Haran

I've been evaluating the textual evidence for the longer ending of the book of Mark. It seems very likely to me that the book of Mark originally stopped at 16:8 (though a seemingly odd place to end). Textual criticism can show that the longer ending of Mark was in existence pretty early on, but I'm wondering if "higher criticism", something I am not as well read in, can tell us anything more. In other words, does it appear that the longer ending of Mark has influenced the endings of Matthew, Luke, or John in any way, or that they have influenced it?

S.C.Carlson

The current thinking among scholars is that the Long Ending of Mark was probably composed in the middle of the 2nd century in Asia Minor by someone who knew all four gospels and Acts. James Kelhoffer, Miracle and Mission (WUNT 112; Mohr Sieback, 2000) is one of the most recent studies on the Long Ending. He dates it to 120-150, but the external evidence is not as good as Kelhoffer says it is.

Irenaeus, Adv. haer. 3.10.5 (written in the 180s) not only quoted Mark 16:19 but also stated that it was from its end (in fine autem evangelii ait Marcus). This portion is preserved in its Latin translation so there's some question its text was truly original or something its Latin translator supplied. Kelhoffer, p.170, claims that the Greek text is attested by Theodoret of Cyrrhus, but Kelhoffer cites no place in Theodoret specifically that supports his claim and the only reference he did give (to A. Rosseau (sic), pp. 137-138) does not check out. :banghead: A search of the TLG database fails to find any place in Theodoret for the supposed Greek text of Irenaeus 3.10.6 or any other possible Greek witness to Irenaeus here. I can only assume that Kelhoffer got his notes messed up.

I also doubt that the Diatessaron, c. 172, (for which we only possess secondary evidence anyway) "presupposed" the Long Ending as Kelhoffer claimed.

This leaves us with Justin martyr, 1 Apol. 45.5, (written between 155 and 161). Unfortunately, it does not purport to quote from Mark and uses a different word order. Thus, for me it is unclear whether the literary connection is strong enough to conclude Justin was even alluding to Mark 16:19 rather than, say, a common source behind both Justin and Mark 16:9-20 (Papias?).

In my view, only the Irenaeus testimony to the Long Ending is of much worth, so I would date it more broadly, e.g. 125-175.

I was tough on Kelhoffer for dating the Long Ending, but he was very good in establish how the Long Ending was composed from various bits and pieces, which include all four gospels, Acts, and some other traditions.

Stephen Carlson

Diogenes the Cynic

Stephen,

as long as we're on the subject of Mark's ending I wonder if you could give us your take on the original ending. Do you believe that the autograph ended at 16:8 or do you think that anything was redacted out?

If you think that was Mark's genuine ending, do you have a take on its meaning or why it broke off in mid sentence. It's always seemed very abrupt to me and it seems odd that the last emotion described is one of fear rather than joy or triumph.

I thank you in advance for any answer and just want to say that I've greatly enjoyed and been enlightened by your contributions to this board.

Chris Weimer

Well, I'm not Stephen, but there was a theory lying around somewhere that the ending of John is the original ending of Mark, and another theory that the end without the longer ending suggests a tragic play, almost a trabeata if you will.

Regards,

Chris
Judaeo-Christian Literature and Culture Forums

Roland

Well, if Mark was making up the story, what better explanation as to why his readers had never heard it before could there be than the fact that the women, even though they were told to relate the story, chose to "sit on it" instead. Therefore, only NOW, many years later, is the tale being told (could Mark actually be the man in the white robe whom the women find in Jesus' empty tomb?).

andrewcriddle

IMO Aphrahat is a good witness for the text of the Diatessaaron see Baarda on the Gospel text of Aphrahat. (Although I know some members of this forum would disagree).

Aphrahat clearly knew the long ending of Mark see Demonstration 1 'Of Faith' http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-1...#P3925_1314218

Hence I think we can be reasonably confident that the Long Ending was part of the original text of the Diatessaron.

This may be relevant to our evaluation of the evidence of Justin Martyr.

It has been proposed that the Diatessaron is in large part a combination of the Gospel of John with a synoptic harmony previously used by Justin and later used by the Pseudo-Clementine writings and possibly as a source for the Gospel of the Ebionites.

If so there may be at least a weak presumption of the same synoptic Gospel
text in Justin and the Diatessaron, and hence the apparent allusion by Justin to the Long Ending also present in the Diatessaron should probably be taken at face value.

Andrew Criddle

S.C.Carlson

I think it is pretty clear that the original archetype of Mark (the copy from which all existing copies have descended) ended at 16:8. The question is, as you say, is whether the autograph ended there or did something happen to an original ending.

The current thinking among most Markan scholars is that the ending at 16:8 was intentional -- as a suspended ending a la Gone with the Wind. I've never been a fan of this position, because I feel that this style of ending is too fashionably modern. I am more inclined to the view that the page containing the original ending (not 16:9-20) got detached by accident. See Clayton Croy, The Mutilation of Mark. In my more speculative moments, I like to fancy that this page was used by the author of John 21 (see Streeter, Powell, etc.).

Nevertheless, my friends at SBL all support the suspended ending view and tell me that Lee Magness, Sense and Absence, wrote the definitive book on it, so I'm suspending judgment until I manage to read it.

Stephen

S.C.Carlson

Does Baarda actually argue that Aphrahat's apparent citation of the Long Ending is Diatessaronic?

It would be nice to have a Western witness as well so we can rule out a post-authorial modification of the Diatessaronic text on the Eastern branch.

Stephen

Haran

I'll have to see if I can find Kelhoffer's book, but can you tell me what relation he finds to Acts?

Given normal scribal tendencies and the tendency of Matthew and Luke to expand accounts rather than contract, it made me wonder if the longer ending of Mark might have actually been around early enough to be used by the Gospels (and perhaps Acts). Do you find it possible that Luke, particularly, might have known about and expanded upon the more concise events of the longer ending of Mark (thinking of the two men on the road to Emmaus, etc.)?

Roger Pearse

Just sanity checking the end of this range: I'm not sure that Irenaeus in 180 could refer to a text composed only 5 years earlier as part of Mark.

Whenever the date of a text is close to the date of first citation, we should probably be wary. What are the odds that, with few citations, the first of them just happens to be immediately after composition, allowing for time to disseminate and circulate? I know people do this a lot, but it always seems to me very likely to skew the date-range late.


Would it be possible to ask him? It would be nice to know. But I see that the TLG has quite a full set of his texts, so if it isn't in there...

All the best,

Roger Pearse