Jump to content

The Shorter Ending Of Mark


Recommended Posts

Is the Jewish calender 10 or 12 months? I wonder since there's a lot of astrology in the Gospels if, like you said, there are a yearly story of the sun's movement on the sky from rebirth in December and all the year around, if it's possible to find the connection between the 12 disciples and the 12 monhts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jewish calendar

Religious and civil dating system based on both lunar and solar cycles. In the calendar used today, a day is counted from sunset to sunset, a week comprises 7 days, a month has 29 or 30 days, and a year has 12 lunar months plus approximately 11 days (or 353, 354, or 355 days). In order to bring the calendar in line with the annual solar cycle, a 13th month of 30 days is added in the 3rd, 6th, 8th, 11th, 14th, 17th, and 19th years of a 19-year cycle. Therefore, a leap year may have from 383 to 385 days. The Jewish calendar in use today was popularly accepted around the 4th century AD and is based on Biblical calculations placing the creation in 3761 BC.

 

From Enc Brit...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is the Jewish calender 10 or 12 months? I wonder since there's a lot of astrology in the Gospels if, like you said, there are a yearly story of the sun's movement on the sky from rebirth in December and all the year around, if it's possible to find the connection between the 12 disciples and the 12 monhts?

My last post isn't about astrology really. I would say this would be more like a tool of sorts. The narrative would have been a lot shorter than what we possess and addressed the specific festivals and such that the author wanted the others to know and understand. So "jesus" is the "Torah." He then "acts out" the various feasts over the course of the Jewish year starting at Passover and culminating at the Gathering.

 

I looked at wikipedia just now and found the following at the Gathering:

Shemini Atzeret (שמיני עצרת - "the Eighth [day] of Assembly") is a Jewish holiday celebrated on the 22nd day of the Hebrew month of Tishrei. In the Diaspora an additional day is celebrated, the second day being separately referred to as Simchat Torah.

...

Shemini Atzeret is mistakenly referred to as the eighth day of the Festival of Sukkot, which occupies the seven preceding days. In fact, Shemini Atzeret is a holiday unto itself.

Obviously, this may not reflect with 100% accuracy what happened 2000 years ago. But here's a pic of a Sukkot of today:

250px-Sukkah.jpg

It could be rather tomb-like depending on how one were to build it.

 

The Jewish calendar does have 12 months but in the winter months their are no major Torah events so after the Gathering we sit around until Passover in the spring rolls around again. I only mentioned the other things (like xmas) to show they must have been the result of Hellenization because it really has no place in the "calendar." This is where the trip into Jerusalem in chapter 10 really starts to head off-track and the Passover theme that was interpolated in totally confuses things (that's why I had some troubles near the end since it got much more difficult to try to spot the parallels...maybe if I spent more time on it but I wanted to throw it out there for some feedback).

 

The disciples are entirely different matter in my opinion. I think they've been renamed (at least most of them) to Greek names when they merged everything. Levi is likely original and Simon too (ie. the Jewish names). Peter is probably not but they needed the name later on. I think he would have had 12 close apostles and 70 disciples (to echo the Exodus' 12 tribes and 70 offspring of Jacob...which is likely itself based on astrology at least in part). If you look at G.Mark though there really isn't much emphasis on the names of anybody except in the (what I argue are) inserted parts (otherwise it's really quite generic like "He went over there with them") but if you get around doctrine or dogma of any sort suddenly names and titles start flying off the page like crazy.

 

mwc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is the Jewish calender 10 or 12 months? I wonder since there's a lot of astrology in the Gospels if, like you said, there are a yearly story of the sun's movement on the sky from rebirth in December and all the year around, if it's possible to find the connection between the 12 disciples and the 12 monhts?

I think he would have had 12 close apostles and 70 disciples (to echo the Exodus' 12 tribes and 70 offspring of Jacob...which is likely itself based on astrology at least in part).

