Is the Ascension Story an Embellishment?

[robrecht]

Sorry for the miscue. The unedited and unembellished Mark was indeed first known written gospel.

Do you imagine that any scholars are able to reconstruct an earlier, unedited, unembellished version of the gospel of Mark??? While some have tried, there is no consensus, and some good indications that the present work was composed as a whole, 'though possibly relying on earlier sources.

[shunyadragon]

Do you imagine that any scholars are able to reconstruct an earlier, unedited, unembellished version of the gospel of Mark??? While some have tried, there is no consensus, and some good indications that the present work was composed as a whole, 'though possibly relying on earlier sources.

You are asking something in terms of absolutes, which is bizzaro! There is clearly an earlier version of Mark without the embellishment ending. It established the fact that the gospels were indeed embellished over the first several hundred years of their history. The earlier versions were likely simpler versions of Mark.

[robrecht]

You are asking something in terms of absolutes, which is bizzaro! There is clearly an earlier version of Mark without the embellishment ending. It established the fact that the gospels were indeed embellished over the first several hundred years of their history. The earlier versions were likely simpler versions of Mark.

Most all scholars recognize that Mk 16,9-20, which was not part of the oldest texts was not original, but whether there was an earlier recension, some kind of proto-Mark is definitely an older, minority opinion among scholars. I am merely providing you with the current scholarly consensus view. Nothing absolute or bizarre about it, just the most common scholarly perspective.

[37818]

Most all scholars recognize that Mk 16,9-20, which was not part of the oldest texts was not original, but whether there was an earlier recension, some kind of proto-Mark is definitely an older, minority opinion among scholars. I am merely providing you with the current scholarly consensus view. Nothing absolute or bizarre about it, just the most common scholarly perspective.

Only 2 old mss (a total of 3 mss at 00.2%). Of those 2, one has a blank column with room for it. And the other those last pages of Mark were a corrector replacement. All the rest of the mss (99.8%) attest to the long ending, with some adding the short ending too.

[robrecht]

Only 2 old mss (a total of 3 mss at 00.2%). Of those 2, one has a blank column with room for it. And the other those last pages of Mark were a corrector replacement. All the rest of the mss (99.8%) attest to the long ending, with some adding the short ending too.

The percentage of manuscripts is of little importantance. Once there was a standardized text, almost all subsequent copies would mostly agree.

[Gary]

The percentage of manuscripts is of little importantance. Once there was a standardized text, almost all subsequent copies would mostly agree.

Absolutely.

And this is why I question how Christians can believe that they possess the equivalent or "near equivalent" of the original four gospels. If you don't have the originals, which most Christians will admit, isn't it possible that the first text, written by the original author, was significantly altered by the person making the first copy; and it is this subsequent altered version of the original story that eventually was copied by the thousands, none of these thousands of copies (of the altered text) having "any significant variations", and it was this very altered copy that eventually came to be referred to as "the Gospel of Mark, Matthew, Luke, or John"??

We have no idea, for sure, what the original first texts of the Gospels said.

[37818]

The percentage of manuscripts is of little importance. Once there was a standardized text, almost all subsequent copies would mostly agree.

All text types from all over the Mediterranean attested to the long ending.

[robrecht]

All text types from all over the Mediterranean attested to the long ending.

There's no question the longest ending was early and pervasive geographically, and that there were other attempts to add a different ending to Mark's gospel. These other endings should also be counted as textual support for the ending at 16,8. Stylistic arguments offer even stronger support for the secondary character of the longest ending. Critical scholarship is nearly universal support of the ending at 16,8. Why do you think so many critical scholars support the ending at 16,8?

[shunyadragon]

All text types from all over the Mediterranean attested to the long ending.

These texts you are referring to are quite late, after efforts to standardize texts. Actually some later texts had an alternative ending. The earliest known text ends at 16.8.



The later evidence of additions and editing also indicates changes continued through early history of the NT, and it was not after 400 AD that the uniformity you describe took place.

[robrecht]

These texts you are referring to are quite late, after efforts to standardize texts. Actually some later texts had an alternative ending. The earliest known text ends at 16.8.



The later evidence of additions and editing also indicates changes continued through early history of the NT, and it was not after 400 AD that the uniformity you describe took place.

Although the manuscripts are late, the "text" of the longest ending is most likely very early, as is indicated in its geograpically widespread witness among early translations. Your Wikipedia reference is also incorrect. There are actually two different shorter ending alternatives to the longer ending, which have also been appended to the original ending at 16,8.

[shunyadragon]

Although the manuscripts are late, the "text" of the longest ending is most likely very early, as is indicated in its geograpically widespread witness among early translations. Your Wikipedia reference is also incorrect. There are actually two different shorter ending alternatives to the longer ending, which have also been appended to the original ending at 16,8.

OK, two alternate endings. 'Most likely?' Previous to ~400 AD you get more speculative as to when additions and other possible editing happened.

[robrecht]

OK, two alternate endings. 'Most likely?' Previous to ~400 AD you get more speculative as to when additions and other possible editing happened.

Four basic alternative endings. The earliest translations date to the the 2nd century so they give us a window into the contours of the text at that time. You are the one who is relying upon speculative hypothetical prior versions of the gospel, which, I repeat, is an older, minority view among scholars.

[Adam]

The original lost ending of the Gospel of Mark is basically most of what's now found in John 21.

[One Bad Pig]

The original lost ending of the Gospel of Mark is basically most of what's now found in John 21.

John 21 is an epilogue matching stylistically to the prologue of John 1:1-18. And an argument can be made that there is no "lost ending" - GMark was intended to end with 16:8.

[Adam]

The Editor of John (who happens to be John the Apostle) wrote about the same proportion of the Prologue of John as he did of John 21:1-18,