Ship of Fools: Mark 16:8 - is this the end?

Thread: Mark 16:8 - is this the end? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=028435

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

Mark 16:8 - was this the original ending of Mark's gospel or what? I know all the various theories:

The original ending was lost.
This is where the gospel stopped because it was never finished.
This is where the gospel stopped because this is what Mark intended.

Where do people stand on this one?

Personally, I remain a little surprised that a lot of "current" thinking seems to be that this is how "Mark" intended to finish the gospel. The ending is so abrupt (famously finishing mid-sentence) and it all leaves so much unresolved. I tend to the view that there WAS an original ending which got lost early on (when copies of the gospel would have been very rare). But I am interested to know what others think.

Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on :

For reference, This link shows the "shorter" and "longer" endings which were appended in various early manuscripts.

Posted by pimple (# 10635) on :

I think there may be a combination of options two and three. It ends the way Mark intended it to - at the time, but probably intended to add to it. But somehow was prevented from doing so. The longer endings seem to be by other authors, perhaps trying to anticipate what Mark might have had in mind.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

This is a new book which throws quite a spanner in the thinking about the ending of Mark. I haven't read it but came across mention of it just a few minutes ago! It seems a substantial piece of work.

Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :

We recently did Mark as part of homegroup, and the last study was on the three endings (including the abrupt). Somehow (despite always knowing about the endings) I think all the other studies either then picked an ending and treated it as 'gospel' so you forgot about it, or treated it so dismissively that you reacted against it.

One thing I noticed (I think independently) was where the rest of the gospel had the often taught links with Matthew/Luke, the long ending is pretty much an abridged John.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

A shipmate who hasn't posted for years had as his sig a quote from a seminary professor.

Here is the gist of it.

"We must attribute divine inspiration to the rodent that ate the original ending of Mark."

Moo

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

Jay-Emm wrote:

quote:
One thing I noticed (I think independently) was where the rest of the gospel had the often taught links with Matthew/Luke, the long ending is pretty much an abridged John.

Good call (perhaps!).

quote:
An Armenian manuscript, written in A.D. 986, ascribes them to a presbyter named Ariston, who may be the same with the presbyter Aristion, mentioned by Papias as a contemporary of St. John in Asia.

(from here).

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

John Fentton argues that we are left to make up our own minds, just like in the parables.

As long ago as Welhausen, this ideas was suggested.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

As Oscar originally stated, the option that Mark actually intended his gospel to finish there has to remain an option.

The biggest problem with the "Mark intended us to make our own decision" theory seems to be that that is a very modern sort of notion, and that ancient texts don't tend to do that (if they can be said to do it at all). It fits very well with reader-response type ideas, but they are of much more recent origin.

Just looking at the article you quoted, leo, ISTM that much of the force of that argument relies on "for they were afraid" being an adequate translation for ephobounto gar. But gar is a conjunction. There seems to be loads of analysis of texts on this very subject, and the comments seem to be that that is possible but unlikely. If Mark really did finish at this point intentionally, a better translation would be "they were afraid indeed". Both are possible, but less likely than "they were afraid because...", which points more towards missing following text.

There's also lots more recent analysis of Mark's gospel for style and as a parallel with other early Christian writings in order to examine this matter than you cite, but as I haven't read them I can't say more.

Still, it is interesting. We can only hope that a first century ms. suddenly turns up to put us out of our misery!

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

AIUI this is the only place in Mark's gospel where 'gar' ends a sentence.

Moo

Posted by pimple (# 10635) on :

I love it! It's almost as if Mark were a first century Palestinian (or Roman) equivalent of a Yorkshire tike. "Gar" means " because" doesn't it? So the (modern) colloquial equivalent could be something like "They would have have stuck with him; they were afraid, but."

Very ungrammatical. Jesus would have loved it too.

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
The biggest problem with the "Mark intended us to make our own decision" theory seems to be that that is a very modern sort of notion, and that ancient texts don't tend to do that (if they can be said to do it at all). It fits very well with reader-response type ideas, but they are of much more recent origin.

Yes! I'm glad you think so too.

Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
AIUI this is the only place in Mark's gospel where 'gar' ends a sentence.