To follow up my own post I found this in G.Luke (and the parallel verse in G.Mark):

10:1 Now after these things, the Lord made selection of seventy others and sent them before him, two together, into every town and place where he himself was about to come.

...

(Mark 6:7 And he gave orders to the twelve, and sent them out two by two; and he gave them authority over the unclean spirits;)

So he did eventually end up with 12 and 70 (only in G.Luke) just as expected.

 

mwc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I marvel at the oratorical skills of Ingersoll. Here is something he had to say about the interpolated ending in GMk:

 

Then I turn to the first chapter of the Acts, and there I find an account of the last conversation; and in that conversation there is not one word upon this subject. This is a demonstration that the passage in Mark is an interpolation. What other reason have I got? There is not one particle of sense in it. Why? No man can control his belief. You hear evidence for and against, and the integrity of the soul stands at the scales and tells which side rises and which side falls. You can not believe as you wish. You must believe as you must. And he might as well have said. "Go into the world and preach the gospel, and whosoever has red hair shall be saved, and whosoever hath not shall be damned."

 

I have another reason. I am much obliged to the gentleman who interpolated these passages. I am much obliged to him that he put in some more -- two more. Now hear:

 

"And these signs shall follow them that believe "Good!

 

"In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; they shall take up serpents, and if they drink any deadly thing it shall not hurt them. They shall lay hands on the sick and they shall recover."

 

Bring on your believer! Let him cast out a devil. I do not ask for a large one. Just a little one for a cent. Let him take up serpents. "And if they drink any deadly thing it shall not hurt them." Let me mix up a dose for the believer, and if it does not hurt him I will join a church. "Oh! but," they say, "those things only lasted through the Apostolic age." Let us see. "Go into all the world and preach the gospel, and whosoever believes and is baptized shall be saved, and these signs shall follow them that believe."

 

How long? I think at least until they had gone into all the world. Certainly those signs should follow until all the world had been visited. And yet if that declaration was in the mouth of Christ, he then knew that one-half of the world was unknown, and that he would be dead fourteen hundred and fifty-nine years before his disciples would know that there was another continent. And yet he said, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel," and he knew then that it would be fourteen hundred and fifty-nine years before anybody could go. Well, if it was worth while to have signs follow believers in the Old World, surely it was worth while to have signs follow believers in the New. And the very reason that signs should follow would be to convince the unbeliever, and there are as many unbelievers now as ever, and the signs are as necessary to-day as they ever were. I would like a few myself.

 

This frightful declaration, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be damned," has filled the world with agony and crime. Every letter of this passage has been sword and fagot; every word has been dungeon and chain. That passage made the sword of persecution drip with innocent blood through centuries of agony and crime. That passage made the horizon of a thousand years lurid with the fagot's flames. That passage contradicts the Sermon on the Mount; travesties the Lord's prayer; turns the splendid religion of deed and duty into the superstition of creed and cruelty. I deny it. It is infamous! Christ never said it.

 

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical...o_be_saved.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest N.T.Wrong
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.

 

 

Good critical thinking.

 

But, don't jump to conlcusions. All the other biographies (namely luke and matthew) are still not much later at all. There is not any room for a significant amount of legend or myth developement. Don't forget about 1Corinthians 15 either. It was written at about 55-56 AD. Paul speaks of a bunch of post resurrection appearances. Also, Paul probably got this creed-like-oral-tradition when he was in Jerusalem no more than 5 years after the events themselves. Paul's mentions alot.

 

1Corinthians 15:3-7

The death of Christ

The burial

The resurrection on the third day

The appearance to Cephas

The appearance to the twelve

The appearance to more than 500 at one time.

