The implications of Mark 16.8

[Lukaris]

Certainly, though that is irrelevant to why the ms. evidence and the internal probabilities are decisively against verses 9-20 as authentic. No one disputes that the ending was tacked on early in transmission (see the opening sentence of your link). Tacked on? St. Irenaeus was quoting it as scripture 2 centuries before it is alleged to have been added.



I'm willing to explore that possibility...nevertheless it is irrelevant (see this post above). But even if there was a lost ending, it certainly was not the 'longer ending', which just occassions you more trouble anyway (e.g., the obvious tension between verse 8 and verses 9-10; the contrariety between verses 12-13, apparently taken over from Luke, and Luke xxiv.33-34; and the doctrinal problems of verses 16-18). I do not think this is irrlevant, gramatical differences could have been a literary device to capture the mood of evangelism. These verses most likely reflect the mode of faith in the Acts of the apostles since it was written after the establishment of the church; so you have a retrospective account consistent but not understood in its time seen through a later & more developed framework of faith & revelation. A non Christian can say, "I do not believe your religion" but we will say well we do & have consistently accounted for what we believe. Let me give another example, there is the ever familiar scenario that alleged Gnostic scriptures were "suppressed" by Constantine & co. around 325. Well an extensive list of these "scriptures" were deemed heretical to the apostolic faith by St. Irenaeus (mentioned earlier) in the late 2nd century. St. Irenaeus had not the ability to "suppress" anything since he preached a faith that was alternatively tolerated or banned under the threat of death in his lifetime. So St. Irenaeus knew almost all of the scriptures that later became the known holy Bible. In all respect.



Thanks,
E.L.B.

Hope this posts correctly.

 

[EricLBess]

I do not think this is irrlevant, gramatical differences could have been a literary device to capture the mood of evangelism.

The whole book is an evangel. There is no correlation between the stylistic aspects of the post-Marcan appendix and some vague sense of 'mood' that it captures.

These verses most likely reflect the mode of faith in the Acts of the apostles since it was written after the establishment of the church; so you have a retrospective account consistent but not understood in its time seen through a later & more developed framework of faith & revelation.

Perhaps, but it nevertheless was clearly not written by the author of Mark; it still creates more contradiction than necessary and accordingly needs to be reconciled to answer the OP...unless, of course, there can be no such harmonization.

A non Christian can say, "I do not believe your religion" but we will say well we do & have consistently accounted for what we believe. Let me give another example, there is the ever familiar scenario that alleged Gnostic scriptures were "suppressed" by Constantine & co. around 325. Well an extensive list of these "scriptures" were deemed heretical to the apostolic faith by St. Irenaeus (mentioned earlier) in the late 2nd century. St. Irenaeus had not the ability to "suppress" anything since he preached a faith that was alternatively tolerated or banned under the threat of death in his lifetime. So St. Irenaeus knew almost all of the scriptures that later became the known holy Bible. In all respect.

This is simply irrelevant to the OP.


Thanks,
E.L.B.

 

[Lukaris]

Thanks,
E.L.B.

I am at work cannot correct right now sorry for any inconvenience.

 

[drich0150]

The case of whether or not the women said anything after the Resurrection according to the gospels is the fulcrum of the story. If the women said nothing, when did the disciples find out and how?

Ah, I see your point! I can see how such a devastating inconsistency would utterly destroy any truth in this story, and all other accounts, because if Jesus wasn't in the tomb, and if the first two people who saw him didn't say anything to anyone, then No one else could have discovered the empty tomb.. with a Imperial Roman seal broken, and a massive stone rolled to one side.. I get it, no one else could have ever known about the resurrection, because the two women that were recorded in Marks testimony were noted as remaining silent..
..Even though Mark doesn't say for how long, a minute, hour, 2 hours, a day, It's best to assume they took a vow a silence for the rest of there lives. And even though you wish to dismiss 16:9-20 that shows that Mary's vow of silence didn't last the rest of her life, by your logic it is better to think that way, because if you can dismiss Mark 16:9-20 you have a contradiction that can't ever be over come, proving Christianity is a foolish crutch for the weak minded.. There by elevating you to a New Savior of sorts by freeing all those who are a slave to there religion, and God..

