Gospel of Mark

[Polycarp]

From the Jerome Biblical Commentary, Gospel According to Mark, Sec. 96:

The Endings of the Marcan Gospel. Mark may have ended his gospel with [ch. 16]v. 8 but the strange ending of that verse with the conj. gar and its abruptness indicate that the real ending of the Gospel may be lost to us today. The mss. tradition has preserved three different endings: (1) the long canonical ending (16:9-20), which is missing in mss. S and B and was declared inauthentic by Eusebius (Quaest. ad Marinum I). Even though it is generally regarded today as non-Marcan (on the basis of different style, vocabulary, and subject matter; see Wik, NTI 171-2; R-F, INT 219-20), it is nonetheless regarded as canonical by Catholics, as a result of the Tridentine decree on the Canon (see DB 784; DS 1504); it was one of the passages explicitly discussed at the Council as an example of a "pars" (see E. Mangenot, DTC 2, 1602; DAFC 4, 1972-73). (2) the so-called shorter ending, a single verse found in mss. L, Psi, 099, 0112, 579. It too is non-Marcan in its style and language (see V. Taylor, Mark, 614). (3) the Freer Logion, actually a gloss added to 16:14 in the 5th cent. [The Freer Logion is the underscored italicized passage in my above cite of alternate endings. --PC] Freer ms. of the Gospels (codex W [Washingtonensis] is in the Freer Museum of the Smithsonian Institution). This gloss, added by some early scribe to soften the condemnation of the Eleven in v. 14, was known to Jerome ([i]Contra Pelagianos 2.15). It too is quite non-Marcan in its style and language, and may have come from a Gnostic circle of the late 2nd or early 3rd cent.

--Edward J. Mally, S.J.

The above, of course, is written from a Catholic perspective for Catholic students of the Bible. However, it's the best short summary of the Marcan-ending problem I've encountered.

[brian]

Excellent reference - thanks for that, Polycarp.

[Victor]

Polycarp:
I thank you for your comments and note that I may have been remiss concerning the 'entire' Gospel. My comments referred to the Introduction, John 1:1-16 only, not the entire Gospel. (Which by the way is in the public view approximately 200 years after the fact.)

If you will refer to the I.B. as I have noted you will find several imminent Christian theologians who agree with my findings.

Number 2, I do NOT consider tradition to be 'holy' for several reasons, one being the impudence of man to even begin to consider himself an equal with God regardless of his past experience. Beyond that I happen to have arrived at an position (through both study and an intimate relationship with God's Holy Spirit) that accepts Christianity as a facticious religion.

Lastely, most that which is practiced within the prison of the 'church's walls, is NOT biblical, nor did it have its beginnings within the primative Church (that faith of the original disciples.)

For my personal views, you may study all three of my thesis which, by Brian's kind consideration, are published on this site. You may download them as you wish! And please, do not take this as an affront or a criticism of your beliefs or statement, but merely the ramblings of an opinionated, tired, old man.

Always yours in the Living Christ, I am:
Victor

[Skeptic44]

When you read Chapter 15 of Mark, you come to this:

15:34 And at the ninth hour, Jesus cried out, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?" Meaning, "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?"

15:37 And Jesus cried out and (died)

15:39 Now when the centurion who stood (facing him) saw that he cried out like this, he said, "Truly this was (a) Son of God."
___________

Several liberal scholars believe this was the original ending of the gospel of Mark, and everything after 15:39 was added by later copists.

Here's the theory:

Peter went to Rome and talked to a group of Christians there. After Peter left, the group asked John Mark to write down what Peter said.

So, Peter's original sermon was aimed at a group of Christians in Rome. The written text was prepared at their request, for the purpose of teaching new converts. (Which explains why the Aramaic is translated.)

The centurion is a generic authority figure. He isn't given a name, and no one connected with Peter or Mark heard him speak.

But... the Roman emperor Augustus was adopted by Julius Caesar. The adoption wasn't revealed until Caesar's will was read, and Marc Antony refused to allow Augustus (known as Octavius then) to take control of Caesar's estate. When the Roman Senate proclaimed Caesar a god, they also granted Octavius the right to sign official documents "son of God." And Octavius used that title until he became Emperor.

