hatsoff

It's a little late, I know, but I thought I'd share an alternate translation of the Papias/Eusebius quotation about Mark.

From CCEL:

Translated with prolegomena and notes

by

The rev. arthur cushman mcgiffert, Ph.d.

professor of church history in lane theological seminary, cincinnati

"This also the presbyter [960] said: Mark, having become the
interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not in order,
whatsoever he remembered of the things said or done by Christ. [961]
For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as I
said, he followed Peter, who adapted his teaching to the needs of his
hearers, but with no intention of giving a connected account of the
Lord's discourses, [962] so that Mark committed no error while he thus
wrote some things as he remembered them. For he was careful of one
thing, not to omit any of the things which he had heard, and not to
state any of them falsely." These things are related by Papias
concerning Mark.
--Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History of the Church 3.39.15

[960] We cannot, in the absence of the context, say with certainty
that the presbyter here referred to is the "presbyter John," of whom
Papias has so much to say, and who is mentioned in the previous
paragraph, and yet this seems quite probable. Compare Weiffenbach's
Die Papias Fragmente über Marcus und Matthaeus, p. 26 sq.

[961] Papias is the first one to connect the Gospel of Mark with
Peter, but the tradition recorded by him was universally accepted by
those who came after him (see above, Bk. II. chap. 15, note 4). The
relation of this Gospel of Mark to our canonical gospel has been a
very sharply disputed point, but there is no good reason for
distinguishing the Gospel referred to here from our second Gospel
which corresponds excellently to the description given by Papias.
Compare the remarks of Lightfoot, ibid. p. 393 sq. We know from other
sources (e.g. Justin Martyr's Dial. c. 106) that our second Gospel was
in existence in any case before the middle of the second century, and
therefore there is no reason to suppose that Papias was thinking of
any other Gospel when he spoke of the Gospel written by Mark as the
interpreter of Peter. Of course it does not follow from this that it
was actually our second Gospel which Mark wrote, and of whose
composition Papias here speaks. He may have written a Gospel which
afterward formed the basis of our present Gospel, or was one of the
sources of the synoptic tradition as a whole; that is, he may have
written what is commonly known as the "Ur-Marcus" (see above, Bk. II.
chap. 15, note 4). As to that, we cannot decide with absolute
certainty, but we may say that Papias certainly understood the
tradition which he gives to refer to our Gospel of Mark. The exact
significance of the word hermeneutes as used in this sentence has been
much disputed. It seems best to give it its usual significance,--the
significance which we attach to the English word "interpreter." See
Weiffenbach, ibid. p. 37 sq. It may be, supposing the report to be
correct, that Peter found it advantageous to have some one more
familiar than himself with the language of the people among whom he
labored to assist him in his preaching. What language it was for which
he needed an interpreter we cannot say. We might think naturally of
Latin, but it is not impossible that Greek or that both languages were
meant; for Peter, although of course possessed of some acquaintance
with Greek, might not have been familiar enough with it to preach in
it with perfect ease. The words "though not indeed in order" (ou
mentoi tEURxei) have also caused considerable controversy. But they
seem to refer chiefly to a lack of chronological arrangement, perhaps
to a lack of logical arrangement also. The implication is that Mark
wrote down without regard to order of any kind the words and deeds of
Christ which he remembered. Lightfoot and most other critics have
supposed that this accusation of a "lack of order" implies the
existence of another written Gospel, exhibiting a different order,
with which Papias compares it (e.g. with the Gospel of Matthew, as
Weiss, Bleck, Holtzmann, and others think; or with John, as Lightfoot,
Zahn, Renan, and others suppose). This is a natural supposition, but
it is quite possible that Papias in speaking of this lack of order is
not thinking at all of another written Gospel, but merely of the order
of events which he had received from tradition as the true one.

[962] logon, "discourses," or logion, "oracles." The two words are
about equally supported by ms. authority. The latter is adopted by the
majority of the editors; but it is more likely that it arose from
logon under the influence of the logion, which occurred in the title
of Papias' work, than that it was changed into logon. The matter,
however, cannot be decided, and the alternative reading must in either
case be allowed to stand. See the notes of Burton and Heinichen, in
loco.

I hope that helps.

Ben C Smith

I could not disagree more.

Ben.

