The Longer Ending of Mark

[aefting]

I've been reading through James Edwards' commentary on the Gospel of Mark and came across this interesting suggestion for the ending of Mark. Is this a new idea and how plausible do you think it is?

From Edwards, pp. 503-504:

How Mark may have ended the Gospel is, of course, unknown, but one tantalizing piece of evidence allow us to make a brief and modest attempt at a suggested ending. We have noted throughout the commentary that Matthew frequently follows Mark quite closely. That is particularly true of Mark 16:6-8, where the report of the women at the tomb in Matt 28:5-8 parallels Mark nearly verbatim. On the basis of this parallelism it seems plausible to suggest that Mark originally ended more or less like Matthew 28, with the exception of the report of the guards at the tomb in 28:11-15. Two pieces of evidence under gird this suggestion. First, Mark leads readers to expect an appearance of Jesus to the disciples in Galilee (14:28; 16:7), just as Matthew reports in 28:9-10. Second, we have noted that the authority (Gk, exousia) of Jesus is one of Mark's signature motifs for Jesus' nature and bearing. Every Markan episode of Jesus'' filial authority as the Son of God is reproduced in Matthew. [note 25] The only place where Matthew includes a reference to Jesus' exousia that is not found in Mark is in the parting commandment of the resurrected Christ that "all authority (Gk. Exousia) in heaven and earth has been given to me" (Matt 28:18). It seems plausible to suggest that Matthew also gleaned this reference to Jesus' authority from the original ending of Mark. Thus, two things Mark has lead us to expect in a resurrection narrative - an appearance of Jesus to the disciples in Galilee and a transferal of his authority to the disciples - constitute the essence of Mathew's ending in 28:9-10 and 16-20. Those seven verses have as good a claim as any to being the substance of Mark's original ending.

Note 25:
Mark 1:22//Matt 7:29; Mark 1:27//Matt none; Mark 2:10//Matt 9:6; Mark 11:28//Matt 21:23; Mark 11:29//Matt 21:24; Mark 11:33//Matt 21:27. Matthew does not reproduce Mark's second reference to Jesus' exousia ("authority") in Mark 1:27, however.

 

[Gunther]

Mark was not written as a complete story of Christ by any means. In fact, many think that Mark was recording Peter's sermons. If you couple that with Matthew being written prior to Mark, you stop trying to make Mark have the longer ending.

 

[Dr. Bob]

While in ALL of the extant Greek manuscripts the first part of Mark 16 is virtually identical.

Then there are hundreds (thousands) of variants in all the different possible endings that are added.

I think these longer/added endings may have good and bad aspects (sure don't like the added verses after the commission) but do not have the scriptural authority.

(Guess that makes me a liberal)

 

[aefting]

While it could certainly be true, as Gunther suggests, that Mark ends abruptly at 16:8, it seems that more and more conservatives are warming to the idea that the original ending was lost. I have stated before that I believe in essential purity in preservation rather than verbal plenary preservation but the loss of what could be a significant portion of Scripture is, nevertheless, somewhat unsettling. But, if Edwards' idea is correct, then we really haven't lost anything if the ending was preserved in substance within the last chapter of Matthew.


Andy

 

[Gunther]

Lost? I don't know of any conservatives that buy that theory. I think it is more probable that the copyists of Mark tried to make it end just like Matthew.

 

[aefting]

Lost?

Yes, here is a link to the Bible-Researcher Site that refers to that possibility (among others). Notice the initial comments as well as those by the Westminster Study Bible. I'm not sure I agree with it but I have had contact with conservative scholars who suggest the possibility.

Edwards' theory depends on Mark being the first gospel written. I have no idea if this is something conservative generally accept or not. Nor do I know if it is even possible to determine which book was written first.

Andy

 

[Daniel Dunivan]

First, the overwhelming number of scholars, conservative, liberal, or otherwise hold to Markan priority, with only a few still holding out for Greisbach (Matthew first). In my mind, the issue is settled (though that may not mean anything for anyone else).

Second, in Edward's commentary, does he deal with the critique that the commission story in Matthew betrays a very Matthean theme (emmanuel--God with us--where Jesus doesn't ascend, but remains "with" the church) that is not present in Mark? I am unfamilar with his particular work.

What is the title of the work? Publication date? Publisher? etc.

Grace and Peace, Danny

 

[aefting]

Edwards' work is part of the Pillar NT Commentary series.

Here's an Amazon link


Don't know the answer to your other question.

Andy

 

[Gunther]

Matthean priority was the view of the fathers (from what we can tell) and the view of the church for centuries.

With the rise of redaction and historic criticism, Markan priority developed.

 

[Daniel Dunivan]

The father's were hardly modern historians, and historical truth is not contigent upon a historiographical view of any portion of history. If it smells like, tastes like, and feels like Mark was first, it probably was.

Take this for an example of the difficulty with the priority of Matthew. Why would someone take a perfectly good, concise, and memorable rendering of Jesus' sayings in Greek and replace them with grammatically inferior, verbose, and difficult to remember versions?

Grace and Peace, Danny

 

[Gunther]

Originally posted by Daniel Dunivan:
Take this for an example of the difficulty with the priority of Matthew. Why would someone take a perfectly good, concise, and memorable rendering of Jesus' sayings in Greek and replace them with grammatically inferior, verbose, and difficult to remember versions?

