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.”