So, in Peter's sermon to the Roman church, he said, "The centurion heard Jesus die and then proclaimed, "Surely this man was as noble as our beloved emperor Augustus Caesar."

And, of course, any Roman centurion watching convicted criminals die while hanging from crosses would look at the dead bodies and think, "Surely this corpse was as noble as our beloved emperor Augustus Caesar when he was living."

Yeah, right.

It's a sales pitch for Christianity, trying to hide the fact that the Roman authorities put Jesus on trial, found him guilty of some crime and executed him. They didn't think he was credible, noble, or a Son of god.

If they had, why would they have killed him in such a painful manner?

[I, Brian]

Hi Skeptic44 - and welcome to comparative-religion.com!

You're possibly quite right about the generic Centurion notion - and there certainly is a lot of pro-Roman sympathy in the New Testament.

However, a point to note about "son of God" is that Divinity and authority were inexorably combined in the ancient world – every person in authority across Europe and the Near East, of any standing, could trace their family origins to a Divinity. The Greek and Roman families all choose their own Divine ancestry (the Julian clan I believed claimed descent from Venus). The issue becomes marked by proximity to this Divine origin – the rulers of Persia and Egypt, for example, usually claimed direct descent – as did even Alexander the Great.

An important issue here, though, is that Divine ancestry was primarily a demonstration of distinction of character – anybody who was anybody in the ancient world had to have Divine ancestry. Authority and Divinity were combined tenets.

Therefore it's no surprise that Gospels make an issue of Jesus having a Divine birth – because unless he has one then, in the eyes of ancient peoples, he would have been of no standing. Add to this the fact that a direct lineage from David is added, and you can immediately see a form of desperation, as Jesus is being endowed with every possible honour to make him seem like a respectable figure – he is given an earthly Kingship for direct political authority, and also awarded divine honours, as a more general distinction.

However, it's important to note that the Roman Empire not infrequently encountered "sons of God" - especially in terms of Asian rulers. Whereas a person may be seen to be a "son of God" among their own people, the Romans - and any other local rulers - were still free to treat them with contempt.

In which case I think I'm agreeing with your comment that the generic centurion could certianly have a propagandist role. However, you miss the point about the trial itself - I read that as a pro-Roman event, in that it was not Rome who condemned Jesus, but the Sanhedrin, who insisted that Jesus be tried by local custom. Because the Romans were such "nice people" they obviously conceded and were trapped into the issue of sentencing.

[WHKeith]

A note here about "sons of God."

That term was QUITE prevalent throughout the near- and middle East in the last half of the 1st millenium BCE, and was deeply imbedded in Jewish mysticism. Remember those enigmatic verses in Genesis 6: 1 - 4, about how "the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were fair, and took them wives of all they chose?" Verse 4 is the one about "There were giants in the earth in those days, and also after that. . . ."

There is some evidence that the "sons of God" were drawn from much earlier Babylonian and Sumerian traditions of a host of lesser gods beneath the major deities--the "Annunaki," or "Those who came from heaven down to Earth." It was a great way for a king to establish his right to rule--that he was literally a son of a god, possessing thereby divine authority.

In a slightly different vein, and as an outgrowth of this, 1st and 2nd century Judea was overrun by itinerant magicians and mages. The expression "I am the son of God" was a popular formula embraced by initiates into the Hermetic system of magic. Various Demotic and Greek papari giving Hermetic formulae include such lines as "I am the Son of the living God," "I am the one come forth from heaven," and "I am the truth," and wewre declarations of the initiate's newly assumed power over the forces of nature. Connections with some of Jesus's sayings as recorded in the Gospel of John are obvious. One of these magicians even won himself a part in the Bible--Simon Magus, the "sorcerer" in the Book of Acts who tried to buy magical powers from Peter, and who eventually lent his name to an unsavory church practice--simony.

While there has been much speculation that Jesus himself may have been a Hermetic initiate, that's not the idea I'm trying to present here. The point is that the term "Son of God" was historically common in the area, both by longstanding religious tradition and in current magical practice. It's not necessary to make the considerable stretch to Roman emperors and their adoption practices, IMHO.

