The Shorter Ending Of Mark

[R. S. Martin]

This grew out of Myron's thread on Higher Biblical Criticism. Since it's a rather new topic for that thread I'm starting a new thread.

 

I found something I didn't know. It's in the NRSV as follows:

 

The Shorter Ending of Mark

And all that had been commanded them they told briefly to those around Peter. And afterward Jesus himself sent out through them, from east to west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation.http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?act=...p;t=19568#_ftn1 http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?act=...=19568#_ftnref1

 

That verse is not in the KJV and it is assigned no number in the NRSV. It appears right after Verse 8. How did Jesus "send out" the proclamation if he stayed dead? It would seem there was a resurrection in the shorter ending but there sure was no fan-fare about it. Maybe the sending out happened via the Holy Spirit rather than from the resurrected Jesus. That would be an excellent question to pursue.

[Ouroboros]

You're talking abou the ending after v8 that scholars keep on debating if it's authentic or not? Isn't it fascinating that the Word of God that supposedly is the only salvation for us to go to Heaven and avoid Hell can't be clearly figured out even after 2000 years of debates? You would think God could have done a better job keeping his "holy book" intact?

 

Anyway. I've heard an explanation ot the "resurrection" of Jesus that it wasn't in body, but purely in spirit. They had a vision. Like in a seance. Seing a ghost. And the ghost spoke to them. Well, it actually could make sense especially if we talk about a magic trick that went out of hand and became really famous.

 

Imagine Chris Angel, setting up the scene where he's falsely accused of a crime, then shot in an execution. A doctor goes up and check his vitals and confirm he's dead. He's burried and then less than three days later he shows up as a ghost to a troup of people. Now he staged it all, and survived, and set them up with the apparation. Now these people don't know this, and they will go around the world and convert anyone to Chris Angelism. In those days they couldn't do as advanced tricks, but I'm sure there were a lot of clever tricks done and with a few rightly chosen mushrooms the groups could have been manipulated easily to believe anything. And they would even die for their beliefs. Regardless, Jesus didn't have to be a physical body, and actually the Bible does confirm that he could walk through walls, and he could change appearance, so he was more like a alien changeling and/or ghost.

 

(And that was probably not the answer you were looking for at all! )

[Mythra]

The shorter ending that Ruby posted is the way Codex Bobiensis reads. ( written in Latin - circa 400 CE)

 

But that isn't the most ancient. The most ancient mss end Mark even shorter.

 

Codex Sinaiticus ends at 16:8

 

Codex Vaticanus ends at 16:8

[Mythra]

So here is the NIV translation of how GMk originally ended:

 

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

 

Now, let's think about this for a second. The gospel of Mark was the first gospel written. Chances are it preceded GMt by 15 years.

 

So for 15 years this was perhaps the only written testament of Jesus Christ.

 

Now then - what are the chances that the writer would have left out all of the incredible events that happened (according to the other gospels) after the women left the tomb? Let's see - what all did GMk neglect to record for posterity?

 

The Great Commission (Mt 28)

The amazing manifestation of the risen christ on the road to Emmaus (Lk24)

The wonderful reunion with the disciples (Lk24)

The glorious ascension of Jesus up into the sky (Lk24)

The receipt of the holy spirit - when Jesus breathed on the disciples (Jn20)

The event with Thomas - and Jesus' wounded side (Jn20)

The miraculous catch of fish and Jesus' reinstatement of Peter (Jn21)

And, again, the glorious ascension of Jesus into the sky (Acts1)

 

 

So, now you tell me. What are the chances? What are the chances that the first gospel to be written (Mk) would have failed to mention any of these details - had they been actual events? IMO the chance is zero. There is no way.

 

So, what are the possible explanations:

 

1. It didn't originally end at 16:8, but the true ending was lost.

2. It didn't originally end at 16:8, but the true ending conflicted with Mt or Lk and so it was intentionally discarded

3. It ended at 16:8 because all of the other events mentioned above had not yet been thought up.

 

I go with door #3.

[Mythra]

So, now - what about the phony (or to be nice interpolated) ending

 

When Jesus rose early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had driven seven demons. She went and told those who had been with him and who were mourning and weeping. When they heard that Jesus was alive and that she had seen him, they did not believe it. Afterward Jesus appeared in a different form to two of them while they were walking in the country. These returned and reported it to the rest; but they did not believe them either. Later Jesus appeared to the Eleven as they were eating; he rebuked them for their lack of faith and their stubborn refusal to believe those who had seen him after he had risen. He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well."

After the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, he was taken up into heaven and he sat at the right hand of God. Then the disciples went out and preached everywhere, and the Lord worked with them and confirmed his word by the signs that accompanied it.

 

So, what do we have here - in this little liars for Jesus passage?

 

Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved

Whoever doesn't believe will be condemned.

Demons will be driven out in Jesus name

People will speak in tongues.

Snakes and poison, when used by believers, are just good clean fun.

