Was the resurrection made up just because Mark 16 doesn't mention it?

[AgnosticBoy]

POI argued in another thread that the resurrection is not mentioned in the earliest manuscripts for Mark 16, and it seems that he is using that to invalidate the resurrection or to say that it was made up.

Mark is supposed to end at 16:8. The earliest copiies demonstrate this. Someone comes in later and adds more.

Maybe we can start here and see where this goes? The ultimate claim is that Jesus rose from the grave and returned to say 'hi' to some of his followers. Outside of the Gospel'(s) say-so, do we have any corroboration of such an event? Before we answer, let us reflect... "Mark" makes the claim that the tomb was found empty (Mark 16:8). This is where the story line presumably ends.

But wait, later writings then suggest Jesus did come back to say 'hi', (in Mark 16:9-20). Then there is "Luke/Matthew", which show signs of direct borrowing/copying from one-another. Then comes "John", which adds even more 'supernatural-ness' to the storyline.

For Debate...
Does the absence of a resurrection in the original ending of Mark indicate that the resurrection story was made up? (my answer is in post #2)

[oldbadger]

POI argued in another thread that the resurrection is not mentioned in the earliest manuscripts for Mark 16, and it seems that he is using that to invalidate the resurrection or to say that it was made up.

Mark is supposed to end at 16:8. The earliest copiies demonstrate this. Someone comes in later and adds more.

Maybe we can start here and see where this goes? The ultimate claim is that Jesus rose from the grave and returned to say 'hi' to some of his followers. Outside of the Gospel'(s) say-so, do we have any corroboration of such an event? Before we answer, let us reflect... "Mark" makes the claim that the tomb was found empty (Mark 16:8). This is where the story line presumably ends.

But wait, later writings then suggest Jesus did come back to say 'hi', (in Mark 16:9-20). Then there is "Luke/Matthew", which show signs of direct borrowing/copying from one-another. Then comes "John", which adds even more 'supernatural-ness' to the storyline.

For Debate...
Does the absence of a resurrection in the original ending of Mark indicate that the resurrection story was made up? (my answer is in post #2)

Afraid so........ The church built up many dogmas, of which that was one.

[TRANSPONDER]

...We have to go by the manuscript evidence...

Yes, but how we know what is the oldest? I think the problem here is, we don't know what is the original. The one that people think is the oldest, may not be the one that the later copied. The later could be copies from older text that does not exist anymore.

... it was omitted in the first few copies, but that is unlikely. ....

In my opinion it would be more unlikely that it was not in the original message.

....That still leaves the question of why the original writer (Mark?) would have left out details about the post-resurrection appearances, ...

Could it be that the part of the text was destroyed? Christians were persecuted at the beginning and that means, all writings were probably hided, or destroyed. That is why it would be no miracle, if there is parts missing.

I know the 'end of Mark was lost' excuse was popular, but it makes no sense. If anything was lost, it would be the start - not the middle of the scroll or the end of the book which would be less handled or open to damage. And persecutors would burn the while thing, not just rip out the last pages. Sorry, nice try but no hag of nuts.

And Mark looks like the earliest we have because it is the simplest and the idea seems to have trickled down (without anyone saying so) that the others added material to Mark later on.I also read that Mark's Greek was 'a bit rough', but I'll have to leave that to the experts. Back in the day, some maintained that Matthew was the original and basic text but I doubt that is a popular view right now.

POI argued in another thread that the resurrection is not mentioned in the earliest manuscripts for Mark 16, and it seems that he is using that to invalidate the resurrection or to say that it was made up.

Mark is supposed to end at 16:8. The earliest copiies demonstrate this. Someone comes in later and adds more.

Maybe we can start here and see where this goes? The ultimate claim is that Jesus rose from the grave and returned to say 'hi' to some of his followers. Outside of the Gospel'(s) say-so, do we have any corroboration of such an event? Before we answer, let us reflect... "Mark" makes the claim that the tomb was found empty (Mark 16:8). This is where the story line presumably ends.

But wait, later writings then suggest Jesus did come back to say 'hi', (in Mark 16:9-20). Then there is "Luke/Matthew", which show signs of direct borrowing/copying from one-another. Then comes "John", which adds even more 'supernatural-ness' to the storyline.

For Debate...
Does the absence of a resurrection in the original ending of Mark indicate that the resurrection story was made up? (my answer is in post #2)

Afraid so........ The church built up many dogmas, of which that was one.

Yes. There was an evolutionary process , just as we see in the nature of Jesus. In Mark it somewhat resembles Paul's man - Messiah who was not actually God incarnate but God's chosen Messiah. I reckon the idea of a divine birth (to keep up with the Pagan myths) was added on with the nativities and divine birth, and John is the most God -with -us of the all.