One observation about the Roman centurion at the cross. Much of this material, as mentioned earlier, may have been added to the account later. In the period between about 40 and the destruction of the Second Temple in 70, there was a fierce debate over whether Jesus had come just for the Jews, or whether His message was intended for the gentiles as well. The Jerusalem Christian church expected all converts to Christianity to become Jews, including--ouch!--being circumcised. Some apsects of this struggle are recorded in the Book of Acts--including one dramatic passage where Paul has a real falling out with Peter, and goes off to become the "Apostle to the gentiles."

A fair amount of propaganda was written during this period to "gentilize" the gospel message. This was actually the beginning of some of the viler aspects of modern anti-Semitism, the whole poisonous notion that the Jews rejected and murdered Jesus, causing God to turn away and bestow His favor on the gentiles. The Roman centureion became a poster child of the "good gentile," a non-Jew who nevertheless recognized the Christ for who He was. And if a gruff old Roman sergeant could make that transition . . . how much more so is it possible for YOU, Cornelius, to accept the light, the living Son of God. . . .

[Skeptic44]

Originally Posted by WHKeith

>> The Roman centureion became a poster child of the "good gentile," a non-Jew who nevertheless recognized the Christ for who He was. And if a gruff old Roman sergeant could make that transition . . . how much more so is it possible for YOU, Cornelius, to accept the light, the living Son of God. . . .

___________


Hi, Keith and Brian, nice to meet you....

My question here was...

If this "good gentile" gruff old Roman sergeant was on guard duty, watching the convicted criminals die hanging from crosses...

and he sees one of the prisoners "give up the ghost"...

and he looks at the corpse hanging there and...

then he suddenly announces to the world around him, "Surely this was a Son of God."

And no one is there to write it down.

And the account shows up as the last line in the Gospel of Mark, an account of Jesus' death prepared at the request of a church group in Rome....

is it really credible to think the centurion actually said that?

Or is it the "Best Evidence Rule" that SOME of the gospel account of the life of Jesus is pure propoganda, and therefore we can't tell how much of the rest is?

Just curious about whether other people see this the same way I do.
____________

Sorry, I forgot the topic of this thread.... here's the connection.

Dominic Crossan and a few other scholars think this was the original ending of Mark, not 16:8.

That the opening of Mark is tied together with this one as the closing, so that Peter's sermon ended on a high point, with the centurion standing center stage and announcing that Jesus was "son of God" and gave him the same title as Augustus and others.

Which, if you remember the gospels were written to be read aloud at church services, so christians could have their own "Scripture" in the same way that Jews would read from OT in synagogues, would make it very much like a stage play.

[WHKeith]

I tend to agree that the centurion probably didn't say those words. Seems just a little too pat and perfect to my ear, if you know what I mean. My point was simply that it seemed more likely that the centurion's words were invented by writers interested in reaching and impressing gentile readers than it was that there was a (to my mind) dubious connection with the Son-of-Godhood of Caesar.

Also--DUH! [WHK slaps self in forehead with palm of hand.] I wasn't thinking. At the time of the crucifixion, it was NOT Caesar Ausgustus, but HIS successor, Tiberius who ruled in Rome. Tiberius ruled from about 14 (depending on whether or not you count the years he semi-co-ruled with old Augustus) to 37. The last ten years were spent in semi-retirement at his version of the Playboy Mansion on Capri, but he was still officially emperor.

Tiberius was a cynical, dour old SOB. He'd been officially adopted by Augustus, but cared little for gods. At that point, unless I'm mistaken, it was less the emperor himself who was worshipped as a god than it was his *genius,* his spirit, or his ideal, if you will.

I guess I just can't really believe that THAT was the explanation for the Son of God remark by the soldier. Other possibilities seem far more likely.

[Skeptic44]

Originally Posted by WHKeith

I... guess I just can't really believe that THAT was the explanation for the Son of God remark by the soldier. Other possibilities seem far more likely.

_______________

Such as...?

Augustus was the Emperor when Jesus was born.

