Summary of “Markan Ending: The Application of Theory and Method of New Testament Textual Criticism to the Ending of Mark’s Gospel”
Introduction
Textual Analysis of the Endings of Marks
There are six different variants of the ending of Mark reflected in the United Bible Societies Greek New Testament: The Abrupt Ending (omits vv. 9-20), the Intermediate (Short) Ending, the Intermediate Ending and the Longer Ending, the Longer Ending with the Freer Logion, the Longer Ending with critical note or sign, and the Longer Ending. The distribution of textual witnesses for these different endings of Mark are laid out in the table below according to their type (papyri, uncials, minuscules, lectionaries, early versions, and patristic citations); the traditional text type, and their date.
Tables of Distribution of Witnesses for Markan Endings
Reading 1: The Abrupt Ending
|
Manuscripts
|
Alexandrian (Date) |
Western (Date) |
Eastern |
Others (Date) |
|
|
Byzantine (Date) |
Caesarean (Date) |
||||
|
Uncials |
א (4th/5th) B (4th) |
|
|
|
|
|
Minuscules |
|
|
304 (12th) |
|
|
|
Early Versions |
copsa ms (3rd) |
syrs (3rd/4th ) |
|
armmss, codd (5th) geo1, (897) geoA (913) |
|
|
Patristic Citations |
Clement (212) Origen (253/254) Ammonius (3rd)
|
Jerome (419/420) mssacc. to Jerome (419/420) |
Victor (5th) Euthymius (12th) mssacc.to. Severus (538) |
Eusebius mss (339/340) mssacc to Eusebius (4th) Origen (253/254) |
Epiphanius1/2 (403) Hesychius
|
Reading 2: The Intermediate (Short) Ending
|
Manuscripts
|
Alexandrian (Date) |
Western (Date) |
Eastern |
Others (Date) |
|
|
Byzantine (Date) |
Caesarean (Date) |
||||
|
Early Versions |
|
itk (4th)
|
|
|
|
Reading 3: The Intermediate Ending and the Longer Ending
|
Manuscripts |
Alexandrian (Date) |
Western (Date) |
Eastern |
Others (Date) |
|
|
Byzantine (Date) |
Caesarean (Date) |
||||
|
Uncials |
L (8th) Ψ (9th/10th) |
|
099 (7th)
|
|
|
|
Minuscules |
0112 (6th)
|
|
274mg (10th) |
|
579 (13th) |
|
Lectionaries |
|
|
|
l1602 (?) |
|
|
Eaarly Versions |
copsamss (3th/4th) copbomss (3th/4th) ethms (5th) |
|
syrhmg (616) |
|
|
Reading 4: The Longer Ending with the Freer Logion
|
Manuscripts
|
Alexandrian (Date) |
Western (Date) |
Eastern |
Others (Date) |
|
|
Byzantine (Date) |
Caesarean (Date) |
||||
|
Uncials |
|
|
|
W (4th/5th) |
|
Reading 5: The Longer Ending (with critical note or sign)
|
Manuscripts
|
Alexandrian (Date) |
Western (Date) |
Eastern |
Others (Date) |
|
|
Byzantine (Date) |
Caesarean (Date) |
||||
|
Minuscules |
1241vid (12th) |
|
22 (12th) 138 (11th) 1110 (11th) 1210 (11th) |
f1 [Consist of]: 1 (12th) 118 (13th) 131 (14th) 209 (16th) 1582 (948)] f13 [Consist of]: 13 (13th) 69 (15th) 124 (11th) 230 (11th) 346 (12th) 543 (12th) 788 (11th) 826 (12th) 828 (12th) 983 (12th) 1689 (12th)? 1709 (12th) |
|
Reading 6: The Longer Ending
|
Manuscripts |
Alexandrian (Date) |
Western (Date) |
Eastern |
Others (Date) |
|
|
Byzantine (Date) |
Caesarean (Date) |
||||
|
Uncials |
C (5th) D (9th) 054 (8th)
|
D (5th) |
A (5th) K (9th) P (9th) M (9th) S (949) U (9th) X (10th) Y (9th) Γ (9th) Ω (9th) Byz [Consist of]: E (6th) G (9th) H (9th) Σ (6th) |
Θ (9th) F (6th)
|
047 (8th) 0211 (7th)
|
|
Minuscules |
33 (9th) 892 (9th) 1241 (12th) 1243 (11th)
|
|
274txt (10th) 1006 (11th) 1009 (13th) 1010 (12th) 1079 (10th) 1195 (1123) 1230 (1124) 1242 (13th) 1243 (11th) 1253 (15th) 1344 (12th) 1365 (12th) 1505 (1084) 1546 (1263?) 1646 (1172) 2148 (1337) 2174 (14th) 2427 (14th)?
