Steven Carr

Probably nothing, but your article mentioned it, almost as though you considered it appropriate to mention it.

I stand corrected though.

Attonitus

Some scholar it sustains that the Mark account finishes abruptly for papyrus lack, the papyrus then was very expensive

Layman

Ah, you mean the reference to Christian goods being spoiled. I think you are oversimplifying, very conveniently of course, the way in which a book could be damaged during such an event.

Perhaps if you tried to explain yourself more instead of leaving us with glib comments we could avoid such confusion.

Steven Carr

What glib comments?


And why do you say 'you mean the reference to Christian goods being spoiled.' , when I had written 'Do we know that Hebrews was written to the Roman Church?' I made no reference at all to that part of your post. Not any at all, because I doubted that even a Layman would try to claim that the Hebrew reference to 'Christian goods being spoiled' was a reference to Mark's Gospel. But Layman simply cannot bring himself to treat me with any kind of fairness....


You quoted somebody as saying that Hebrews was written to the Roman Church.

I asked if there was good evidence for this.

You responded that Hebrews has got nothing to do with it.

Accordingly, I retracted my comments, realising the mistake that I had made, and get rewarded by your saying that I made 'glib comments'.

Sheesh........ I can't even retract my mistakes without Layman insulting me.

And I still feel that a 'pogram' (the word you quoted) would do more damage to a scroll than removing the last bit.

Still, if you have the faintest piece of evidence that any scroll of Mark's Gospel was attacked in a 'pogrom', I'm sure you will crow about it for years to come.

If you have no evidence, you will keep quiet about the the fact that you have not the slightest piece of evidence that the ending of Mark's Gospel was removed in a 'pogrom'.

As it happens, I think Layman's article is good,a nd have said so on an another thread. I was just puzzled by his quote of somebody claiming Hebrews was written to the Roman Church, and asked for clarification. But asking Layman a civil question is a waste of time, I've found.

Amaleq13

Not at the time, no. I was hoping for something more credible than suggesting the original ending somehow disintegrated before anyone had a chance to make complete copies. They didn't notice it becoming damaged and become concerned enough to copy it? No wonder Streeter doesn't want to speculate about the specifics.

The point the article (I have since read it) misses is that the fear of the women to tell anyone doesn't prevent the appearances from taking place. All the women would have done is prepare the disciples for what was going to happen when they got to Galilee. Jesus doesn't tell the disciples to go to Galilee, he assumes/knows that is where they are headed. The failure of the women simply means they were not warned ahead of time.

Luke replaces the implied appearances in Galilee with actual depictions but has them taking place on the road to Emmaus and in Jerusalem. He changes the command Jesus gives and only includes Galilee as a reference:

"He is not here, but He has risen. Remember how He spoke to you while He was still in Galilee..."

For some reason, this author prefers the first appearances to take place near and in Jerusalem rather than Galilee.

This author apparently has no problem with Mark's implied first appearance taking place in Galilee so he doesn't change Mark except to offer an explicit, though extremely limited in detail, depiction of it. Oh, he also changes Mark's ending so that the women do tell the disciples.

I don't find the article's argument for a longer original to be more credible than Crossan's explanation (The Birth of Christianity, p.557f) that the extant ending "fits exactly as a conclusion to Mark's gospel". He points out that the text is self-contradictory if we don't assume they told someone anyway. Otherwise, how would the author know about the scene? Crossan also notes that Mark's "relentlessly critical" depiction of the disciples (especially the Big Three and more so Peter) essentially makes it impossible for him to end with actual appearances to them. He goes on to argue that it completes a pattern of failure/success, crucifixion/resurrection, named/unnamed, male/female.

failure/crucifixion/named/male = Mk 10:32-42

success/resurrection/unnamed/female = 14:3-9

success/crucifixion/unnamed/male = 15:39

failure/resurrection/named/female = 16:1-8

Bernard Muller

Here is what I concluded for Mark's ending at 16:8:
It is the original ending.
Because the disciples never said Jesus resurrected, "Mark" had the women scared into silence (forever) after witnessing the empty tomb (highly unrealistic human behavior). And that was explaining why the disciples, who never believed in resurrections anyway, do not know about the empty tomb, nor were they "interpreting", back in Galilee, dreams or appearance of stranger or anything else as an emanation of the resurrected Christ.
The empty tomb is bogus and there are signs "Mark" wrote it as an afterthought when he was finishing his gospel (obviously he felt Jesus allegedly predicting his resurrection was not enough).
And how could "Mark" know these women told no one anytime?

