A.
- Omission of Verses 9–20: Codex Sinaiticus omits the “Long Ending” of Mark (verses 9 through 20), which describes later resurrection appearances, snake handling, and the Ascension. [** you do not have permission to see this link **]
- Ending Markers: At verse 8, the text concludes with a decorative tailpiece and the subscript title “Gospel according to Mark” before immediately starting the Gospel of Luke. [** you do not have permission to see this link **]
- Historical Context: Alongside Codex Vaticanus, Sinaiticus is one of the oldest and most complete 4th-century Greek manuscripts to end the text at this verse. [** you do not have permission to see this link **]
B.
First Corinthians, Chapter 15 verses 3-7.
Verse 10: Paul says I worked harder than any of the 12 disciples who worked while Jesus was alive.
Steefen:
How DARE you !
Paul:
** you do not have permission to see this link **
But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me has not been in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them—though it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me.
Steefen:
Apparently, First Corinthians is older than Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John.
Paul does not mention an empty tomb or Mary Magdalene.
Paul:
The risen Jesus appeared to more than 500 people (brothers and sisters). 1 Cor, Chap 15, v 6.
Steefen:
Paul does not mention Mary Magdalene.
C.
- Stops at verse 8: The Gospel of Mark in ** you do not have permission to see this link **]
- The empty tomb: It does contain the story of the empty tomb and a young man in white telling the women that Jesus has risen (Mark 16:1–8). [** you do not have permission to see this link **]
Steefen:
Odd: the oldest documentation of the resurrection being 1 Cor does not mention the empty tomb but the second oldest, Gos of Mark does not mention the empty tomb, but Matthew and Luke do mention the empty tomb. Now, if Paul says 500 people saw the resurrected Jesus, why didn’t the Gospel of Mark mention that?
- Peter called Mark his “son” in the Bible (1 Peter 5:13).
- Early church tradition says Mark wrote the Gospel of Mark using Peter’s eyewitness stories and teachings. [** you do not have permission to see this link **]
- Mark joined Paul and Barnabas on an early missionary trip.
- They had a strong disagreement when Mark left the trip early.
- They later became friends again, and Paul called Mark helpful to his ministry (2 Timothy 4:11). [** you do not have permission to see this link **]
= = = =
Steefen:
Mark should have known from Paul that 500 people saw the risen Jesus.
Mark should have known Jesus rose from the dead.
- Traveling Companion: Luke joined Paul on several missionary journeys. This is why portions of the Book of Acts switch to “we” when describing Paul’s travels.
- The “Beloved Physician”: Paul explicitly calls Luke his dear friend and a doctor in Colossians 4:14.
- Loyal Friend: When Paul was imprisoned in Rome near the end of his life, he wrote that “only Luke is with me” (2 Timothy 4:11).
- Luke was not a known companion of Peter.
- As the author of the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts, Luke interviewed many early church leaders—including Peter—to write his history, but they did not travel or work closely together.
Steefen:
Luke, the beloved physician as per Paul, did not mention the 500 people who saw the risen Jesus.
That’s odd.
Robert said
Steefen said
Steefen:
Odd: the oldest documentation of the resurrection being 1 Cor does not mention the empty tomb but the second oldest, Gos of Mark does not mention the empty tomb, but Matthew and Luke do mention the empty tomb. … Mark should have known Jesus rose from the dead.The gospel of Mark does mention the empty tomb and the resurrection (16,5-6): As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed. But he said to them, “Do not be alarmed; you are looking for Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has been raised; he is not here. Look, there is the place they laid him.
1 Cor is supposed to be older than the Gospel of Mark. Comment 82 says this.
A. Gospel of Mark ends at 16:8
B. Paul does not mention empty tomb and does not mention Mary Magdalene
C. Gospel of Mark does not mention Jesus appearing after his resurrection. Mark should have known Jesus appeared to somebody other than the young man in white inside the tomb ! ! ! — he appeared to 500+ people outside of the tomb
Correction
Steefen:
Odd: the oldest documentation of the resurrection being 1 Cor does not mention the empty tomb
but it mentions 500+ people seeing the risen Jesus
the second oldest, Gos of Mark does not mention the 500+ people who saw the risen Jesus
Matthew and Luke do mention the empty tom but does not mention the 500+ people who saw the risen Jesus
Now, if Paul writing before Mark, Luke, and Matthew says 500 people saw the resurrected Jesus, why didn’t Mark, Luke and Matthew mention that?
I find arguments that Mark 16:8 was the original ending compelling. Occasionally I do enjoy reconsidering the idea of a lost ending to the gospel.
The old complaint about 16:8 being unusually clumsy or even ungrammatical in Greek have been fairly well answered. Here are a couple of other loose ends for consideration. The first has been commented on fairly frequently by those who advance the idea of a lost ending. The second, less so.