S.C.Carlson

Well, it depends on what background information is known to Mark's immediate audience. If the story of Paul was known, where he does get rehabilitated from a past even worse than the disciples due to an encounter with the risen Jesus, then a similar encounter by the disciples with the risen Jesus could well be viewed as a rehabilitation. (Compare Mark 16:7 with 1 Cor 15:5, 8-9 "and that he appeared to Cephas and then to the twelve . . . . Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. For I am the least of the apostles, unfit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.").

Stephen

jakejonesiv

The other gospels more or less follow the Passion Narrative of Mark up to 16:8. Then they deviate wildly in all directions, including the endings tacked onto GMark itself. This is an indication that either GMark ended at 16:8 or the original ending was lost shortly after the writing of the original autograph; if other copies were extant, the original ending would simply have been copied from them.

We must notice that the later evangelists balatant contradictions indicates they must have known of Mark 16:8. They knew it, but didn't like it.

Compare the following,

They went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had gripped them; and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid. Mark 16:8.
And they left the tomb quickly with fear and great joy and ran to report it to His disciples. Matt 28:8.
And they remembered His words, and returned from the tomb and reported all these things to the eleven and to all the rest. Luke 24:8-9.
So she ran and came to Simon Peter and to the other disciple whom Jesus loved, and said to them, "They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid Him." John 20:2.

OK, so the evidence is quite strong that the Gospel of Mark ended at 16:8. The question is then, was this the intended ending, or was it lost?

The lost ending theory presents quite a few problems. It indicates that the earliest synoptic gospel was held in such low esteem that the most critical part, the Resurrection appearances, were thrown out in the trash! This tells against the traditional chain of custody where the holy words of Peter were carefully transcribed by his devoted disciple Mark, and then what? It was thrown in a corner to rot? Used for fire kindling? Fell apart and not worth reassembling?

Attempts to get around this embarrasement approach desperation. One theory has Mark keeling over dead at the very crucial momement that he was ready to pen 16:9! Good for the apologist, sucks for Mark.

So Mark's gospel probably did end at 16:8. The implications of this are great. We are left with the young man (not an angel, that is importing details from a later gospel) as announcing the resurrection. The women say nothing to anyone. Who is left to tell the tale? Who is left to follow Jesus? Only the Narrator (the young man) and his audience, the hearers and readers of the gospel. Uh-oh.

He who has ears to hear, let him hear.

Jake Jones IV

jakejonesiv

There is one other possibility for the hypothetical lost ending to Mark that is seldom mentionsed.

That is, the ending of the gospel was so heretical, so shocking to the sensibilities of the copyists, that it was suppressed. This could not have been a detail, but something fundamental that the whole ending was omitted.

Jake Jones IV

jakejonesiv

From the view of textual criticism, the ending at 16:8 is also preferred.
Given the ambiguity and pressure to “complete” the gospel, it is amazing that we have any manuscripts that stop at 16:8, as do Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.

Given the general principles of textual criticism;
#1. That the shorter text is to be preferred
#2. That the most difficult reading is to be preferred
#3. The text that can explain the others is to be preferred

On all these principles, the ending of Gospel of Mark at 16:8 is to be preferred.
Reference: The Gospel of Mark (Interpreting Biblical Texts) (or via: amazon.co.uk), by Donald H. Juel. page 168.

Ben C Smith

It would not necessarily have to be the autograph, but I agree that it would have to be an extremely early loss. IMHO, before Matthew got hold of Mark.

I agree.

Not if the loss were accidental.

Was mutilated, as was wont to happen to ancient manuscripts?

To what embarrassment are you referring?

For the apologist? Who let the apologist in the door here?

But I do not hold to that option.

Ben.

Ben C Smith

I agree that is a live option.

Ben.

jakejonesiv

If that is the case, then not only was the last part of GMark lost, but all of the other copies in existence were not deemed worthy to copy, not even the ending to replace the "accidentally damaged" part.

That indicates that the gospel was not very highly valued until a later time. And that is embarrasing. With all the effort to establish a proper apostolic pedigree for GMark by Mark, Prester John, Papias, Eusubius, Clement, et. al., and then come to find out all these worthies couldn't even preserve a single intact copy? :rolling:

OK, I see where you are going with this.
Mark's Dog ate the Resurrection!

Works for me.

Jake Jones IV

Amaleq13

IIRC, we are lucky not to have to attempt to recreate Mark from Matthew and Luke as with Q because of the few copies. In fact, I think I read that in something written about Q. Kloppenborg? I'll check the one I have.

This disparity in copies, however, may be more of a reflection of the apparent preference for Matthew's version of the story (many more copies/references to) than an actual lack of popularity for Mark.