People will be healed by the placing of hands.

 

So we have the pentecostal / charismatic message. Contained almost entirely in a passage that is inauthentic.

 

Amazing.

[R. S. Martin]

So we have the pentecostal / charismatic message. Contained almost entirely in a passage that is inauthentic.

 

Amazing.

 

We also have the entire Holy Roman Catholic Church and descendents. I get that from Jesus' reinstatement of Peter. Maybe that doesn't logically follow?

 

Anyway, Mythro, thanks for this study on the Shorter Ending of Mark. At my school we use the NRSV and I thought the prof said it was thought that originally Mark ended with verse 8. However, I wasn't quite sure so I looked it up in my computer program that has a number of Bibles on it. It included the verse I posted in the OP. But it put two sets of square brackets around it like [[this.]]

 

That verse does not sound at all like the NT text. The first sentence (And all that had been commanded them they told briefly to those around maybe like Gospel of Thomas, what with its very literal reference to a human being in such a secular way. There is no reifying nuance around it whatsoever like we get in the regular NT language. (I think "reify" means to make the mundane or human seem sacred.)

 

Let's look at the second sentence:

And afterward Jesus himself sent out through them, from east to west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation.

This smacks of Gnosticism, doesn't it?

 

Maybe I'm just imagining stuff. That verse sticks out to me like a sore thumb, for some reason.

[R. S. Martin]

You're talking abou the ending after v8 that scholars keep on debating if it's authentic or not? Isn't it fascinating that the Word of God that supposedly is the only salvation for us to go to Heaven and avoid Hell can't be clearly figured out even after 2000 years of debates? You would think God could have done a better job keeping his "holy book" intact?

 

Anyway. I've heard an explanation ot the "resurrection" of Jesus that it wasn't in body, but purely in spirit. They had a vision. Like in a seance. Seing a ghost. And the ghost spoke to them. Well, it actually could make sense especially if we talk about a magic trick that went out of hand and became really famous.

 

Imagine Chris Angel, setting up the scene where he's falsely accused of a crime, then shot in an execution. A doctor goes up and check his vitals and confirm he's dead. He's burried and then less than three days later he shows up as a ghost to a troup of people. Now he staged it all, and survived, and set them up with the apparation. Now these people don't know this, and they will go around the world and convert anyone to Chris Angelism. In those days they couldn't do as advanced tricks, but I'm sure there were a lot of clever tricks done and with a few rightly chosen mushrooms the groups could have been manipulated easily to believe anything. And they would even die for their beliefs. Regardless, Jesus didn't have to be a physical body, and actually the Bible does confirm that he could walk through walls, and he could change appearance, so he was more like a alien changeling and/or ghost.

 

(And that was probably not the answer you were looking for at all! )

 

Hans, I didn't know about Chris Angel until I read this post. I googled the name and found a website (didn't open it) so I guess there is a celebrity by that name who does all these tricks. Anyway, what you describe is what I believe is the historical factual reality of the Jesus case (given that either he and/or his followers ever existed). I believe the whole thing is a myth. It just seems a bit too contrived that his followers placed the story in their own lifetime if Jesus was a myth but they were real.

 

Thus, I would go for late datings of the writing of the NT, and argue that the writers set it roughly a century before their own time in the "long ago and far away" but wrote as though they were eye-witnesses and participators, as though they handled the body of Jesus, and ate with him, etc. People had vivid imaginations and understood this kind of thing. That would be just before living memory--so long ago that the old folks would have it only on hear-say. And when one realizes how the mental mindset worked of that day and age compared to ours, it makes a great deal of sense that all of it is myth and allegory.

 

The fundies, however, can't sleep with that idea creeping around the corner and sneaking in the windows. They're sure it's the devil. I don't know where their faith has gone. It seems to grow weaker and weaker like the flame in a lamp whose kerosene is all used up. That's the bedroom lights I grew up with and I know what that's like.

[Ouroboros]

Hans, I didn't know about Chris Angel until I read this post. I googled the name and found a website (didn't open it) so I guess there is a celebrity by that name who does all these tricks. Anyway, what you describe is what I believe is the historical factual reality of the Jesus case (given that either he and/or his followers ever existed). I believe the whole thing is a myth. It just seems a bit too contrived that his followers placed the story in their own lifetime if Jesus was a myth but they were real.

Agree. I think it's a completely made up story, but based on other stories that were compiled (and maybe even sayings and events from different real people too) together to a "unifying" story.

 

One pet theory I have is that the idea of Jesus was starting to be developed in a cult years before 1 CE. There were all these different cults in the Jewish world at that time. The Messianic Jews who waited for The Annointed Savior (Messiah Joshua) who would rescue them from the Romans. The Nazareens that were condemning the old religious leaders like the Pharisees. And the cult that today is called Manadeans who John the Baptist probably were part of, and no one really knows what they believed besides baptism. It wouldn't surprise me if several of these separate cults influenced some groups and things started to be put together, or maybe it was ultimately Paul that took all of them, and combined them with Hellenistic religion and philosophy and it all took off from there.