Moo

Yes, that's it for Mark. There is one other occurrence in the NT that I know of – John 13:13

quote:
NET Version
“You call me ‘Teacher’ and ‘Lord,’ and do so correctly, for that is what I am.”

ὑμεῖς φωνεῖτέ με ὁ διδάσκαλος, καί ὁ κύριος, καὶ καλῶς λέγετε εἰμὶ γάρ

In both instances the preposition gar occurs in its natural place – second in the word order of a clause or sentence.

Personally I don't see how Mark could have dealt with his final clause in any other way. The first part of Mark 16:8 also has a gar construction: Then they ran from tomb, for [= gar] terror and bewilderment had seized them [= εἶχεν γὰρ αὐτὰς τρόμος καὶ ἔκστασις]

In that instance Mark had material to follow gar, but at the end of the verse he didn't – unless he repeated material from earlier to explain why they were afraid, which could appear wordy and redundant.

Posted by Adam. (# 4991) on :

quote:
Originally posted by pimple:

Very ungrammatical. Jesus would have loved it too.

It's not actually (ungrammatical, that is; I'm sure Jesus still loves it). Nigel just mentioned this, but I thought it might be worth spelling out a little slower. Gar is what's known as a post-positive conjunction, one that's 'put after.' Standard Greek word order is to put the word gar after the first unit of the clause it governs. So, very standard word order for "I eat chips because I like them" might be "I-eat chips I-like gar them." When a clause only has one word (eg. they-were-afraid), gar would end the sentence.

Posted by pimple (# 10635) on :

How disappointing! Mark wasn't from Yorkshire then. It was cute conjecture, but.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
There's also lots more recent analysis of Mark's gospel for style and as a parallel with other early Christian writings in order to examine this matter than you cite, but as I haven't read them I can't say more.

Lightfoot’s ‘The Gospel Message of Mark’ says that although it’s the only time Mark ends a sentence with ‘gar’, it happens elsewhere:

Genesis 18:15
Genesis 45:3 – both in LXX

Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho ends a paragraph with it.

Mark also uses ‘gar’, but not at the end of a sentence, in 11:18 and 16:4

Posted by Adam. (# 4991) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

Mark also uses ‘gar’, but not at the end of a sentence, in 11:18 and 16:4

He does uses it much more often that just those two verses. In fact, 9% of his verses contain the word. That's fewer than Matthew (12%), but more than Luke (8%), John (7%), Acts (7%) or Revelation (4%).

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adam.:

quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
Very ungrammatical. Jesus would have loved it too.
It's not actually (ungrammatical, that is; I'm sure Jesus still loves it). Nigel just mentioned this, but I thought it might be worth spelling out a little slower. Gar is what's known as a post-positive conjunction, one that's 'put after.' Standard Greek word order is to put the word gar after the first unit of the clause it governs. So, very standard word order for "I eat chips because I like them" might be "I-eat chips I-like gar them." When a clause only has one word (eg. they-were-afraid), gar would end the sentence.

Now, to push the 'ungrammatical' angle just a bit further, one could argue the puissant translation of this very last bit of original Mark would be this:

quote:
They said nothing to nobody cuz they feared.

We can't very well do that in English, so we get the churchy-sounding "nothing to anyone for they were afraid."

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

Ha ha TSA!

Apologies to all for the late check-in again. And thanks for the more detailed grammatical analysis. Though I fear I probably didn't express myself too well earlier.

My point was really only to say that I don't think there are any knock-down analyses that will give you the correct answer to the conundrum outlined in the OP. The detail was really only in response to leo's referred theory.

The translations are really just trying to do the best they can with the material they have, and what else should we expect?

Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
Now, to push the 'ungrammatical' angle just a bit further, one could argue the puissant translation of this very last bit of original Mark would be this:
quote:
They said nothing to nobody cuz they feared.

Or even more, the current trend of because + noun:

quote:
They said nothing, because Fear.

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

Mamacita is pushing the translation closer to our contemporary vernacular.

My translation, perhaps better rendered as

quote:
they-said nothing to nobody for they-feared.

pushes it closer to the Greek.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
This is a new book which throws quite a spanner in the thinking about the ending of Mark. I haven't read it but came across mention of it just a few minutes ago! It seems a substantial piece of work.

