SLD

I have read that most scholars consider that the Gospel of Mark originally concluded with the discovery of the empty tomb (Mark 16:8) and that later editors added the conclusion of the risen Jesus (Mark 16:9-20). My question is how exactly do we know this? Do we have copies of older versions without the other ending?

Also, what do Xtian apologists say about these claims, particulary fundamentalists?

It would seem to me that this would be a major problem with any claim of divine inspiration for the gospels.



SLD

CX

A)The earliest and most reliable MSS of GMk (according to biblical scholars) do not include 16:9-20)

B)Most evangelicals and fundamentalists are likely unaware of this situation and wouldn't probably care if they did know.

On a related note, GJn shows significant signs of being heavily redacted. There is speculation that that ending of GMk was originally part of GJn.

I'd recommend reading a good commentary on GMk or the GMk chapter of a good intro text (Schnelle, Brown etc.)

judge

Hi!

This ending occurs in the Aramaic version of mark (the peshitta) which I believe is the one from which the greek was translated, so it seems (to me anyway) that it was in the original writing

Peter Kirby

What's your theory on why the ending is absent in some Greek manuscripts and replaced in others?

The simplest theory is that the endings (there is more than one version of the ending after 16:8 in the manuscript tradition) were added because leaving it at 16:8 seems inadequate.

best,
Peter Kirby

HelenM

That's simply your own opinion. I thought this forum was for serious, substantiative discussion, not unsubstantiated remarks like that. If you have some facts to back up what you just said, please post them.

Modern translations generally have a note by the ending of Mark, to the effect that it was not included in many early manuscripts. And given the number of evangelicals and fundamentalists who read modern translations, I think it's very unlikely that most evangelicals and fundamentalists are unaware of this situation.

I also don't know why you think they wouldn't care, either. Of course they would care, since they take the Bible very seriously. Many of them do care and say they wouldn't rely on something that was only in the ending of Mark, since it's likely not original and most Christians who believe the Bible is the Word of God believe it's the original manuscripts that are the Word of God, not subsequent copies and translations. (Of course, if they are accurate then there's not a significant difference)

For what it's worth, Peter, it's quite possible that Mark had a different ending that was lost. He may not have ended his gospel where it currently ends, if you exclude the later ending. So we can't really be sure he ended with the women running away afraid. After all, that would be rather a strange ending, imo. Maybe he did end there - but I think it's not unreasonable to speculate that he had a different ending that was lost.

Helen

WinAce

Here's what Tektonics has to say:

How did Mark's Gospel End?

I think there was also something from Glenn Miller, but I don't have it in my favorites anymore.

jmborr

Given that Jesus speaks of his own resurrection in
all these other passages of Mark ( Mark 8:31,
Mark 9:9 Mark 9:31 Mark 10:34 Mark 14:28 ), I would conclude that the earliest manuscript in our hands is incomplete, and that the original did continue after Mark 16:8

Vinnie

I use to agree with Metzger's view that Mark probably had a lost ending or that Mark was interupted and didn't finish but my view has turned around. I think Mark originally ended at 16:8. The New Jerome Biblical Commentary seems to agree with this along with Mary Tolbert and many other scholars.

Vinnie

Vorkosigan

I agree with the view that the original ending of Mark was truncated, redacted and stuck on John. Have you read
http://home.att.net/~david.r.ross/Mark/?
Scroll down to the middle of the page for the argument on the missing ending of Mark and John

Vorkosigan

Vinnie

Why would anyone truncate Mark's ending?

Vinnie