Trying to prove or disprove the authorship of verses 9-20 were not of the Holy Spirit's inspiration, takes an equal amount of Faith to process, as it would if you believe that God wanted those verses included in Marks account..
With respect my confused brother, You are, and will be held accountable to the amount of exposure to God's word that has been left to you.. If for some reason the text you have doesn't have those verses, then you are not responsible for them, but if your texts does, then your are..
Because again, either way it is a matter of faith to believe to the origins of those words. (You can't prove they are not God inspired.) And, With the testimony of three other Gospels that say the same thing, it's hard to believe otherwise.. unless you were looking to "save the world from God."

Sorry, but no. I simply find your answers to be inadequate and full of holes, and therefore not directly relevant to answering the OP. Tangential comments on who allegedly died and why was never part of the question.

You asked for a Christian perspective, and you got one. (faith being a big part of that answer.) What you were looking for was an Atheist account of what you considered to be a biblical discrepancy, from a Christian. This is evident in your inability to process any answers or posts that didn't fit the format you were seeking. You came here looking for a specific argument, to push a specific agenda, and to all who didn't fit your exercise in ego stroking, you quickly belittled and dismissed them.. So Maybe next time, you could truthfully state your intentions, and save all involved some waisted effort. Or was belittling others apart of your end goal as well?

 

[EricLBess]

Ah, I see your point! I can see how such a devastating inconsistency would utterly destroy any truth in this story, and all other accounts, because if Jesus wasn't in the tomb, and if the first two people who saw him didn't say anything to anyone, then No one else could have discovered the empty tomb.. with a Imperial Roman seal broken, and a massive stone rolled to one side.. I get it, no one else could have ever known about the resurrection, because the two women that were recorded in Marks testimony were noted as remaining silent..
..Even though Mark doesn't say for how long, a minute, hour, 2 hours, a day, It's best to assume they took a vow a silence for the rest of there lives. And even though you wish to dismiss 16:9-20 that shows that Mary's vow of silence didn't last the rest of her life, by your logic it is better to think that way, because if you can dismiss Mark 16:9-20 you have a contradiction that can't ever be over come, proving Christianity is a foolish crutch for the weak minded.. There by elevating you to a New Savior of sorts by freeing all those who are a slave to there religion, and God..

Trying to prove or disprove the authorship of verses 9-20 were not of the Holy Spirit's inspiration, takes an equal amount of Faith to process, as it would if you believe that God wanted those verses included in Marks account..
With respect my confused brother, You are, and will be held accountable to the amount of exposure to God's word that has been left to you.. If for some reason the text you have doesn't have those verses, then you are not responsible for them, but if your texts does, then your are..
Because again, either way it is a matter of faith to believe to the origins of those words. (You can't prove they are not God inspired.) And, With the testimony of three other Gospels that say the same thing, it's hard to believe otherwise.. unless you were looking to "save the world from God."

You asked for a Christian perspective, and you got one. (faith being a big part of that answer.) What you were looking for was an Atheist account of what you considered to be a biblical discrepancy, from a Christian. This is evident in your inability to process any answers or posts that didn't fit the format you were seeking. You came here looking for a specific argument, to push a specific agenda, and to all who didn't fit your exercise in ego stroking, you quickly belittled and dismissed them.. So Maybe next time, you could truthfully state your intentions, and save all involved some waisted effort. Or was belittling others apart of your end goal as well?

I was seeking an intelligent and honest reply to an honest question. Not to say I think anyone's been dishonest or is not intelligent, but your answers simply aren't satisfactory, and if I find flaws I will point them out.

