The end of short Mark leads to ...

[Paul the Uncertain]

It is amusing to speculate. The disciples really have already gotten the message from Jesus, and the senior personnel (Simon Peter, his brother Andrew, James and John sons of Zebedee) are neighbors from Galilee.

There is a recently active thread that discusses how information might travel from within the story universe to non-witness real-life Christians (e.g. Mark's version of the crucifixion or Josephus's John the Baptist) without the writer spelling things out in excruciating (pun only half-intended) detail.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=9318

The idea is that sufficient information is provided by the author to prevail if the burden of proof rests on the "you forgot to explain ..." complainant. (The genesis of the thread was a claim that Mark or Josephus was obliged to explain his or his narrator's sources to the same standards as selected historians did on some occasions.)

Otherwise, if everything needs overt explanation, Mark hasn't shown that the disciples would know that Jesus was entombed, much less that the tomb was emptied. Bright bulbs that they aren't, they might even need the significance of the empty tomb explained to them. And how does this unnamed young man in the party dress know what happened to Jesus anyway? They are supposed to take his word for it?

Conclude: it is not clear that the women's testimony would add anything to the story through 16:8 (and indeed, in canonical 16:9-11, when Mary did tell them, they didn't believe her - even though she was confirming what Jesus himself had already told them three times).

Damnum absque injuria, if that.

[neilgodfrey]

(The genesis of the thread was a claim that Mark or Josephus was obliged to explain his or his narrator's sources to the same standards as selected historians did on some occasions.)

What an absolutely bizarre claim for anyone to have made! Where was such a claim made?

I am confident that there has been a serious misunderstanding somewhere.

[mlinssen]

What an absolutely bizarre claim for anyone to have made! I would be most interested in the uncertain author of the above statement directing us (me in particular) to the actual post and words where that claim was supposedly made.

I am confident that when that is done for us I will be able to point out what the claimant actually said as opposed to the above utterly nonsense twist of what was said.

Oh come on Neil you can't just always bite

The topic of this thread is the ending of Mark at 16:8, and just like Paul says

Conclude: it is not clear that the women's testimony would add anything to the story through 16:8

it is clear that the women don't add anything to this story throguh 16:8 - exactly because they indeed don't testify to anything.
The fact is that this right here is the ending of Mark, but it is not the ending of Mark's story - in fact, it is the very beginning to his story, as the only intent, purpose and goal here is to provide an end to the already exisiting story, that of Marcion and Chrestianity

I find the angle on the young man "the naked youngster" quite fascinating although it is highly unlikely that he would just sit there and wait for the next visitors and repeat his message like a broken tourguide. But Mark ends at 16:8 and it would almost seem as if Paul is trying to disagree with that - but why? KJV doesn't say anything about earliest MSS not having 9-20, but every other decent bible translation does. Is Paul a KJV-er perhaps?

[neilgodfrey]

Okay, I'll try to clarify a certain perspective that I have found reasonable re the ending of Mark:

If we take 16:8 as the original ending of the Gospel of Mark then we can see it fits a pattern that the author uses throughout: ironic and ambiguous twists. Ironic Reversal and Ambiguity are two of our author's favourite tools.

The work opens with a male messenger and closes with a male messenger.

The work opens with a wilderness scene and closes with a tomb scene. Both lifeless settings.

The work opens with a solitary messenger and closes with a solitary messenger.

Opens with description of clothing as rough skins and closes with a fine white garment.

Opens with "everybody" going out to hear him and closes with a mere three women coming to the lifeless place.

Opens with people from Judea and Jesus coming from Galilee and closes in Judea while Jesus is said to be going to Galilee.

Opens with a "voice crying out" with the good news and closes with women struck dumb unable to declare the good news.

The ending is how our author Mark works: He commands secrecy in the midst of crowds; he infers he is Christ but not Christ; his death is a triumph, and so on.

He's all about reversals, irony, as we well know.

So why stop understanding this is his MO when it comes to the end?

As for the names adding nothing to the story -- I think it is preferable to see what the author was doing. We know he loved puns, both wrt geographic names and personal names. We have seen the reversals in his apparently "pointless" description of relationships: in the beginning his characters are identified by their parents or fathers; in the closing scenes they are identified by their children. There is an apparent artifice there that makes an artificial interpretation (as distinct from a historical one) reasonable.

Maybe the author was attempting to engage some point related to Marcion but I don't know how to test that view.

[neilgodfrey]

(The genesis of the thread was a claim that Mark or Josephus was obliged to explain his or his narrator's sources to the same standards as selected historians did on some occasions.)

Ancient authors (little different from modern authors in this one respect) would inform readers of their source or explain how they knew such and such when they wanted to verify a statement. Not always or as rigorously as many of us tend to do, but we have many examples of them following this practice. That's not to say that they made explicit their source for each and every statement; obviously they didn't, and nor do we. But historians of ancient times, speaking generally, did understand that to be taken seriously they needed to explain to readers how they came to know what they wrote about.

One Roman author even satirized this habit because it was clear that often enough authors were fabricators. Some of them -- shock, horror -- actually told lies about their sources.

The Gospel of Mark does not explicitly inform readers of the sources for its narrative nor even inform readers of the identity of its author.

Conclusion: The Gospel of Mark is not written in the way we generally expect ancient historians to write.

So if we are going to treat the narrative as having some origin in historical events (meaning some historical Jesus teaching and healing and casting out demons and having followers with him and ending up crucified) we need some other evidence to give us a reason to do so.

We can assume it is based on historical events but few historians would consider that a good enough reason to treat it that way.