 

Mythra makes a good point of how come Mark didn't write a lot more than the later Gospels? If he was the earlier writer, wouldn't he remember more stuff? Wouldn't it be more plausible if the first one wrote more about the resurrection since that is the center of the story? Mark sounds more like the story about the "sage" than the "son of God". And considering that Jerusalem was a hub for travelers from the whole Roman empire, it was really busy of people from all over Europe, and no one wrote home or took the story home. If the amazing story of earthquakes and walking zombies in the city were true, we would find at least a few, if not plenty, of written material from all over the Roman empire about the amazing things that happened in Jerusalem in year 33. And lets not forget the Pentecostal, where everyone from all over the world (as it says) heard their language spoken by uneducated fishermen. And then miracles and the touch of the holy Spirit, and not one frigging person of all those thousands of people wrote one single shred of document about their experience. I mean, it doesn't make sense that the largest event of all time was so little documented and then were put into a few books that later got lost and mistranslated and what-not... it's just doesn't add up. Why did Jesus pick 12 disciples? Unless the plan was that all of them would document his teachings. They didn't, so God's plan failed, or he picked 12 for another reason... maybe it was a reference to the zodiac. The thunder brothers (twins, gemini) or Peter (maybe was leo?) and so on. Maybe one of the original stories contained exactly which one of the disciples were which zodiac sign, and Jesus as the sun, son of the Creator. It would be very cool if such a document was found that would show this to be the original intent.

[mwc]

So, now - what about the phony (or to be nice interpolated) ending

 

[snip]

 

So we have the pentecostal / charismatic message. Contained almost entirely in a passage that is inauthentic.

 

Amazing.

I have to disagree.

 

I know it goes against a lot of really smart people and I have nothing but my gut (but I gotta lot of gut) not being any academic or anything but the "phony" ending starts way before this in my opinion. It starts once jesus makes the decision to go to Jerusalem (chapter 10). The whole tone of the story changes. Jesus starts speaking doctrine in earnest along the way and the city sequence is corrupted.

 

I think chapter 16 is just one interpolation among many but the fake ending starts much sooner than people think.

 

mwc

[Mythra]

I know it goes against a lot of really smart people and I have nothing but my gut (but I gotta lot of gut) not being any academic or anything but the "phony" ending starts way before this in my opinion. It starts once jesus makes the decision to go to Jerusalem (chapter 10). The whole tone of the story changes. Jesus starts speaking doctrine in earnest along the way and the city sequence is corrupted.

 

When I say "inauthentic" - I'm referring to the fact that it's not part of the original text. I'm just speaking in terms of what is verified by manuscript evidence and a commonly held opinion among scholars. So unless you have some additional documentary evidence or solid textual analysis that supports a chapter 10 ending in Mark, it cannot withstand scrutiny. Doesn't mean you don't have a right to think it. I just think it would be shot down in flames by those who study this stuff for a living.

 

If I were to simply state my opinion, it's that the entire gospel story is a product of human ingenuity and imagination. Whether an actual human being lies at the core of the story or whether the entire thing developed as legend and later it was assumed to be historical, I don't know. There are some convincing arguments supporting both sides of the argument. So, my opinion is that the entire gospel story is inauthentic i.e. : it never happened.

 

Even when we talk about the ending of Mark, it's not rock-solid. There are a couple of early attestations by church fathers to one or more of the verses contained in 9-20. Both Justin and Irenaeus make comments that appear to be from this additional section. So, we know that if Mark ended at 16:8 (which is the most commonly held opinion) the additional verses were added quite early. Some think that they must have been penned after Acts, therefore the citations of poison and snakes - taken from Paul's ordeals.

[Ouroboros]

I know it goes against a lot of really smart people and I have nothing but my gut (but I gotta lot of gut) not being any academic or anything but the "phony" ending starts way before this in my opinion. It starts once jesus makes the decision to go to Jerusalem (chapter 10). The whole tone of the story changes. Jesus starts speaking doctrine in earnest along the way and the city sequence is corrupted.

 

I think chapter 16 is just one interpolation among many but the fake ending starts much sooner than people think.

Oh, come on MWC, the real fake ending started already in Mark 1:1, everyone knows that.

[mwc]

When I say "inauthentic" - I'm referring to the fact that it's not part of the original text. I'm just speaking in terms of what is verified by manuscript evidence and a commonly held opinion among scholars. So unless you have some additional documentary evidence or solid textual analysis that supports a chapter 10 ending in Mark, it cannot withstand scrutiny. Doesn't mean you don't have a right to think it. I just think it would be shot down in flames by those who study this stuff for a living.

I'm not saying that it ended in chapter 10. I'm saying the "splice" begins in chapter 10. The whole of everything from chapter 10 forward has been modified (not that modifications didn't occur all over the place this one is significant). The issue in chapter 16 is minor by comparison.

