Be Afraid. Be Very Afraid For. Confirmation 16:8 Original

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

puzzle question : If one tries to copy Mark, what would be - clearly - the "correct" preposition?

Too boring?

The correct preposition would be „out“- „ἐξ“ (eks) (a form of "ἐκ" (ek), written before a vowel).

According to Mark spirits and demons go „into“ (εἰς – eis) someone.

Mark 1:10 - the Holy Spirit:
And immediately going up from the water he saw tearing open the heavens, and the Spirit as a dove descending into (εἰς – eis) him.
Mark 5:12 – the legion of the Gerasene:
and they begged him, saying, Send us into (εἰς – eis) the pigs, that into (εἰς – eis) them we might enter (εἰσέλθωμεν - eiselthōmen).
Mark 5:13 – the legion of the Gerasene:
And he allowed them and having gone out the spirits unclean entered (εἰσῆλθον - eisēlthon) into (εἰς – eis) the pigs,
Mark 9:25 - a mute and deaf spirit of a boy:
he rebuked the spirit unclean saying to it, mute and deaf spirit, I command you, come out of him, and no more might you enter (εἰσέλθῃς - eiselthēs) into (εἰς – eis) him.

With the only exception of the holy spirit the preposition „into“ (εἰς – eis) is used by Mark as prefix of the verb and also as preposition before the object. Literally it is: „going-into into someone“

It's the same the other way around. According to Mark spirits go „out“ and demons are thrown „out“.

Mark 15:37 – the Holy Spirit
but Jesus having uttered a cry loud, breathed his last (ἐξέπνευσεν - exepneusen, literally: „spirited out“).
Mark 1:25 – an unclean spirit in Kapharnaum
And rebuked him Jesus saying, Be silent, and come forth (ἐξελθε - exelthe) out (ἐξ - ex) of him!
Mark 1:26 – an unclean spirit in Kapharnaum
And having thrown into convulsions him, the spirit unclean, and having cried with a voice loud, came forth (ἐξῆλθεν - exēlthen) out (ἐξ - ex) of him.
Mark 5:8 – the legion of the Gerasene:
he was saying indeed to him, You come forth (ἐξελθε - exelthe) the spirit unclean, out (ἐκ - ek) of the man!
Mark 7:26 – a demon/unclean spirit of the Syrophoenician's daughter
Now [the] woman was Gentile, Syrophoenician by race, and asked him that the demon he should cast forth (ἐκβάλῃ - ekbalē) out (ἐκ - ek) of the daughter of her.
Mark 7:29 – a demon/unclean spirit of the Syrophoenician's daughter
And he said to her, Because of this word, go; has gone forth (ἐξελήλυθεν - exelēlythen) out (ἐκ - ek) of the daughter of you the demon.
Mark 9:25 - a mute and deaf spirit of a boy:
he rebuked the spirit unclean saying to it, mute and deaf spirit, I command you, come (ἐξελθε - exelthe) out (ἐξ - ex) of him, and no more might you enter into him.

Again - with the only exception of the holy spirit - the preposition „out“ („ἐκ – ek“ or „ἐξ – ex“ before a vowel) is used by Mark as prefix of the verb and also as preposition before the object. Literally it is: „going-out out of someone“ or „be thrown-out out of someone“.

Therefore in Mark 16:9 the correct Markan preposition would be „ἐξ“ (ex).

„ἐξ ἧς ἐκβεβλήκει ἑπτὰ δαιμόνια“
(out of whom he had thrown out seven demons)

The preposition „ἀπὸ“ (or „ἀφ'“ before a vowel) after „thrown out a demon“ is a few times used by Matthew, for example in 12:43, and by Luke, for example in 8:2.

Luke 8:2
and women certain who had been cured from spirits evil and infirmities, Mary who is called Magdalene, from (ἀφ’ - aph’) whom demons seven had gone out.

[JoeWallack]

puzzle question : If one tries to copy Mark, what would be - clearly - the "correct" preposition?

Too boring?

The correct preposition would be „out“- „ἐξ“ (eks) (a form of "ἐκ" (ek), written before a vowel).

According to Mark spirits and demons go „into“ (εἰς – eis) someone.

Mark 1:10 - the Holy Spirit:
And immediately going up from the water he saw tearing open the heavens, and the Spirit as a dove descending into (εἰς – eis) him.
Mark 5:12 – the legion of the Gerasene:
and they begged him, saying, Send us into (εἰς – eis) the pigs, that into (εἰς – eis) them we might enter (εἰσέλθωμεν - eiselthōmen).
Mark 5:13 – the legion of the Gerasene:
And he allowed them and having gone out the spirits unclean entered (εἰσῆλθον - eisēlthon) into (εἰς – eis) the pigs,
Mark 9:25 - a mute and deaf spirit of a boy:
he rebuked the spirit unclean saying to it, mute and deaf spirit, I command you, come out of him, and no more might you enter (εἰσέλθῃς - eiselthēs) into (εἰς – eis) him.

