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.’

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.