 

But since I have no manuscripts to make my point I was clear to indicate that. But if I go ahead and accept the status quo then I need to accept a guy named Jesus was born in a small town and did a whole lot of stuff that got penned into these manuscripts. I don't...but I can't show otherwise. I've looked pretty damn hard too.

 

The problem with the manuscripts, as we know, are they are copies of copies. If we take three people and have two write a sentence each then have the third write both sentences in their own hand how can we tell their were three people involved? It's damn near close to impossible especially if that third person tried to smooth any rough spots in the writing styles of the first two. So I fully understand the academic point of view and the need for evidence and I fully understand the need to look at this thing from all angles.

 

Even when we talk about the ending of Mark, it's not rock-solid. There are a couple of early attestations by church fathers to one or more of the verses contained in 9-20. Both Justin and Irenaeus make comments that appear to be from this additional section. So, we know that if Mark ended at 16:8 (which is the most commonly held opinion) the additional verses were added quite early. Some think that they must have been penned after Acts, therefore the citations of poison and snakes - taken from Paul's ordeals.

But 16:9 makes no sense as an addition. If someone added it they were an idiot. The other part of the narrative has a certain flow to it but only if you keep the broken Passover and all that crap in-tact. If you fix all that stuff by removing other possible insertions then 16:9 makes more sense than does the other plot-line. One of the failings of G.Mark is the broken Passover sequence because of the Last Supper but if that wasn't a part of the original you can get that all taken care of (explain verse 14:1...there's a time line in this part of the narrative and it is followed but not once the insertions are in place).

 

Once that is taken care of jesus miraculously appears to Mary M. in 16:9 instead of the awkward tomb discovery which trails off into nowhere at 16:8. It also seems to indicate that the whole scene at the cross had been expanded since Mary M. seems to be first introduced right here and this is why the men don't believe her. Why would jesus appear to this random women? If she's been traveling around all this time then we just have to assume it's because of their society at the time. She's their companion but still a women. Here she's a new character, a woman and she had demons. The last person in the world to bring the news of his resurrection. She's apparently not a follower, an outsider who just happens to know who they are, she's the lowest of the low and they refuse her testimony. Jesus then appears to two disciples and they refuse to believe. He then appears to them directly and they believe but he gives them hell over it. Notice the climb up the ladder as he attempts to get them believe? Lowest of the low outsider to trusted insiders and finally to their own eyes before they believe? See how this is such a strong story compared to anything to do with a tomb?

 

It doesn't negate any other the other symbolism either. He rises the first day of the week. According to the Epistle of Barnabas he did it on the 8th day and not the 3rd (sure the short version can be 8 days too but since they wanted to embalm the body that isn't likely...the long version isn't time dependent so these issues take care of themselves...like the date of Passover). Most of the church fathers didn't have any clear info on this which seems strange if they read the short version. It was simply dying and rising that mattered. The 8th day ties right into the circumcision rite so it's not out of line. There's plenty here to investigate in my opinion but since it's not in the oldest manuscript it really negates my whole line of reasoning though.

 

mwc

[Grandpa Harley]

To confuse things further. There is a school of thought that places the Saying G of Thos earlier than Mark. Thus the earliest directive about whom Jesus wanted as his successor points at James not Peter, who is portrayed as an object of ill concealed contempt by Jesus.

 

The underlying structure of Mark is a problem too. It reflects more the structure of Greek mystery play, wherein the Disciples just don't understand what Jesus is saying, and there are a set of dramatic set pieces (episodes), rather than a coherent narrative. Cf Oedipus, wherein there are dramatic set pieces, and, up until the end, no one pulls the information they know together. The Shepherd's near monologue is a prima facie case... In the case of the G.Mk, the disciples never understand what they were taught.

 

Thus, viewing Mark as a Greek Play, , which is an alien idea to Jews, since they never had a theatrical tradition until well after the third century AD, it is dramatically more consistent for the G. Mk. to end with the Crucifixion... the hero dies, the protagonists leave the stage older but no wiser, and the audience, at whom the 'moral' of the play is aimed, files out to mull on what they've learned. A Greek Tragedy in almost classic sense (certainly in Tragic/old comedy one)

 

Effectively, the structure of G.Mk means that the whole post 16:8 text isn't coherent with the structure of the rest of the Gospel. The post crucifixion events in Matt are less jarring, but even then, since it is a pastiche or paraphrase of Mk with some interpolations, it is still not consistent with the general episodic and thematic content that Mk infects the text with. Lk is risible, but is more internally and structurally not a classical Greek tragedy. John is a beefed up saying Gospel, and doesn't fit at all... the narrative and editorial of that again in not Jewish, but neither is it Greek. I'm unsure what the narrative structure of the Copts was/is, but there may lie the solution of the general oddness of Jhn.

 

don't ask me to reference that since I have no recollection where I know that from... and some is my own work, synthesised from other commentaries...

