It is assured that the last few verses were added later. It really isn’t an open issue. Metzger, in his commentary on the Greek New Testament, explains why the Greek of those verses don’t match up with the Greek of the preceding verses. And the verses are not in the earliest copies.
mark has double negative
oudeni ouden
he has the women flee
-
run away from a place or situation of danger.
“fled” (ephugon)
in matthews version, double negative does not exist. he has the women with emotion of extreme joy run to report. he introduced “kai idou” which brings about brand new event.
it is no suprise why later writers changed marks ending, his greek is too negative.
Blackwell said
Is it possible that Mark recounted his memories to several writers and the gospel was put together from various fragments?In that case, could the ending be a bit that got left out of the original compilation? Whoever added it thought it was important information.
Lots of things may be possible; the question becomes what is the most reasonable or likely answer, and that is not it.
There is also the fact that the so-called “intermediate ending” found in some manuscripts directly contradicts the authentic narrative.
And all that had been commanded them they told briefly to those around Peter. And afterward Jesus himself sent out through them, from east to west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation. Amen.
So they went out and fled from the tomb, for terror and amazement had seized them, and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid. – 16:8
The other longer endings seem to have knowledge of the accounts in the other gospels which according to majority scholarly opinion would have been written after Mark.
Blackwell said
Is it possible that Mark recounted his memories to several writers and the gospel was put together from various fragments?In that case, could the ending be a bit that got left out of the original compilation? Whoever added it thought it was important information.
Put those apologetics down, Blackwell. You’re likely to poke your eye out with ’em.
I think I’ve posted this elsewhere, but here it is again:
Metzger wrote
The vocabulary and style of verses 9-20 [of Mark] are non-Markan [examples omitted]. The connection between ver. 8 and verses 9-20 is so awkward that it is difficult to believe that the evangelist [Mark] intended the section to be a continuation of the Gospel. Thus, the subject of ver. 8 is the women, whereas Jesus is the presumed subject in ver. 9; in ver. 9 Mary Magdalene is identified even though she has been mentioned only a few lines before (15.47 and 16.1); the other women of verses 1-8 are now forgotten; the use [and the position of certain Greek words] are appropriate at the beginning of a comprehensive narrative, but they are ill-suited in a continuation of verses 1-8. In short, all these features indicate that the section was added by someone who knew a form of Mark that ended abruptly with verse 8 and who wished to supply a more appropriate conclusion. In view of the inconcinnities between verses 1-8 and 9-20, it is … likely that the section was excerpted from another document, dating perhaps from the first half of the second century.
Mark’s author didn’t write those verses and it’s unlikely the person who added them did either. It appears the redactor borrowed those verses from another text written by another author and glued them to Mark 16 because he didn’t like the way Mark 16 ended.
Could those verses have come from someone who remembered Mark’s original ending and recreated it in a 2nd century text in his own words, which Mark’s redactor then borrowed?
I think that sort of explanation requires some evidence, and I’m unaware of any.
CEJ said
Blackwell said
Is it possible that Mark recounted his memories to several writers and the gospel was put together from various fragments?
In that case, could the ending be a bit that got left out of the original compilation? Whoever added it thought it was important information.
Put those apologetics down, Blackwell. You’re likely to poke your eye out with ’em.
It isn’t clear to me that most apologists are sufficiently sharp or pointed for such a task.
JAS said
CEJ said
Blackwell said
Is it possible that Mark recounted his memories to several writers and the gospel was put together from various fragments?
In that case, could the ending be a bit that got left out of the original compilation? Whoever added it thought it was important information.
Put those apologetics down, Blackwell. You’re likely to poke your eye out with ’em.
It isn’t clear to me that most apologists are sufficiently sharp or pointed for such a task.
**Snort**
Blackwell said
Yes, I was aware that the final section of the gospel was not in the earliest copies, so the question is, who might have added this section, when and for what reason?
To have it agree with Matthew and Luke. There’s a technical term for this that I can’t recall at the moment.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)