The two resurrection appearances in GMatthew were added later, by two different interpolators, at different times. Also there are textual signs about that.
Because "Matthew" had no bodily resurrection story (as he was copying GMark), he added the tomb being sealed and guarded to prove the body had not been stolen (and consequently resurrected). It is obvious that Jews, in Matthew's community, knew about GMark's ending and were spreading the rumor that the disciples got the body (Mt28:12-15).

The bodily resurrection came with GLuke, probably helped by a story involving a certain Cleopas (24:18). Later in 'Acts', the same gospeler got bolder and had the bodily resurrected Jesus hanging around for 40 days, when in the gospel the reappearance looks very short and tentative, seemingly to dispel the idea that Jesus showed up as just a ghost.


"John" followed GMark first and his original gospel ended at 20:10a. Then when Gluke got known, "John" went back to work, and among other additions/insertions extended the ending up to 20:23. Then when after 'Acts' got known, the gospel got added on up to 20:31. Finally Ch.21 got "appendixed" after presbyter John, the last alleged disciple of Jesus, died.

If anyone is interested, everything I postulated is explained on my web site. I can give more details where to find it if requested. I recall HJ-3a, 'parables part 2' and my mini web site of GJohn, from original to canonical, explain all of that.

Best regards, Bernard

Layman

Not at the time, no. I was hoping for something more credible than suggesting the original ending somehow disintegrated before anyone had a chance to make complete copies. They didn't notice it becoming damaged and become concerned enough to copy it? No wonder Streeter doesn't want to speculate about the specifics.

No one suggested the original ending just somehow disintegrated, they note that the end of any scroll is vulnerable to damage. Nor does anyone claim that no other copies were made. What they postulate is that the textual tradition that has survived was based on a damaged original. Were other copies destroyed in the fires of Rome? Lost to persecution? Simply not copied because the Gospel of Matthew had risen to prominence? We cannot discover the actual causes. All we can do is recognize the plausibility of a lost ending.

The point the article (I have since read it) misses is that the fear of the women to tell anyone doesn't prevent the appearances from taking place. All the women would have done is prepare the disciples for what was going to happen when they got to Galilee. Jesus doesn't tell the disciples to go to Galilee, he assumes/knows that is where they are headed. The failure of the women simply means they were not warned ahead of time

Where did I say that the fear of the women prevented any resurrection appearances? Are you sure you read it?

Luke replaces the implied appearances in Galilee with actual depictions but has them taking place on the road to Emmaus and in Jerusalem. He changes the command Jesus gives and only includes Galilee as a reference:

"He is not here, but He has risen. Remember how He spoke to you while He was still in Galilee..."

For some reason, this author prefers the first appearances to take place near and in Jerusalem rather than Galilee.

This is rather simplistic. Matthew does have some resurrection appearances in Jerusalem. But Luke only describes the ones in Jerusalem. He has no interest in Galilee, whereas Matthew does.

How you detremined that the Emmaus road appearance are translated from Galilee resurrection appearances is hard to figure. Indeed, since you are confinced that Mark ended with no appearances whatsoever it is also difficult to understand how you concluded that Luke changed his sources.

While I do not find surprising your preference for Crossan, it seems unlikely that Mark slavishly followed some sort of pattern ending with female to the detriment of his pattern of narrating the fulfillment of Jesus' prophecies.

Attonitus

Interesting, but the Jewish antichristian polemic it was never doubted of the empty tomb,it was only interpreted otherwise: hypothesis of the body robbery, movement for the gardener, apparent death.

Amos

Well if you are stuck on the definition of Immaculate Conception lets just call it the "divine conception" as well as the "post-resurrection appearances of Jesus" that are not known to pagans without an inspired perspective . . . nor to Jews with their eyes still closed who therefore did not recognize Jesus as Christ or they would have never convicted Jesus to be crucified. That's pagan enough for me to account for the omission of the virgin birth and post resurrection appearance in Mark.