The appearance to James (most likely Jesus' brother in the flesh)

The appearance to all the apostles again

 

I think there is one more explaination for Mark. He leaves you hanging... It's as if he want's you to find out for yourelf. Also, Mark has somewhat of a theme that I find throughout his book. In Mark 4 Jesus speaks of the parable of the sower. He says, "Listen to this!" right at the beginning. The parable is about those who receive the word, right? In verse 12 of chapter 4 he says, "While seeing, they may see and not perceive, and while hearing, they may hear and not understand, otherwise they might return and be forgiven." So what? Jesus didn't want them to understand? Jesus made it difficult to understand on purpose. You have to dig deeper. You have to give it effort. You have to humble yourself and see and hear, and perceive and understand.

I encourage you to consider this. There is a whole lot of evidence for Christ's resurrection. You don't think it's enough? I don't think, by your historical methods, that any event in ancient history can be affirmed. Mark left you hanging with the only testimony of some women (very unreliable people in that day) that say the Lord is risen. Do you think Mark would end it with that if he was making it up? I really doubt it. In fact, doesn't this make Mark even more reliable? Even if Matthew and Luke added some legends and myths (I'm sure they did not), Mark still leaves you with an empty tomb and an angel in it who says the Lord is risen. Mark would make a good movie. We're left asking what happened next? Did the apostles believe the women? Come on, what happened? He leaves you hanging and you can't stand it. Is there a sequel? Or maybe I'm supposed to find out what happened next. Maybe what Mark leaves me with is plenty enough to drop my pride and follow Christ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All the other biographies (namely luke and matthew) <snip>

 

:lmao: This clown is quite the unintentional comedian. Enough said....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But, don't jump to conlcusions. All the other biographies (namely luke and matthew) are still not much later at all. There is not any room for a significant amount of legend or myth developement.

Says who?

 

Please explain to me why myths and legends can not develop quickly.

 

There are plenty of examples in our world today and the last 100 years to prove that myths and legends developes extremely fast.

 

So where's the proof for your premise?

 

Seriously. Myths and legends develops very, very fast. The only ones that ever argue that it doesn't are Christian apologists. But I dont' think you're one of them.

 

Now if legends and myths develops in our educated world today, how would it be in a world full of uneducated people with no ability to confirm or validate the rumous they hear?

 

Imagine if you have no computer, no books, and no education and no training in logic or philosophy, and you live in a hut somewhere and someone came and told you there was a miracle worker in the city. You would most likely believe him, since you wouldn't know better.

 

But today, even with the sophisticated tools and resources, people get fooled constantly. All these email scams keeps on flooding our life and news media constantly reminds everyone to what to look out for, and yet... people fall for it... how is that possible? Because people are guillable. That's what con men live on. That's a part of how we are. So to claim that people 2000 years ago actually knew truth and were able to avoid making legends... too strong for my stomach.

 

Example: Emperor Vespasian was believed to have made miracles. In his life time. Is that a legend or truth? If it is truth, maybe he was the son of God. If it was legend and myth... it took no-time to develop. Or more acccurately, he was approached by people who believed he could do miracles... Heck, is that a legend or what? That's a living legend!

 

So prove to me now, that legend can NOT develop withint 40 years after someone's death.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TBH, there was a massive legendary built around Hitler by 1965, let alone 1985...

 

He survived WW2

He died in 1941 and it was a double who lead the country to ruin.

He'd escaped to Antarctica

He'd escaped to the moon in Nazi space ships and would return to lead the Third Reich

Bits of him were in a KGB vault

He was captured by Stalin's men and kept prisoner until Stalin's death when he was executed

...

Take your pick...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All the other biographies (namely luke and matthew) <snip>

 

:lmao: This clown is quite the unintentional comedian. Enough said....

 

He seems blissfully unaware of the reason Mark would make 'good' film is that we have a theatrical tradition, thanks to our civilisations Classical Greco-Romano origins. There was no theatrical tradition in Judaic thought until well after AD70 and the fall of Jerusalem. Thus any narrative that utilises a theatrical structure of mid to late antiquity has nothing to do with a Jewish author. :D I'm sure there's an apologetic to cover this, but reading Mark and the other narrative synoptic gospel, they owe a lot more to Euripides than to Jeremiah...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All the other biographies (namely luke and matthew) <snip>

 

:lmao: This clown is quite the unintentional comedian. Enough said....

