Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Explaining the reason for adding the verses, text critic and author Bart D. Ehrman, without going into much detail about the manuscript-evidence, says:
Jesus does rise from the dead in Mark's Gospel. The women go to the tomb, the tomb is empty and there is a man there who tells them that Jesus has been raised from the dead and that they are to go tell the disciples that this has happened. But then the Gospel ends in Codex Sinaiticus and other manuscripts by saying the women fled from the tomb and didn't say anything to anyone because they were afraid, period. That's where the Gospel ends. So nobody finds out about it, the disciples don't learn about it, the disciples never see Jesus after the resurrection, that's the end of the story. But later scribes couldn't handle this abrupt ending and they added the 12 verses people find in the King James Bible or other Bibles in which Jesus does appear to his disciples.[38]
I would take what Ehrman says with a grain of salt.
Having said that, it is very possibly an addition made by a scribe. The original text likely doesn't contain it. But I'm not concerned, since the resurrection is corroborated by the rest of the NT.
I would take what Ehrman says with a grain of salt.
Having said that, it is very possibly an addition made by a scribe. The original text likely doesn't contain it. But I'm not concerned, since the resurrection is corroborated by the rest of the NT.
That is the most comically shameful thing I have ever heard! Is there no reading comprehension in this world? The resurrection is also collaborated by the "Short Version" of that fictional story attributed to Mark. It even says that Jesus went on ahead of them to Galilee, so it wouldn't matter if in this version the ladies kept quiet. I suppose the reason for his trip would be so that he could stop performing those "definitive" magic tricks today and thus send all future generations that didn't gulliblely fall for these empty threats and false promises to the arms of Hades. Quite a double standard in the Plot.
Quote:
Mark says the Sabbath is now over and Mary Magdalene, another Mary, the mother of James,[3] and Salome (all also mentioned in Mark 15:40), come to anoint Jesus' body, which Luke 24:1 agrees with. John 19:40 seems to say that Nicodemus had already anointed his body. John 20:1 and Matthew 28:1 simply say Mary went to the tomb, not why.
The women wonder how they will remove the stone over the tomb. Upon their arrival, they find the stone already gone and go into the tomb. This shows that, according to Mark, they expected to find a dead Jesus.[4] Instead, they find a young man dressed in a white robe who tells them: "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. 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.' "[5] The white robe might be a sign that the young man is a messenger from God.[6]Matthew 28:5 describes him as an angel. According to Luke there were two men. John says there were two angels, but that Mary saw them after finding the empty tomb and showing it to the other disciples. She comes back to the tomb, talks to the angels, and then Jesus appears to her.
Mark uses the word neaniskos for young, a word he used to describe the man who fled at Jesus' arrest in Mark.Mark 14:51–52[7] Jesus had predicted his resurrection and returning to Galilee during the Last Supper in Mark.[8] Mark uses the passive verb form ēgerthē—translated "he was raised," indicating God raised him from the dead,[9] rather than "he is risen" translated in the NIV.[10]
The women, who are afraid, then flee and keep quiet about what they saw. Fear is the most common human reaction to the divine presence in the Bible.[6]
This is where the undisputed part of Mark's Gospel ends. Jesus is thus announced to have been resurrected from the dead and to have gone into Galilee.
Erhman is not saying this on his own account. I believe that it is well supported that the additional verses of Mark were added in later gospel copies. Apart from the two versions of the later ending look like a general summary of the resurrection accounts in the other gospels. We could look at that in more detail,but I'd just like to mention that I am now sure that textual evaluation of those other three gospels will show that they all (John, too) had the same account of the women going to the tomb and finding it empty and since that really wouldn't do,they wrote their own discrepant versions, and discrepant they are, despite attempts by a couple of apologists here to try to ductape them together into a single coherent narrative.
The conclusion is, I argue,that there is no 'lost' ending of mark - that is where the original account ended. There was no resurrection,no appearance to the disciples (except in the 'spirit' which is to say their imaginations) and to sum up, every darn thing from the women finding the tomb empty can be taken as fabrication.
The conclusion is, I argue,that there is no 'lost' ending of mark - that is where the original account ended. There was no resurrection,no appearance to the disciples (except in the 'spirit' which is to say their imaginations) and to sum up, every darn thing from the women finding the tomb empty can be taken as fabrication.
Why would Mark have his hero promise a resurrection, and then not deliver it?
Erhman is not saying this on his own account. I believe that it is well supported that the additional verses of Mark were added in later gospel copies. Apart from the two versions of the later ending look like a general summary of the resurrection accounts in the other gospels. We could look at that in more detail,but I'd just like to mention that I am now sure that textual evaluation of those other three gospels will show that they all (John, too) had the same account of the women going to the tomb and finding it empty and since that really wouldn't do,they wrote their own discrepant versions, and discrepant they are, despite attempts by a couple of apologists here to try to ductape them together into a single coherent narrative.
The conclusion is, I argue,that there is no 'lost' ending of mark - that is where the original account ended. There was no resurrection,no appearance to the disciples (except in the 'spirit' which is to say their imaginations) and to sum up, every darn thing from the women finding the tomb empty can be taken as fabrication.
Where in the story did Jesus not resurrect? He definitely did, and the women not telling makes it an awesome ghost story.