It does sound interesting:

quote:
"The author, Nicholas Lunn, argues that the long ending was not a later addition to the Gospel but was the original ending written by Mark. In this he is going against the majority view, but I can say that his case is not simply reasonable — it is knock-down brilliant! He demonstrates that the case for the long ending being original is highly probable. (Seriously — I am as surprised as you may be.) I think that after the publication of this book anyone who still wants to argue for the exclusion of 16:9–20 from the Gospel has an uphill struggle."

(Theological Scribbles)
It has always seemed bogus to me that the ending of Mark is seen as tacked on. As if no one would have noticed.

Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :

I strongly believe it's the original ending, meant to (a) throw the job of spreading the Gospel to the reader, and (b) encourage re-reading the Gospel with new eyes.

RE: (b), I heard this from a professor at the Jesuit School of Theology in Berkeley. He was talking about how Mark rushes us through the story (using "immediately" and similar words) - it's a breathless account - and has the centurion identify Jesus for us only after his death. We're supposed to re-read now with that new information, and the story will be opened further.

RE: (a), I heard this first from a then-PhD student at the Church Divinity School of the Pacific. It makes a lot of sense to me, given the style of the Gospel. The hurriedness of the book also supports this thesis, as the reader should be persuaded of the urgency of Christ's message and dissatisfied with the ending.

Works for me. But I think it didn't work for some early copyists, who added the other alternate (shorter and longer) endings. Both seem like a big denouement if read in the context of the whole book.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Re rereading--that's a problematic idea when you consider that most of Mark's audience were n fact hearers, not readers. They didn't own copies of Mark and they often (usually?) Couldn't read anyway, so their only access to the text was by hearing it read at church etc. And when you're beholden that way, you don't get to say "All right, let's go right back to the start and do it again."

Mark would have known this perfectly well. In fact, i doubt any of the early Christian writers wrote primarily for a reading, rather than hearing, audience. Hearing would have been their default.

Does anyone know how scrolls were customarily kept--rolled to the end or the beginning? Or did it depend on individual laziness, as VCR tapes used to?

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

I think LC has raised some interesting points. Not that I have any answers, though!

But I would like to raise another issue, connected with all this. Do we have much idea HOW the gospels were originally used?

As LC says, the presumption must be that they were mainly heard rather than read. But how were they heard? In small bits at a Eucharistic gathering? In large chunks? Were they intended to be heard repeatedly, as part of catachesis, until they were memorised?

And can we assume that each of the four canonical gospels was intended to be used in the same way?

It seems to me that answers to these questions will indicate whether particular theories about the ending of Mark's gospel are plausible or not.

Posted by Drewthealexander (# 16660) on :

All rather begs the question of the point Mark was trying to make if, indeed, the short ending is original. So the first witnesses of the resurrection said nothing to anyone since they were frit. How then did Mark get to hear their story?

The text ends here - clearly the story doesn't.

Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Re rereading--that's a problematic idea when you consider that most of Mark's audience were n fact hearers, not readers. They didn't own copies of Mark and they often (usually?) Couldn't read anyway, so their only access to the text was by hearing it read at church etc. And when you're beholden that way, you don't get to say "All right, let's go right back to the start and do it again."

Mark would have known this perfectly well. In fact, i doubt any of the early Christian writers wrote primarily for a reading, rather than hearing, audience. Hearing would have been their default.

Well, yes, I misspoke. But the way it's written would make you want to hear the story again.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
But I would like to raise another issue, connected with all this. Do we have much idea HOW the gospels were originally used?

There is a widely-accepted idea that during Holy Week, one of the gospels was read aloud from beginning to end. We do this in our church, and it's very powerful. I don't think the gospels were written to be read in snippets.

Moo

[ 28. March 2015, 20:57: Message edited by: Moo ]

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
All rather begs the question of the point Mark was trying to make if, indeed, the short ending is original. So the first witnesses of the resurrection said nothing to anyone since they were frit. How then did Mark get to hear their story?

The text ends here - clearly the story doesn't.

Let's take Drewthealexander's post to put more meat on the bones of chuchgeek's good account.

How did Mark get the account? is somewhat beside the point. He have Mark's account: It's gospel. The better question is why do we have his account at all, the answer being that the saying, nothing to nobody for they feared, obtained only during the fleeing in terror and amazement. It's obvious they are going to discuss things among themselves, with Peter and the disciples, among whom are Andrew, James, and John.