|
28 (7th) f13 [consist of: 13 (13th) 69 (15th) 124 (11th) 230 (1013) 346 (12th) 543 (12th) 788 (11th) 826 (12th) 828 (12th) 983 (12th) 1689 (12th)? 1709 (12th)]
28 (11th) 565 (9th) 700 (11th) 1071 (12th) |
Minuscules |
|
Lectionaries |
|
|
Lect l60 l69 l70 l185 l574 l1761
|
|
|
|
Early Versions |
copsa (3rd) copbo (3rd) copfay (4th)
|
syrc (4th) syrh (616) goth (4th) vg (4th/5th) itaur (7th) itc (7th) itdsup (5th) itff2 (5th) it1 (8th) itn (5th) ito (7th) itq (6th/7th) ethmss (5th/6th)
|
syrp (4th/5th) slav (11th/12th)
|
syrpal (5th/6th) armmss (12th) geoB (5th) |
|
|
Patristic Citations |
Didymusdub (398) Augustine (430)
|
Justin Martyr ? (165) Irenaeuslat (202) Tertullian (220) Hippolytus (235) Ambrose (397) mssacc.to Jerome (397) Rebaptism (3rd)
|
Severian (408) Aphraates (367) Marcus-Emerita (430) mssacc.to Severus (538) Diatessaron a,i,n, (Tatian) (170/172) |
mssacc to Eusebius(4th) |
Asteriusvid (341) Apostolic Constitutions (380)? Epiphanius1/2 (403) Nestorius (451)
|
On the basis of the external evidence (as laid out in the tables), most scholars agree that that there are two main competing variants: The Abrupt Ending and the Longer Ending. Hence, in my evaluation I have focused on these two variants.
The Abrupt Ending (omit vv. 9-20): External Evidence
On the basis of the date of witnesses, the Abrupt Ending is supported by the earliest manuscripts, early versions, and patristic evidence. The fourth-century codices Sinaiticus, and Vaticanus have traditionally been assigned to the Alexandrian text type and are the earliest and best manuscript of Mark. Further, the reading has support from important early versions – Coptic, Syriac, part of the Armenian tradition, and the Georgian. The Sinaitic Syriac displays the earliest form of the Gospels in the Syriac language and Sahidic Coptic is the earliest of coptic version. E. C. Colwell identified around 99 Armenian manuscropts of Mark that end at 16:8.
In regard to patristic evidence, Clement is silent about the Longer Ending, whereas Origen was probably quite aware of the textual state of the endings of Mark in his time, but we do not find that he supported the Longer Ending. Eusebius maked a strong statement about the ending of Mark, saying that the accurate copies conclude at 16:8. Jerome who had access to numerous manuscripts said that most of the Greek manuscripts ended at verse 8. On the basis of the geograpical distribution, the Abrupt Ending readings is widespread and represented in all text types. And on the basis of the geneological relationship of texts, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, in my opinion, derive from an ancestor from at least as early as the second century.
The Abrupt Ending (omit vv. 9-20): Internal Evidence
The abrupt ending of Mark with ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ is a shorter and more difficult reading because it unexpectedly ends with the particle of γάρ. The use of the word ἐφοβοῦντο “they were afraid” is in line with the style and vocabulary of Mark. Whereas Mark uses the verb 12 times, the same form, ἐφοβοῦντο, occurs four times elsewhere (9:32; 10:32; 11:18 [ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ αὐτόν]; 11:32).
As J. Lee Magness has demonstrated, there are other examples of similar suspended endings that leave readers hanging in both Graeco-Roman and Biblical literature. The abrupt ending would create a sense of absence encouraging the readers to make sense of the absence in their own context in light of Mark’s Gospel.
The Longer Ending (vv. 9-20): External Evidence
Around 99 percent of the manuscripts support the Longer Ending, and it is widespread in the text types (Western, Caesarean, Byzantine, and even secondary Alexandrian witnesses), but most of the manuscripts represent the Byzantine text and date from the 8th -14th centuries. According to J.K. Elliott, the Byzantine lectionary system seems to have developed into a settled form by the eighth century, and only after that time do most lectionaries contain a reading from the Longer Ending.
