BadBadBad

I read a debate here between Farrell Til and Norman Geisler, on this site, on the resurrection. I agree, GD. It's like the apologetics are responding mainly to the believers grasping for straws, not serious debate. "You want a straw? Here take one. Go home, relax your brain, and pray to God." Geisler concluded this debate with the statement "This evidence is sufficient for anyone who wants to believe." What's the significance of that "wants to believe" caveat? Then he followed up with a strong Pascal's wager. Not very convincing.

I just don't understand why the origin of Mark 16:9-20 doesn't seem to be a bigger issue. I've read what I consider very strong arguments that Mark was written first and then virtually copied by Matthew and Luke with John being even further removed. Mark has no resurrection? Given all the "evidence" for the resurrection, it seems like a pretty big deal to me!

Layman

A few goods scholars have defended its originality, but there is a pretty strong consensus that 9-20 was not the original ending.

That doesn't make 9-20 a "forgery." It's likely that they believed, or even knew, that the ending had been lost. So they added what they thought was the ending of the story.

What I meant they disagree about, is that some scholars accept that 9-20 is not the original ending, but believe Mark originally did have an ending that extended beyond verse 8. Just not the one found in today's manuscripts.

Tercel

Why?

The writer of Mark clearly believes in the resurrection - see Mark 16:6-7 for a clear statement of the resurrection.

Because both sides realise it is irrelevant to the question.

Vorkosigan

Of course it makes the ending a forgery. It's a forgery regardless of motive. It doesn't suddenly become OK if it's pious.

Yes. Evan Powell has persuasively argued that the original ending of Mark is now the ending of John. See here for a discussion of Powell's arguments.

Vorkosigan

Layman

I did not decline to label it a "forgery" because the motives were pious, but because I'm not sure that whoever added it was attempting to impersonate the author. For all you know, the author would have been proud to say, "Yeah, the ending got burned in the fires set by Nero, but I've added a true account of what actually happened to replace the lost ending."

mike_decock

If Mark 16:9-20 was removed, Mark 16:6-7 could have been inserted.

-Mike...

Tercel

And pigs might dance with unicorns on a planet orbiting one of the stars in Scorpio...

But there is no good evidence for either one.

WinAce

Wow. This is well and truly damning. Although in itself it doesn't demonstrate that Christianity is false, not knowing what the original ending was in the earliest written account of the resurrection raises considerable doubt as to what the purported evidentiary basis for that belief was.

But then again, the claim of dead guys coming back to life already raises considerable doubt as to the non-intoxicated state of the author. This fact is just more icing on the cake.

BTW, did I misread something, or ... is the Great Comission absent from the earliest versions of Mark? :notworthy

Vinnie

Vork, there are 4 forged endings to Mark already aren't there? How do we know this one isn't a fifth forged ending?

It seems plaussible to me that Mark ended at 16:8 but I want to put more time into Powell's theory. I haven't been able to yet.

Vinnie

Tercel

~sigh~ Yeah whatever... (why do I bother?)

Paul's accounts of the ressurection are earlier than Mark's btw.