Clearly they must have obeyed the young man's instructions:

quote:
You are looking for Jesus of Nazareth…he is not here…Go, tell his disciples and Peter that is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see him, just as he told you.

Having done a Wile E. Coyote over the cliff of 16:8, the only thing to do is to return to the beginning ("to Galilee…just as he told you") and hear of the prophecy of the Forerunner ("a stronger one is coming") and the declaration from Heaven ("you are my son"), to hear, "Immediately…Jesus came to Galilee" and his message, "the kingdom of God has come near" (1:14). The first public act is the calling of Simon (who hasn't yet been nicknamed Rocky). That clinches the circle.

It is this "return to the Galilee" to "seek Jesus" that is the lynchpin to the argument churchgeek relates.

The hearing/reading distinction is a red herring. Mark is so simply short that many would have easily committed it to memory, or even jointly.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Re rereading--that's a problematic idea when you consider that most of Mark's audience were n fact hearers, not readers. They didn't own copies of Mark and they often (usually?) Couldn't read anyway, so their only access to the text was by hearing it read at church etc. And when you're beholden that way, you don't get to say "All right, let's go right back to the start and do it again."

Mark would have known this perfectly well. In fact, i doubt any of the early Christian writers wrote primarily for a reading, rather than hearing, audience. Hearing would have been their default.
Well, yes, I misspoke. But the way it's written would make you want to hear the story again.

I didn't think you mispoke. In fact, your argument is precisely the one i made myself about a modern work. It's a fine argument. I was just wondering whether it could apply in a hearing -oriented age.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
Mark 16:8 - was this the original ending of Mark's gospel or what? I know all the various theories:

You seem to be missing this one:

quote:
Although traditionally accepted by the church down through the centuries, the longer ending of Mark's Gospel (16:9-20) has been relegated by modern scholarship to the status of a later appendage. The arguments for such a view are chiefly based upon the witness of the two earliest complete manuscripts of Mark, and upon matters of language and style. This work shows that these primary grounds of argumentation are inadequate. It is demonstrated that the church fathers knew the Markan ending from the very earliest days, well over two centuries before the earliest extant manuscripts. The quantity of unique terms in the ending is also seen to fall within the parameters exhibited by undisputed Markan passages. Strong indications of Markan authorship are found in the presence of specific linguistic constructions, a range of literary devices, and the continuation of various themes prominent within the body of the Gospel. Furthermore, the writings of Luke show that the Gospel of Mark known to this author contained the ending. Rather than being a later addition, the evidence is interpreted in terms of a textual omission occurring at a later stage in transmission, probably in Egypt during the second century.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Have just read an article by Canon Mark Oakley on this topic - he suggests that where we want to put a full stop, God puts a comma.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

I have been traveling this weekend so did not get a chance to look at this discussion until this evening.

An interesting detail about Mark is that it is all written in the present tense, or the present perfect tense--as if to say the action is happening now and will continue to happen.

Thus, when Mark uses gar at the end of verse eight it is a literary devise that implies the story continues--even through today. The resurrected Christ continues to be present here and now.

Personally, I am intrigued with how the young man that the women saw in the tomb might have been. I tend to go back to the story of the man living in the tombs of Garasene, the one called Legion.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+5&version=ISV,

I happen to think the man the women found in the tomb and the Garasene man were one and the same. I also think he may have been the writer of the Gospel we know as Mark.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
I happen to think the man the women found in the tomb and the Garasene man were one and the same. I also think he may have been the writer of the Gospel we know as Mark.

So you don't think that he was an angel?

Posted by Jack o' the Green (# 11091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
I happen to think the man the women found in the tomb and the Garasene man were one and the same. I also think he may have been the writer of the Gospel we know as Mark.
So you don't think that he was an angel?

Frank Morrison makes this suggestion in his book "Who Moved the Stone?". He also identifies that man with 'the Servant of the Priest' mentioned in the Gospel of the Hebrews when relating the appearance of Jesus to his brother James:

"And when the Lord had given his linen cloth to the servant of the priest he went to James and appeared unto him. For James had sworn that he would not eat bread from that hour wherein he had drunk the cup of the Lord until he saw him rising again from the dead.