I have not belittled anyone. Sincerely, I think the case would be better if you did not assume the gospels were eyewitness testimony. They don't reveal their authors and the reputed authors weren't identified until the second century, and that was by tradition. You have nothing to fear in dismissing those affirmations.


Thanks,
E.L.B.

 

[drich0150]

Not to say I think anyone's been dishonest or is not intelligent, but your answers simply aren't satisfactory,

fair enough, but realize more often than not if you ask for a Christian perspective on a Christian web site you will get an answer containing a fair amount of faith.. If this is not what you seek then simply modify your request.

Sincerely, I think the case would be better if you did not assume the gospels were eyewitness testimony.

To be honest I don't think there are many who do believe that the men who wrote the gospels, were actually at the all of the events that they recorded, for example at the crucification it is generally known that only John of the twelve witnessed the event, the rest were scattered into the wind..

Luke was a physician who was originally commissioned by his master Theophilus to record the works of Jesus and his apostles.. He probably never got to actually meet Jesus face to face. It is assumed that most of his works are the result of going through many many different accounts of the events that he finally recorded in his Gospel, and later in his works in Acts it is speculated that much of the content was dictated from Paul himself.. Luke's role wasn't to be apart or even wittiness what took place during the time of Jesus, but to gather and restore the events that had already taken place.

Mark was a disciple Of Paul, and former follower of Peter, most of his accounts are also thought to be second hand info.

There is a common thread for all who believe, no matter who was attributed to transcribing the book or letter, whether it be these men or others, the Holy Spirit assumes authorship.

 

[ebia]

Well, just for the record you've hardly made your case here.

I'm not trying to make a case - this isn't an apologetics forum. I'm simply answering your question as I see it.

 

[EricLBess]

fair enough, but realize more often than not if you ask for a Christian perspective on a Christian web site you will get an answer containing a fair amount of faith.. If this is not what you seek then simply modify your request.


To be honest I don't think there are many who do believe that the men who wrote the gospels, were actually at the all of the events that they recorded, for example at the crucification it is generally known that only John of the twelve witnessed the event, the rest were scattered into the wind..

Luke was a physician who was originally commissioned by his master Theophilus to record the works of Jesus and his apostles.. He probably never got to actually meet Jesus face to face. It is assumed that most of his works are the result of going through many many different accounts of the events that he finally recorded in his Gospel, and later in his works in Acts it is speculated that much of the content was dictated from Paul himself.. Luke's role wasn't to be apart or even wittiness what took place during the time of Jesus, but to gather and restore the events that had already taken place.

Mark was a disciple Of Paul, and former follower of Peter, most of his accounts are also thought to be second hand info.

There is a common thread for all who believe, no matter who was attributed to transcribing the book or letter, whether it be these men or others, the Holy Spirit assumes authorship.

With all due respect, what would you say about the consistency of the Holy Spirit in light of these discrepancies?


Thanks,
E.L.B.

 

[ebia]

With all due respect, what would you say about the consistency of the Holy Spirit in light of these discrepancies?


Thanks,
E.L.B.

That the Holy Spirit's objective isn't to enable us to reconstruct a discrepancy free clear-cut chronology of Easter morning, but to enable our incorporation into Christ's death and resurrection through four very different perspectives on that morning.

 

[EricLBess]

That the Holy Spirit's objective isn't to enable us to reconstruct a discrepancy free clear-cut chronology of Easter morning, but to enable our incorporation into Christ's death and resurrection through four very different perspectives on that morning.

Why would he want to do that, seeing that most Christians don't assess the gospels this way (indeed, they are not aware of or deny the contradictions)? Also, how would this work before all the gospels were completed? And how is your appeal to amnesia consistent with John xiv.26?

I hardly see a divine program in this.

Thanks,
E.L.B.

 

[ebia]

Why would he want to do that, seeing that most Christians don't assess the gospels this way (indeed, they are not aware of or deny the contradictions)?

