Empty Tomb in Mark's gospel not written by original author

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3490
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Empty Tomb in Mark's gospel not written by original author

Post by Bernard Muller » Sat Dec 14, 2013 11:44 am

Following up on "after three days" (as prophesied three times by Jesus in gMark) does not point to "the third day" (or 40 hours) for Jesus' alleged duration of his death, with six other pieces of evidence I concluded the empty tomb passage (15:40-16:8) was not written by the same author than for the rest of Mark's gospel (1:1-15:39):
http://historical-jesus.sosblogs.com/Hi ... b1-p84.htm

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed

User avatar
Blood
Posts: 899
Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2013 8:03 am

Re: Empty Tomb in Mark's gospel not written by original auth

Post by Blood » Sat Dec 14, 2013 12:02 pm

Bernard Muller wrote:Following up on "after three days" (as prophesied three times by Jesus in gMark) does not point to "the third day" (or 40 hours) for Jesus' alleged duration of his death, with six other pieces of evidence I concluded the empty tomb passage (15:40-16:8) was not written by the same author than for the rest of Mark's gospel (1:1-15:39):
http://historical-jesus.sosblogs.com/Hi ... b1-p84.htm

Cordially, Bernard
We have evidence that Mark's ending was re-written twice, so I don't think suggesting an earlier re-write should be very controversial.

"They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid." That is indeed a very strange way to end the story. But you know, Mark was a pretty strange guy.
“The only sensible response to fragmented, slowly but randomly accruing evidence is radical open-mindedness. A single, simple explanation for a historical event is generally a failure of imagination, not a triumph of induction.” William H.C. Propp

Adam
Posts: 641
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 3:28 pm

Re: Empty Tomb in Mark's gospel not written by original auth

Post by Adam » Sat Dec 14, 2013 2:10 pm

Your PS about Mark 16:8 is particularly weak, because Mark 16:1-8 seems so similar to Matthew 28:1-8 that a strong case can be made that a missing ending in Mark was much like Matthew.
Your fundamental idea that the Marcan story replaces an earlier ending is sound. However, your general argument fails because you depend upon the Two-Document Hypothesis and also your presumption that the Gospel of John does not trace back to a Passion Narrative source. Howard M. Teeple in The Literary Origin of the Gospel of John presents much of the Resurrection as from a source (John 20:1, 3-5, 8, 11-14) in which Mary Magdalene (and no other woman) is mentioned and which no one else would have witnessed. I see this as her version. In Luke 24 two additional women are mentioned, of whom Joanna is named only in this gospel, who could have seen it all except for the Walk to Emmaus. If this is her version, it supplements John 20.

As Bernard says, Mark 16:1-8 is a yet later reworking. It is told from a different standpoint, that of the "Mary who was the mother of James the younger and Joset" (Mark 15:40, 45; 16:1). No one has ever thought that any of the three women wrote down their stories, so it is not surprising that three different writers wound up with such different accounts in which the first eight to eighteen verses could not have been seen by any of them (just John 20:3-10). The three women did not remember exactly the same events and words.

While it is true that the gospels in general (except Luke) do not concern themselves with women's points of view, for the early part of the Resurrection accounts only women could give the story. That is sufficient to explain so little about women before Mark 15:40.
Last edited by Adam on Sat Dec 14, 2013 2:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 1389
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: Empty Tomb in Mark's gospel not written by original auth

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin » Sat Dec 14, 2013 2:15 pm

Blood wrote: We have evidence that Mark's ending was re-written twice, so I don't think suggesting an earlier re-write should be very controversial.
go behind me satan ;)

Mark 15:40-16:8 is original and nobody can change my opinion about that :goodmorning:

Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 1389
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: Empty Tomb in Mark's gospel not written by original auth

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin » Sat Dec 14, 2013 2:50 pm

We all know that there is a structure in Mark on which he speak with his readers. Look at Mark 13 how he rings the bell: "watch out", "when you hear",
"when you see", "let the reader understand", "i have told you everything", "truly I tell you" and so on. So I think that in Mark 13 he gave the instructions how we must read the ending of the gospel.

In Mark 13.20 we can read: "“If the Lord had not cut short those days, no one would survive. But for the sake of the elect, whom he has chosen, he has shortened them." So it seems to me that Mark´s "elect readers" should know that Mark had cut short the days.

Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 1389
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: Empty Tomb in Mark's gospel not written by original auth

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin » Mon Dec 16, 2013 2:49 am

Nevertheless Bernard has made a very strong case. Almost all points speak in his favour and I'm sorry that I haven't honored that. I'm a little bit obsessed by Mark and I hope that can excuse me. All aspects to argue against Bernard lay on the dark side of Mark as I would call it and that can't be ignored.

User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 5421
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Empty Tomb in Mark's gospel not written by original auth

Post by Peter Kirby » Mon Dec 16, 2013 2:55 am

"Note: Dominic Crossan, in 'the Historical Jesus', pages 415-416, also suspects the original gospel ended at 15:39."

My understanding is that J.D. Crossan would put the ending of GMark 1:1-x:x at 16:8. It is the hypothesized 'pre Markan passion narrative' also sometimes (ie, by Crossan) called the 'Cross Gospel' that is believed by him to have its original ending there.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown

Bernard Muller
Posts: 3490
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Empty Tomb in Mark's gospel not written by original auth

Post by Bernard Muller » Mon Dec 16, 2013 9:10 am

From Dominic Crossan, THE HISTORICAL JESUS, THE LIFE OF A MEDITERRANEAN PEASANT, Part III "Brokerless Kingdom", Chapter 15 "Resurrection and Authority", Page 415:
"My proposal is that the original version of Mark's gospel ended with the centurion's confession in 15:39."
Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed

User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 5421
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Empty Tomb in Mark's gospel not written by original auth

Post by Peter Kirby » Mon Dec 16, 2013 2:55 pm

I found a larger excerpt...

http://stephanhuller.blogspot.com/2011/ ... -mark.html

My theory, then, is that canonical Mark dismembered Secret Mark's story of the young man's resurrection and initiation so that only Mark 14:51–52 residually evidenced the initiation and Mark 16:1–8 residually evidenced the resurrection. Thus, for example, the “tomb” in Mark 16:2, 3, 5, 8 comes from the “tomb” in Secret Mark 1v26; 2rl, 2, 6; “who will roll away the stone for us from the door of the tomb” in Mark 16:3 comes from “rolled away the stone from the door of of the tomb” in Secret Mark 2r1–2; and, especially, the “young man” in the tomb in Mark 16:5 comes from the “young man” in the tomb in Secret Mark 2r3,4,6. But that raises a question I did not realize earlier (1976; 1988a:283–284). When you remove those elements, what is actually left for a conclusion to Secret Mark? How did Secret Mark, the first version of Mark's Gospel, actually end? If the young man in the tomb was created by canonical Mark, what was there before that creation? Did Secret Mark conclude with any story about finding the empty tomb?

The obvious answer is that of course it did. There are still the women. But now I notice a curious coincidence that I missed before. There are three women identified in Secret Mark 2r14–16 as “the sister of the youth whom Jesus loved and his mother and Salome. There are also three women mentioned in Mark 15:40 as “Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome,” in 15:47 as “Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses,” and in 16:1 as “Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses," and in 16:1 as “Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome.” Is that too much coincidence?

There are, obviously, far more names given in canonical Mark, but it and Secret Mark agree, respectively, on a triad involving, first, a named or unnamed woman, second, a named or unnamed mother, and, third, Salome. I think that, once again, canonical Mark has simply relocated the textual debris of a censored incident from Secret Mark. So do even the three women, inaugurally and therapeutically enveloped among many other women in 15:40–41, come from the creativity of canonical Mark? The three women were not, any more than the young man in the tomb, part of the conclusion to Secret Mark. The question presses, then, how did it end?

My proposal is that the original version of Mark's Gospel ended with the centurion's confession in 15:39. What comes afterward, from 15:40 through 16:8, was not in Secret Mark but stems from canonical Mark. I realize, of course, that such a claim lacks any external or manuscript evidence unless one retrojects the fact that redoing the ending of Mark became a small industry in the early church. The evidence for it is internal and circumstantial, tentative, hypothetical, and clearly controversial. But it fits very well with a Markan theology in which faith and hope despite persecution and death is much more important than visions, apparitions and even revelations. [John Dominic Crossan The Historical Life of Jesus p. 415 - 416]
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown

Bernard Muller
Posts: 3490
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Empty Tomb in Mark's gospel not written by original auth

Post by Bernard Muller » Mon Dec 16, 2013 3:26 pm

Hi Peter,
Crossan thinks that "secret Mark" was the original Mark's gospel, which included the two passages noted by Clement of Alexandria, and ending at 15:39 (I do not agree with that, I think "secret Mark" was an elaboration of canonical Mark).

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed

Post Reply