Mark’s Conclusion to Peter’s Discourses
[much of what is written here has been directly copied from this paper]

His Position (upfront):
Absolutely convinced that the long ending is original based on the external evidence alone, and that it deserves the canonical status it has enjoyed through church history.

The internal evidence, while controversial indeed, holds no satisfactory solution to the problem. (This greatly depends on your position on how the text was transmitted.)

How can one best account for this bifurcation? That, to him, is the rub, and it is perhaps here that he can make a helpful contribution to the discussion. He believes the best answer to this question is provided by taking the Synoptic Problem into account. Specifically, he believes that Mark’s Gospel is comprised of the actual words of Peter, that it originally ended at 16:8, and that Mark himself supplied the last twelve verses as a suitable conclusion. Of course, this view is based on a certain solution to the Synoptic Problem, a topic that will occupy the majority of this paper.

What about the earliest and best manuscripts? These manuscripts must be considered, but they must not be considered pure – at least not any more pure than the other texts.

The Fourfold Gospel Hypothesis:
The fourfold Gospel Hypothesis is Black’s solution to the synoptic problem.

The Holy Spirit guided Matthew, then Paul and his companion Luke, then peter and his companion mark, and afterwards John the apostle, to hand on to the church during their own lifetime the Gospel given them by Jesus.

Iraenaeus saw the fourfold canon of the Gospels representing a profoundly significant fact, foreseen and willed by God. He therefore spoke to the tetramorphoni Gospel (Adv. Haer. 3.2.8)–the “Tetramorphic” or “Fourfold” Gospel. By this he meant that each of the four Gospel accounts, and all of them together, have a common message as documents of faith in the service of faith. The differences between them, significant though they are, do not obscure their basic message of salvation through Christ.

The main evidence for the Fourfold Gospel Hypothesis consists of the chief recorded witnesses of the first four centuries, which may be presented in chronological sequence according to the date of the documents in which they first appear.

[Black gives quotes from each of these people...]
1. Justin
2. Irenaeus
3. Clement of Alexandria
4. Tertullian
5. Origen
6. The Muratorian Fragment
7. The Anti-Marcionite Progologue
8. The Old Latin Prologue to Mark
9. Eusebius
10. Eusebius quoting Papias
11. Eusebius quoting Clement of Alexandria
12. Eusebius quoting Origen
13. Jerome
14. Augustine

Evaluation of the Patristic Witnesses:
Striking things about these testimonies:
1. Whenever the four Gospels are mentioned, Matthew always heads the list.
2. As for “the sayings” of Papias, Eusebius assumes that Papias is referring to the Gospel of Matthew that we all know, and not to a “proto-Matthew” or a collection of sayings such as “Q” is reputed to be.
3. All authorities attribute the Gospel of Luke to the disciple of Paul by that name.
4. Our sources clearly reveal some problem with regard to the origin of Mark When all four Gospels are mentioned Mark as a rule is given teh second place, but the important tradition recorded b Clement of Alexandria relates that both Matthew and Luke came into existence before Mark.
5. Peter is in all cases describes as the person responsible for creating the text of Mark, which is nothing other than Peter’s “memoirs.”
6. Peter did not write down his Gospel stories; he spoke them aloud to an audience.
7. mark his disciple retrieved what Peter had spoken and did so at the request of Peter’s enthusiastic audience.
8. The “Elder” of EH 3.39, if not the apostle John himself then a figure at least contemporary with and of the same stature as John, authoritatively stated that Mark as Peter’s hermeneutes was able to reproduce exactly what Peter had said….
9. The content of what Peter had spoken consisted of testimonies regarding what the Lord had “said and done” in the form of short stories, the very kind of literary form that makes up the bulk of Mark.
10. Clement of Alexandria gives us some idea of the occasion of these talks of Peter when he says that they took place in Rome itself before an audience of “Caesar’s knights” — members of the Roman Praetorium — and therefore an audience containing a number of high government officials.
11. Clement also connects this Gospel of Mark with the other two Synoptic Gospels when he states that it was subsequent to those “containing the genealogies.”
12. There is, however, a parallel tradition in Irenaeus, seemingly supported by the Muratorian Canon and most other authorities, to the effect that mark was second after Matthew, and Luke third. There need be no contradiction between these two traditions, for it is quite possible that while one strand of tradition made Mark second to Matthew, and before Luke, for any other reason.
13. Jerome, as we have seen, understood the above evidence as proving the Gospel of mark to be “Peter’s narration and Mark’s writing.”
14. The order Matthew-Luke-Mark, as the chronological order of composition, is in fact the order one would naturally expect seeing that Christianity spread from Jerusalem up into Asia Minor and Greece, and thence westwards to Rome and the West.

