8 Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid.[** you do not have permission to see this link **]
if mark knew that he was going to tell his readers that the women were not going to tell anyone anything, why did he bother to include verse 28?
27 “You will all fall away,” Jesus told them, “for it is written:
“‘I will strike the shepherd,
and the sheep will be scattered.’[** you do not have permission to see this link **]
28 But after I have risen, I will go ahead of you into Galilee.”
29 Peter declared, “Even if all fall away, I will not.”
if mark knew that he was going to tell his readers that the women were not going to tell anyone anything, why did he bother to include verse 28?
Mark 14:28 is one of the verses that scholars who think there was a “lost” ending to Mark seize upon to make their case. At first blush it does lead the reader to expect a post-resurrection appearance. And in a sense it is unfortunate that we don’t have such a story in our earliest gospel just to see what the view of the Markan community would be of the resurrected Jesus at that point in the development of the church. But of course if 16:8 is the original ending then it’s probably because Mark had a literary/theological reason for not including a post-resurrection appearance. In that case it would not have been an oversight. He intentionally did not include a post-resurrection story.
It is obviously a vexing question judging by the scholarly verbiage spent on the issue, pro and con. (It’s also a troubling theological question too for believers coming from a faith position. Why would God inspire scripture only for it to be lost?) I don’t suppose I’m qualified to have an opinion but after tons of reading about it I now fall on the side of thinking that 16:8 is the original ending. What really sealed the deal for me though was reading Joel Marcus’ argument that Mark’s gospel was originally intended for the internal use of a faith community and not as an evangelical tool to convince non-believers, in contrast to Luke which obviously is. This would also make sense of some of the weirder parts of the gospel. (Let me echo Greg. I can’t recommend Prof Marcus’ commentary highly enough. Before I just thought I had read the gospel. Wow!)
Also it helps to consider 16:8 in the context of the entire gospel. After every moment of revelation in the gospel the response is fear and confusion. Why should the ending be different? This is not reportage. Mark has a point of view, an agenda. In other words 16:8 would a perfectly appropriate ending to the gospel… in the context of the entire gospel.
I think the only thing that would settle the argument is if someone found an early copy of Mark with a different ending that fit the rest of the gospel stylistically and theologically. Maybe it’s buried out there somewhere…waiting.
Stephen said
But of course if 16:8 is the original ending then it’s probably because Mark had a literary/theological reason for not including a post-resurrection appearance. In that case it would not have been an oversight. He intentionally did not include a post-resurrection story.
I’ve always suspected that ending with the empty tomb is an apologetic device (This is not to claim there was no empty tomb)
People often remark that it is a strange way to end the gospel and yet it gets people thinking and asking questions because their expectations aren’t met
Greg Matthews said
Good question! I don’t know the answer, but I’ll just say that in his commentary Joel Marcus says some scholars believe in chapter 14 Jesus is talking about his second coming, not a simple post Resurrection appearance.
It could be that Mark wanted to show, that even after Jesus’s death, his closest disciples didn’t understand him, at least not in full. That is one of the main lines of the rest of this Gospel. 14:28 then is one of those prophecies they failed to understand, even after finding the empty tomb.
If Mark is a gentile gospel, it would perhaps not locate the second coming to Galilee? It could also be that 14:28 is an interpolation made in the same efforts as those leading to the spurious endings.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)