In regard to patristic evidence, Victor of Antioch wrote a commentary in the fifth century which became popular, but it lacks comments on the contents of vv. 9–20, although there is a comment suggesting that he knew the Longer Ending. This comment may have been added to his work later.
The Longer Ending (vv. 9-20): Internal Evidence
In regard to transcriptional evidence, it seems that the Longer Ending text reflects harmonization by scribes. Four sections of the appearance to the Magdalene (vv.9-11), the appearance of two men (vv.12-13), the appearance to the eleven disciples, the Commission (vv.14-18), and the Ascension (vv.19-20) have parallels in the endings of Matthew and Luke. In regard to intrinsic evidence, there are seventeen words and phrases in the Longer Ending that are not used elsewhere in Mark’s gospel and look like anomalies from stylistic viewpoint.
James Kelhoffer views the content of the Longer Ending as uncharacteristic of the first century, suggesting that it rather reflects second-century Christianity. He argues that this portion was added to a truncated Mark in the mid-second century, and is comparable to some of the second-century apocryphal fragments that have been discovered.
Conclusion
After evaluating the external and internal evidence of the endings of Mark, we find that the Longer Ending (16:9-20) is supported by 99 percent of the manuscripts whereas the Abrupt Ending (16:8) is attested only in Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, minuscule 304, some significant early versions and patristic citations. In the analysis of textual data, however, we do not count manuscripts, but we weigh them.
J. K. Elliott and other scholars have argued that the ending of Mark was simply lost before copies were made of it, whereas Bruce Metzger and Bart Ehrman have said that we simply do not know about how Mark ended his gospel. Proponents of the Longer Ending such as John Burgon, William Farmer, Maurice Robinson, James Snapp Jr, and others hold that Mark ended his Gospel at 16:20. This master thesis, however, suggests that the Longer Ending is not supported by the earliest witnesses, although an old Latin Western witness attest to the Intermediate Ending (without vv. 9-20). The Abrupt Ending is supported by a variety of the earliest textual witnesses.
In conclusion, the Abrupt Ending (16:8) most likely represents Mark’s original ending. It is posible that the evangelist left the reader hanging – as J. Lee Magness has suggested, there are other examples in ancient literature that leave the reader hanging. The Longer Ending was probably added by a scribe to the text in the mid or late second century, and these verses have been accepted as canonical Scripture by many Churches.
In response, I will resist the opportunity to point out most of the many flaws in Mr. Bonar Lumban Raja's thesis, and instead refer ETC readers to my two lectures on this passage at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsVJVD4FAXQ
ReplyDeleteand
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRs6hgKaaaI
and resources at
http://www.curtisvillecc.com/AuthSupplx.html
James Snapp Jr.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI will add one correction here: the author states, "Proponents of the Longer Ending such as John Burgon, William Farmer, Maurice Robinson, James Snapp Jr, and others hold that Mark ended his Gospel at 16:20." However, my view is somewhat more nuanced than that sentence may convey.
DeleteI theorize that Mark himself was interrupted when writing 16:8, and that an unidentified person finished Mark's otherwise unfinished account by adding verses 9-20, which he did not compose on the spot, but obtained from an earlier, probably Markan, composition, which accounts for the internal disconnect between v. 8 and the contents of v. 9 (which no one would have composed for the purpose of creating a continuation of the narrative from Mark 16:8). The takeaway is that whatever questions may be raised regarding source-materials, authorship, etc., verses 9-20 were included in the text before the first copies were made, and thus constitute part of the original text.
Mr. Snapp has used an equally strange defense of the originality of the PA in John. For him, the PA was lost early in the transmission of the 4th gospel only to be 'rediscovered' a few hundred years later and reintroduced into the gospel throughout the Mediterranean until it became part of the textus receptus. It must be mentioned that from what I can gather he has spent his life as a scholar, really his entire scholarly output has been geared toward defending the textus receptus.
DeleteJGabriel,
DeleteJohn 7:53-8:11 is a separate subject so I decline to detour the comments to go into detail about that here. But, frankly, if you gather "that that my his entire scholarly output has been geared toward defending the textus receptus." that says more about what you are capable of gathering, than it says about anything else, and demonstrates that you are unfamiliar with my work.
You're right. I was very unfamiliar with your work. But I have spent the last year becoming familiar with it. I have read through your blog posts and the papers you have uploaded to academia. I am preparing a response to your 67 page defense of the PA which I will publish within the next few months. I will send you a copy when I have completed it.