So I've already argued that I Cor. does not reflect the Sunday evening resurrection appearances, but a vision of Jesus' messianic spirit in heaven waiting to return in their lifetimes.

This gets turned into a need to make the vision more substantial, so the body itself has to resurrect, not just the ''spirit' leave Jesus on the cross as it had descended on him at the baptism. At first it is very thin with just an empty tomb. No explanatory angel as it is not in John. That was added on, and then, as Mark had nothing more than that, each writer invented their own story, which is why they contradict each other so badly. There'salso the problem of whether Jesus ought to have the marks of his ordeal or not. As a resurrected body it should be perfect, but if it doesn't have them, peoplemight think it's his twin bother, Didymus. So he must get up, war - wounds and all.

[1213]

I know the 'end of Mark was lost' excuse was popular, but it makes no sense. If anything was lost, it would be the start - not the middle of the scroll or the end of the book which would be less handled or open to damage. And persecutors would burn the while thing, not just rip out the last pages. Sorry, nice try but no hag of nuts.

the old scriptures I have seen are quite fragmented, it would be no wonder if any part would be missing. Can you show an image of the original "oldest" scroll?

And Mark looks like the earliest we have because it is the simplest

I think that is ridiculous reason to think what is the oldest. I think Mark is the youngest of all the gospels. John is probably the oldest, because has most profound understanding of the teachings of Jesus. Newer ones are further from the actual events and therefore can't have as much detail.

[TRANSPONDER]

I know the 'end of Mark was lost' excuse was popular, but it makes no sense. If anything was lost, it would be the start - not the middle of the scroll or the end of the book which would be less handled or open to damage. And persecutors would burn the while thing, not just rip out the last pages. Sorry, nice try but no hag of nuts.

the old scriptures I have seen are quite fragmented, it would be no wonder if any part would be missing. Can you show an image of the original "oldest" scroll?

And Mark looks like the earliest we have because it is the simplest

I think that is ridiculous reason to think what is the oldest. I think Mark is the youngest of all the gospels. John is probably the oldest, because has most profound understanding of the teachings of Jesus. Newer ones are further from the actual events and therefore can't have as much detail.

I don't need to show a picture of anything, no more than I need to show a picture of a wall tilting at an unhealthy angle to argue that it will fall over. A scroll will have the end protected inside and the beginning is what will get damaged and lost. Do I need to draw you a diagram before you see the sense of that? Besides, even supposing the end of mark whatever it was had gotten lost, it would guarantee that the others would have to make their accounts up. And if one supposes the accounts in Matthew, Luke and John would be based on what was lost (and restored in the Freer Logion using those other accounts). But if so, they would not contradict, would they? Your excuse does not work.

And your argument for dating cannot be serious. If John is the earliest, the earliest John fragment dates to the 2nd c. You suppose that Mark is later than that?
No you surely must rethink that one, as I think you should the rather absurd idea that John came up with all that highflown theology and the later gospels thought..."Nah, we'll just have him look like a human bullied by the Spirit." That without the problem of why, when earlier gospels had all sorts of amazing stuff that the later ones left out? Doesn't it make more sense that more stuff would be added in as time went on?

And what is the point of this strange idea? To have Mark leave the resurrection appearances out because everyone knew it? I see see no point in your argument other than that, you just go against 'mainstream' for no reason and just making more problems for yourself. What was the idea? Just to deny anything I said? Like that silly quibble about whether meteors look like comets?

[oldbadger]

I know the 'end of Mark was lost' excuse was popular, but it makes no sense. If anything was lost, it would be the start - not the middle of the scroll or the end of the book which would be less handled or open to damage. And persecutors would burn the while thing, not just rip out the last pages. Sorry, nice try but no hag of nuts.

the old scriptures I have seen are quite fragmented, it would be no wonder if any part would be missing. Can you show an image of the original "oldest" scroll?

After reading that whole gospel through almost continuously, I have noticed that the style and 'feeling' of the addition is different. I have no doubts about the end verses being an addition.
There have been additions and adjustments through the body of this gospel as well, even the very first verse has been fiddled with, for instance 'Son of God' was not shown in earliest manuscripts.
In Mark Jesus was clearly a Son of man. I've often wondered why the whole gospel was not 'adjusted' more completely, maybe the editors were frightened of spiritual wrath, or whatever?

[boatsnguitars]

I know the 'end of Mark was lost' excuse was popular, but it makes no sense. If anything was lost, it would be the start - not the middle of the scroll or the end of the book which would be less handled or open to damage. And persecutors would burn the while thing, not just rip out the last pages. Sorry, nice try but no hag of nuts.

the old scriptures I have seen are quite fragmented, it would be no wonder if any part would be missing. Can you show an image of the original "oldest" scroll?