You don't need to be aware of the contradictions for them to work that way - indeed worrying about the contradictions would get in the way of it. Trying to harmonize the accounts is just about the worst possible approach to them. Most people (at some level) read each gospel on it's own terms and get different things, grow in different ways, from each of them - at whatever level they are working.

Also, how would this work before all the gospels were completed?

It wouldn't in full, though the resurrection stories show every sign of having been fixed much earlier than the rest of their corresponding gospels.

And how is your appeal to amnesia consistent with John xiv.26?

I'm not sure what you question is.

I hardly see a divine program in this.

Ultimately we can chat about it as long as we like, but we both know we are going to have to agree to disagree on that one. All I'm aiming to do is to outline why I see what I see - I don't particularly expect you to agree (thought I would be very happy if something I said did get you to reconsider something).

 

[drich0150]

Why would he want to do that, seeing that most Christians don't assess the gospels this way (indeed, they are not aware of or deny the contradictions)?

To have a book or manual without any error or any human influence in it, would inspire complete biblical worship (Of the book not God) Look at how some of the more "traditional" brothers we have assign meaning or Devinne powers to "relics" or images.. This in of itself has become a form of Idolatry. Now Imaging something actually written by the Holy Spirit or Jesus. Something science can not find fault with, nor History. Something that emulates the perfection that can only be found in God.

The crazies would go wild for something like this, and would drag many who just don't know any better into Idolatry or scripture worship with them. Look at all of those who wish or claim these "facts" now as, the perfect word of God.. We are told that these are the Holy Spirit inspired words of God. Not God's hand writing.

The Fact is the Bible is a tool, nothing more. It is here to assist those of us who wish to build a relationship with God. God never intended his bible to be worshiped, if he did Jesus would have written it and gave us a command to do so.. It has flaws as the MEN who transcribed it and complied it had flaws, but it is perfect in that it contains all we need to get started and maintain a true relationship with God, but in no way is it to replace God or the relationship your are required to have with him. A fact that maybe lost to tradition for some of us.

 

[EricLBess]

It wouldn't in full, though the resurrection stories show every sign of having been fixed much earlier than the rest of their corresponding gospels.

What signs would those be?

I'm not sure what you question is.

I think my question was clear. In light of the obvious contradictions (which you have indicated are due to forgetfullness, inter alia), how does this comport with John xiv.26, which is necessarily untrue if the accounts are full of such gaping holes and contradictions?

Thanks,
E.L.B.

 

[ebia]

What signs would those be?

Prominence of the women who don't appear in Paul's summaries written in the early 50's makes it look as though they were fixed in form (either written or oral) before then, lack of the O.T. "prooftexts" that are characteristic of the rest of the gospels makes it look as though they were fixed before that level of redaction took place, the apparent independence of even the 3 synoptic accounts, and so forth. And of course the resurrection is the central event around which everything else is worked out and understood so it makes sense for it to be the bit of the story to become fixed in form most early.

I think my question was clear. In light of the obvious contradictions (which you have indicated are due to forgetfullness, inter alia),

I don't recall specifying any cause.

how does this comport with John xiv.26, which is necessarily untrue if the accounts are full of such gaping holes and contradictions?

I don't see how the discrepancies in the resurrection narrative contradict John 14:26 unless one things the purpose of the whole thing is to transmit a chronology rather than a theology. An obession with the precise facts of the event over the meaning of the event is a modernistic failing. Of course John 14:26 could never be an absolute statement - they never could remember literally everything and John makes it quite clear at the end of his gospel that he hasn't tried to record everything. What the gospels are, in line with a reasonable understanding of John 14:26, is sufficient for their purpose.

 

[EricLBess]

Prominence of the women who don't appear in Paul's summaries written in the early 50's makes it look as though they were fixed in form (either written or oral) before then, lack of the O.T. "prooftexts" that are characteristic of the rest of the gospels makes it look as though they were fixed before that level of redaction took place,

These explanations hardly support your claims. If these stories were so fixed, perhaps they shouldn't contradict one another in radical ways. And you're right, Paul doesn't mention the women, but this might work against the factuality of the empty tomb stories, the first of which has the women disobey the messenger's command...hardly 'prominent'.