DeleteThanks for the response James. I'll watch your lectures video.
ReplyDelete-Bonar
TOMMY: "I have wanted to highlight his work not least because it comes from a totally different part of the world than my own privileged context."
ReplyDeleteNot sure why it matters, nor that a supposed "privileged context" has anything to do with the issue, given that the conclusions merely reflect the same general critical consensus without adding anything particularly new.
Surprising that Lunn was not mentioned. However, the charts were nice.
Dear Maurice, there was nothing new here and I would normally not highlight a master thesis, but I think a master thesis in Indonesia on textual criticism is quite something. They do not have the same level of education there, but they have made great progress. Their first doctoral program in theology (I think) was launched in 2019. In any case, I wanted to highlight and encourage a colleague (now teaching at his seminary) over there. Perhaps he mentioned Lunn (in his master thesis proper) perhaps he did not.
DeleteMaurice,
ReplyDeleteThe author, it seems to me, has been the innocent victim of a wave of propaganda and misinformation about Mark 16:9-20 that continues to spread in an assortment of Bible-footnotes and commentaries, chiefly (but certainly not exclusively) Metzger's "Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament."
Thank you for your work on this Bonar.
ReplyDeleteI would like to focus on one sentence, which gives opportunity to highlight a couple of important issues:
"On the basis of the date of witnesses, the Abrupt Ending is supported by the earliest manuscripts, early versions, and patristic evidence."
I notice that you don't use a qualifier like "early" or "earliest" for "patristic evidence," but notice how a reader would naturally infer that you mean for your first use of the word "earliest" to apply to all three groups (manuscripts, versions, and patristic evidence), on account of how the point you're making with this sentence is apparently about the strength of the external evidence for the abrupt ending.
However, also notice that using your own presentation of the evidence, the earliest patristic evidence, which also constitutes the oldest witnesses of any kind, is for the longer reading. Justin Martyr and Irenaeus are the earliest two witnesses out of all the hundreds of witnesses on the tables presented.
This also highlights some points about the use of patristic evidence in textual criticism. With patristic evidence (more than with any other kind of evidence in my opinion), a simple textual apparatus simply cannot convey the amount of information you need to be able to understand if a father really supports a reading. You really have to look at the details of what each father said that is taken as evidence, and what degree of reliability you have that they actually did say that once another stage of textual criticism is done on their writings.
DeleteIn doing the above you need to be mindful about arguments from silence, and give serious thought to when silence counts as valid evidence and when it does not. For example, when it comes to the Johannine Comma, silence about it from fathers debating trinitarian controversies is important and noteworthy, especially in the cases of fathers whose extant works include numerous quotations from 1 John.
You can see how arguments from silence will need to be evaluated with respect to the ending of Mark too. What is the nature of the patristic evidence for the abrupt ending, in each case (and yes, unfortunately, to really use this evidence properly, it requires digging into the actual evidence from the writings of each and every father listed)? In some cases, a father's name being listed may signify nothing more than the fact that we have no quotation from the longer ending of Mark in the extant works of that father. In cases where the extant works of the father in question include copious quotations from the entire book of Mark, this silence might be telling. But in cases where that is not the case, a mere argument from silence holds very little weight as positive evidence for the abrupt ending. I believe that looking at it this way, you would probably want to remove Clement of Alexandria entirely from your tables. Unless I'm mistaken, I don't believe we have any good evidence from Clement of Alexandria for any ending of Mark over against another. And with the removal of Clement of Alexandria, the gap between the earliest evidence for the longer ending and the earliest evidence for the shorter one gets larger.
On the other hand, the ending of Mark is a great example of a textual variant where some of the patristic evidence goes beyond just the question of which reading do they use when they quote a passage, and we actually have explicit discussions from some of them about the existence of the variant readings. When this happens, this is the most valuable patristic evidence. In these cases, you know you're not just getting a reading in a late manuscript of that father that (for all we know) could have had its scriptural text harmonized with the text of late NT manuscripts. Here we know with strong evidence what was actually in manuscripts that that father had access to. I assume that your thesis must discuss some of these kinds of quotations. But do notice how simply listing fathers in a table like this to say that for any given reading a given father does or does not support that reading as a binary yes/no question, simply cannot do justice to the patristic evidence. This is not to say that all patristic evidence should be left off tables like this entirely--tables can be very helpful for summarizing things. But some fathers (e.g. Clement of Alexandria) probably should be left off. And in presenting the ones you do include, it may require the use of a more complicated set of symbols or notes to convey the different kinds of evidence they present (or perhaps footnotes directing the reader to where in your book the evidence from each father is discussed).