[R. S. Martin]

When I read stuff like this I am so VERY GLAD that I deconverted. I found answers that satisfy. Too long--far too long--have I searched for answers and tried to make sense of messy and confusing information like this. The answer would have been so simple but they never even looked at it. Just tell me HOW the plan of salvation works. HOW Jesus' dead body can effect a change on the cosmic level that can let my soul into heaven.

 

People tell me it's built on Jewish sacrificial tradtion. I think that's crap! An all-knowing God would know that such stuff makes no sense to us today. If it were as important for salvation as they say, then it would make sense today. God's ways are beyond finding out. Yes, I confess that fully. I ask only to understand that which I am obligated to profess to know, i.e. that I am saved through the shed blood of Christ. Apparently I am not allowed to understand that which I am obligated to profess to know. That is forcing me to lie. And I refuse to do that. Send me to hell if you like.

 

But be sure hell exists if you're going to send me there. Otherwise, I might just skip off to play under the big willow tree by the river and have myself a wiener roast with my friends.

[Mythra]

I think the next book I'm going to buy is called The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark, by Dennis R. McDonald.

Anyone here read it?

 

It was reviewed by Richard Carrier at Internet Infidels. Here is the intro to Carrier's review of the book:

 

This is an incredible book that must be read by everyone with an interest in Christianity. MacDonald's shocking thesis is that the Gospel of Mark is a deliberate and conscious anti-epic, an inversion of the Greek "Bible" of Homer's Iliad and Odyssey, which in a sense "updates" and Judaizes the outdated heroic values presented by Homer, in the figure of a new hero, Jesus (whose name, of course, means "Savior"). When I first heard of this I assumed it would be yet another intriguing but only barely defensible search for parallels, stretching the evidence a little too far—tantalizing, but inconclusive. What I found was exactly the opposite. MacDonald's case is thorough, and though many of his points are not as conclusive as he makes them out to be, when taken as a cumulative whole the evidence is so abundant and clear it cannot be denied. And being a skeptic to the thick, I would never say this lightly. Several scholars who reviewed or commented on it have said this book will revolutionize the field of Gospel studies and profoundly affect our understanding of the origins of Christianity, and though I had taken this for hype, after reading the book I now echo that very sentiment myself.

 

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ric...merandmark.html

[R. S. Martin]

Sounds like a must-read. When was it written? Is it just off the press?

[Mythra]

2000, so it's been out for awhile now. We're behind the times, Ruby.

 

I've seen this book mentioned quite a few times in discussion boards.

[R. S. Martin]

2000, so it's been out for awhile now. We're behind the times, Ruby.

 

I've seen this book mentioned quite a few times in discussion boards.

 

Thanks. I'm guessing from the title that it's not one that my NT prof would have put on the required reading list.

 

He's been terribly frustrated with Tom Harpur. He told me I should read other stuff than just Harpur. I told him I got most of my material (for whatever we were discussing at the moment) from other sources. (I knew better by then than to use Harpur.) He commended me for that. I didn't tell him that it was mostly equally apostate sources off the internet. (I figured if he didn't ask he didn't have to know that.)

 

As I am writing it occurs to me that, among his other various sins, Harpur's greatest sin is being a local boy. He got his education in Toronto, lives in Toronto, and writes for the Toronto Star (I think). Don't ask me why the boys in Waterloo have problems sharing space with a boy in Toronto. We're heading into winter and that means an hour and a half of COLD air between here and Toronto.

 

I got to see some of the correspondence between one of the profs here (not the NT guy; another one) and Harpur when the Pagan Christ was first out. I didn't realize it then but I see it now. The prof here was downright childish picking fights for the sake of picking fights. Like kindergarten kids on a playground: nah-nah-nah, nah-nah-nah, nah-nah-nah! And guess what. That childish prof gets to be guest speaker for the NT class on what a terrible book Harpur wrote. He emphasizes that it was terrible scholarship. I did a bit of research and so far as I can see Harpur does not claim anything he does not deliver. Harpur states up front that it is not supposed to be a scholarly work. I pointed this out to my profs with little effect. They are accusing him of not being scholarly. That's a great deal like the fundies coming on here and accusing us of never having been real christians...

 

Okay I'm just ranting. But don't you think this is a lot how it went when they decided how to put the Bible together? Might this be why there is this odd verse floating around that nobody really knows where or whether it belongs? The angry debates, the outright childish nah-nah-nahs never get published. All that gets repeated in the classroom two millennia later is the sanitized statement that there was a "lot of controversy," etc. around the issue. Sometimes there is even war.

 

But nothing--absolutely nothing--prepared me for that low-down stuff. And to think the prof himself let me read it. It took me till now to make sense of it. My brain simply refused to accept the implications four years ago when I read it. I always assumed that even in war the arguments are worthy of the adult intellect, though ever so deadly.

[Grandpa Harley]

Sidebar

 

Mythra, you unutterable BASTARD... I'll have to go buy it now...