The passion accounts, far more agreeable, would be earlier than or at least just as early as the Resurrection narratives and yet they contain several OT 'prooftexts'.

the apparent independence of even the 3 synoptic accounts, and so forth.

The Synoptic accounts are far from independent...They build up on one another through their direct literary relationship.

And of course the resurrection is the central event around which everything else is worked out and understood so it makes sense for it to be the bit of the story to become fixed in form most early.

This says nothing about how early the gospel accounts were composed (literarily or orally).

I don't recall specifying any cause.

I didn't say you specified it. I said you indicated it. Given the major, irreconcilable differences, there has to be forgetfullness on somebody's part.

I don't see how the discrepancies in the resurrection narrative contradict John 14:26 unless one things the purpose of the whole thing is to transmit a chronology rather than a theology.

This would not explain, e.g., John enumerating the appearances (see John xxi.14).

An obession with the precise facts of the event over the meaning of the event is a modernistic failing.

Perhaps you should share that with the tendencies of historicizing apologists.

Of course John 14:26 could never be an absolute statement - they never could remember literally everything and John makes it quite clear at the end of his gospel that he hasn't tried to record everything. What the gospels are, in line with a reasonable understanding of John 14:26, is sufficient for their purpose.

So the Spirit did sort of a sloppy job, no? Just enough to get by, it would seem.


Thanks,
E.L.B.

 

[Lukaris]

I still do not understand where this is going. I provided evidence in an earlier post that a 2nd century bishop (St. Irenaeus) quoted the resurrection account in Mark 16:19 over 2 centuries before it was supposedly added. The resurrection account was known & understood in the Gospel of St. Mark. The Gospel of St. Mark is the preaching of the apostle St. Peter recorded by St. Mark (Mark is referred to by Peter in 1 Peter 5:13). Clearly both Peter & Mark believed in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. The transmission of the apostolic preaching is intact & no tinkering or alteration has occurred one either can believe it or not.

 

[ebia]

These explanations hardly support your claims. If these stories were so fixed, perhaps they shouldn't contradict one another in radical ways.

If they were fixed very early on before any harmonisation took place then yes, they would.

And you're right, Paul doesn't mention the women, but this might work against the factuality of the empty tomb stories, the first of which has the women disobey the messenger's command...hardly 'prominent'.

The point is that in both Jewish and pagan cultures women are worse than useless as witnesses - so nobody in their right mind would invent women into the story as first or only witnesses of anything, and if once one can get away with telling the story without women no compilation of the story after then would include them. In other words it's highly likely all four stories were pretty much fixed earlier than AD50.

The passion accounts, far more agreeable, would be earlier than or at least just as early as the Resurrection narratives and yet they contain several OT 'prooftexts'.

That's exactly my point - the lack of OT prooftexts show the resurrection accounts to have been fixed much earlier than the passion narratives. Note that the resurrection is the founding event of early Christianity, not the passion. It's the resurrection that throws the necessary light to understand everything else, from the passion all the way back to Genesis.

The Synoptic accounts are far from independent...They build up on one another through their direct literary relationship.

The resurrection accounts look much less like this than the rest of the synoptic gospels - they show every sign of having drawn on separate traditions for their resurrection stories. Of course because Mark's is so trucated it's hard to be certain.

This says nothing about how early the gospel accounts were composed (literarily or orally).

No, but it fits. The resurrection accounts look like they are the earliest bits of their respective gospels, and that's a reasonable thing to expect in a church where the resurrection is the central event that re-defines everything else. What we see and what we might expect are compatible.

I didn't say you specified it. I said you indicated it. Given the major, irreconcilable differences, there has to be forgetfullness on somebody's part.

Call it forgetfulness if you want - but that's your expression not mine.

This would not explain, e.g., John enumerating the appearances (see John xxi.14).