Ecclesiastical tradition never claimed that the Evangelists were creative “authors” in the strict sense; it simply claimed that their writings belonged to the category of personal recollection…

Some ciritics argue that if both matthew and Luke were in existence it would be absurd for an eyewitness like Peter to submit himself to theese document. Adherents of Markan priority often pose the question, “Why should anyone have wanted to write a new Gospel that omitted so much from his sources?” The fundamental flaw in this argument is precisely the assumption that Mark (or Peter) intended to write a Gospel like the other two. This assumption is completely baseless. Mark is quite a different kind of document. The Fourfold Gospel Hypothesis in fact asserts that Mark’s account of the life of Jesus was never intended to be a rival Gospel. Mark is not a book in the sense in which the ancient Greeks and Romans understood the term, for it is just the spoken word directly captured and set down on paper exactly as it was originally uttered. It consists of a long chain of chreiai (short stores) about a heroic personage, recorded in a non-literary style and without any formal beginning or ending. The above question concerning Markan omissions is therefore totally irrelevant, because Mark is not to be reckoned a Gospel in the sense that Matthew and Luke truly are.

The Four Phases in the Development of the Gospels:
In the Spirit-directed process of inscripturating the Good News about Jesus Christ there were four main phases — four turning points at each of which a suitable Gospel statement was found to be necessary for its proper growth.

These phases are discussed in chronological order.

The Jerusalem Phase, AD 30-42 (Acts 1-12)
The need to demonstrate to the Jewish authorities that Jesus had literally fulfilled all the prophecies about the Messiah was the original motivation for the composition of the Gospel of Matthew, which met all the apologetic needs of the Jerusalem church.

Matthew arranged the selected material in three main sections:
1. The origin of Jesus down to the opening of his public ministry in Galilee (1:1-4:17).
2. Jesus’ Galilean ministry (4:18-18:35)–containing the build of his teaching–to which is attached a brief interlude in Transjordan (chs. 19-20).
3. All the Jerusalem events of Jesus’ public mission, including the passion, death, and resurrection narratives (chs. 21-28).

The Gospel of Matthew was the manifesto of the Mother church of Jerusalem, and thus became the fundamental document of the Christian faith.

The Gentile Mission Phase, AD 42-62 (Acts 13-28)
If we compare the Gospels of Luke and Matthew and note Luke’s deviations, we see that Luke carefully followed the main structure of Matthew throughout and generally adhered to the order of its various sections and anecdotes, though he also made highly interesting changes. For example, his story of the birth of Jesus is totally different from Matthew’s, which (as we have noted) was almost entirely apologetic in tone and content. Luke, however, provided a straightforward narrative that stems either directly or indirectly form Mary herself. When he came to the Galilean ministry he added certain details to each of those stories from Matthew’s Gospel that he decided to adopt. indeed, in one way or another he absorbed nearly everything that Matthew had written, and yet managed to add a good deal of extra material. This Luke did by omitting a number of stories that he regarded as duplicates (e.g., the famous Lukan omission of Matthew 14:22-16:12) and by inserting into the hear of the Matthean text at the end of the Galilean ministry (cf. Matthew 19:1-2) a section of no less than nine long chapters, his Central Section (9:51-18:14), comprising (1) the excerpts that he had extracted from Matthew’s five great discourses (ch. 10, 13, 18, and 24-25) in order to lighten the context of his own version of htem, and (2) additional sayings and parables that he had collected.