..."Bring a table and bread."

And he took up the bread and blessed and broke and afterward gave to James the Just and said to him, "My brother, eat thy bread, for the Son of Man is risen from them that sleep.""

The term 'man' can refer to an angel. This is probably the case when the two men ask the disciples why they are looking up in the sky following the ascension of Jesus.

Those eager to remove any contradictions between the Gospel accounts point out that even when there are two people as in Luke and John's accounts of the empty tomb, sometimes only one is mentioned if they are the sole spokesman.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

All the Gospel of Mark says was it was a young man dressed in white linen.

Compare this to the Garasene man who was dressed in tattered clothe.

Luke says two men appeared.

Matthew says an angel appeared

John has no report of a man or an angel, rather Jesus appears to Mary Magdalene

If by "angel" you mean someone who announces good news, or does what God wants, then the young man was indeed an angel. However, there is nothing in Mark that hints the man was supernatural. Luke hints the young men were supernatural. Matthew definitely says the personage was supernatural.

Posted by Jack o' the Green (# 11091) on :

Apologies. I misread 'Garasene' to refer to the young man in the Garden of Gethsemane who fled leaving his clothes behind. It's him who Frank Morrison identifies with the servant of the priest and the young man at the tomb. Others have also identified him with John Mark and think he paints a little portrait of himself in the Gospel. I'm intrigued as to why you would identify the Garasene man with the author of the Gospel or with the man at the tomb.

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
However, there is nothing in Mark that hints the man was supernatural. Luke hints the young men were supernatural. Matthew definitely says the personage was supernatural.

I'm not sure that there is no "hint" in Mark. I would say that it is ambiguous in a way that Luke and (especially) Matthew are not.

Whilst I like the symmetry of the young man in Gethsemane losing his robes and then appearing at the tomb (now fully clothed!), I am unconvinced overall, simply because a) This would mean that Luke AND Matthew are both completely mistaken in their adaptations of Mark's account; and b) there is no other reference to the first witness of the resurrection being anyone other than the women or Cephas (cf 1 Cor15:5).

BUT

Even as I write this, I am wavering slightly. Mark does so like his "bookmark" narratives. And it certainly is a powerful image - the young man losing his old clothes as Jesus is arrested and then being found in "pure" white clothes at the resurrection. It feels kinda baptismal..... [Confused]

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

The short ending of Mark was the text for our Easter sermon on Sunday. The preacher focused on the urgency of Mark and the not-yet-finished aspect of his Gospel. She also tied it to the opening of Mark's Gospel—"The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ"—positing that Mark treated his entire writing, not just those first sentences, as the beginning of the Good News, which continues even now.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

I have no qualms with Luke and Matthew telling the Resurrection Story differently than Mark. John also has a substantially different story. Different witnesses relate the same story in different ways.

Posted by Adam. (# 4991) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
It feels kinda baptismal.....

It does... to us. I wonder whether to Mark's intended audience it would rather be that baptism feels kinda resurrectiony.

By which I mean, I wonder whether this is part of a constellation of texts that inform (and reflect) a symbolic universe in which clothing the newly baptized in a white garment just makes sense. The description in Revelation must also be part of this, as well as Paul's language of having "put on Christ."

I would have some difficulty reconciling the man who flees naked with pre-baptismal stripping, as the pre-baptismal stripping represents detachment from one's previous life, a positive step in discipleship (albeit an incomplete one, as it needs to be followed by baptism and re-clothing). The man who flees naked is a photonegative image of discipleship. Unlike the fishermen disciples who left all to follow Christ in chapter 1, he leaves all to abandon Christ. This is the opposite of what happens in baptism!

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adam.:
I would have some difficulty reconciling the man who flees naked with pre-baptismal stripping, as the pre-baptismal stripping represents detachment from one's previous life, a positive step in discipleship (albeit an incomplete one, as it needs to be followed by baptism and re-clothing). The man who flees naked is a photonegative image of discipleship. Unlike the fishermen disciples who left all to follow Christ in chapter 1, he leaves all to abandon Christ. This is the opposite of what happens in baptism!

But at that point, even the apostles have abandoned Christ. And in fact, the running away could even strengthen the imagery - even those who fled in terror are included and restored and forgiven.

