The only question really is: was there a version of the text that said “pierced” then? It needn’t be the case that all manuscripts said it. Only, were there any that said it? The answer has been confirmed to be yes (see Hopkin’s study, “The Psalm 22:16 Controversy: New Evidence from the Dead Sea Scrolls”). In fact, the evidence suggests “like a lion” is third century corruption in the Hebrew Masoretic text. There is no evidence of it existing at all as a reading prior to that.

Do you think the pierced hands and feet version is the original and was in the Septuagint in Mark’s time?

Thanks for your reply. Being that I’m an autodidact lacking official academic credentials, I had published this idea from Isaiah 53:9 but was afraid that I had blundered because standard Bible reference works that I’ve checked don’t specifically mention this verse in reference to Mark’s tomb. Also, my hypothesis lacked the additional scholarship provided by your work on this subject. I’m an honest admirer of your diligent scholarship. Thanks again.

I don’t even think that requires that variant reading. They all basically outline what Mark does. But yes, Mark is reifying scripture and thus obviously got some ideas from Isaiah as to the burial, and might have been cued by this variant to specifically imagine a tomb fable. But he could as easily have just assumed being buried with the rich entailed a tomb (as a ubiquitous fact of the cultural system he found himself in: the rich are always buried in tombs).

The NRSV (and others), utilizing the text from the Dead Sea Scrolls, render Isaiah 53:9, “They made his grave with the wicked and his tomb with the rich.”

Even if the author would have been using the Septuagint rather than the Hebrew, with all the variant readings of all the ancient texts, is it possible or even plausible Mark used a now lost variant reading of the Septuagint that would have agreed with the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls manuscript of Is 53:9?

Depends on what exactly you need evidence for. There is no such person as a centurion torturing Jesus in the Bible. But the irony intended by Mark is “rewritten” by Matthew and Luke to turn what might have been meant by Mark as sarcasm into a genuine sentiment (compare how Matthew and Luke each change Mark’s version). So that is where the myth of the converted centurion begins (notice Matthew and Luke both also add a faithful Centurion into the ministry).

It is not clear Mark intended otherwise (the irony is maintained whether the centurion is imagined as being sarcastic or sincere: either way, Roman officials are declaring Jesus the Son of God, contrary to expectation). But sarcasm does work as an interpretation of Mark, and one does have to explain why Matthew and Luke felt the need to get rid of that sense: they must themselves have seen it as too possibly sarcastic.

There is no simple answer to this question (not least because “Fathers” means dozens of different people and books spanning three centuries of composition; and whether a given Father actually does refer to it is debated in many cases; and so on).

There is no recourse but to simply read my complete write up on this issue in Hitler Homer Bible Christ. I address every single possible mention and evidence and all the issues of dating, and when late dating of a Church Father manuscript is a problem and why, as well as all the manuscripts, glosses, stylometric evidence, and so on.

Irenaeus and Justin are particularly problematic. But the evidence and issues are complex. So you’d have to refer there again for details. Meanwhile, the Epistula Apostolorum, also addressed there, clearly never references the Long Ending. That is simply an apologetical claim, not a factual one.

I wouldn’t have the time or resources to complete a project that enormous, alas. If perhaps some wealthy magnate funds the project I could devote the few years it would take. But short of that, what’s in OHJ and my blog (past and future) is likely all that I can afford to do.