I also have some misgivings about arranging the evidence according to geographically named text types, and how I have a hunch that there may be some equivocation going on, where in the case of Greek manuscripts and Versions, they are categorized according to how previous scholars grouped them together in text types that used those names based on the perceived affinity of the witnesses to one another, but with patristic evidence their inclusion in a column is based not on textual affinity but on the actual geographic location of where that father did his work. I could be wrong about this. But if this is going on then this mixing of textual affinities with geographic locations as though the two go together as a hard and fast rule is problematic.
ReplyDeleteSome may also have problems with the very use of such a simple division of all extant evidence into 5 text-type columns, and question whether or not the witnesses in a given column even really belong together as a text type at all (at least in the case of some of the columns, especially the Western text one). In the case of one column (the Byzantine) it definitely is the case that all the members of that text type do betray that they are more closely related to one another than they are to manuscripts in the other columns by way of having the same readings in variant passages the great majority of the time. But in other columns, I don't believe that it's consistently the case that the members of the given "text type" have all been shown to have that kind of relationship with one another. I used to use tables like these (I believe I got a template for this kind of table from the late Rodney Decker's blog many years ago). But I have since come to question whether grouping all witnesses in text-type tables like this may be too liable to misrepresent the evidence. Others here have much more knowledge than I do about the state of the question when it comes to NT text types, and I would be interested in what they have to say about that.
Eric Rowe,
DeleteI agree 100% that Clement should not be cited as a witness against Mark 16:9-20. It is not Bonar, but Metzger, who is primarily responsible for this fictitious reference.
Origen's comment (via his later fans) in Philocalia 5 is routinely overlooked due to a lack of /verbal/ parallels to the contents of Mark 16:9-20 but there are /thematic/ parallels which I would say justify regarding it as at least an allusion to Mk. 16:15ff.:
“Let a man observe how the apostles who were sent by Jesus to proclaim the Gospel went everywhere, and he cannot help seeing their superhuman daring in obedience to the divine command.”
Ammonius is a complete phantom of a reference; the classification of Ammonius as support for the abrupt ending of Mark is based on nothing whatsoever that was written by Ammonius; it is based on the incorrect idea that the "Ammonian Sections" are the work of Ammonius, rather than Eusebius -- and an attempt by Metzger to correct an error of his, which I pointed out in the "Parrots" video.
But when these three phantom-references are treated as the non-evidence they are, >poof< there goes the entirety of the patristic evidence in Bonar's chart of patristic witnesses for the abrupt ending in the 100s and 200s. While completely hollows out the last part of claim that "the Abrupt Ending is supported by the earliest manuscripts, early versions, and patristic evidence."
So I've been wondering: has anyone did a detailed study of the triple tradition in this case. When I look at the triple tradition, it's strongest in the Passion. It's very easy to see the various changes that either Matthew or Luke made to Mark. From the beginning of the passion to Mark 16:8, the triple tradition is very strong. You can see the verbal agreement with almost every version of Mark. After Mark 16:8, it falls apart completely. Not only the triple tradition, but here isn't a continuing double tradition which continues in Matthew and Luke. It seems to me that it is very likely that the abrupt ending was in the copies that either Matthew or Luke had (or both)*. If Mark had a different ending that was lost, it was lost before Matthew or Luke* copied.
ReplyDeleteIt's possible that Matthew and Luke both decided to ditch Mark at exactly the same place and that their copies did have the long ending, but seems the less probable explanation. (More probable would be the Farmer solution to the synoptic problem, in which only Luke would have to decide to break off copying Matthew. If Mark was really making a digest of Matthew and Luke he wouldn't continue to verbosely fall them where they diverge, and 16:9 to the end would be a natural way of resolving the story).
Anyway am I wrong. Is there a double tradition in Matthew and Luke beyond Mark 16:8, or is there verbal agreement between either Matthew and Mark or Luke and Mark beyond 16:8 that I was missing? Or does your solution to the synoptic problem dictate your acceptance of the Long version and vice versa?
Bob, to answer your first question, yes, this point is often made in studies of the synoptic problem. To answer your last question, no, I don't think you're wrong in your observation.