The Roman Phase, AD 62-67
Peter, aided by Mark, decided to divide for his own immediate purpose the Gospels of Matthew and Luke lying before him into five parts, that is, into five discourses of 25-40 minutes each, in the following manner:

1. Beginning of Ministry: Mark 1:2-3:19 = Matt 3:1ff; Luke 3:1ff
2. Early Galilean Ministry: Mark 3:20-6:13 = Matt 5.2ff; Luke 6:20ff
3. Later Galilean Ministry: Mark 6:14-10:1 = Matt 14:1ff; Luke 9:7ff
4. Post Galilean Ministry: Mark 10:2-13:37 = Matt 19:1ff; Luke 9:51ff
5. Passion Narrative: Mark 14:1-16:8 = matt 26:1ff; Luke 22:1ff

Peter tended to follow th Gospel of Matthew closely, adding Luke’s extra details wherever he could. He also adopted Luke’s rearrangement of the early part of Matthew’s Galilean ministry. His treatment is also noteworthy for the introduction of so many vivid little details that reveal him to be an eyewitness, such as Jesus’ being asleep on the cushion in the stern of the boat (Mark 4:38) and the figure of two thousand swine who drowned themselves in the lake (Mark 5:13).

Those who had listened to peter were delighted with everything they had heard and requested from Mark copies of what he had said. The tradition relates that when Peter was shown the transcript of his discourses he “exerted no pressure either to forbid it or to promote it” (Eusebius, EH 6.14.5-7). This indicates that Peter saw no particular advantage in promoting his own lectures, since in Matthew there was already a complete Gospel available to his listeners. In the light of his public approbation, Paul was able to publish the text of Luke’s Gospel in the churches of Achaia and Asia Minor without further delay or question.

Conclusion:
The most plausible explanation [of why Mark 16:9-20 was added to the Gospel] is that after Mark had satisfied the immediate demand of those who wanted copies of the five discourses, which ended at Mark 1:8, the matter rested there until after the martyrdom of Peter and Mark’s decision to go ff to establish the church of Alexandria (AD 9. As an act of piety to the memory of Peter, Mark then decided to publish an edition of the text that would include the necessary sequel to the passion and death of the master. But as the private edition of Mark, which lacked these verses, had already been in circulation for some years, the textual tradition has remained divided to this day.

Black’s Post-Script – The long ending of Mark, if original, reminds us that his message is highly evangelistic. *Go into all the world and preach the gospel*

Think Mark did not intend to end his gospel at Mark 16:8, but that his original ending was lost.

Introductory Remarks – Missing beginning and ends of ancient manuscripts did occur and was common in many manuscripts both biblical and non-biblical.

How did Mark lose its ending?

If 16:9-20 were secondary, when were they added?

A.
1. External witnesses in favor of Mark ending at 16:8

Many patristic did not quote from the ending, might not have known it.

2nd century evidence shows that the longer ending was known.
4th century evidence shows that the longer ending was know and questioned.
6th century evidence shows that the longer ending and shorter ending were supported.

2. Internal evidence against Markan authorship of 16:9-20 – Only three total Greek manuscripts end Mark at 16:8 (two are the oldest). Some would say we must go with the majority (that include the longer ending), but these are not just any two that are missing the longer ending.

The gaps in Vaticanus – One after Nehemiah, but Psalms started a two column writing, which would require the long blank. One after Daniel, but that is the end of the Old Testament. The other is after Tobit, which is the only one similar to Mark.

Aleph – Three scribes of Aleph (named A, B, and D). D writes smaller than A. D copied Mark and Luke. The majority of Mark is small, but the last part of Mark seems stretched out. Luke is also cramped. Seems to suggest scribes were hesitant to include the longer ending.

Language and Style -
[A handout provided by Elliott, representing difference stylistically of words in 16:9-20.]

ending in gar really does not make sense. There is not a (direct object) reason for the “fear” as there are in other verses in Mark.

Theology and Contents – Signs following believers looks more Johannine than Markan. Drinking poison without harm is no where else found in the NT. Picking up of snakes differs than walking on snakes in Luke.

3. Eusebian canon numbers – Eusebius does not include the longer ending in his canon.

B. Investigations into theories claiming that Mark included the Longer Ending in his Gospel – Is it possible that Mark found 9-16 and included it into his gospel? It may be possible that he did this with 1:1-4, perhaps this is a similar case.

Elliott is disinclined to to accept this, especially since it appears to disagree with his own stance (i.e. no sign given to this generation).

The Western Order of the Gospels – In some manuscripts, Mark is found in at the end of the Gospels. If you do this, Mark 16:9-20 forms the climax of the whole collection (my own thought, is this true of John as it is the last of the four now?). Once added, this ending was kept, even when Mark was placed in a different order in the Gospels.

