I'm just curious about your pet theories on the ending of Mark. For those who don't know, our oldest and likely best copies of Mark end at 16:8 with the women being afraid and not telling anybody. A number of theories have been advanced as to why Mark abuptly ends at this point.

Some have suggested that that was where the writer intended it to end. Against this view is the odd verb structure of the Greek in 'they were afraid' (it's odd in Greek), the fact that the Church later tacked on a ending (indicating that they thought it was incomplete), and the anticipation in v.7 of a Galilean appearance.

Another theory is that the original was somehow lost or destroyed (perhaps deliberately).

Yet another view is that the writer was somehow interrupted while composing it and never had the chance to write the end at all.

I'd be interested in what various Christians think aboutthis issue and their reasoning for their opinions (non-Christians are welcome to offer their opinions as well).

It's a common ploy.

He is preparing the way for The Gospel of Mark II.

Don't you ever watch any movies??

fG

ahahahahahahahah I guess that was Secret Mark.

My theory is this: Papias says that the original version of Mark was the memories of Peter which Mark recorded, but not in order. So that the original really had no actual logical ending and wasn't much of a narrative. When the narratival form was impossed upon it,maybe through the "signs Gospel" being impossed over, there was no real logical ending point. So they just stuck on a quick stopping place, and latter scirbes invented a cople of other endings to make up for the problematic ending.

But that's totally unsubstantiated.

Nope. It is The Gospel of Mark II- The Return of the Jesus.

fG

Toto

The theory that I have heard that makes the most sense is that Mark needed to explain why Jesus didn't warn the Jews that the Temple was going to be destroyed. So he conveniently blamed it on some women who where too afraid to speak up. (Of course, if they never told anyone, how does Mark know about this?)

Not A Theist,

The evidence for the long ending to the gospel of Mark being original is so bad that my pastor refuses to preach on it. There was probably, according to what I have heard, an original ending that was lost, for the early Church fathers quoted/cited statements that sound very much like the endings of Matthew and Luke, yet they attribute these quotes to Mark's gospel. I hope that this issue doesn't cast down on Mark's view of the resurrection for you, though; this lack of an ending (or least, of an ending that has survived) certainly poses no threat to the resurrection. True, it says that the women "told no one, for they were afraid", but apparently they did SOMEone at SOMEtime, for Mark is recording the very events which they did not tell anybody at first!

My pet theory on Mark's ending.

According to early Church writers, Mark was a companion of Peter and wrote the Gospel of Mark for the Church in Rome after Peter's death. Thus as I see it, the simplist explanation for why the ressurection appearences are not mentioned in the Gospel is that Peter had already told the Romans all about the appearances and so it was unnecessary for Mark to put them in his Gospel.
As for the longer ending, I think it was most probably added later by Mark, or possibly by someone in the Church of Rome who remembered Peter's teachings.
Of course a change in the scriptures would not have been easily nor quickly accepted, and by the time the change was made the Gospel of Mark was probably already spread over much of the Christian world.

Finally a little bit of evidence for my views on why the longer ending is authentic:
1) It contains some small contradictions to the other Gospels. If someone much later (ie 50+ years) in the Church decided that Mark needed to have an ending, it seems likely that they would have simply copied one of the endings of Matthew, Luke or John or some combination of the above. The one thing they would not do is introduce details in contradiction to the other Gospels. This, to me, indicates that the ending wasn't plagurised from the other Gospels but comes from a separate tradition.
2) There is a promise from Jesus that poison will not harm them. This is witnessed no where else in the Gospels, again indicating a separate tradition.
3) The Markian theme of the demonic is continued by mention of "Mary Magdelene, from whom he had driven out seven demons".
This continuation of theme definately suggests to me that the longer ending is coming from the same tradition as the rest of Mark's Gospel.

Not entirely. I have read some scholars arguing that Mark has been extensively redacted. Perhaps the redactor removed the original Markan ending, and decided to leave it that way, since everybody knew Jesus had risen.

Michael

Oddly enough, I actually find these reasons somewhat compelling that the longer ending came from the same tradition as the rest of the Gospel. These peculiarities do seem to continue in the same grain of fascination with the miraculous and demonic evidenced in other parts of the Gospel. Isn't it just possible that the author of the addition added these content elements to make it seem that the addition was genuine? Also, it is supposedly stylisticly enough different from the rest of Mark to indicate a different composer. (I don't read Koine Greek anywhere near well enough to know the difference.)
Anyone know the date for the earliest manuscript with vv. 9-20 and without critical notes. The oldest I could find was Alexandrinus (though the critical apparatus with my Greek NT is somewhat convoluted).

Just curious which ones think this.

[This message has been edited by not a theist (edited June 02, 2001).]