[mwc]

Alright, I know this is basically a tangent but I was reading another book (The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered) and happened onto something I found interesting. There's the motif of the dying/rising god and it seems rather Greek but 3 days isn't good enough for most parallels to really work (I've read all about the dying sun in the winter and so on but since that day has been linked to the birthday and not the death it seems to be a stretch).

 

Anyhow, I then came across this translation:

Fragment 2 (1) [the fifth (month) falls to Bilgah. On the second is the Sabbath of I]mmer. On the

th[ir]d, (2) [after the Sabbath, is the Festival of New Wine. On] the ninth is the Sabbath of Hezir. (3)

[On the sixteenth is the Sabbath of Happizzez. On the twen]ty-third is the Sabbath of (4) [Pethahiah.

On the thirtieth is the Sabbath of Jehezkel. The firs]t of the sixth month is (5) [after the Sabbath. On

the seventh is the Sabbath of Jachin. On the fo]urteenth (6) [is the Sabbath of Gamul. On the twentyfirst

is the Sabbath of Delaiah. On the twenty-]second (7) [is the Festival of Oil. On the twenty-third is

the Festival of W]ood [Offering] . . .

 

And here's the author's explanation:

This manuscript consists of three fragments, the two largest of which are transliterated here. These

fragments belong to the first year rotation in the sexennial priestly cycle. The text records which

priestly course is responsible for each Sabbath and festival in the period covered. Fragment 1 concerns

the period from Passover (1/ 14) until the first Sabbath of the third month. Fragment 2 apparently

begins with 5/3 and the Festival of New Wine (heretofore known from the Temple Scroll, but not

listed in the Bible or most other calendar texts). The last date indicated in Fragment 2 is 6/23, on

which the Festival of Wood Offering began.

So what if the 3 months got shortened to 3 days? This would be for those pesher folks that wanted the sign of Jonah. Literal day/months weren't needed.

 

I've already argued that G.Mark got a new ending. I've long thought that the "original" story contained a calendar and jesus moved about marking key points on that calendar. The transfiguration, for example, seems to be the Festival of Booths (the Jewish New Year). The reason I call it a calendar though is it's somewhat of a training manual or guide. Since the people were illiterate it would be easier to teach them a narrative to memorize than a block of text like the ones I quote. So the "teacher" in the story runs around doing things and the people learn the story. When the "teacher" hits a key moment they know that what it translates into (the feast of this or the festival of that) and the little story also helps to tell them why it's important too. It's servers a dual purpose. So the transfiguration is the Festival of Booths (Weeks) and it's important because of Moses and Elijah. Simple...but messed up long ago.

 

It seems that the Wedding at Cana story would be a much better fit to the New Wine Festival though it's in the wrong book (G.John just doesn't strike me as a calendar like G.Mark does...but I haven't looked at it to be honest).

 

The same book also contained another important fragment:

Part 1: Calendrical Exposition [(1) In the first month, (2) on the fourth (3) of it is a sabbath; (4) on the

eleventh (5) of it is a sabbath; (6) on the four- (7) teenth of it is the Passover; (8) on the eight- (9)

teenth of it is a sabbath; (10) on the twenty- (11) fifth (12) of it is a sabbath; (13) afterward, on the

twenty- (14) sixth (15) of it is the Waving of the Omer. (16) On the second (17) of the second month

(18) on that day is a sabbath; (19) on the ninth (20) of it is a sabbath; (21) on the fourteenth (22) of it

is the Second Passover; (23) on the sixteenth (24) of it is a sabbath; (25) on the twenty(26) third (27)

of it is a sabbath; (28) on the thirtieth (29) of it is a sabbath. (30) In the third month (31) on the

seventh (32) of it is a sabbath; (33) on the fourteenth (34) of it is a sabbath; (35) afterward, (36) on the

fifteenth (37) of it is the Festival of Weeks; (38) on the twenty- (39) first (40) of it is a sabbath; (41)

on the twenty- (42) eighth (43) of it is a sabbath; (44) after (45) Sunday and Monday, (46) an (extra)

Tuesday (47) is added. (48) In the fourth month (49) on the fourth (50) of it is a sabbath; (51) on the

eleventh (52) of it is a sabbath; (53) on the eight- (54) eenth of it is a sabbath; (55) on the twenty- (56)

fifth (57) of it is a sabbath. (58) On the second (59) of the fifth month (60) is a sabbath; (61)

afterward, (62) on the third (63) of it is the Festival of New Wine; (64) on the ninth (65) of it is a

sabbath; (66) on] the sixteenth (67) of it is a sabbath; (68) on the twenty(69) third (70) of it is a

sabbath; (71) [on the] thir[t]ieth (72) [of it is a sabbath. (73) In the sixth month, (74) on the seventh

(75) is a sabbath; (76) on the fourteenth] (77) of it is a sabbath; (78) on the twenty- (79) first (80) of it

is a sabbath; (81) on the twenty- (82) second (83) of it is the Festival of (84) (New) Oil; (85)

after[ward, on the twenty- (86) third] (87) is the Offerin[g of Wood; (88) on the twenty- (89) eighth