With the only exception of the holy spirit the preposition „into“ (εἰς – eis) is used by Mark as prefix of the verb and also as preposition before the object. Literally it is: „going-into into someone“

It's the same the other way around. According to Mark spirits go „out“ and demons are thrown „out“.

Mark 15:37 – the Holy Spirit
but Jesus having uttered a cry loud, breathed his last (ἐξέπνευσεν - exepneusen, literally: „spirited out“).
Mark 1:25 – an unclean spirit in Kapharnaum
And rebuked him Jesus saying, Be silent, and come forth (ἐξελθε - exelthe) out (ἐξ - ex) of him!
Mark 1:26 – an unclean spirit in Kapharnaum
And having thrown into convulsions him, the spirit unclean, and having cried with a voice loud, came forth (ἐξῆλθεν - exēlthen) out (ἐξ - ex) of him.
Mark 5:8 – the legion of the Gerasene:
he was saying indeed to him, You come forth (ἐξελθε - exelthe) the spirit unclean, out (ἐκ - ek) of the man!
Mark 7:26 – a demon/unclean spirit of the Syrophoenician's daughter
Now [the] woman was Gentile, Syrophoenician by race, and asked him that the demon he should cast forth (ἐκβάλῃ - ekbalē) out (ἐκ - ek) of the daughter of her.
Mark 7:29 – a demon/unclean spirit of the Syrophoenician's daughter
And he said to her, Because of this word, go; has gone forth (ἐξελήλυθεν - exelēlythen) out (ἐκ - ek) of the daughter of you the demon.
Mark 9:25 - a mute and deaf spirit of a boy:
he rebuked the spirit unclean saying to it, mute and deaf spirit, I command you, come (ἐξελθε - exelthe) out (ἐξ - ex) of him, and no more might you enter into him.

Again - with the only exception of the holy spirit - the preposition „out“ („ἐκ – ek“ or „ἐξ – ex“ before a vowel) is used by Mark as prefix of the verb and also as preposition before the object. Literally it is: „going-out out of someone“ or „be thrown-out out of someone“.

Therefore in Mark 16:9 the correct Markan preposition would be „ἐξ“ (ex).

„ἐξ ἧς ἐκβεβλήκει ἑπτὰ δαιμόνια“
(out of whom he had thrown out seven demons)

The preposition „ἀπὸ“ (or „ἀφ'“ before a vowel) after „thrown out a demon“ is a few times used by Matthew, for example in 12:43, and by Luke, for example in 8:2.

Luke 8:2
and women certain who had been cured from spirits evil and infirmities, Mary who is called Magdalene, from (ἀφ’ - aph’) whom demons seven had gone out.

JW:
Good stuff KK. In his famous related article Dr. Carrier writes:

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

Deviations of Lexical & Grammatical Style
...
(11.) The LE employs several other expressions that Mark never does: etheathê hypo ("seen by"); pasê tê ktisei ("in the whole world"); kalôs hexousin ("get well"); men oun ("and then"); duo hex autôn ("two of them," an expression not used by Mark with any number, 'two' or otherwise); par' hês ("from whom"), which Mark never uses in any context, much less with ekballô ("cast out," "exorcise"), in which contexts Mark uses ek instead (7:27); and finally the LE uses prôtê sabbatou (16:9) where we should expect some variation of tê mia tôn sabbatôn (16:2).

The most recent Apologetic attempt to defend off course is Lunn's God-awful The Original Ending of Mark: A New Case for the Authenticity of Mark 16:9-20 by Nicholas P. Lunn :

παρ᾽ ἧς ἐκβεβλήκει (“from whom he had cast out”). Elliott notes that no such combination is found elsewhere in the NT.543 This statement, though true in itself, requires a linguistic context. Elliott fails to note the rarity of the complete expression “cast out + demons/spirits + from ______.” While references to casting out demons abound, the addition of a prepositional phrase relating to the person from whom they were expelled is extremely scarce. Apart from Mark 16:9 there exists just one other such phrase in the entire NT, also in Mark (7:26), where the preposition is evk (“out of”). In view of this rarity of the full expression, who is to say which preposition would be more natural or more Markan? In the next chapter, under our discussion of collocations, this combination of words will be discussed at greater length. What we have said will serve for the present to counter the objection that this particular form of “cast out . . . from . . .” offers an argument against Markan authorship. This is patently not the case.