Grace and Peace, Danny

Surely that isn't your reason to pick Mark first.

As I said earlier, if Mark's purpose was to record sermons from Peter (since they spent some time together), there is no reason to even think it is supposed to be a fullblown biography.

 

[Daniel Dunivan]

IMO, the geographical difficulties of Mark's work, as well as its references to the destruction of the temple, remove Peter from the writting whatsoever. We are dealing with two books that rely on one another--the literary evidence is overwhelming--and such reliance makes most sense with Matthew relying on Mark.

Grace and Peace, Danny

 

[Gunther]

Of course Peter didn't write it. Mark recorded Peter's sermons though. Peter did not have to be at every event to be able to preach about it. I know I wasn't at any of them and can still teach about them.

On what grounds do you say Matthew relied on Mark? How do you know they weren't written without the other? Again, this is ridiculous. To say Matthew relied on Mark is completely indefensible. That is such an assumption I will not even deal with it.

 

[Dr. Bob]

Think this last development (did Matthew use Peter's Gospel of Mark as a "source"?) deserves its own thread.

Stick on topic with the END of Mark 16 on this thread and jump over to a new thread on primary source documents.

Thanks.

 

[Gunther]

I still think the evidence would suggest that they each wrote without the other. Mark's ending is at verse 8.

Like all good sermons, Mark leaves the readers with what they will do with this risen Christ.

The extra is an addition. Probably someone looked at Matthew and thought Mark was missing something.

 

[Sola_Scriptura]

Perhaps people in this discussion of Mark's last 12 verses should read "The Last 12 Verses of Mark" by Dean John Burgon. Available here: http://www.sovgracepub.com/sgpbooks/1589600142.htm He proves that they are genuine. Perhaps they should also by his "Inspiration and Interpretation" as well.

Burgon: “It is a known rule in the Law of Evidence that the burden of proof lies on the party who asserts the affirmative of the issue. . . . But the case is altogether different, as all must see, when it is proposed to get rid of twelve verses which for 1,700 years and upwards have formed the conclusion of S. Mark’s Gospel, . . This assumption that a work which has held to be a complete work for seventeen centuries and upwards was originally incomplete, of course requires proof. . . . I can only imagine one other thing which could induce us to entertain such an opinion [to brand Mark 16:9-20 as spurious] and that would be the general consent of MSS., Fathers, and Versions” (ibid., p. C-10).

Burgon: “To raise an irrelevant discussion concerning the Received Text — to describe the haste with which Erasmus produced the first published edition of the New Testament — to make sport of the copies which he employed — All this kind of thing is the proceeding of one who seeks to mislead the student, to throw dust into his or her eyes, and thus to divert their attention from the problem actually before them — such is not the method of a sincere lover of Truth” (ibid. p. D-8).

 

[Dr. Bob]

When one has a presupposition that the AV is the only correct English translation, that the 5-7 Greek texts used by Erasmus are the only correct texts to translate, et al, then you will come to the same conclusions.

Others will study the evidence and not allow the only sect to kick dust in our eyes.

 

[Sola_Scriptura]

Perhaps you are unware that over 90% of the extant MSS (5200+) support the underlying greek text of the AV. There is very little supporting documentation for the the underlying text of all new "translations" after 1881. Obviously you have not studied the evidence very well and come from an anti-kjv presupposition.

And to clarify, I originally supported the modern translations before researching for myself the people who put together the underlying greek and hebrew texts of the modern versions. It is because of their poor christian testimony and their heretical beliefs (not believing in a literal devil, that Jesus is God, et al) and the manifold contradictions between these newer versions that I now only use the AV.

 

[Archangel7]

Originally posted by Sola_Scriptura:

Perhaps you are unware that over 90% of the extant MSS (5200+) support the underlying greek text of the AV.

And perhaps you are unaware that the vast majority of the "over 90%" of MSS that support the KJV comes from the 9th C. and later, the time when the Byzantine text was finally and fully standardized? This fact has *enormous* implications for the usefulness of the bulk of later MSS in establishing the text of the NT.

There is very little supporting documentation for the the underlying text of all new "translations" after 1881.

Far more than you think. All the Greek, versional, and patristic evidence we have from the earliest centuries tells us that the text of the NT looked more like the modern Critical Text than like the TR. There's no evidence of a Byzantine text (i.e., a TR-type text) before Constantine; an early form of the Byzantine text makes its first appearance in the 4th C.; and the Byzantine text continues to develop until it reaches its final form in the 9th C.

The Greek text behind the KJV (AKA the TR) is the creation of Erasmus. It is essentially an "eclectic" text (in other words, a text resulting from Erasmus' picking and choosing between variants), and is primarily Byzantine with a smattering of "Western" readings thrown in for good measure. The TR is a unique text which agrees with *none* of the extant Greek or versional MSS we now have. Let me stress this: no known copy of the NT in the entire history of the Christian church before Erasmus agrees 100% with the TR.

 

[gb93433]

Not only do I have a problem with the longer ending of Mark from the standpoint of the manuscript evidence but also the theological aspect in verses 17 and 18, "These signs will accompany those who have believed: in My name they will cast out demons, they will speak with new tongues; they will pick up serpents, and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover."

Know of any who have never spoken in tongues who are saved? Verses 17 and 18 seem to support the idea of speaking in tongues and various other things accompanying salvation.