(90) of it is a sabbath; (91) after (92) Sunday and Monday (93) an (extra) Tuesday (94) is added. (95)

On the first of the seventh (96) month (97) is the Day of Remembrance; (98) on the fourth (99) of it is

a sabbath; (100) on the tenth (101) of it is the Day (102) of Atonement; (103) on the eleventh (104) of

it is a sabbath; (105) on the fifteenth (106) of it is the Festival (107) of Booths; (108) on the eight-

(109) eenth of it is a sabbath; (110) on the twenty- (111) second (112) of it is the Gathering; (113) on

the twenty(114) fifth (115) of it is a sabbath. (116) On the second (117) of the eighth month (118) is a

sabbath; (119) on the ninth] (120) of it is a sabbath; (121) on the sixteenth (122) of it is a sabbath;

(123) on the twenty(124) third (125) of it is a sabbath; (126) on the th[irt]ieth (127) [of it is a sabbath.

(128) In the ninth month, (129) the seventh (130) is a sabbath; (131) on the fourteenth (132) of it is a

sabbath; (133) on the tw]ent[y-first (134) of it is a sa]bbath; (135) [on the] twenty- (136) eighth (137)

of [it] is a sabbath; (138) after (139) S[unday] and Mond[ay,] (140) [an (extra) Tuesday (141) is

added. (142) In the tenth month] (143) on the [fourth (144) of it is a sabbath;] (145) on the eleventh]

(146) of' it is a sabbath; (147) on the eight- (148) teenth of it is a sabbath; (149) on the twenty- (150)

fifth (151) of it is a sabbath. (152) On the second (153) [of the eleventh] (154) mon[th (155) is a

sabbath. (156) on the ninth (157) of it is a sabbath; (158) on the sixteenth (159) of it is a sabbath;

(160) on the twenty(161) third (162) of it is a sabbath; (163) on the thirtieth (164) of it is a sabbath.

(165-167) In the twelfth month, (168) the seventh (169) is a sabbath; (170) on the fourteenth of it is a

sabbath; on the twenty-first of it is a sabbath; on the twenty- (171) eighth of it] is a sabbath; after

[sunday and Monday an (extra) Tuesday (172) is addled. Thus the year is complete: three hundred

and [sixty-four] (173) days.

I find this important since it shows that this group used their own custom calendar. Did other groups do the same? Are the biblical texts all written using the same unit of measure? Are any of them using the calendar I just quoted? We assume they're using the standard Jewish calendar or maybe the Roman one but this shows that doesn't have to be the case.

 

If this calendar is used then Passover was the 14th (the standard day) and the "sabbaths" were on the 4th, 11th, 18th and the 25th (they didn't seem to care that the days would "move" being a day short for the year). Then he would have always been crucified on Tuesday the 13th/14th and rose again on Sunday the 19th. Six days. But, these people thought that Wednesday was the first created day so the story has him rise on the first day of the week and that would be the 15th or the 22nd. One day (too few) or the magical 8 days the Epistle of Barnabas mentions. I'm reading in a lot but it's to say that if these guys could create their own calendar I see no reason others couldn't either (or just used this one).

 

Since so many groups were laying claim to this whole religion it make sense that all this got tossed in and mixed together. 8 days here. 3 days over here. One of them had to win out and the "sign of Jonah" makes a lot more sense than presenting your kid for circumcision (the circumcision metaphors just didn't seem to appeal to the Gentiles like a cool man eating whale story...go figure).

 

mwc

[Mythra]

Interesting take on things, MWC. Not sure what to make of it. ? I have that book. I guess I better take another look.

 

Grandpa Harley - I know that sickness - there's always another interesting book that's a "must have". I just wish I could remember more than 2% of the stuff I read.

 

Right now I'm poking my way through "Backgrounds of Early Christianity" by Everett Ferguson. I say "poking" because it's more of a college textbook type book than a quick read. But it does provide some interesting context to the region in the times of christianity's infancy.

[Mythra]

I'm not saying that it ended in chapter 10. I'm saying the "splice" begins in chapter 10. The whole of everything from chapter 10 forward has been modified (not that modifications didn't occur all over the place this one is significant). The issue in chapter 16 is minor by comparison.

But since I have no manuscripts to make my point I was clear to indicate that.

 

Yeah. I understand, MWC. I know what you're getting at. And I have read similar things, that several of the gospels appear to be cobbled together - almost as though passages and even entire chapters were added and modified by multiple writers over many years.

 

I think that's one of the most frustrating things about this to a black-and-white thinker like myself. I want definitive answers. Not necessarily easy answers, but I want to get to the bottom of things. And with christianity, it kind of fades into an obscure fog in which the evidence becomes impossible to obtain. At that point, educated conjecture is the best we'll ever have. Even the dating of the gospels is subject to such guesswork.