C. Did Mark intend his Gospel to end at 16:8? Morna Hooker (Beginnings: Keys that Open the Gospel, Endings: Invitations that Open Discipleship). How they open and closed their gospels. If Mark wanted to leave a cliffhanger with a gar this was lost on his contemporaries. A sophisticated author could end his work in such a way, if he knew his audience would know what happen next, but all appearances suggest that Mark is not this sophisticated author.

D. The shortening the original form of Mark’s Gospel
I) Deliberate suppression of an ending composed by Mark but now lost – Why might this have happened? Perhaps some did not like the ending? Perhaps it included something that some did not think was appropriate. Perhaps it was because Christ appeared to Peter? (Speculation of course) – rival claims, who saw Christ first?

If the original ending contained an appearance to Peter, was that the reason for its possible suppression?

II) Accidental omission of 16:9-20
[Skipped in Lecture]

E. The opening of Mark’s Gospel – An article he wrote: Mark 1:1-3, A later addition to the Gospel? – Elliott provides an article with some problems with the first three versions of Mark, asking if it was an original Markan writing or an addition to Mark. Among other things, it is the only Old Testament citation in Mark from the narrator.

F. The freestanding existence of 16:9-20. James Kelhoffer.
Kelhoffer tried to investigate where Mark 16:9-20 could have come from. Assuming that it was not original to Mark. He argues that it was added in the 2nd century to Mark. It would have been floating material, similar to other apocryphal material of that time. The difference is that this fragment has been attached to the canonical book. It never survived independently of Mark. Entirely compatible to 2nd century Christianity, which is seen in other apocryphal texts. It would have been inappropriate tacked onto Mark.

G. Canonical Mark. Concluding remarks.
Authority and Canonicity – When the fathers promoted certain texts as authoritative, they told you, you should read a specific gospel, or book (i.e. Mark, Romans, etc.). It would have been whatever the local group would have possessed. The word canonical does not necessarily imply ‘original.’ Does not necessarily mean inspired, etc.

[FROM HANDOUT GIVEN]
Further work is needed on the following pieces of ‘unfinished business:’
a) The occurrence of telos in early manuscripts. The use of the Longer Ending in Greek, Georgian, and Amernian lectionaries
b) Listing of manuscripts with Eusebian canon numbers after Mark 16:8
c) List of manuscripts that have the Gospels in the Western order
d) Trials to fit the Longer Ending into Codex Sinaiticus in the style of scribe ‘D.’

Moving in a totally different direction than the previous speaker.

Amid Perfect Contempt, a Place for the Genuine, the Long Ending for Mark as cont…

Presupposition:
Either Mark Priority or co-essential Mark/Matthean Priority.

External Evidence:
(similar to previous speaker)

Internal Evidence:
Primary thrust of this paper.
Patristic Testimony – Most discussion focus on the speculation of the fourth or later centuries. Yet the opinions of later patristic writers should not negate earlier opinion.

Justin Martyr – In his First Apology Three word quoted by Justin only occur in the longer ending (16:15 & 20). Justin uses no other material other ancient material in this work.

Iranaeus – Quotes from beginning and end of Mark.

In this light, the shortest reading might not always be original. In fact, it is not uncommon for an author to intentionally shorten a work.

Short ending – Leaves a puzzling and incomplete conclusion. Accident or intent? Either way the result is problematic.

Vaticanus blank is about four lines short of containing the long ending (perhaps the scribe miscounted?)

The deliberate removal of the long ending could be found in a quote from Eusebius. The longer ending had apparent contradictions, issues involving disbelief (16:11,14), resurrection narrative (looks forward to a Galillean narrative).

Other factors might increase the cumulative case to compel some scribes to remove or replace the long ending – sign gifts (poison/snakes).

For whatever reason the intermediate ending concludes 16:8, was it written to conclude 16:8 because there was no conclusion or to replace the longer ending 16:9-20?

There could have been an intermediate ending created for liturgical reasons, which would explain why all Greek manuscripts that contain the intermediate ending have both the intermediate and long ending.

Markan style and vocabulary – There are many similarities in 16:9-20 when compared to the rest of mark. The words that do not occur anywhere else in Mark (~12 words) are also rare in the other gospels. (NOTE: This information seems to disagree with the previous speaker – but Robinson provided information proving this case).