The account in Mark between the women and the young man at the Empty Tomb reads as follows:
As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed. But he said to them, “Do not be alarmed; you are looking for Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has been raised; he is not here. Look, there is the place they laid him. But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see him, just as he told you. – 16:5-7 NRSV
The young man’s statement (looking back to 14:28) would seem to anticipate an episode yet to follow in the narrative. And I think we can assume this promised meeting took place despite the silence of the women. Otherwise how would Mark’s community exist?
Matthew provides an account of this reunion in Galilee. Did he invent it because he found Mark’s surviving ending troublesome or is it based on Mark’s original lost ending?
I have not heard anyone comment on my second loose end although other close readers of Mark must have noted it. The Transfiguration episode in chpt 9 is the center of gravity of Mark’s gospel, its fulcrum. This narrative simultaneously looks back to the Baptism of Jesus, where he is adopted as Son of God, and forwards to the Resurrection, Jesus’ apotheosis. A fulcrum balances a lever. One end of the lever reaches back to the Baptism. The other reaches forwards…to what?
As it survives, without an appearance by the Resurrected Jesus, the larger narrative seems off balance. This is a literary effect and there have been many attempts to explain it. (I’ve suggested elsewhere the Empty Tomb itself may function as an aniconic image of the Resurrection.) But it could also suggest one broken end of a lever.
One aspect is purely subjective. The ending at 16:8 resonates so much with a modern sensibility that I am immediately suspicious. The ancients didn’t think the way we think and any interpretation that makes it sound they were anticipating how moderns would respond makes all my alarm bells go off. Anachronism is always tempting and dangerous and easy.
Finally, a couple notes. First, if an original ending was lost it would have been very early on. We can gauge this by the nature of the surviving sources. Second, the spurious endings raise the question of why it was felt necessary to produce them? Which makes more sense, that the composers were dissatisfied with the quality of Mark’s ending, or that they were attempting to replace an ending they knew was lost? You pays yer money and you makes yer choice.
As I said, most of the time I accept 16:8 was likely the original ending. But every once in a while…
While most books connecting Aristotle to Christianity deal with broad theology or ethics, Magness’s work explicitly uses Aristotelian literary theory to analyze the Gospel of Mark. [** you do not have permission to see this link **]
- Aristotle’s Definition of Narrative Plot: In his Poetics, Aristotle famously outlines the rules for dramatic structure, arguing that a proper tragedy requires a complete plot with a beginning, a middle, and an absolute resolution (closure) that satisfies the audience. [** you do not have permission to see this link **]
- The Problem of Mark’s Abrupt Ending: The Gospel of Mark famously ends with an abrupt, unresolved cliffhanger at Mark 16:8, where the women flee the empty tomb in terror and silence. By classical Aristotelian standards, this lack of explicit resolution violates traditional expectations of a complete narrative. [** you do not have permission to see this link **]
- Magness’s Application: Magness explores how “suspended” or “open” endings function by comparing Mark’s ending to both modern literary theories and ancient Greco-Roman texts—specifically referencing classical definitions of plot resolution outlined by Aristotle. He argues that Mark’s “sense of absence” is an intentional literary device that forces the reader to step in and fulfill the ending for themselves. [** you do not have permission to see this link **]
= = = = =
Comment 87 (Continued)
D. Jesus did not appear to Pontius Pilate, the Sanhedrin, or some authority capable of confirming it publicly.
E. Origen responded to Celsus’ argument that the resurrection accounts were allegorical or spiritual not literal descriptions of physical events. Origen knew the problem of the accounts could not be solved. The literal reading was the problem not the inconsistencies of accounts.
Steefen:
So, we don’t have historically accurate facts.
Well, if the Life after Death is not factual for Jesus,
the Life and Death lacks accurate facts.
Homeric Epics, Dionysus, and Aristotle; Julius Caesar, Jesus of Galilee who lost the Battle of Galilee against Titus and Vespasian.
Haven’t I commented on this?
Oh yes we’ve had much discussion of Mark’s ending. Here I was merely commenting on how I’m still fascinated by the idea of a “lost ending” although I find the arguments for 16:8 compelling. I was focusing primarily on the perceived “unbalanced” architecture of Mark’s narrative but I suppose all these theories can be summed up as Mark giving hints that lead one to expect another episode post – Empty Tomb which he does not provide. Is this a lost ending or a conscious literary technique?
My own pet hypothesis is that the Empty Tomb itself functions as a non-representational image of the Resurrection and is that forward leaning end of the lever I described. I don’t agree with the idea of the Transfiguration as a misplaced Resurrection story because it seems such a self-consciously constructed episode.