[mwc]

I think there's a lot more evidence out there than people like to think.

 

I'd have to go get sources but a real off-the-cuff example would be something like where the orthodoxy accuses the heterodoxy of altering the texts. I'm thinking of when one group said another group removed the nativity from G.Matthew (or was it G.Hebrews?). Usually, but not always, text is added but not so often is it deleted. Even academics acknowledge this (again, not in all cases is this true...Thomas Jefferson's bible is evidence of a massive rewrite). So given the two choices it seems reasonable that someone added the story to the holy writings as opposed to removing them from their sacred stories.

 

Everything is basically offered up with an "We'll look at all the 'evidence' but the orthodoxy ultimately trumps the heterodoxy" attitude. This is (slowly) changing but it's still rather annoying. I guess I'll wander around the fringes for awhile longer until the old school fades away.

 

mwc

[Grandpa Harley]

Grandpa Harley - I know that sickness - there's always another interesting book that's a "must have". I just wish I could remember more than 2% of the stuff I read.

 

I remember a lot of it, but one day my book habit will land me in the divorce courts...

[mwc]

I've been working on my theory that G.Mark was basically a calendar of sorts and this is what I've come up with so far.

 

The whole thing starts in Nisan (March/April) with Passover and goes in order of the Jewish calendar ending with Tishri which is about September/October (this is a really rough draft but I wanted to see if it would even work...I think it does). I'll briefly explain the cycle of events:

 

Passover = Temptation of Jesus (1:12–13)

Jesus goes into the desert for 40 days and nights. This parallels the Exodus. This is a pilgrimage festival so jesus wanders off.

Feast Unleavened Bread = Feeding the 5000 (6:30–44)

Jesus feeds the people. This is also a pilgrimage festival and the people also wander off.

Festival of Weeks = Feeding the 4000 (8:1–9)

Jesus feeds people again. Another pilgrimage festival.

Festival of (New) Oil? = A woman anointed Jesus (14:3–9)

I'm not sure of this one but it fit the time line so I tossed it in. Woman anoints his feet with precious oil.

Day of Remembrance = Last Supper (14:12–26)

According to Leviticus 23 this is a day of rest, memory, blowing of horns, meeting for worship, no field-work and a burnt offering. The Passover meal contains most of these things and since the Last Supper/Mount Olives is supposed to be that meal (and some worship) it seems that's the parallel. This day marks the completion of creation so I could be way off.

Day of Atonement = Before Pilate (15:1–15)

The day of atonement is the scapegoat ceremony. This plays out before Pilate although it is somewhat broken (now at least). This is the holiest day of the Jewish year.

Festival of Booths = Transfiguration (9:2–13) or Joseph of Arimathea (15:42–47)

This is to represent the Israelites living in tents/booths while in the wilderness but in Deuteronomy it has "16:13 You are to keep the feast of tents for seven days after you have got in all your grain and made your wine:" so it's also a harvest festival (and jesus is the first fruits). The transfiguration scene mentions the booths explicitly but the whole thing with putting jesus in a tomb is much like a tent or booth. I think the transfiguration is a much better fit especially with the mention of the six day time span (the time between this festival and the day of atonement).

the Gathering = The Longer Ending and Resurrection appearances (16:9-20)

The gathering is pretty obvious. The disciples are gathered and jesus shows up. This day occurs 8 days after the Festival of Booths (it's the end of the festival which makes it part of the same "event").

 

I ripped off the G.Mark section titles and verses from Wikipedia (so they're only close enough for this rough draft) and the festival names from wherever I could find them (it's not an exhaustive list but all these seem to have been around during that period).

 

The thing about this calendar is that after the last date (the gathering) is another date called "Rejoicing the Torah" that starts the cycle all over again. What happens is that the annual cycle of Torah readings end and start again with Genesis. Get it? The Torah (the word) "dies" and is "born again." It's created anew over this 8 day period when "god" starts it all over again.

 

I believe this makes a lot more sense in light of the Jewish year (that Passover was not the most important day by a long shot) and that other influences may be involved (like those of the Qumran sect others may have started their calendar in Nisan, the first month, and wrote a narration to reflect it). The whole year culminating in the holiest event and the "resurrection" of the Torah (the "word") for another year makes a lot of sense to me (it shows the power of "god" that Israel and their beliefs managed to not get killed off for yet another year too).

 

I guess this would also explain why jesus eventually gets born in the winter. He'd have to be born then, although I'd say it would be Hanukkah would be the appropriate time (although it's not Torah), but it really doesn't match up since he's perpetual. Obviously, he is "born" Tishri 22/23 (October sometime) but if you wanted to make him a baby he'd need to be "grown" by his first appearance which is Passover. I suppose the baptism by John is when the sun is at the vernal equinox (and therefore not Jewish and original to this aspect of the story but the Hellenistic mix). But this is an altogether different issue.

 

I realize this is all speculation but what do you think?

 

mwc