Not that I am terribly wedded to this idea - just sort of playing around with it. I have long wondered what is the point of the story of the young man at the arrest. Linking it to the young man at the tomb suggests a possible rationale.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

Note how the description of what happened at Gethsemane is quite detailed. If he is not the writer of Mark, Mark definitely used him as a first person resource.

Also note how the incident with the Garasene man is also very detailed--the pace of the book actually slows down, but then picks up after Jesus left the region.

Evidence they were the one and the same man.

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Note how the description of what happened at Gethsemane is quite detailed. If he is not the writer of Mark, Mark definitely used him as a first person resource.

Also note how the incident with the Garasene man is also very detailed--the pace of the book actually slows down, but then picks up after Jesus left the region.

Evidence they were the one and the same man.

Sorry, but I really just don't get it.

In Mark 5, the man is simply that - a man, rather than a young man (as is the character in Gethsemane). In Mark 5, there is no clear reference to clothing, other than the statement that, once delivered from the legion of demons, he was fully clothed and in his right mind. Compare that with Mark 14 and Mark 16, where the clothing of the young man (or men) is described (a linen cloth and a white robe). Finally, in Mark 5 the man is sent away by Jesus and we hear that he goes to Decapolis, speaking about Jesus. To me, that implies that this region is where you will find the man - what is he suddenly doing in Jerusalem?

Also, I think that the gap between Mark 5 and Mark 16 is too great for such a link. If it WERE the same person, I think there would need to be more of an explicit connection. Whereas, it seems more plausible (to me, anyway) that the unnamed young man in Mark 14 could be connected to the unnamed young man in Mark 16.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
Also, I think that the gap between Mark 5 and Mark 16 is too great for such a link.

Mark is a very compact gospel and has what I think scholars call chiasmuses. There are big ones and little ones - this would be a big one.

Posted by Jack o' the Green (# 11091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Note how the description of what happened at Gethsemane is quite detailed. If he is not the writer of Mark, Mark definitely used him as a first person resource.

Also note how the incident with the Garasene man is also very detailed--the pace of the book actually slows down, but then picks up after Jesus left the region.

Evidence they were the one and the same man.

I don't think so. It seems one hell of a leap. All you have as evidence is two reasonably detailed stories about a couple of blokes. If you're going to try and find a link between Mr Nudey and the gospel writer's sources, then it is possible that the Last Supper was held at John Mark's house, and that he followed Jesus and his disciples from there to the garden.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

We had the longer ending to Mark as our lectionary reading this morning. Discussion during our pre-worship fellowship included a footnote in the version one of us had which includes another inserted section, between verses 14 and 15.

I found this description

quote:
The Freer Logion: Found after Mk 16:14 in a fourth-fifth century manuscript preserved in the Freer Gallery of Art, Washington, DC, this ending was known to Jerome in the fourth century. It reads: “And they excused themselves, saying, ‘This age of lawlessness and unbelief is under Satan, who does not allow the truth and power of God to prevail over the unclean things dominated by the spirits [or, does not allow the unclean things dominated by the spirits to grasp the truth and power of God]. Therefore reveal your righteousness now.’ They spoke to Christ. And Christ responded to them, ‘The limit of the years of Satan’s power is completed, but other terrible things draw near. And for those who sinned I was handed over to death, that they might return to the truth and no longer sin, in order that they might inherit the spiritual and incorruptible heavenly glory of righteousness. But….’”

, in the footnotes for the NABRE at Bible Gateway.

Which is certainly very different from the rest of Mark, and I can see why it doesn't even make the footnotes of most translations. It sounds a bit like a midrash to me.

Posted by Meike (# 3006) on :

I tend to believe that the original ending was lost, if only from a storytelling point of view. There are several references in Mark to Jesus' resurrection and appearance to the disciples in Galilee. Why deliberately leave it out in the end?

I’ve never heard of the additional verses mentioned above but I can see why the disciples would want to make excuses. Jesus seems a bit harsh on them in Mk 16:14, unlike in the other gospel accounts, telling them off for their unbelief.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Meike:
I tend to believe that the original ending was lost,

I think that it makes more sense to think that the original ending to Mark was lost only in the few early manuscripts where it is omitted.

The original ending is the one that is commonly found in most Bibles. The majority text reflects the reality that this ending was there from the beginning.