The long ending has been criticized because of its hard to understand elements, but this is found throughout Mark (esp. 31 word temptation testimony). Short summary abridgment with some elements altered or added is a Markan style.

Beyond Vocabulary and Style?
Thematic – Primary theme is to present Jesus as the son of God… without the longer ending no such fulfillment exists.

Many Chiastic patterns extend into the Longer endings.

Additional Parallels – Linguistic and Thematic Parallels:
Mark 1:32-39 – Mark16:20
Mark 1:33 – Mark 16:9
Not allowed to speak – Sent to speak
Unbelieving Demons – Unbelieving Humans
Many more parallels when comparing chapter 1 with chapter 16.

Mark 6:7-13 – Mark 16
Mark 7:24-8:38 – Mark 16

Summary and Conclusion:
1st – The long ending can be defended and supported as canonical.
2nd – …is as likely written by Mark as anyone else.
3rd – Speculative reconstructions regarding lost endings of mark lack evidence.
4th – A Markan intention to end 16:8, allowing the reader to supply the end, requires a sophisticated and post-modern
5th – Son of God theme.
6th – an Elijah theme permeates Marks gospel and requires the long ending
7th – Verbal and thematic parallels
8th – Mark consistently demonstrates the fulfillment of prophecies and promises.
9th – The greatest bulk of verbal testimony supports the long ending.
10th – Explicit patristic citation outweighs other citation.
11th – Other Alexandrian omissions are rejected.
12th – Arguments of the same type claiming non-authenticity of John have better evidence but are rejected.
13th – Possible reasons for long reason extension can be explained.
14th – Greek manuscripts overwhelmingly support the longer ending (it is in all but two).
15th – The bulk of the evidence (internally and externally) points to the validity of the long ending.

From this point forward (for this blog series) I will be making brief notes of the argument that each speaker puts forth.

“From the End Spring New Beginnings”: Mark 16:8 as the Conclusion of the Second Gospel.

Question: When does Mark’s Gospel end?

Introduction: Presuppositions
Mark wrote first and John wrote last.
John was not dependent on the other three gospels.
Both Mark and John were writing in a new genre called “gospel” yet they were radically different from each other.

Mark is borrowed from very little, but John much.

Mark leaves his readers hanging, wanting more. John ends his gospel twice…

1. Source Criticism – Your view plays a large role in deciding this issue. A prior commitment to Matthean priority in the synoptic problem could cause you to not accept the shorter ending of Mark.

2. Textual Criticism – Even though you may be uncertain about your Source Criticism view, you may already hold to a Textual Criticism which will drive your source criticism.

3. Bibliology – Ones understanding of how the Bible was “maintained” (such as divine preservation) will drive your view of whether or not Mark ends early.

Challenge: Question your presuppositions, be aware of them, allow them to change…

I. External Evidence

Which is more likely that Scribes would intentionally omit the last verses or add the last verses?

A. The Long Ending (95% of all Greek manuscripts have the long ending.)

1. Manuscripts – The ending is not in the oldest manuscripts but is in the majority of manuscripts

2. Patristic Citations -
Matthew and Mark disagree with the timing of Jesus’ Resurrection.
v.17-18 caused embarrassment to certain question.
Scribes may have been prone to omit the ending because of these two reasons.

However, Matthew is the odd man out concerning the resurrection.
If the locust of embarrassment is only from the second half of these verses, why would they omit so much more?
At least 10 fathers quote from 17-20, while no fathers elude to the first half until the 4th century.

So why would the scribes do what they did with the text? Perhaps if then other scribes added them.

Mark discusses the resurrection but there would be no post-resurrection material – would this be a reason why scribes would have added to Mark? To include the resurrection?

B The Short Ending

1. Greek Manuscripts – Codex Aleph and Codex Vaticanus omit these verses. There is a large gap in at the end of Mark in Vaticanus. There are three columns per page and Mark ends in the second column. The third column is completely blank. It is custom to being a book at the top of the next column, but this particular codex breaks that custom four other times, each leaving larger blanks than Mark. There are also marks for variants, but there are none at Mark 16:8.

Thus, the non-unique gap and the lack of the variant marking suggests that Mark ended at 16:8.