And Mark looks like the earliest we have because it is the simplest

I think that is ridiculous reason to think what is the oldest. I think Mark is the youngest of all the gospels. John is probably the oldest, because has most profound understanding of the teachings of Jesus. Newer ones are further from the actual events and therefore can't have as much detail.

You are asking him to provide an "oldest" scroll, but claiming the ending was lost... That's rich!

Great way to argue! I also claim it was lost - and was full of evidence that Jesus was a con artist. I guess our feelings about this are on equal footing, right? After all, we're just going on a claim we feel... Religion is easy!

[oldbadger]

I think that is ridiculous reason to think what is the oldest. I think Mark is the youngest of all the gospels. John is probably the oldest, because has most profound understanding of the teachings of Jesus. Newer ones are further from the actual events and therefore can't have as much detail.

Mark is indeed the oldest ,the most straitforward, the most trustworthy........ John is definitely the most recent, most contrived....... If these gospels are read like Statements (which they are) then John jumps out at the reader as improvised, an imposter, and with at least two authors, methinks.
It is dated in to the 2nd ventury

[/quote]

[TRANSPONDER]

I think that is ridiculous reason to think what is the oldest. I think Mark is the youngest of all the gospels. John is probably the oldest, because has most profound understanding of the teachings of Jesus. Newer ones are further from the actual events and therefore can't have as much detail.

Mark is indeed the oldest ,the most straitforward, the most trustworthy........ John is definitely the most recent, most contrived....... If these gospels are read like Statements (which they are) then John jumps out at the reader as improvised, an imposter, and with at least two authors, methinks.
It is dated in to the 2nd century

[/quote]

I actually think that Luke is the latest and the one that has information the others don't - Josephus (which is where Luke works out ["Invents"] his Nativity) and access to at least the earlier of Paul's letters, which meant he had to reinvent the ending of the gospel he was using.

I know the 'end of Mark was lost' excuse was popular, but it makes no sense. If anything was lost, it would be the start - not the middle of the scroll or the end of the book which would be less handled or open to damage. And persecutors would burn the while thing, not just rip out the last pages. Sorry, nice try but no hag of nuts.

the old scriptures I have seen are quite fragmented, it would be no wonder if any part would be missing. Can you show an image of the original "oldest" scroll?

And Mark looks like the earliest we have because it is the simplest

I think that is ridiculous reason to think what is the oldest. I think Mark is the youngest of all the gospels. John is probably the oldest, because has most profound understanding of the teachings of Jesus. Newer ones are further from the actual events and therefore can't have as much detail.

You are asking him to provide an "oldest" scroll, but claiming the ending was lost... That's rich!

Great way to argue! I also claim it was lost - and was full of evidence that Jesus was a con artist. I guess our feelings about this are on equal footing, right? After all, we're just going on a claim we feel... Religion is easy!

I have fantasies in the long dark sleepless nights - that one day in the Fayyum, there will be dug op a copy of the suppressed history that shows what Jesus Really got up to. But for now I can only follow the clues.

[oldbadger]

I actually think that Luke is the latest and the one that has information the others don't - Josephus (which is where Luke works out ["Invents"] his Nativity) and access to at least the earlier of Paul's letters, which meant he had to reinvent the ending of the gospel he was using.

Apart from Luke's 'by the way' anecdotes and repeats of G-Mark, he invented most of his entire gospel. Snugging ancient prophesies in to fit, that very dodgy ancestral timeline about a handworker, the whole account was written to push the story in to new religion.

[TRANSPONDER]

I actually think that Luke is the latest and the one that has information the others don't - Josephus (which is where Luke works out ["Invents"] his Nativity) and access to at least the earlier of Paul's letters, which meant he had to reinvent the ending of the gospel he was using.

Apart from Luke's 'by the way' anecdotes and repeats of G-Mark, he invented most of his entire gospel. Snugging ancient prophesies in to fit, that very dodgy ancestral timeline about a handworker, the whole account was written to push the story in to new religion.

An evolved religion, for sure. I am pretty sure he added in a lot of extra material from outside - the stuff he shares with Matthew but not Mark and I think the unfashionable "Q" document theory may be right. So Some of the additions may be borrowed, rather than invented. The 'miraculous draft of fish is (so the evidence suggests to me) a 'Floating Story' that was not picked up from another gospel or even a religious document but a tale that was going the rounds. Matthew using it as a metaphor might even show what it was originally - a poetic simile. But Luke used it at the calling of disciples and Johns after the resurrection and the only thing that I don't understand is how 2,000 years of Bible experts have failed to notice that.

I imagine the 'woman taken in adultery' must have also been a 'floating story' since some put it in Luke, others in John, in the early Bibles at least. And I suspect now that the origins of the Son of Nain and raising of Lazarus might be a Floating Story, too - a bald claim "Jesus raised a young man from the dead" and let the others invent their narratives.

But I'd guess that the more famous parables are his invention. He was a pretty good storyteller.