 

He seems blissfully unaware of the reason Mark would make 'good' film is that we have a theatrical tradition, thanks to our civilisations Classical Greco-Romano origins. There was no theatrical tradition in Judaic thought until well after AD70 and the fall of Jerusalem. Thus any narrative that utilises a theatrical structure of mid to late antiquity has nothing to do with a Jewish author. :D I'm sure there's an apologetic to cover this, but reading Mark and the other narrative synoptic gospel, they owe a lot more to Euripides than to Jeremiah...

 

Just the notion of the gospels as being "biographies" in the modern accepted meaning of the term was funny.

 

Yes, I am sure he is blissfully unaware of the above and also in a lot of other ways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there is one more explaination for Mark. He leaves you hanging... It's as if he want's you to find out for yourelf. Also, Mark has somewhat of a theme that I find throughout his book. In Mark 4 Jesus speaks of the parable of the sower. He says, "Listen to this!" right at the beginning. The parable is about those who receive the word, right? In verse 12 of chapter 4 he says, "While seeing, they may see and not perceive, and while hearing, they may hear and not understand, otherwise they might return and be forgiven." So what? Jesus didn't want them to understand? Jesus made it difficult to understand on purpose. You have to dig deeper. You have to give it effort. You have to humble yourself and see and hear, and perceive and understand.

I encourage you to consider this. There is a whole lot of evidence for Christ's resurrection. You don't think it's enough? I don't think, by your historical methods, that any event in ancient history can be affirmed. Mark left you hanging with the only testimony of some women (very unreliable people in that day) that say the Lord is risen. Do you think Mark would end it with that if he was making it up? I really doubt it. In fact, doesn't this make Mark even more reliable? Even if Matthew and Luke added some legends and myths (I'm sure they did not), Mark still leaves you with an empty tomb and an angel in it who says the Lord is risen. Mark would make a good movie. We're left asking what happened next? Did the apostles believe the women? Come on, what happened? He leaves you hanging and you can't stand it. Is there a sequel? Or maybe I'm supposed to find out what happened next. Maybe what Mark leaves me with is plenty enough to drop my pride and follow Christ.

Please explain to me how a lack of evidence constitutes evidence because I just don't get it, especially when you yourself say that the ones testifying the evidence were considered unreliable sources of evidence. And you can't use the bible to prove the bible is real. That's just silly and pointless. The difference between proving events in ancient history occured and that Jesus is real is that we have actual evidence that these events occured, like the various temples in Greece or the ancient pyramids in Epgyt. These ancient people left behind psychical evidence that we can see and touch to prove that they were real. All we have about Jesus is a collection of stories that were written many years after his supposed death. There's lots of movies and books about leprechauns that exist out there but no psychical evidence to prove or disprove their existence. Now if I told you that I believe leprechauns exist and because you can't prove that leprechauns do not exist, that must mean leprechauns exist. Now replace leprechauns with Jesus and ask yourself if your belief that Jesus is real is rational.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

TBH, there was a massive legendary built around Hitler by 1965, let alone 1985...

 

He survived WW2

He died in 1941 and it was a double who lead the country to ruin.

He'd escaped to Antarctica

He'd escaped to the moon in Nazi space ships and would return to lead the Third Reich

Bits of him were in a KGB vault

He was captured by Stalin's men and kept prisoner until Stalin's death when he was executed

...

Take your pick...

Great examples.

 

And since myths and legends can not come about unless there has been 500 years spanning between the person's death and the myths that arise... these stories must be true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But, don't jump to conlcusions. All the other biographies (namely luke and matthew) are still not much later at all.

