How much of Mark 16:1-8 is original ?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
gmx
Posts: 317
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2015 4:35 am

How much of Mark 16:1-8 is original ?

Post by gmx »

I am spawning this thread to avoid hijacking Stephan's thread viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4637

In that thread, Stephan advances an argument that Mark's original testimony is that Jesus / Christ / Messiah disappears into the void after his death. There is no resurrection, and there are no post-resurrection appearances. It's an interesting thread...

However, this topic is specifically to discuss the following:
  • given the puzzling textual pedigree of Mark 16, what is the confidence factor for the originality of any of Mk 16:1-8 ?
  • does Mk 16:1-8 read better / make more sense without verses 6 and / or 7 ?
  • what is the earliest known reference to Mk 16:6 or Mk 16:7 ?
  • what is the historical exegetical view on the meaning / originality of Mk 16:6-7, and more broadly, Mk 16:1-8 ?
  • what is the current academic view on the meaning / originality of Mk 16:6-7, and more broadly, Mk 16:1-8 ?
  • if Mark 16:6-7 were to be considered an interpolation, what would that imply in terms of the orginality of the other 15 chapters ?
I saw a Naked girl ,Slowly emerge in front of me,Greek hairstyle,Very beautiful,She has a beautiful [fine] profile.; She is fine in profile. the view of profile,hard to tell.
Charles Wilson
Posts: 2100
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: How much of Mark 16:1-8 is original ?

Post by Charles Wilson »

gmx --

Good Thread!

I will state an alternative view "for the record":

1. There are four versions of the Empty Tomb and, from Joe Atwill, they are not contradictory if read in proper order, using the rising of the sun as an Objective Marker. Read it otherwise and you get many, many contradictory readings.

2. Jay Raskin notes that Mark and John appear to have been written directly from a common Source, one literally Cut and Pasted from the Source Document. Our Esteemed Poster Bernard Muller has material as well. viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2207&hilit=empty+tomb
A coupla' good pages before it goes off the rails. And... there's my stuff which is Out There somewhere:

Q: "What do Otho, Verginius Rufus, Pliny the Younger and Tacitus have to do with the Empty Tomb?"

A: Everything.

3. So, the Empty Tomb story has been split into four parts and the divided parts have been distributed, one part per Gospel. However, Markan Chiasms may still be found for Mark 16: 1 - 8, save for a last verse that should show Movement. See: Michael Turton, http://www.michaelturton.com/Mark/GMark16.html .

Posited Type of Last verse: "It was the last day of the feast of the unleavened bread and many people were going out, returning to their houses since the festival was over. (Gospel of Peter)".

This implies that the Author of Mark was given his Empty Tomb part before he had finished his work. This was found wanting and the last verse was cut from the one and only version of Mark. The last verses were added by someone other than the Author, since these additions cannot be placed into any Markan Chiasms.

That's a start.

Best to you and happy hunting!

CW
Post Reply