving them what for?



Joseph

FAITH, n.
Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel.

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

Peter Kirby

Maybe I'm dense here, but the thrust of your argument is that Mark 16:1-8 is original to GMark.

Does this mean that the original GMark could not have continued past 16:8, and that ending be lost? I'm not sure how it does. We've had speculative threads on what such an ending could be before here.

I like the hypothesis that 16:8 was the terminus of the Gospel; I don't see how you've confirmed it.

JoeWallack

JW:
I think you understand now that:

1) My argument is that 16:8 is the original end of "Mark".

2) My argument is the Internal evidence also favors 16:8 as the original end of "Mark" (in addition to the External evidence).

Modern Christian Bible scholarship generally accepts that Extant alternative endings of "Mark" are probably unoriginal. It likes to suspect though that the original ending may have been lost. I see this suspicion as fueled by Faith and Fear (that 16:8 is the original ending).

Regarding the hypothesis that the original ending was lost what would be a Possible scenario? How would Scribes write the Gospel without having copies? How would a Scribe writing the Gospel without a copy not be aware of the Ending which presumably would be the most important part for Christ's sake?



Joseph

Solo

Joe, theoretically, there are endless possibilities, starting with the one that the original copy of Mark (or one believed to be the original) was damaged.

One thing that surprises me is why you would want to hawk a "faith & fear" theory as the only conceivable reason for someone to postulate an original longer ending. You are damaging your case needlessly. I think everyone (or nearly so) agrees that 16:8 is where Mark stopped, so I would take it and run with it. On Heb 11:5, no one knew where Jesus' body lay, so 'explanations' were sought. Mark had a story to tell about that.

Jiri

JoeWallack

JW:
http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Mark_16

JW:
A significant component of "Mark's" Gospel is describing Reactions to Jesus. A common description is a Reaction of Amazement which is sometimes located within a story as the Initial and Final Reaction to Jesus. The story above, which is the Last story in original "Mark", has such a description (for the young man):

"5 And entering into the tomb, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, arrayed in a white robe; and they were amazed."

"8 And they went out, and fled from the tomb; for trembling and astonishment had come upon them: and they said nothing to any one; for they were afraid."

If I Am correct that "Mark" had a noticeable Literary Style of assigning Amazement Reaction at the Beginning and Ending of individual stories about Jesus, than what better Way to End the Gospel with a story of Amazement concerning Jesus' whereabouts?

They do say that History rePetes itself and I'm afraid Peter that you are looking in all the wrong places trying to find "Mark's" Jesus. Instead of looking in "Matthew" and "Luke", why not look instead in "Mark"? I'll just be sitting here, in my Right mind, while you frantically run around. Have you tried Galilee?



Joseph of A.

STORY, n.
A narrative, commonly untrue. The truth of the stories here following has, however, not been successfully impeached.

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

PS - The traditional Christian Assertian that Peter choose "Mark", who's Greek wasn't very good, to be his Interpeter, because Peter's Greek wasn't very good is kind of funny, isn't it?

Solo

Michael A. Persinger:

How's that for the explanation of 'Father in heaven', virgin birth, and Mk 10:13-14 ?

Jiri

JoeWallack

JW:
Internal confirmation that 16:8 is the original ending of "Mark":

General Literary Style
The basic Narrative has a Dual structure:

---1) The first half is Jesus' Teaching & Healing ministry.

---2) The second half is Jesus Passion.

The common element "Mark" applies to each half is Reactions to Jesus. "Mark's" Commentary to the Reader is that the narrative Reaction to Jesus' Teaching & Healing ministry is Overstated and the Reaction to Jesus' Passion is Understated. "Mark's" Literary objective is to create an emotion of Irony for the Reader. Every other element in "Mark", including Jesus, is sacrificed for the Benefit of Irony.

Specific Literary Style
Let's consider again the possible Irony of 16:8 as the original ending. An apparent MessierGer Angel instructs Followers of Jesus to tell others that Jesus was resurrected. Normally, especially in Bible situations, average folk tend to follow the instructions of Angels. Here, however, "Mark" is emphatic that the Angel's instructions were ignored. How Ironic! Suppose we had the Type of ending that Peter is throwing out with no External or Internal support, some type of post-resurrection meeting of Jesus and someone, anyone, Buehler? Where's the Irony?

Now, let's consider another 2nd half story:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Mark_15

JW:
Note that Pilate's Initial Reaction to Jesus is "marvelled".

JW:
Note that Pilate's Final Reaction to Jesus is "marvelled". This is also a prime example of "Mark" sacrificing plausibility for the sake of Style. There is no logical reason for Pilate to wonder why someone would be dead after being crucified by Mel Gibson. The only purpose is to place a surprised reaction at the end of the story.

So just as the Angel ignored ending of 16:8 has Reactions of surprise at the start and end of the story, so too does the Pilate story. The Irony of the Pilate story is that Pilate is the highest authority in the story. Jesus is placed in the position of having to defend himself before Pilate. Now would be the time for Jesus to speak his Peace and defend himself. Yet in this situs Jesus says Nothing. Now, what's the word to describe this...Gundry, help me out here.

Everyone welcome to comment except for Harvey Dubish.



Joseph

STORY, n.
A narrative, commonly untrue. The truth of the stories here following has, however, not been successfully impeached.

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

DramaQ

I was under the impression that Pilate was surprised because he'd died so quickly. That crucifiction usually took several days to do the job.

dq

spin

One of the things about crucifixions is their long drawn-out spectacle. People could be up over a day before their bodies finally gave in and they suffocated. (In order to hurry the process, their legs were broken, as is indicated in Jn 19:36, so that that could put up no resistance to gravity and thus suffocate much quicker. But Jesus didn't need his legs broken: he had a quick trip.)

Pilate wondering about the early death would not be strange.

(And I didn't think Mel Gibson was that old.)


spin

darstec

Did you see the History Channel special with a doctor who supposedly studied crucifixion using his son as a guinea pig? He claim that a few hours hanging would frequently cause death and not by the frequently supposed suffocation. But then he also claimed that two or three lashes with that cat o nine tails would also cause death and that the victims would also be hung through the hands.