Why would Mark have his hero promise a resurrection, and then not deliver it?
A good question. The key is in what I mentioned about a spiritual resurrection. This came up when I considered Paul's mention of Jesus' appearances (1 Cor. 15 3 - 9 - which do not fit the gospel account) and also the knotty question of why (if the resurrection never happened) the apostles evidently thought that Jesus was in heaven and would come again very soon, because that is what they evidently taught Paul.
It was really Luke's account of Paul's conversion -though I do not trust it -and Paul's account of his chat with Jesus in heaven that put me on the track. These were spiritual appearances (as I say, all in the mind) and it was only after the death of Jesus and the apparent failure of his messianic attempt that Peter came up with the brilliant idea - he may be dead, but his messianic spirit has for sure gone back to heaven.
The twelve brightened up at once. 'Hell,yeah. and he hasn't really failed- he'll came back again and finish the job.' I rather suspect that this sudden cheering up is recalled in a garbled form in Acts where there is the pentecostal event.
That Jesus appeared first to Peter is a mental appearance with Peter perhaps actually visualizing Jesus telling him that he was in heaven. Then there were the mental appearance to the twelve and then to 500 chanting freakers all at once and finally, Paul got his revelation that the messiah Jesus was the method of reconciling Jews and Romans through faith.
It follows that the appearances in Luke, Matthew and John are invented and can be shown to be utterly discrepant because of that. Matthew has Jesus appearing to the women as soon as the run away from the empty tomb, but John doesn't have the appearance of Jesus until after they women have reported back to the disciples. And Luke doesn't have Jesus appearing to the women at all. He doesn't roll up until that evening - except that odd mention that 'The Lord has risen indeed and has appeared to Simon ' (24.34) which not only is not mentioned by Matthew or John(and not Mark of course) but not even Luke recounts that remarkable event. I now believe that Luke (Paul's biographer in Acts) was aware of Paul's claim that Jesus appeared first to Simon, so he slipped it in there though, of course, he couldn't describe the event.
So to get back to your point, we have a failed messianic attempt and Mark's gospel promising a resurrection and ending with an empty tomb. That empty tomb is common to all the gospels and I have to consider that it is true.
The reason the tomb was empty is best answered in Matthew (28.13-15) that the disciples stole the body away. Not Peter and the rest but the disciples who put him there in the first place. Now that does raise questions, but the place where I am is an empty tomb, no resurrection appearances, a subsequent 'Pentecost' spiritual revelation or vision and at best a suggestion by Mark that the empty tomb somehow was linked with Jesus having risen.
It should be said that the gospels were not written by the apostles but by Christians - followers of Paul who were themselves using earlier 'Lives of Jesus' and the synoptics were working from a common text - an original 'Matthew' if you like.
Mark, as the earliest synoptic we have, is simply copying the feeling that some evidence of this spiritual resurrection is sorely needed. The proto - synoptic or proto -Matthew had the empty tomb as in John but could do no more than have an angel appear and explain that Jesus had risen and gone to Galilee. Which of course means that he doesn't appear later on that day.
This really wasn't good enough and so Luke added an account of Jesus strolling in that evening and having a bit of fish as indeed does John, though the bit of fish is some time later in Galilee, which (like the magical haul of fish -(Luke 5.4-8,John 21.4-6) shows that they were incorporating into the gospels odd stories and claims about Jesus that were circulating at the time.
Matthew of course is aware that the synoptic angel (he doesn't appear in John) has said that Jesus has gone to Galilee which is awkward as he so badly wants Jesus to appear, so he has him pop up just before he catches the Galilee greyhound even though the angel said that they would see Jesus in Galilee.
Luke's appearances means that Jesus doesn't go to Galilee but hangs around Bethany until he ascends, so Luke takes 'Is going before you into Galilee, there you will see him' and changes it it to:'remember what he told you when he was in Galilee?' Not the first example of rewriting the Bible to make it say what one wants it say, and far from the last.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 02-07-2013 at 01:29 AM..
Reason: hadto Look up the Corinthians 1 ref. and the usual tidy -up.
Are you saying that Mark is not a gospel, but a desperate plea for someone to find some evidence of a gospel?
Mark is a gospel of course. I am saying that it goes no further than the feeling in the synoptic original gospel that
something more than just a spiritual resurrection was needed and added an angel using the empty tomb for explaining that Jesus' body got up and walked.
Luke, Matthew and John are also gospels, but they go further (as I posted) in writing physical appearances of a solid Jesus in that place and on that day. And I argue that analysis of those three shows that the resurrection appearances are not to be credited.
To explain the relevance, the ending of Mark was not lost - it is all that there originally ever was, and 16. 9 on was added to fill the need for a bodily resurrection by a pretty thin crib from the gospels that had added bodily resurrections.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That is the most comically shameful thing I have ever heard! Is there no reading comprehension in this world? The resurrection is also collaborated by the "Short Version" of that fictional story attributed to Mark. It even says that Jesus went on ahead of them to Galilee, so it wouldn't matter if in this version the ladies kept quiet. I suppose the reason for his trip would be so that he could stop performing those "definitive" magic tricks today and thus send all future generations that didn't gulliblely fall for these empty threats and false promises to the arms of Hades. Quite a double standard in the Plot. 