Posted by Meike (# 3006) on :

Freddy, that’s possible, I think.

All we know for a fact is that the verses aren’t included in the earliest manuscripts, but it doesn't necessarily follow that they were a later addition.

To me personally, the ending of Mark does read like a summarized version of the other gospel accounts, almost like a checklist of events (first he appeared to Mary Magdalene, then the other two, later the eleven…) so I'm still inclined to believe it's an edited version.

As an aside and maybe off topic, I wonder how to deal with other parts of scripture likewise printed in ‘double brackets’, i.e. not included in the early manuscripts, like John 8 (Jesus and the adulteress) or Luke 23 (‘Father forgive them, for they do not know what they do’) etc...

Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Meike:
To me personally, the ending of Mark does read like a summarized version of the other gospel accounts, almost like a checklist of events (first he appeared to Mary Magdalene, then the other two, later the eleven…) so I'm still inclined to believe it's an edited version.

I am similarly inclined.

quote:

As an aside and maybe off topic, I wonder how to deal with other parts of scripture likewise printed in ‘double brackets’, i.e. not included in the early manuscripts, like John 8 (Jesus and the adulteress) or Luke 23 (‘Father forgive them, for they do not know what they do’) etc...

These would be good as a separate thread or threads in Kerygmania - please do feel free to start one.

Welcome back, by the way.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

Textual Criticism says other wise. Scholars tend to accept the earlier manuscripts than the later ones. Moreover there is internal evidence that suggests the longer ending was written at a much later date. The syntax is different. And the words are also different than the rest of Mark.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Textual Criticism says other wise. Scholars tend to accept the earlier manuscripts than the later ones. Moreover there is internal evidence that suggests the longer ending was written at a much later date. The syntax is different. And the words are also different than the rest of Mark.

Yes, those are the usual arguments. Are we really prepared to accept them uncritically as established fact?

I think that the book referred to us by Baptist Trainfan, "The Original Ending of Mark", argues persuasively against this accepted view:

quote:
Although traditionally accepted by the church down through the centuries, the longer ending of Mark's Gospel (16:9-20) has been relegated by modern scholarship to the status of a later appendage. The arguments for such a view are chiefly based upon the witness of the two earliest complete manuscripts of Mark, and upon matters of language and style. This work shows that these primary grounds of argumentation are inadequate. It is demonstrated that the church fathers knew the Markan ending from the very earliest days, well over two centuries before the earliest extant manuscripts. The quantity of unique terms in the ending is also seen to fall within the parameters exhibited by undisputed Markan passages. Strong indications of Markan authorship are found in the presence of specific linguistic constructions, a range of literary devices, and the continuation of various themes prominent within the body of the Gospel. Furthermore, the writings of Luke show that the Gospel of Mark known to this author contained the ending. Rather than being a later addition, the evidence is interpreted in terms of a textual omission occurring at a later stage in transmission, probably in Egypt during the second century.

These arguments seem reasonable to me. At least reasonable enough for us to refrain from considering the tacked-on nature of the ending of Mark, as found in all of our Bibles, as an established fact.

Posted by Meike (# 3006) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
These arguments seem reasonable to me. At least reasonable enough for us to refrain from considering the tacked-on nature of the ending of Mark, as found in all of our Bibles, as an established fact.

It is often stated as a fact: "This is a 2nd century addition that is missing in the earliest manuscripts."

Which is why I assumed there had to be manuscripts or fragments older than the 2nd century. I wasn't aware that the documents in question were produced 200 years later.

The author certainly has some points that would make me reconsider. As far as I can tell, since I've only just read the summary and conclusion.

quote:
Originally posted by Mamacita:
Welcome back, by the way.

Thank you

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Meike:
I assumed there had to be manuscripts or fragments older than the 2nd century. I wasn't aware that the documents in question were produced 200 years later.

Yes, the actual documents are from the 4th century. The earliest complete manuscripts of Mark – Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and, with gaps, Alexandrinus – date from the 4th century.

Mark is thought to have been written c. AD 66–70. The long ending that is in all of our Bibles, and that appears in the great majority of the early manuscripts, is thought to have been inserted near the beginning of the 2nd century, that is, thirty to fifty years after the original was written.

The Wikipedia article on this question is quite informative.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0