No – I think there are two possibilities. 1) the gospel was never completed by Mark, 2) the original ending was lost.
I think 2) is more likely than 1).
If 2) is correct than I’d expect the original ending to be similar to Matthew where Jesus meets the disciples in Galilee. However I’d expect it also to contain an element of account of Peter going to the empty tomb.
The above comment is only in reference to the gospel as we now have it. Which ends at 16:7 and not 16:8. Chronologically speaking the last event spoken of in Mark is the disciples seeing the risen Jesus in Galilee.
I suppose I should have pointed out the actual reading begins at the 8:45 mark. Apparently no one, not even his friends can allow Mark to speak for himself. Note that not only does the reading end at 16:8 but Suchet also includes the minority textual variant in the episode with the lepers where Jesus is described as indignant rather than compassionate. Ideally this video would have been timestamped so that one might skip the introductory remarks and revisit favorite portions. At any rate there are much worse ways to spend a couple hours. For completeness’ sake I also note that a studio recording of Suchet reading Mark exists but it includes the spurious endings.
That the ancient concept of a “son of god” having a miraculous birth to an earthly mother but divine father should when viewed in the development of gospels result in a lessening of the role of the actual earthly father of Jesus from earliest to latest, is hardly an idiosyncratic or shallow view. I don’t know how anyone could disagree with it.
That the historical reality of christianity moving from a Jewish to gentile dominated church should result in early gospels having a greater concern for a Jewish religious outlook is hardly an idiosyncratic or shallow view.
Yet both of these views support Matthean priority.
How about you say what you find personally convincing about Markan priority?
Why does he use a variant that is so obviously wrong?
brenmcg, I’m not really interested in getting into a debate about it but how can you be a member of Ehrman’s blog and not understand why some scholars favor the minority variant as the original reading? I don’t care if you disagree, but you really don’t know why?
What I find interesting is the question of what informed Suchet’s choice of text? Stopping at 16:8 is one thing but being aware of this textual variant indicates a deeper awareness than I would have expected.
Stephen “how can you be a member of Ehrman’s blog and not understand why some scholars favor the minority variant as the original reading?”
I know what the reasons given are but they should never be considered be good enough to choose one greek manuscript over literally every other one.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)