JW:
First, the nature of Apologetics is to continue to raise or lower the standard of evidence to the point where you can try to claim that the evidence under examination is either under/over your standard and therefore is/is not significant. Here it's been noted by the many and accurate textual critics that "Mark" (author) always uses "evk" in the context of demon removal (1-16:8).

We have the following problems with Lunn's attempted defense:

• 1) No mention of textual variation which is itself evidence of no clear original.
  
  2) Lunn ignores the direct and simple observation, which relates to numerous examples in GMark, that "Mark" always uses "evk" in the context of exorcism.
  
  3) Lunn than raises the standard for comparison to the larger phrase including the who at the end.
  
  4) Lunn notes one such parallel in GMark has "evk" but claims that since this is the only parallel worth considering it is not significant as evidence.
  
  5) Lunn concludes based on the above that there is no evidence here against Markan authorship.

Note that with this type of Apologetic raising of the standard to larger phrases and better matches in order to qualify as evidence, Lunn would have no basis based on his criteria to argue that any possible ending of GMark was more or less likely to be original based on language.


Joseph

ErrancyWiki

[JoeWallack]

If You Take the Long Ending of Mark Literally, You’ll Die (and You’re Silly)

James Snapp, Jr.
June 10, 2012 at 02:45

What are your reasons for saying that Mark 16:9-20 is not authentic?

• Jim
  June 10, 2012 at 08:18
  
  familiarity with textual criticism

JW:
Zwing!


Joseph

ErrancyWiki

[JoeWallack]

JW:
James [Oh] Snapp, Jr. is probably the foremost defender of the LE (Long Ending) that the world has ever known. Here:

Crosspoint Church and the Ending of Mark

he crucifies a Fundamentalist Church for confessing that the LE is not original. Strangely, the Church evidence he sights against LE does not include the best evidence, the text critical observations of Eusebius (E) and Jerome (J). As a related note for the benefit of this unholy forum, in addition to the manuscript evidence provided by E & J, their attitudes are also important evidence. While both are aware of good evidence that the LE is not original, E's attitude was that it was still okay to use while J's attitude was that it was preferable to use. This coordinates with the evidence for the critical criterion of Change of direction that it was shortly after J that the evidence moves from against LE to for LE.

Snapp's complaints against the innocent Church's evidence here are Apologetics, Ignore/Deny superior evidence and promote/cling to inferior evidence. But in an irony that the author of "Mark" would really appreciate Snapp is unable to control his Passion for the LE and in his ending, presumably under the influence of holy spirits, tongues the following pearls:

Such an ending is not even a little bit appropriate. No matter how much Catoe, echoing MacArthur, insists that the emperor’s clothes are gorgeous, so to speak, the notion that the jarring and abrupt stoppage at 16:8 was intentional is flatly unrealistic – or, as Hort described it, “incredible.” One could select the end of Mark 15:40, 16:4, 16:6, or 16:7 and similarly make a case that it is “the fitting ending” of the book. But does anyone seriously entertain the idea that Mark knew Peter’s account of Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances to the disciples, but declined to include it in his narrative? Do you really think that although Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances were an integral part of Peter’s preaching (as reported in Acts 10:40-42), Mark would consider them dispensable? And who seriously thinks that although Mark knew that the woman proceeded to report to the disciples (as Matthew 28 says), he deliberately ended his account with a sentence that allows the reader to conclude that the women never told anyone about the angel’s message?

JW:
Attitude. Known to everyone except Snapp apparently as The Difficult Reading Principle. Note the appropriation of the best evidence against the LE converted into supposed evidence for. A modern analogy is when the Yankees make a huge free agent purchase their first choice is a Red Sox because then they not only add to themselves but subtract from the Sox.


Joseph

The Israeli/Arab Conflict - Who is Easier to Demonize as Naziish?

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

.
The "Luther 2017" is now online. PsMark 16:9-20 are in brackets

[DCHindley]

Mark 16:9

Ἀναστὰς δὲ πρωῒ πρώτῃ σαββάτου ἐφάνη πρῶτον Μαρίᾳ τῇ Μαγδαληνῇ, ἀφ’ ἧς ἐκβεβλήκει ἑπτὰ δαιμόνια.
Having risen moreover early [the] first [day] of the week, he appeared first to Mary the Magdalene, from whom he had cast ou seven demons.

variant readings via laparola

παρ' - C* D L W 083 33 892 pc WH
ἀφ’ - A C3 Θ Ψ f1 f13 Byz ς

But both - παρ' and ἀφ' - are completely "wrong".

puzzle question : If one tries to copy Mark, what would be - clearly - the "correct" preposition?

Why "wrong"? I don't follow ... yet.

FWIW, παρ' seems more natural than ἀφ'.

