The Gospels -- Jesus Remembered

[Brian Stoffregen]

Brian, I was reading books of the Bible at one sitting long before I ever heard your name.  Mark has been one of them, several times. So where, in Mark, if I can't rely on the trustworthiness of Scripture's accounts, do I get such a wild and crazy idea as resurrection of the dead?  The resurrection is what I was trying to find support for before the "faithfulness" red herring was dragged across the path and I followed it like a dedicated but stoopid bloodhound.  

Jesus said it (e.g., Mark 14:28), it will happen. Jesus keeps his word.

[Brian Stoffregen]

Thanks for the supporting argument that highlights the aoristic "snapshot" sense of eipan (to tell / say) as indicating indeterminate time.

However, considering Mark's poor use of Greek, he may not know all the implication of the tenses. I'm also not sure that there is an imperfect or perfect form for eipon. We have such a convoluted grammar in regards to eipon -- with irregular endings, and being used as the aorist for a completely different verb, lego. (There are imperfect forms for lego that are used in scriptures.)

Would you agree with me that Mark's story ends with silence? That the women disobey the angel's command to go and tell?

[scott3]

However, considering Mark's poor use of Greek, he may not know all the implication of the tenses.

Wow -- the text itself does not say what you think it should say, so you blame the author's knowledge of Greek?  And previously you have been all other folks on this board for not actually reading what the text says (at least according to you)?!?!   

So much for an attempt to get rid of biases.  Thanks for proving my point about reading with doctrines, by-the-by.

More than passing strange.

Naah.  I'll just take the Mark knew what he was doing, thank you very much.  There isn't even any credible variant reading here (except that one Old Latin manuscript [k] omitted the entirety of the phrase).

[[BTW:  εἶπον is used to cover all other tenses of λέγω other than the present and imperfect which includes the aorist and the perfect.  If he wanted an imperfect, Mark would have used the imperfect of λέγω just like he did in 16:3.  I do know that the perfect for εἶπον (and so λέγω) is "εἴρηκα", and I can't even write a Gospel in Greek much less persuade folks to canonize it.]]

Would you agree with me that Mark's story ends with silence? That the women disobey the angel's command to go and tell?

I agree that the story ends with the women saying nothing to anyone as they fled from the tomb.  What happened when they reached the disciples Mark doesn't say.  It's left ambiguous as to whether or not they told the disciples and Peter since the story does end with their silence as they fled from the tomb.

[Mike Bennett]

Would you agree with me that Mark's story ends with silence? That the women disobey the angel's command to go and tell?

I agree that the story ends with the women saying nothing to anyone as they fled from the tomb.  What happened when they reached the disciples Mark doesn't say.  It's left ambiguous as to whether or not they told the disciples and Peter since the story does end with their silence as they fled from the tomb.

Have we all conceded that the Mark 16 the Church has read for 2,000 years is not all real, so that the real Gospel of Mark ends at 16:8?  So that verses 9 and 10, which explicitly say that Mary Magdalene "went and reported to those who had been with Him" are useless to us in figuring out whether the silence in verse 8 was forever, or only while they were fleeing, or something in between?  Seems sort of a butt-headed way to read anything.   

Mike Bennett

[scott3]

Would you agree with me that Mark's story ends with silence? That the women disobey the angel's command to go and tell?

I agree that the story ends with the women saying nothing to anyone as they fled from the tomb.  What happened when they reached the disciples Mark doesn't say.  It's left ambiguous as to whether or not they told the disciples and Peter since the story does end with their silence as they fled from the tomb.

Have we all conceded that the Mark 16 the Church has read for 2,000 years is not all real, so that the real Gospel of Mark ends at 16:8?  So that verses 9 and 10, which explicitly say that Mary Magdalene "went and reported to those who had been with Him" are useless to us in figuring out whether the silence in verse 8 was forever, or only while they were fleeing, or something in between?  Seems sort of a butt-headed way to read anything.   

Mike Bennett

No, I think there's something to be said for the canonical form of the text.  However, there is a real textual issue here where vs. 8 does seem to be the ending of the original text.  I do not believe that this renders what follows as un-biblical or non-canonical, but it does seem to say that either the original text stopped at vs. 8 or that the rest was lost.  Can we still profitably use what follows?  Sure.  The church has accepted it into her canon, and I think that Luther was right to quote Mark 16:16 in support of baptism.  But neither ending flows well from the rest of the text of Mark and so when looking at how Mark portrays the story overall, I think this should be recognized. 

In fact, I think that an ending of the text at vs. 8 makes great sense with what Mark is trying to do -- it make what Jesus did present and real among those who hear the gospel read and draws the hearer / reader into the story as part of an ongoing story of Jesus with us.