If most names of persons in the narrative can be explained from the perspective of narrative criticism, and only one cluster of names that we cannot explain that way, it does not follow that the unexplained names were taken from historical persons and had no meaningful relation to the narrative. It is more likely that our narrative criticism needs more work to explain the apparent exceptions.

[neilgodfrey]

Rather than interpret figures who make unexpected appearances in the gospel and appear to add nothing to the larger narrative as historical intrusions into an otherwise ahistorical account, William Wrede would, I suggest, interpret them as

persons in the drama [giving] the impression of something hasty, shadowy, almost phantasmal.

Wrede, William. The Messianic Secret: Das Messiasgeheimnis in Den Evangelien. Translated by J. C. G. Greig. Cambridge: James Clarke & Co., 1971. p. 142

[mlinssen]

(The genesis of the thread was a claim that Mark or Josephus was obliged to explain his or his narrator's sources to the same standards as selected historians did on some occasions.)

Ancient authors (little different from modern authors in this one respect) would inform readers of their source or explain how they knew such and such when they wanted to verify a statement. Not always or as rigorously as many of us tend to do, but we have many examples of them following this practice. That's not to say that they made explicit their source for each and every statement; obviously they didn't, and nor do we. But historians of ancient times, speaking generally, did understand that to be taken seriously they needed to explain to readers how they came to know what they wrote about.

One Roman author even satirized this habit because it was clear that often enough authors were fabricators. Some of them -- shock, horror -- actually told lies about their sources.

The Gospel of Mark does not explicitly inform readers of the sources for its narrative nor even inform readers of the identity of its author.

Conclusion: The Gospel of Mark is not written in the way we generally expect ancient historians to write.

So if we are going to treat the narrative as having some origin in historical events (meaning some historical Jesus teaching and healing and casting out demons and having followers with him and ending up crucified) we need some other evidence to give us a reason to do so.

We can assume it is based on historical events but few historians would consider that a good enough reason to treat it that way.

If most names of persons in the narrative can be explained from the perspective of narrative criticism, and only one cluster of names that we cannot explain that way, it does not follow that the unexplained names were taken from historical persons and had no meaningful relation to the narrative. It is more likely that our narrative criticism needs more work to explain the apparent exceptions.

Unsure whether you are referring to Joseph of Ἁριμαθαίας (Arimathea) - Ἁριμαθίας in Bezae and the Latin, but you must know the story to his name:

ἀρι- -> https://logeion.uchicago.edu/%E1%BC%80%CF%81%CE%B9- (like ἐρι-, strengthening the notion conveyed by its compd)
μαθητής -> https://logeion.uchicago.edu/%CE%BC%CE% ... E%AE%CF%82

"a really very" "learner, pupil, follower"

Joseph is a much, much better disciple than all the others

[neilgodfrey]

Unsure whether you are referring to Joseph of Ἁριμαθαίας (Arimathea) - Ἁριμαθίας in Bezae and the Latin, but you must know the story to his name:

ἀρι- -> https://logeion.uchicago.edu/%E1%BC%80%CF%81%CE%B9- (like ἐρι-, strengthening the notion conveyed by its compd)
μαθητής -> https://logeion.uchicago.edu/%CE%BC%CE% ... E%AE%CF%82

"a really very" "learner, pupil, follower"

Joseph is a much, much better disciple than all the others

Referring to Joseph of Arimathea and the rest.... the lot.

[MrMacSon]

.... My pet theory is, that John is the predecessor and the neaniskos [νεανίσκος] the successor (when John is handed over, Jesus starts his mission [Mark 1:14 Now after John was arrested, Jesus came into Galilee, proclaiming the gospel of God, …] and when Jesus is handed over, the neaniskos starts his mission [Mark 16:6 … He has risen])

A thesis was uploaded to academia.edu [which] claimed that^ more than 30 years ago ...

A Portrait of the Young Man (Neaniskos) as Hero in the Gospel of Mark
Theodore Trost
MA thesis, 1989

The young man at the tomb has been baptized in the Holy Spirit. He has participated in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

... As at the time of Jesus' capture, not really "everyone" fled. For the young man again remains behind, this time draped in the baptismal robe that signifies his continuing accompaniment of Jesus through life, death, and resurrection. If the story has managed to reach us, it must have come through him! He is the only character left, at the end of the story, who can tell the tale.

Here then is a portrait of the young man [the neaniskos [νεανίσκος]] as hero in the Gospel of Mark. He has taken on the responsibility of proclaiming the good news of Jesus Christ; his attire affirms that he has "put on" Jesus Christ through baptism. When everyone else has exited the story, he is still there at the tomb.

That's quite spectacular.

Although the the neaniskos - the young man - is said to have said "He is not here."

And there's the occasional extra extra verse (which may have had a significant influence if it was an early inclusion in the Markan tradition) -

Mark 16:5-8

.
5 As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed.

6 “Don’t be alarmed,” he said. “You are looking for Jesus 'the Nazarene', who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him. 7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.’”

8 Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid.*

.
* Some manuscripts have the following ending after verse 8, before vv. 9-20 (one manuscript that has it doesn't have vv. 9-20) -

'Then they quickly reported all these instructions to those around Peter. After this, Jesus himself also sent out through them from east to west the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation. Amen.'

Trost could, however, still be "on the money"

[lsayre]

If there was a tomb that had it's stone rolled away, and some women found it and then ran away and told no one, did the lives of all of those 'not told' end at that moment, or did they live on for decades whereby to eventually get around to seeing the opened and now empty tomb for themselves? It all has the ring of story telling and nothing more.