1. First, define "not much later". An obscure reference that could mean 5 years. Or 30.

2. If you think you know precisely when each gospel was written, provide the evidence. The world would love to find out.

 

There is not any room for a significant amount of legend or myth developement.
Assertion not supported by the evidence. Not even a commonly held scholarly opinion.

 

Don't forget about 1Corinthians 15 either.
Why would you think an inauthentic passage would carry any weight? Clearly a post-gospel insertion. We can discuss the arguments for interpolation if you like.

 

There is a whole lot of evidence for Christ's resurrection.
Go ahead - present it.

 

I don't think, by your historical methods, that any event in ancient history can be affirmed.
What do you mean, your historical methods? Do you mean by accepted historical methodology? If so, you are utterly incorrect and misinformed.

 

Even if Matthew and Luke added some legends and myths (I'm sure they did not),
So, you happily accept the zombie parade through Jerusalem?

 

Mark would make a good movie.
Indeed. Even Stephen King would be proud.

 

Or maybe I'm supposed to find out what happened next. Maybe what Mark leaves me with is plenty enough to drop my pride and follow Christ.
Or he left the rest up to the reader's imagination. In your case, it worked.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Come on, what happened? He leaves you hanging and you can't stand it.

 

WTF are you talking about? Your explanation works fine if Mark is creating an allegorical fiction. So, do you think the resurrection of Christ is a historical event or not?

 

You think if it had actually happened, EVERYONE from Damuscus to Rome wouldn't have heard about it? And probably known the story by heart? By time Mark's gospel was written,(what - 30 years or so later) no one would have needed to read about it. It would have been common knowledge. They may have discounted it as foolishness, but they would have all heard (one version or another) of the account.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The abrupt ending of Mark presents great difficulties if it's trying to be understood as a biographical account. It's a little clearer when put into its proper context:

 

It ends with a lurch, abruptly with no resurrection appearances. The young man at the empty tomb tells the mourning women to go and tell the disciples that their master is not dead, but has risen. He will meet them in Galilee. But the women disobey the order! They are pointedly said to have told nothing to anyone, out of fear. And on that note the Gospel of Mark ends! There are two reasons for this.

 

First, the evangelist knows his readers have never heard the story before, and they will find it suspicious for that reason. "Why haven't we heard about this till now?" This probably means the story was of fairly recent coinage. Who coined it? No doubt it was the product of a female mourning cult such as those who mourned for slain gods like Tammuz (Ezek. 8:14), Baal Haddad (Zech. 12:11) and Osiris. They populated the story with devout women like themselves, based on the searching goddesses Cybele, Ishtar, Isis, Aphrodite, and Anat. It was the etiological legend for their group and its yearly rites. Mark decided to incorporate it into his story, but there were as yet no resurrection stories. He implied that the disciples would be seeing Jesus shortly in Galilee, provided they knew to go there, which they didn't, thanks to the women. If they somehow managed to get the message some other way, it is certainly strange that no New Testament writer even tries to tell us what transpired between Jesus and Peter on the occasion. Nor do there seem to have been other traditional accounts of resurrection appearances floating around, since, when Matthew and Luke added appearance stories onto the end of Mark, it is clear, as we shall shortly see, that they had to make up their own.

 

Second, an empty tomb story without any resurrection appearances is quite understandable, even natural, once we understand that the story falls neatly into a particular form of ancient literature, as Charles H. Talbert has shown. It is an ancient apotheosis narrative, such as were frequently told about figures both ancient and contemporary. The basic outline has the hero suddenly turn up missing. His companions try to find him but cannot. There is no trace of his body or of his clothing. With the help of a heavenly voice or a remembered prophecy, they realize the hero has ascended to heaven to take his place among the gods. We can adduce ample instances from the Old Testament, Greek and Roman myth, and from Hellenistic-era hero biographies (the genre to which the Gospels belong). Robert M. Price, "The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man" pgs. 333-334

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.