Dr. James Voelz preached a great sermon a year or so ago at Concordia Seminary Chapel on this text, and his portrayal of Mark with the ending at vs. 8 was extremely powerful.  The sermon lasted all of 4 minutes or so but was one of the most impactful sermons I have heard.

But in any case, relying on something that is poorly attested textually doesn't help me out much in my discussion with Brian.   

[Brian Stoffregen]

Wow -- the text itself does not say what you think it should say,

It says what I've said it says: "They said nothing to anyone."

Naah.  I'll just take the Mark knew what he was doing, thank you very much.  

I've argued that Mark knew what he was doing. The silent ending fits very well with the rest of his narrative of Jesus and the disciples.

I agree that the story ends with the women saying nothing to anyone as they fled from the tomb.  

That interpretation (with "as") would use a genitive absolute.

[Brian Stoffregen]

In fact, I think that an ending of the text at vs. 8 makes great sense with what Mark is trying to do -- it make what Jesus did present and real among those who hear the gospel read and draws the hearer / reader into the story as part of an ongoing story of Jesus with us.

I agree with you about that.

But in any case, relying on something that is poorly attested textually doesn't help me out much in my discussion with Brian.   

Agreed. When studying Mark's narrative of Jesus, 16:9-20 have to be excluded. Besides the textual support that they are not original, there are also internal arguments, e.g., a high number of words found only in 9-20, but absent from the rest of the gospel, that helps argue against it being part of "Mark's" original gospel.

[scott3]

Wow -- the text itself does not say what you think it should say,

It says what I've said it says: "They said nothing to anyone."

Naah.  I'll just take the Mark knew what he was doing, thank you very much.  

I've argued that Mark knew what he was doing. The silent ending fits very well with the rest of his narrative of Jesus and the disciples.

I agree that the story ends with the women saying nothing to anyone as they fled from the tomb.  

That interpretation (with "as") would use a genitive absolute.

Nope re: the genitive absolute.  The aorist places the action at the point where it says it happened.  Coincidentally, at the same time that the previous aorist says it happened -- the aorist of "fled".

What you're saying is that there's a gnomic or perfective sense to the aorist where the sense would be that they never said anything to anyone or that they continued to keep their mouths shut after they fled.  This sense simply isn't present.  The aorist doesn't allow you to make these imaginative leaps.

And also, no, you have not most recently argued that Mark knew what he was doing.  You said: "However, considering Mark's poor use of Greek, he may not know all the implication of the tenses."  Now you are contradicting what you just said.

[Brian Stoffregen]

And also, no, you have not most recently argued that Mark knew what he was doing.  You said: "However, considering Mark's poor use of Greek, he may not know all the implication of the tenses."  Now you are contradicting what you just said.

Knowing what he means to say -- and knowing what he wants the words do to the hearers, is not the same thing as knowing proper Greek grammar. I've heard a lot of people use double negatives as a way to intensify the negative, even though that is not proper English grammar.

[Richard Johnson]

The answers to the question, "What does this mean to you?" indicate more about the responder than what is in scriptures. Thus, at least in my mind, it becomes more of a self-study than a Bible study.

If you think the only alternative to exegetical study that depends on "higher criticism" in reading the Bible is "What does this mean to you?", then you really need to read a bit more widely. I would suggest you start with some of the writings of Brevard Childs.

[Brian Stoffregen]

If you think the only alternative to exegetical study that depends on "higher criticism" in reading the Bible is "What does this mean to you?", then you really need to read a bit more widely. I would suggest you start with some of the writings of Brevard Childs.

I've read him. I've enjoyed him. "Higher criticism" uses methods to try and discern what the author meant when originally writing the material as the basis for interpreting what the text means for us today. "Literary criticism" uses methods to try and discern meanings from the literature as we have them, and the historical context often has little or no influence.

Canon criticism, which Childs espouses, I think, is part of that. It is not concerned with the original writings, but those writings as we have them in the Canon. For example, as I recall, he doesn't care much about dividing Isaiah into three different books, but studying the book as we have it in scriptures. (One could do the same with canonical Mark with the longer addition.) I believe that he even looks at the order of the books as they were placed in the canon to be significant -- and I think it is, to some extent. There are reasons why Matthew is placed first in the New Testament -- and Revelation last.

Reader-response criticism, which Powell writes about, is another part of literary criticism. It's under this narrow method that the question: "What does this mean to you?" arises -- which I still maintain is primarily a self-study rather than exegeting scriptures. It is a method that can lead to as many different interpretations as there are people in the room. I think that a combination (which is more of what Powell actually does) is helpful. The historical-critical methods, and canonical critical findings, limit what readers may legitimately determine are meanings of a text.