2. Ancient Versions – Few ancient versions lack Mark 16:8, almost all of the early Arminian Manuscripts lack the early ending.

3. Patristic Citations

Clement and Origen – Origen is silent of the long ending, even though he had opportunity to talk about these verses. Clement was also silent, but he was also silent about Matthew 28. However, there is no way to know if Clement or Origen knew of the longer ending.

Eusebius – Indicated that most of the manuscripts ended in v.8 in his period.

Jerome – Beginning of 5th century, Jerome notes that the longer ending is scarcely found in other Greek manuscript. However, he did include the longer ending in the Vulgate (Latin version he translated into). He was well aware of the variety of endings because he had access to many manuscripts.

4. The Intermediate Ending

Codex Bobiensis – Has the “intermediate ending” or “shorter ending.”

Other Witnesses – In all of these other manuscripts, none of them end with the intermediate ending after the long ending, they all end without the long ending.

Implications – Three: 1st, they did not have the longer ending. 2nd, once a reading made its way into the text, it was hard to dislodge it. 3rd, the presence of the intermediate ending suggests that scribes were not happy with Mark ending at 8 and added material.

5. MSS that Indicate Doubt about the Long Ending – 5 manuscripts contain a mark indicating doubt of the longer ending. “If in doubt, don’t throw it out.”

C. Summary of External Evidence (and Scribal Motivation) – Why are there so many differences in the manuscripts here? It not as simple as the long ending versus the short ending. Instead some end at 16:8, some add intermediate ending, others add doubt to the long ending. Why is it that this Gospel and only this Gospel has major upheaval at the end?

It cannot be because of the handling of snakes and drinking poison, because it is the most secure.

Which is more likely? Because scribes cut out the long ending? or because scribes thought Mark closed to abruptly?

II. Internal Evidence (Given in Brief and Broad Strokes)

Many syntactical issues can be raised about the ending of Mark, but they need to be studied further.

A. Cumulative Argument – The most important argument. There is not a single passage in Mark 1:1 – 16:8 comparable to the anomalies that we find clustered in 16:9-20.

Syntax, Style, and Context flow must be considered.

B. Markanisms in the Long Ending? Some have pointed out a few “markanisms” in the long ending, but that would be found in someone who would have added to Mark.

C. Markanisms in the Other Endings? No scholar considers these passages to be authentic. These do passages do have “markanisms” which clearly suggests that they do not imply authenticitie.

Refereing to Prof. Elliott for further discussion of these details.

III. Irony in the End

A. (Response to) Arguments against mark Intentionally Ending the Gospel at 16:8

1. Open-ended Conclusion a Modern Literary Technique – Suspended endings can be found in Grecko Roman literature, the Old Testament and the New Testament. This is rooted in Ancient literature, rare, but they did exist.

2. Final Leaf Lost (or Destroyed) – Rolls or Scrolls would have been used… there is a slight chance that he would have used the new “book/leaf” medium if he wrote in the later first century. If the gospel was written on a roll, the most protected section would have been at the end of the book.

3. Books Don’t End in Gar – The last sentence cannot end with a Gar (for). In 1992 a book ending in Gar was actually found. If a sentence can, a book can. What kinds of sentences end in Gar? Numerous examples are found in narrative. Mark leaves us hanging in 9:32 similarly to 16:8 – he even uses the same verb ephobounto.

B. Creation of a New Literary Genre – Of all the gospels, Mark leaves it to the reader to form an opinion of Jesus, he was creating a new form of genre we call Gospel.

IV. Conclusion
Mark intended to end his gospel with “for they were afraid.”

I am sitting here, waiting for a conference to start. This is my first conference at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. This particular conference is about whether or not the last 12 verses of Mark are original. I will be attempting to “live blog” tonight. I plan on a post per “session” or speaker. There will be five speakers total with a panel discussion at the end.

Tonight there will be three speakers. The first speaker is Daniel B. Wallace. The second speaker is Maurice Robinson, the third speaker is Keith Elliott. Tomorrow there will be two speakers and it will end with a panel discussion. The first speaker (tomorrow) will be David Black. The second will be Darrell Bock. Third as I have already stated there will be a panel discussion. I am looking forward to this discussion and hope I am able to keep up with the “live blogging.” Anyways, it is about to start, so I have to get prepared.

More to come…