Layman

A recent post asked about the ending of the Gospel of Mark. Here are some thoughts on the issue.

I. The Modern Ending of Mark is Not Original

Almost all scholars, whether conservative or liberal, agree that the ending of Mark common to modern English versions -- Mark 16:9-20 -- was not a part of the original text. The reason for such a strong consensus twofold.

The first is that the oldest manuscripts lack verses 9-20. As Donald Guthrie, notes, "[t]he two Alexandrian Unical Mss, Vaticanus and Sinaiticus" end at 16:8. New Testament Introduction, at 90. Additionally, early Christian writers noted that the ending was not in their earliest manuscripts. "Jerome and Eusebius both state that the best manuscripts available to them did not contain this longer ending." Douglass Moo, An Introduction to the New Testament, at 103. Given the lack of early manuscript evidence, it is very unlikely that these verses were original to the text.

The second reason, though perhaps unnecessary, is that there are significant linguistic and stylistic differences between 9-20 and the rest of Mark. Simply put, "[t]he longer ending contains several non-Markan words and expressions." Moo, at 103.

As a result of these two facts, "[t]oday it is generally recognized that the report of the Resurrection and Ascension (16:9-20) found in the majority of the manuscripts and versions was not a part of the original Mark." W.G. Kummel, Introduction to the New Testament, at 71. Where then, did the modern ending of Mark come from? Most likely later scribes added endings based on how they "knew" the story ended by relying on Matthew, Luke, and, perhaps, John. "The resemblances between what is narrated in these verses and the narrative of Jesus' resurrection appearances in other gospels suggest that this longer ending was composed on the basis of these other narratives to supplement what was felt to be an inadequate ending to the gospel." Moo, at 103.

II. Mark's Original Ending

A more disputed question than whether verses 9-20 were the original ending to Mark is whether Mark ended at verse 8 or had a longer ending that, for whatever reason, was lost. The immediately apparent reason that such a theory occurs to readers of Mark is the fact that an ending at verse 8 seems remarkably abrupt.

Mark 16:1-8:

A. Did Mark Believe in the Resurrection?

The difference between an ending at v. 8 and the endings we are used to from the extended Marcan ending and Matthew, Luke, and John is striking. There are no resurrection appearances by a risen Jesus.

Although some have seized on this as somehow proving that Mark--and, in an even greater leap, early Christianity--had no tradition of resurrection appearances, such a conclusion is untenable. For the same reasons, it is untenable to suggest that Mark did not believe in the resurrection. That the early Christians had traditions of, and greatly valued, the resurrection appearances of Jesus is made clear by Paul's own letters. Not only does 1 Corinthians 15 establish this beyond dispute, but Paul's entire conversion story is based on a resurrection appearance of Jesus. Moreover, Mark clearly knows of and values traditions about Jesus' resurrection appearances as well. He foretells Jesus' resurrection throughout the gospel. He writes of the empty tomb just as the other gospels do. And, in verse 7, Mark has a messenger of God tell Mary and the other women that Jesus has risen and will appear to the disciples in Galilee, just as Jesus had foretold. Accordingly, Mark's belief in Jesus' resurrection, as well as his belief in Jesus' resurrection appearances, are not in serious doubt.

B. A Greek Tragedy?

Still, some argue that Mark's story is one of disappointment. Of raised hopes and expectations that go unmet. A Greek tragedy perhaps. He raises expectations of great hope and accomplishment, only to have them end in failure and hopelessness. There is no merit to such arguments. Not only does Mark clearly believe in the resurrection, but the entire purpose of his Gospel is to spread good news. Remember, Mark opens on a tremendously upbeat note: " The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God." Mark 1:1. As most of you probably know, the greek word for gospels -- euaggelion -- actually means "Good News." In other words, Mark declares that the purpose of his writing is to declare the "Good News" about Jesus Christ. It is also clear that, to Mark, Jesus' resurrection was the culmination of his Good News. Throughout his Gospel Mark predicts the resurrection. He leads us to the empty tomb. And he specifically announces that Jesus will appear to the disciples and others in Galilee. Clearly, therefore, Mark believed in Jesus' resurrection. Knew about traditions of his appearances after his resurrection.

Ben Witherington, The Gospel of Mark, A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary, at 415 n. 14.

C. An Incomplete Ending

Given that Mark was aware of traditions involving Jesus' resurrection appearances, sought to impart knowledge of Jesus' resurrection, and intended to convince his readers that this was "Good News," it is unlikely that he leaves us at verse 8. It might be more understandable, though still unlikely, that he ended at verse 7, with an announcement of the resurrection and the foretold resurrection appearances. But that is not how this proposed close of Mark ends. It actually ends with the women departing in fear and telling no one.

Witherington, at 415-17.

The abrupt ending cannot easily be explained away. Even those scholars who maintain that verse 8 was the original ending of Mark are pressed to explain why the author would have ended the Gospel here.

Luke Timothy Johnson, who tends to reject the idea of an extended ending, nevertheless explains the problem of that idea concisely.

His answer? "We can only guess."

Johnson, The Writings of the New Testament, at 154.

Perhaps the best attempted explanation as to why Mark might have ended his gospel where he did is provided by William L. Lane: "the present ending of Mark is thoroughly consistent with the motifs of astonishment and fear developed throughout the Gospel. These motifs express the manner in which Mark understands the events of Jesus' life." The Gospel of Mark, at 591.