Everything in John's gospel has a theological purpose, usually several. On the other hand there is no reason to suppose that John was interested in describing a precise chronology and quite a lot of reason to think he wasn't.

Perhaps you should share that with the tendencies of historicizing apologists

.
Do you think they would listen?

So the Spirit did sort of a sloppy job, no? Just enough to get by, it would seem.

Not at all. John's gospel alone is an extraordinarly rich document, sufficient to keep one learning indefinitely. But neither John nor The Spirit is in the business of satisfying a 20th century obsession with factual detail over significance. The gospels are exactly what is needed - but not necessarly exactly what everyone thinks they want. We don't need to know everything Jesus said and did in infinite detail and precise chronological order (and, as John said, it would take more than all the books in the world to record it if we did) - rather we need to understand what he did and said. We need books that tell the story to bring out what it means. The evangelists are theologians, not chronologists [is such thing ever really exists]. Like any story teller, they tell the story to make a point or points, not to transmit historical data.

 

[EricLBess]

If they were fixed very early on before any harmonisation took place then yes, they would.

The existence of contradictions has nothing to do with the possibility of later harmonizations that point to an early date before these hypothetically later harmonizations would have taken place.

There's no logical relationship there. Also, by the time the gospels were written, why wasn't such an early story fixed so as to alleviate the contradictions yet? (see further below about the Passion/Resurrection narratives).

The point is that in both Jewish and pagan cultures women are worse than useless as witnesses - so nobody in their right mind would invent women into the story as first or only witnesses of anything, and if once one can get away with telling the story without women no compilation of the story after then would include them. In other words it's highly likely all four stories were pretty much fixed earlier than AD50.

I wax tired of this often parroted apologetic rhetoric. There's simply no way to test this assumption, and you would do well to read up on the status of women in so-called pagan cultures. The earliest gospel was written to gentiles, possibly in Rome, where we don't find this alleged suppressed status of women to the point of not being in one's right mind to invent a story about it (cf. the wife's right to divorce her husband in Mark x.12).

The women are not mentioned by Paul, our earliest source, and this can hardly be chalked up to the sentiments of Jews on the status of women as witnesses. Paul wrote to gentiles, and on ethnic, social, and sexual concerns, he wrote:

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
--Galatians iii.28​

See also what he says about a prominent woman in Romans xvi.7. There was no reason for Paul not to mention these women.

Your case is weak.

That's exactly my point - the lack of OT prooftexts show the resurrection accounts to have been fixed much earlier than the passion narratives. Note that the resurrection is the founding event of early Christianity, not the passion. It's the resurrection that throws the necessary light to understand everything else, from the passion all the way back to Genesis.

That's totally non-sequitur. The contradictions and lack of OT prooftexts could just have easily arised from the authors taking a core story invented by Mark in different directions since Mark is, as you say, truncated.

It also wouldn't make sense for a later story (the Passion narratives allegedly) to have been harmonized so quickly with minimal contradictions between the gospels while the earlier story (the Resurrection narratives allegedly) suffers from contradictions. According to your logic above harmonization should have already taken place for the earlier Resurrection narratives before it took place for the Passion narratives.

There's no method to this madness. You just link a number of speculative hypotheses so that it will agree with and suit your purposes. Your case would be more convincing if you hadn't overlooked the fact that the gospels were written decades later, not in the 50's, so the minimal contradictions and presence of OT prooftexts characteristic of the Passion narratives should have already taken place for the earlier Resurrection narratives.

The resurrection accounts look much less like this than the rest of the synoptic gospels - they show every sign of having drawn on separate traditions for their resurrection stories. Of course because Mark's is so trucated it's hard to be certain.

Exactly. It could just as easily be each successive author composing their own version of these narratives based off of an oral outline (provenance unknown) or off of what Mark set off with the appearance of his gospel. Notice that where he left off, the following gospels flail off in their unchecked inconsistencies.

That they're different doesn't mean you have to conjecture yet another hypothetical source/tradition.