If I said your mannerisms "remind me of a peanut farmer from Georgia," would eveyone here understand I was referring to Jimmy Carter?

Mark was written in Greek, some time between 30 AD and 65 AD. Probably you could make a checkerboard pattern if you could assign dates to each individual part. Easiest thing was to continue the story after it ended, IF the parchment or scroll you were using had some extra space. Probably there was some incentive to use ALL the available space, since the materials were so expensive.

No, Augustus wasn't Emperor at time this was written, but...

Augustus signed official documents "son of God" and that was the ONLY title the Senate let him use... so it would seem that the use of "Truly he was (a) son of God" would have THAT meaning in the minds of the intended audience, Christians living in Rome ~50 AD. If you can think of a more likely meaning, something THEY would think of when they heard that reference, PLEASE share.

But I think this explains why there are multiple endings to Mark.

Question is, did the original end with the phrase "Truly this was (a) son of God."

The story about the three women at the tomb... compare it to the women in the account of raising of Lazarus in John and you'll see something interesting. Also, "Secret mark" is on point.

[Skeptic44]

Originally Posted by WHKeith

A note here about "sons of God."

1st and 2nd century Judea was overrun by itinerant magicians and mages. The expression "I am the son of God" was a popular formula embraced by initiates into the Hermetic system of magic. Various Demotic and Greek papari giving Hermetic formulae include such lines as "I am the Son of the living God," "I am the one come forth from heaven," and "I am the truth," and wewre declarations of the initiate's newly assumed power over the forces of nature.

Connections with some of Jesus's sayings as recorded in the Gospel of John are obvious. .... The point is that the term "Son of God" was historically common in the area, both by longstanding religious tradition and in current magical practice. It's not necessary to make the considerable stretch to Roman emperors and their adoption practices, IMHO.
. .

________________

Excellent points. And if the gospel hadn't been written for a church group of Christians in Rome, from a speech Peter gave to this same group, I might not have made the connection.

But the motive was to sanitize jesus for converts living in Rome... and ending the gospel with a generic Roman who found Jesus comparable to a Roman emperor... makes more sense than comparing him to a Jewish magician. IMO>

This is from the message board at Harvard Theological Review.

When Julius Caesar died, he was deified and given the new name

divus Iulius.

In origin divus was nothing but another form of deus and thus meant simply "god." But

>> following the deification of Julius Caesar,

>> DIVUS came to mean a god who had previously been a man.

After the official deification of Caesar in 42 BCE, Octavian began to call himself officially divi filius, that is, "God's son" or "Son of a god."

From 27 BCE until 3 CE, Augustus's official name in Greek documents was ("Emperor Caesar Augustus son of god").

Thereafter, his official title was longer, but it continued to begin with the names just cited.

While Tiberius was emperor, his adopted son Germanicus, at the time consul and commander over all the eastern provinces, referred to himself in an edict as ("son of the god Augustus [Tiberius] and grandson of Augustus").The earliest documented title of the high priest of the imperial cult in the Roman province of Asia is [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] ("high priest of the goddess Roma and of Emperor Caesar Augustus son of god.)"

... for those failiar with the terminology of the imperial cult, the acclamation of the centurion in mark.... the lack of the articles makes the acclamation similar to the imperial epithet. Members of the audience of Mark familiar with the imperial cult would understand the centurion recognized Jesus as the true ruler of the known world, rather than the emperor.
______________

so, another possibility: the acclamation means Jesus is the true ruler, not the Emperor. Hmm.

[I, Brian]

Originally Posted by Skeptic44

so, another possibility: the acclamation means Jesus is the true ruler, not the Emperor. Hmm.

Although I'm under the impression that the early Christians saw the distinction between the poltiical and spiritual spheres (ie, "My kingdom is not of this world" - John 18:36, and "Render all things that are Caesar's to Caesar" - Matthew 22:21, Mark 12:17, Luke 20:25) - in the Roman world it was actually difficult to separate the spiritual from the political.