Let me add here that even the most educated Christians today would never recognize Christ if he did return.

Vinnie

I agree. On a literary and theological level, ending at 16:8 works just too well to be coincidental IMO.

This is very interesting as Mark is proven to do a few things:

Seems to try and undercut a "traditionally Jewish Jesus". The controversy traditions are largely polemic. The most glaring example is the food laws. Mark has Jesus declare the food laws void in chapter 7 and then calls the apostles "dull" for not understanding it.

It is just as certain as any other HJ fact that he did not nullify the food laws--possibly more so than any other. Jesus' followers also knew he didn't. Mark decides to have them "be idiots" and "misinterpret" Jesus all along.

The food laws are the clearest example of where Mark attempts to do what you claim he did here with the empty tomb.

So I am interested in the disciples not beleving in a bodily rez.

Several Qs: What evidence do you cite for the belifs of Peter and co?

Do you accept a Pre-Marcan Passion narrative? What elements were or weren't in it if you do?

Did Pharisees adhere to bodily resurrection in Paul's day? Paul doesn't say spirit or body, but instead opts for "spirit body". I have difficulty not seening Paul as believing in some form of bodily rez.

Paul, also mentions lots of appearances (e.g. to Peter, James and the disciples and so forth). On what grounds do you make the claim that they did not have any resurrection beliefs? What about this crucified messiah compelled their faith?


Also, Mark presupposed the risen Jesus will appear to the disciples in Galilee despite ending at 16:8. We can scarcely think Mark did not intend for his readers to connect these dots which were uttered by Jesus himsels IIRC. Ergo, how can he be trying to apologize for them never believing in resurrection when he has Jesus appear to them in Galilee afterward?

Plus in Mark a woman annoints Jesus before he dies knowing he will rise. She understood Jesus would raise.

This is where I see your theory as flawed but I think you may be dead on re: the tomb and the silence

Massively edited out comments as I misunderstood you.

What Mark may be doing is explaining why NO ONE ever pointed to the empty tomb proving a risen Jesus.

As I accept the burial story is largely fiction and Jesus peeps did not know what happened to Jesus body no one ever pointed to an empty tomb. But now Mark (or someone slightly before him) is doing this. He has to explain why the disciples and co never appealed to the empty tomb or why no one ever mentioned it or knew about it. Maybe the woman never told anyone is the apologetic?

See Mark never says the disciples (Male Ones!) know where Jesus was laid by Joseph. The end of ch. 15 says: "Then he rolled a stone against the entrance of the tomb. 47Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses saw where he was laid."

The disciples may not even know about J of A taking Jesus' body. it is these woman who never tell anyone. The tomb story may have went with them. Mark may just be "omnisciently narrating" as ancient authors often supplemented their narratives with material having no possible or plausible line of transmission. Josephus did it and so did the evangelists.

Mark having the woman tell no one is his defense for why no one mentioned the empty tomb before him.

Now of course this is good and dandy and makes sense of Mark here but we ALSO must accompany this with solid evidence against the historicity of the tomb story (which I think we can).

So I think your theory is partially correct. Mark is not undercutting Rez belief. I think its a certainty Jesus followers accepted this in some form (Paul is weighty here!) and Mark makes it clear Jesus will appear to them in Galilee after he rises.

But yes Mark constantlky thrashing them for not understanding about Jesus' fate does raise some questions aout the specifics of their belief. But there are other explanations for the thrashing in Mark Literary purposes (narrative heightening of the hero through contrast, pastoral purposes (most thnk Mark went to a persecuted community) and so on.

So I would say this is Mark apologetic for the tomb story just as the dicsiples being dumb and misinterpreting Jesus was the explanation for the food laws.

But if it can be shown Jesus followers believed in a spiritual rez then the story changes. Mark is dennigrating them for this (not acceptinmg bodily) all along. But Mark has an appearance to them and so does Paul. It Makes it hard to deny the apostles did not accept a Rez in some form.

Vinnie