No, but it fits. The resurrection accounts look like they are the earliest bits of their respective gospels, and that's a reasonable thing to expect in a church where the resurrection is the central event that re-defines everything else. What we see and what we might expect are compatible.

ELB: 'There's no method to this madness. You just link a number of speculative hypotheses so that it will agree with and suit your purposes.'

There's no logical reason to assume your conclusions about what we should 'expect'.

Everything in John's gospel has a theological purpose, usually several. On the other hand there is no reason to suppose that John was interested in describing a precise chronology and quite a lot of reason to think he wasn't.

I don't like to dialogue about vague generalities and unsupported assertions, such as 'quite a lot of reason'. Bring some substance to the table or don't waste our time.

In any case, John xiv.26, unless Jesus never said it (no surprise there), stands in contrariety to the several discrepant and irreconcilable Resurrection accounts.

Not at all. John's gospel alone is an extraordinarly rich document, sufficient to keep one learning indefinitely. But neither John nor The Spirit is in the business of satisfying a 20th century obsession with factual detail over significance. The gospels are exactly what is needed - but not necessarly exactly what everyone thinks they want. We don't need to know everything Jesus said and did in infinite detail and precise chronological order (and, as John said, it would take more than all the books in the world to record it if we did) - rather we need to understand what he did and said. We need books that tell the story to bring out what it means. The evangelists are theologians, not chronologists [is such thing ever really exists]. Like any story teller, they tell the story to make a point or points, not to transmit historical data.

These subjective thoughts about what 'the Spirit' wanted to do (as if you could possibly know) does not help us reconstruct what actually happened, i.e., what he 'did and said'. You're letting your theological presuppositions guide your inferences, and I'm not interested in that.


Thanks,
E.L.B.

 

[ebia]

Your case is weak.

As I've said I'm not trying to make a case - this is not an apologetic forum and I'm not interested in debating the points - simple explaining the viewpoint. You seem to want a debate, so we're done unless you have any futher questions.

 

[EricLBess]

I still do not understand where this is going. I provided evidence in an earlier post that a 2nd century bishop (St. Irenaeus) quoted the resurrection account in Mark 16:19 over 2 centuries before it was supposedly added.

I understand your misunderstanding. You were lead to believe that because the earliest manuscripts we have for Mark (the 4th-century codices B and Aleph) lack the longer ending, scholars believe it must have been added after the 4th century or in the 4th century after B and Aleph. That's not the case.

Scholars know it must have been added before the 4th century (sometime early in the 2nd century for it to have been quoted by Irenaeus), but the argument is that codices B and Aleph represent an earlier stage of transmission from even earlier mss. before the addition of the longer ending.

Think of it this way: The earliest mss. of Mark ended at xvi.8. These mss. were copied and distributed until some one in the early 2nd century, a scribe, or perhaps the bishop Aristion, added verses 9-20 to his single copy. This new copy containing verses 9-20 was then copied/distributed and eventually fell into the hands of Irenaeus who cited it.

But remember, there are copies of the mss. ending at verse 8 still out there being copied faithfully. It is these mss. which are behind the texts of B and Aleph (Vaticanus and Sinaiticus respectively).

A major principle of the field of textual criticism is that the shorter reading is to be preferred. Scribes are more likely to expand texts than shorten them, and if they do shorten them, there must be a plausible reason. There is no plausible reason why B and Aleph should have omitted the longer ending.

The combination of the facts of the longer ending's absence in codices B and Aleph (our earliest and generally more reliable mss. witnesses), and its un-Marcan stylistic features, militate against verses 9-20 being authentic.

I hope this clears things up for you.

The Gospel of St. Mark is the preaching of the apostle St. Peter recorded by St. Mark (Mark is referred to by Peter in 1 Peter 5:13).

Yes, that is the traditional view, which most scholars don't subscribe to for many reasons (which can be discussed elsewhere).


Thanks,
E.L.B.