DCH

[Ben C. Smith]

Mark 16:9

Ἀναστὰς δὲ πρωῒ πρώτῃ σαββάτου ἐφάνη πρῶτον Μαρίᾳ τῇ Μαγδαληνῇ, ἀφ’ ἧς ἐκβεβλήκει ἑπτὰ δαιμόνια.
Having risen moreover early [the] first [day] of the week, he appeared first to Mary the Magdalene, from whom he had cast out seven demons.

variant readings via laparola

παρ' - C* D L W 083 33 892 pc WH
ἀφ’ - A C3 Θ Ψ f1 f13 Byz ς

But both - παρ' and ἀφ' - are completely "wrong".

puzzle question : If one tries to copy Mark, what would be - clearly - the "correct" preposition?

Why "wrong"? I don't follow ... yet.

I am going go guess that Kunigunde put "wrong" in quotation marks because the words, while not grammatically or syntactically incorrect, do not reflect normal Marcan usage. I am also going to guess that the "right" word ("if," as Kunigunde says, "one tries to copy Mark") is ἐκ. The variant ἀφ' in Mark 16.9 seems to me to derive from Luke 8.2.

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

Why "wrong"? I don't follow ... yet.

I am going go guess that Kunigunde put "wrong" in quotation marks because the words, while not grammatically or syntactically incorrect, do not reflect normal Marcan usage. I am also going to guess that the "right" word ("if," as Kunigunde says, "one tries to copy Mark") is ἐκ. The variant ἀφ' in Mark 16.9 seems to me to derive from Luke 8.2.

Jep.

But my impression is that the Marcan usage of “ἐκ“ (out) and “εἰς“ (into) do not reflect only “word usage”, but also Mark’s idea about the relationship between men and demons or spirits.

In GMark demons and spirits are never “on” or “upon” someone, but always “into” someone. And therefore they never go or are thrown “from” someone, but always “out” of someone.

[Ben C. Smith]

Why "wrong"? I don't follow ... yet.

I am going go guess that Kunigunde put "wrong" in quotation marks because the words, while not grammatically or syntactically incorrect, do not reflect normal Marcan usage. I am also going to guess that the "right" word ("if," as Kunigunde says, "one tries to copy Mark") is ἐκ. The variant ἀφ' in Mark 16.9 seems to me to derive from Luke 8.2.

Jep.

But my impression is that the Marcan usage of “ἐκ“ (out) and “εἰς“ (into) do not reflect only “word usage”, but also Mark’s idea about the relationship between men and demons or spirits.

In GMark demons and spirits are never “on” or “upon” someone, but always “into” someone. And therefore they never go or are thrown “from” someone, but always “out” of someone.

I think I agree. Also, after I posted, I read a bit down the thread, and I found the post where you talk about these prepositions.

[JoeWallack]

JW:

Mark 16:8

Strong's	Transliteration	Greek	English	Morphology
3762 [e]	oudeni	οὐδενὶ	to none	Adj-DMS
3762 [e]	ouden	οὐδὲν	nothing	Adj-ANS
3004 [e]	eipan	εἶπαν·	they spoke;	V-AIA-3P
5399 [e]	ephobounto	ἐφοβοῦντο	they were afraid	V-IIM/P-3P
1063 [e]	gar	γάρ.	indeed.	Conj

1 Corinthians 15:3

Strong's	Transliteration	Greek	English	Morphology
3860 [e]	paredōka	παρέδωκα	I delivered	V-AIA-1S
1063 [e]	gar	γὰρ	indeed	Conj
4771 [e]	hymin	ὑμῖν	to you	PPro-D2P

Explanation for "Mark's" (author) 16:8 ending:
1. GMark is written as a prequel to Paul. It explains what happened and didn't happen before Paul. Mainly, why Paul was the first to publicly proclaim a risen Jesus.
2. The conjunction at the end of GMark, "and", is intentional, intended to be a conjunction, "and". GMark shows the narrative up to the point that Jesus was risen but then stops before anyone is publicly claiming it.
3. The ending conjunction "and" indicates that the story is intended to continue with Paul who publicly continues the story with 1 Corinthians 15:3, publicly claiming that Jesus was risen.
4. Note that Paul starts with that overused word of "Mark" "παρέδωκα", "I delivered". The rulers in GMark all delivered Jesus' body but Paul delivered Jesus' spirit.
5. "Mark's" γὰρ also parallels Paul's γὰρ, Paul's second word here, used as an amplifier.

What we have above is likely the original Christian Canon. "Mark" wrote the original Gospel narrative as a prequel to Paul's revelation that Jesus was risen.

Bonus material for Solo = The use/misuse of γὰρ in 1 Corinthians 15 is likely quality evidence as to what is real verses fake Paul. Note that γὰρ is used before and after the verses claiming others had a risen Jesus appear to them, but not in those verses in between. Indeed.


Joseph

ErrancyWiki