DeleteAlso, as you observe, how this observation comes into play affects different solutions to the synoptic problem differently. In addition to what you mention, you might also consider how this could fit the Greisbach hypothesis, where Mark made use of both Matthew and Luke. While the longer ending doesn't closely parallel Matthew or Luke, it does seem to loosely relay some of the same post-resurrection traditions in a way that may suggest dependence on them. An adherent of the Greisbach hypothesis may theorize that the reason Mark avoids more direct verbal parallels is precisely because Matthew and Luke differ so much at this point.
Going back to looking at this from a 2-source (or 4-source) hypothesis, it's also worth noting that a very similar thing to what you observe here at the ends of the Gospels also happens at the beginning. Matthew and Luke are quite different right up until the baptism of Jesus, which happens to be where Mark begins, and from that point on the three converge quote closely.
* if either Matthew and Luke and a lost ending that they were following, but the other did not, we could not tell because we wouldn't know if Matthew, for instance, was adding new material or following a lost Mark.
ReplyDeleteI'm not advocating the lost-ending idea, but I think that we're not quite as in the dark about it as you suggest.
DeleteNotice that Mark has some foreshadowing via prediction by Jesus prior to 16:8 of something which none of the extant endings go on to relate, namely that Jesus would visit his disciples in Galilee after his resurrection. This suggests that the author of 1:1-16:8 intended to complete his Gospel with an account of a post-resurrection appearance in Galilee.
Matthew's Gospel does relate a post-resurrection appearance in Galilee. Luke's does not.
Therefore, on the hypothesis of a lost ending, it would seem more likely that Matthew made use of a form of Mark that had that ending, and that that ending is preserved for us in Matthew (albeit reflecting Matthew's editorial activity and quite possibly combined with other traditions that weren't in Mark), than it is that Luke did.
Hi Eric,
DeleteEric
"This suggests that the author of 1:1-16:8 intended to complete his Gospel with an account of a post-resurrection appearance in Galilee."
Mark 14:28 (AV)
But after that I am risen,
I will go before you into Galilee.
Mark 16:7 (AV)
But go your way,
tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth
before you into Galilee:
there shall ye see him,
as he said unto you.
This analysis bypasses the strong evidence that Mark is generally dependent on the existence of earlier Gospels, with the emphasis on Luke and Matthew. We had a discussion of this on ETC on this Bellarmine topic:
https://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2021/03/cardinal-bellarmine-trents-major.html?showComment=1615846472614#c2844052329315323145
And I would be very interested in responses by our Bible experts as to that strongly shown dependency of the Gospel of Mark on Luke!
Delbert Burkett of LSU even theorizes that the apparent internal Markan inconsistency about the Galilee appearances may have contributed to scribes dropping the ending (along with other elements like the perceived harmony problem referenced by Eusebius.)
Rethinking the Gospel Sources: From Proto-Mark to Mark (2004)
by Delbert Burkett
https://books.google.com/books?id=izvGDNQY6AoC&pg=PA263
As noted by Prof. Maurice Robinson in Perspectives
https://books.google.com/books?id=fA65AwAAQBAJ&pg=PA53
This is a really fascinating topic. Nicholas Lunn, The Original Ending of Mark, p. 318-325 weighs in, albeit not that forcefully. While James Snapp has tried to use the Galilee argument in favor of the traditional Mark ending being an add-on floating pericope. After a Markus Interruptus experience.
Lunn mentions Elliott, Witherington and Lane using this Galilee question as an argument for the short ending being original. And I would add that Burnett Hillman Streeter, Heinrich Meyer and Henry Martyn Harman also see this issue as contra the traditional ending being original.
btw, I am bypassing the theory that there is a Galilee appearance in Mark 16:15-18 (or 14-18).
Overall, the Galilee references are evidences for Mark dependency on Luke and Matthew, as in the Ben C. Smith superb posting. His readers could easily see the specifics of the Galilee events. More than the Galilee references being any argument for the short text authenticity.
My simplest expression on this question has been that Mark was telescoping. And that Matthew was previous to Mark and had included the fuller Galilee data. And that the full harmony is by all the Gospels in one unit by the Holy Spirit.
Thanks!
Steven Avery
Dutchess County, NY
We had an animated discussion about this topic in Bible class and as a laywoman, I find the topic fascinating web browsing. One thing lacking from the discussions is the historically violent opposition to the charismatic manifestations mentioned in the longer ending of Mark, particularly from civil and religious authorities. I can easily see someone snipping out that part and someone else restoring it later. Of course this is only conjecture, but I thought the idea might be welcome here.
ReplyDelete