The problem with this argument is that, while it might explain why Mark includes verse 8, it does not explain as to why Mark ends there. Mark could convey the sense of astonishment and fear and continue to complete what he started by including references to Jesus' resurrection appearances. Moreover, even if this point had some merit, it does so at the expense of Mark's overriding sense of fulfilled promise. While fear and astonishment are important aspects of Mark's gospel, the overriding message is the Good News of fulfilment. God has fulfilled his promise to Israel and to humanity. Over and over again Mark has a character predict or describe a future event, and he thereafter describes its fulfillment. Fulfilment, therefore, goes to the very heart of Mark's Gospel.

This is especially important when it comes to the ending of Mark. In verse 7, the messenger of God makes an important prediction: "You will see Him." Moreover, the messenger makes it clear that the appearances of Jesus were predicted by Jesus himself: "Just as He told you." That Mark would have left these predictions unfulfilled, or fulfilled only by implication, is unthinkable.

This point is most persuasively made by Robert Gundry:

Robert H. Gundry, Mark, A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross, at 1009-10.

Confirmation of any theory is unlikely to be forthcoming. However, it seems, on balance, that an ending at verse 8 is unlikely. Mark's entire gospel is about fulfilling foretold events. There is no satisfactory explanation as to why he would depart from this real only as to the entire point of his gospel.

III. What Happened to the Original Ending?

If Mark did not end at verse 8 and the modern version is not original to the text, what happened to the original ending? Whatever it was--and we will likely never know--it probably happened fairly early in the textual tradition. Given the independence of the traditions of Matthew and Luke, it is unlikely that they had access to an extended Marcan ending. Otherwise, they both probably would have relied more on it and shown greater similarities regarding the resurrection appearances. As it is, it appears that Matthew and Luke rely traditions independent of Mark.

The most likely explanation is that the manuscript was damaged. As B.H. Streeter points out in The Four Gospels, the ending of a gospel written on a scroll would be the most vulnerable part of the manuscript. If such a manuscript was damaged, the ending would be the most likely part to suffer. Additionally, because of the many latinisms in Mark, many scholars believe that it was written at Rome. And because Mark is dated from 65-70 CE, it is not improbable that the earliest manuscript was damaged during the fires or in Nero's persecution of Christians that followed shortly thereafter.

The main point, however, is that there is nothing extraordinary about postulating that an early manuscript of Mark was damaged.

Peter Kirby

As B.H. Streeter points out in The Four Gospels, the ending of a gospel written on a scroll would be the most vulnerable part of the manuscript.

I always imagined that scrolls were rolled around a cyclindrical piece of wood or metal that had the last part of the scroll attached to the cylinder and the beginning of the scroll on the outside, ready to be read when the scroll is picked up. If that's how scrolls were made, then the beginning would be the most likely to get lost, while the ending would be rather unlikely. But then I haven't studied the issue. What do we know about scroll technology in the first century?

And could the Gospel of Mark have been published in a codex?

Oh, and Layman, can I copy your Marcion article from its location on "Early Christian Writings" to a position on "Did Jesus Exist?" where it would get additional viewers? Also, what do you think about publishing your thoughts here on the ending of Mark?

best,
Peter Kirby

Vinnie

I think Mark ended at v. 8. It looks like a rhetorical device aimed at effecting the audience. I'll elaborate with a citation from Mary A. Tolbert tomorrow as I am tired now

Vinnie

Layman

You got me on this one. I was recounting Streeter's comments from memory (which explains the lack of a pinpoint reference). I'll swing by the library and refresch my recollection.

That is a genuine possibility. Christians were pioneers in the use of codex. Martin Hengel, in The Four Gospels and the One Gospel of Jesus Christ, concludes that Mark "came into being" as a Codex. Id., at 122. I'm skeptical that the evidence is convincing either way, though I have not examined it closely.

Sure, feel free to post the Marcion article on the other site. If you ever get any feedback on it, let me know. I think I'm one of the few people to have actually read Knox's theories on Marcion.

As for my thoughts on Mark, that would be fine. However, there may be some arguments and ideas I'd like to add based on discussions here. And, I'd like to clear up Streeter's point on the ending being damaged. Email me if you have any other thoughts on how to fill it out.

Layman

A rehtorical device that ignores Mark's established propensity to spell out the fulfillment of foretellings?

That better be some quote. With plenty of examples.

Vinnie

Its based upon elements of Mark's gospel

Drinking coffee at night is bad!!!! Argh!!!

Vinnie

Peter Kirby

Have you read this essay on Dramatic Inconclusion?

What about this essay on Irony in the End?

best,
Peter Kirby

Vinnie

I've read neither but through a VERY fast skim my view may be close to the second essay.

Vinnie

MortalWombat

Original Mark 16:9

Layman

I have not made it back to the library to check Streeter, but I ran across this:

We may note, to begin with, that the beginning and ending of a scroll were always vulnerable. A glance at any edition of the Dead Sea Scrolls, in particuilar at facsimile photographs, will reveal that even the scrolls which are preserved almost in their entirety are in many cases damaged at both ends.

N.T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, at 619.