Mark clearly intended there to be some indeterminate period of time between the Resurrection and the Parousia.
As they were coming down the mountain, he ordered them to tell no one about what they had seen, until after the Son of Man had risen from the dead. Mark 9,9 NRSV
** you do not have permission to see this link ** is a nice article about the concept of the “suspended ending.”
Steefen, good move referencing ** you do not have permission to see this link ** by David Rhoads, Joanna Dewey, and Donald Michie (Fortress Press, 2012). Well before I read Robyn Faith Walsh I was very much influenced by this work. You can call it “narrative theology” but it is really just old fashioned literary criticism of the gospels. Whoever Jesus may be he is first a character in a book and the gospels are literature.
Robert said
Stephen said
Here is a nice article about the concept of the “suspended ending.”Stephen, your link to this article is not working.
Hmmm…when I click on it it works. Not sure why.
Try ** you do not have permission to see this link **. You’ll have to verify you’re a human.
Robert said
The first couple of times I clicked on the link I got some message about the public access not having access to the site. Later on the message was different, but the result was the same. Anyway, thanks for the article. I think I may have already read it years ago, but who can remember every article?
Can you verify you’re a human? 
Here’s a different ** you do not have permission to see this link ** with access to the PDF I linked to.
You know, it’s strange to get interested in some aspect of a subject and then find out people have been writing about it for decades. What other interesting stuff is out there I’ve never heard of? Where do I have to go to get on the “Interesting Ideas” mailing list?
Stephen said
Haven’t I commented on this?
Oh yes we’ve had much discussion of Mark’s ending. Here I was merely commenting on how I’m still fascinated by the idea of a “lost ending” although I find the arguments for 16:8 compelling. I was focusing primarily on the perceived “unbalanced” architecture of Mark’s narrative but I suppose all these theories can be summed up as Mark giving hints that lead one to expect another episode post – Empty Tomb which he does not provide. Is this a lost ending or a conscious literary technique?
My own pet hypothesis is that the Empty Tomb itself functions as a non-representational image of the Resurrection and is that forward leaning end of the lever I described. I don’t agree with the idea of the Transfiguration as a misplaced Resurrection story because it seems such a self-consciously constructed episode.
Mark clearly intended there to be some indeterminate period of time between the Resurrection and the Parousia.
As they were coming down the mountain, he ordered them to tell no one about what they had seen, until after the Son of Man had risen from the dead. Mark 9,9 NRSV
Here is a nice article about the concept of the “suspended ending.”
Steefen, good move referencing Mark as Story: An Introduction to the Narrative of a Gospel by David Rhoads, Joanna Dewey, and Donald Michie (Fortress Press, 2012). Well before I read Robyn Faith Walsh I was very much influenced by this work. You can call it “narrative theology” but it is really just old fashioned literary criticism of the gospels. Whoever Jesus may be he is first a character in a book and the gospels are literature.
“The gospels are literature.”
– Stephen
The gospels are historical fiction.
– Steve Campbell
Steefen:
Is a history book considered literature?
I wanted to know if nonfiction writing considered literature.
Yes, a history book can be considered literature if it is written with high literary quality, strong storytelling, and artistic style. [** you do not have permission to see this link **]
Steefen:
Stephen is NOT saying the gospels are fiction and he is not saying the gospels are historical fiction.
Still, NO agreement.
Marcion – Both parts of this scriptural compilation were finalized around c. 130–140 A.D. and presented together to the Roman church around 144 A.D.
Marcion died around 160.
Tatian Diatessaron with most modern biblical scholars narrowing the date of composition to around 160–175 A.D.
= = = = = = = = = =
There is an important distinction between whether Marcion and Tatian personally met and whether Tatian knew and used Marcion’s Gospel.
1. Did Marcion and Tatian ever meet?
We have no surviving ancient evidence that they personally met. It is possible, but it cannot presently be established.
The chronology makes a meeting possible:
- Marcion was active in Rome roughly from the 140s into the 150s/160s.
- Tatian came to Rome and became a student of Justin Martyr, probably before Justin’s First Apology around 150–155 CE.
- Justin was actively engaged in controversy with Marcion.
- Tatian remained in the Roman Christian intellectual environment until after Justin’s martyrdom, after which he eventually returned east.
Modern scholarship explicitly places Tatian in this Roman environment and notes that Justin, Tatian’s teacher, engaged Marcion.
So I would phrase it:
Tatian could have encountered Marcion or Marcionites in Rome, but there is no evidence proving that Tatian and Marcion personally met.
That is actually an interesting historical possibility because Tatian was operating in precisely the Roman Christian world in which Marcion’s Gospel was being debated.
