Man, you guys wear me out. I've already spent almost three hours on these boards and then I find this.
The conversation is very good, and really want to add to the discussion, but I am too tired to write this much. However, I wanted to make a couple of quick notes and then I'll come back later this weekend and try to add my comments.
The Gospel of Mark is the oldest and most reliable book in the new testament by the apostles. The other gospels have been formulated based on Mark.
This is a theory based on the similarities between Matthew, Mark and Luke (note Gospel of John is missing). But there are also a number of dissimilarities, which argues that the three may be writing from different perspectives and different witnesses. If the theory is true, then Mark is the oldest. But it is NOT the oldest manuscript. So the dating of Mark is based on theory.
Secondly, Mark is not considered "the most reliable". In fact, when it comes to historical accuracy, Luke is preferred by most of the early church fathers for its detailed accounts. But Mark is still reliable, just not more reliable.
Yet, in Mark 16: 5 When they entered the tomb, they saw a young man clothed in a white robe sitting on the right side. The women were shocked, 6 but the angel said, ?Don?t be alarmed. You are looking for Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He isn?t here! He is risen from the dead! Look, this is where they laid his body. 7 Now go and tell his disciples, including Peter, that Jesus is going ahead of you to Galilee. You will see him there, just as he told you before he died.?
8 The women fled from the tomb, trembling and bewildered, and they said nothing to anyone because they were too frightened.
The scene ends with women Mary Magdalene and Salome run off and telling no one. This is the original ending of the story. The current resurrection story was placed into Mark sometime later.
I find that if the original story was not concerned with the resurrection, Mark went on to preach for Jesus and died in this service without a resurrection story that he too did not find that it was necessary for the message.
Just because this is what Ehrman has said doesn't mean that it is the accepted history. There is much disagreement about whether the ending of Mark was added or if the earlier manuscript was a fragment. The Greek syntax of verse 8, the last "original" verse, implies that there was more intended. Most historical scholars, not theological, believe that there was more and that the original was lost. None of this implies that Mark did not believe or ignored the resurrection story.
Mark was a disciple of both Peter and Paul, and could not have ministered with them without preaching the bodily resurrection of Jesus. And while I am aware of how you read those first eight verses of Mark, they do state that Jesus' body was no longer in the grave and that he had bodily risen from the dead.
I'm done for now. While try to write more later ... ... ... ...