After all, the Roman State revolved around Roman law - which in itself was inseparable to Roman religion. If I may quote from a short article on this site:

http://www.comparative-religion.com/ancient/roman.php

However, for all their later cosmopolitan acceptance of other faiths, the Roman Empire's original state gods were so ingrained in law and the calendar itself that all other religions had to be subservient to them - and it was Christian refusal to abide so that lead to their repeated persecution.

Often, during the proscribed feast days food would be offered in the names of any of the relevent Roman gods for that day. The ceremony was both civil and religious - but essentially was a communal blessing of the emperor and Roman Empire. That formed a quandary for the earlier Christians, as a food offering was effectively an act of worpship. And so it was precisely the refusal to take part by some Christians that lead to repeated persecutions.

So now that I've had an excuse to refer to Rome ( ) I agree that there's every possibility of interpreting the long Centurion as being a dramatic propagandist close to Mark.

However, as I intimated in another thread, the point at which even the Gospel accounts move from being a propagandist work, to being one of a remarkable history, is entirely a personal choice.

[Skeptic44]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

So now that I've had an excuse to refer to Rome ( ) I agree that there's every possibility of interpreting the long Centurion as being a dramatic propagandist close to Mark.

.

________________

It does read like it was the original ending.

But what about the women at the tomb?

One account missing from Mark is the raising of Lazarus.

"Secret Mark" - a letter - suggests that the raising of Lazarus appeared in some versions of Mark, though in a different form.

Jesus and Martha, the sister of Lazarus, hear a cry from inside a tomb.

Jesus rolls away a stone and finds Lazarus under a white cloth, naked.

John 11:1 Now a certain man was sick, Lazarus of Bethany, the town of Mary and her sister Martha. it was Mary who anointed the Lord with fragrant oil and wiped His feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was sick.

11:18 Now Bethany was near Jerusalem, about two miles (fifteen stadia) away, and many Jews joined the women around Martha and Mary, to comfort them concerning their brother.

So Martha was Mary's sister. And Lazarus was Mary's brother.

Mark 16:1 Now when the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Sallome... very early in the morning, came to the tomb when the sun had risen.

[Onyxkylix]

Greetings to Brian, Polycarp, and others,

This thread seems to have strayed from the initial topic; my comments here are about some things that were stated about Mark 16:9-20.

Some of the data about this that you have been assumed to be correct, isn't. Allow me to dissect just one source: The article by E.J. Mally in the "Jerome Biblical Commentary."

Mally: "... the long canonical ending (16:9-20), which is missing in mss. S and B ..."

A couple of questions:
(1) Why didn't Mally mention the unusual prolonged blank space in B which appears between Mark 16:8 and Luke 1:1?
(2) And why didn't Mally mention that the pages of Sinaiticus which contain the end of Mark and the beginning of Luke constitute a "cancel-sheet," that is, a replacement of the original material? This seems like a significant piece of information.

Mally: "...and was declared inauthentic by Eusebius (Quaest. ad Marinum I)."

Eusebius did not do that in Ad Marinum. Eusebius imagined two apologists who approached the passage in two different ways: one dismissed it as inauthentic and one accepted it. In Ad Marinum, Eusebius adopts the latter approach, and quotes from 16:9 as having been written by Mark.

Mally: "(2) the so-called shorter ending, a single verse found in mss. L, Psi, 099, 0112, 579."

In every single one of these 5 Greek manuscripts listed, the Shorter Ending is followed by the contents of 16:9-20. It is egregiously sloppy to not mention that. Mally is underinforming his readers to a degree which amounts to misinforming them.

Mally wrote: "... (3) the Freer Logion, actually a gloss..."

Exactly; it's a gloss. As in, NOT an alternate ending at all; it's just the usual Long Ending (vv. 9-20) with an interpolation between v. 14 and v. 15.

Onyxkylix

[I, Brian]

Hi Onyxkylix, and welcome to comparative-religon.com!

And thanks for the comments - I especially like the fact that the main thrust of this topic (ie, the ending of Mark) is generally based on intelligent argument. I look forward to seeing how this thread develops now it's properly on track.

[Juliana]

I just came accross an interesting website of an expert of the Gospel of Mark. And his thesis is very interesting, too...
Look at this: www.carotta.de



Juliana