2. Did Tatian use Marcion’s Evangelion in the Diatessaron?
Here the answer becomes much more interesting:
There is substantial evidence and a long scholarly argument that Tatian knew Marcion’s Gospel, and some scholars have argued that he actually used it. But this is not established as securely as Tatian’s use of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
The conventional reconstruction is that Tatian’s Gospel was constructed from the four Gospel traditions—Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Modern scholarship still generally describes the Diatessaron this way.
But there are Marcionite readings in the Diatessaronic tradition that have generated a much stronger question:
Were these merely readings that Tatian happened to share with Marcion, or did Tatian actually have access to Marcion’s Gospel?
That is not a trivial question.
The older Plooij argument
Dutch scholar D. Plooij argued quite strongly that Tatian knew and used the Marcionite Gospel. In his textual analysis he concluded that the relationship between the Syriac Diatessaron and the Marcionite text was too close to dismiss as coincidence.
His conclusion was essentially:
Tatian had known the Marcionite Gospel and used it, while exercising his own editorial judgment.
That’s a much stronger claim than merely saying Tatian was influenced by Marcionite theology.
3. And there is a particularly important chronological point
Tatian’s Diatessaron is normally dated to approximately 170–180 CE, after his time with Justin and after Justin’s death.
Eusebius specifically says that Tatian:
formed a combination and collection of the Gospels
and associated the work with the Diatessaron.
But here’s the thing that matters for your question:
Marcion’s Gospel was already circulating decades before Tatian produced his Gospel.
Therefore, Tatian didn’t need to have personally met Marcion to have access to the Evangelion. He could have encountered:
- Marcion’s Gospel,
- copies of it,
- Marcionite Christians,
- or Marcionite textual readings
during or after his Roman period.
4. The really interesting possibility: Tatian’s “Luke” may not have been exactly our Luke
This is where your question becomes particularly significant for your historical-accuracy project.
We should be careful about saying:
Tatian used our canonical Luke + Matthew + Mark + John.
That’s an oversimplification.
The original Diatessaron has not survived intact. Modern scholars reconstruct it from later witnesses, including Ephrem’s commentary, the Arabic Diatessaron, Codex Fuldensis, and other witnesses. Consequently, determining exactly which textual forms Tatian possessed is difficult.
And scholars have observed that some Diatessaronic readings resemble Marcionite readings.
That leaves several possibilities:
A. Tatian used a form of Luke independent of Marcion, and both preserved an older reading.
B. Tatian knew Marcion’s Gospel but did not directly use it.
C. Tatian used Marcion’s Gospel as one textual source alongside other Gospel traditions.
D. Tatian used a Gospel text that itself had already been influenced by the Marcionite textual tradition.
The evidence doesn’t allow us to simply declare D or C proven—but C has been seriously argued.
5. There is another fascinating connection: Tatian’s Gospel may have been deliberately competing with the four-Gospel system
Recent scholarship has questioned even the traditional terminology.
Matthew Crawford has argued that Tatian may actually have called his work simply “the Gospel”, rather than Diatessaron. James Barker’s Oxford study takes this possibility seriously.
That is potentially significant because Marcion also presented a single Gospel—his Evangelion.
So we have an intriguing second-century situation:
Marcion
→ one Gospel
→ Marcionite Pauline collection
→ Gospel + Apostolikon
Tatian
→ one synthesized Gospel
→ combining multiple Gospel traditions
→ later called Diatessaron
That doesn’t prove Tatian was copying Marcion. But it makes the literary competition between the two Gospel concepts quite interesting.
One modern study even notes that Tatian’s composition was created in the same second-century environment in which Marcion had introduced his Gospel and Apostolikon.
My bottom line
| Question | Evidence |
|---|---|
| Did Marcion and Tatian personally meet? | Unknown; no evidence that they did. |
| Could they have met? | Yes, chronologically possible, particularly in Rome. |
| Did Tatian know about Marcion? | Very likely. |
| Did Tatian know Marcion’s Gospel? | Quite plausible; some scholars argue yes. |
| Did Tatian actually use Marcion’s Gospel in composing his Gospel/Diatessaron? | Argued by some scholars, but not established consensus. |
| Was Tatian’s Gospel simply our four canonical Gospels mechanically combined? | No. He substantially edited, selected, rearranged, and harmonized the material. |
And that last distinction is important: if your larger question is whether the second-century Gospel tradition was already a textual contest involving Marcion’s Gospel, the four-Gospel collection, and Tatian’s synthesized Gospel, there is considerably more evidence to examine than the simple statement “Tatian used four canonical Gospels.”
If you want, I can next trace specific passages where the reconstructed Diatessaron agrees with Marcion’s Evangelion against the canonical Luke—that would give us the concrete textual evidence rather than just the historical argument.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)