What is the original ending of the Gospel of Mark❓
Mark 16:1-8 ends with the response of the women: Those women, who are afraid (compare Mark 10:32), then flee and keep quiet about what they saw. Kilgallen comments that fear is the most common human reaction to the divine presence in the Bible. This is where the undisputed part of Mark’s Gospel ends.
Please share your thoughts on it.
Much has been written on the ending of Mark. One book, “Sense and Absence” by Lee Magness (Scholars Press) talks about, among other things, how open endings have been used in ancient and Biblical texts. He argues that Mark’s “sense of absence” ending encourages readers to make sense of that absense for themselves in a powerful and positive way.
I think at least part of the buzz around the now discredited find of a “first century” copy of Mark was the tantalizing prospect of finding a manuscript with a substantially different ending to the ones we possess. It would be an amazing discovery. But of course unlikely. It was the marginalized and minority viewpoints that were most likely to squirrel away their texts safely under some tract of desert. With the majority texts we find just what we would expect – fragments in the garbage.
Mark 16:7 does seem to hint at a subsequent Resurrection appearance to follow in the text. But if 16: 8 is the original ending it just explains why the message of the Resurrection became known even in the face of the women’s fear and silence.
If the original ending was lost it would have been very early in the transmission. Matthew and Luke, whatever form of the ending they had in front of them when they copied Mark, both apparently found it unsatisfactory.
Stephen said
I think at least part of the buzz around the now discredited find of a “first century” copy of Mark was the tantalizing prospect of finding a manuscript with a substantially different ending to the ones we possess. It would be an amazing discovery. But of course unlikely. It was the marginalized and minority viewpoints that were most likely to squirrel away their texts safely under some tract of desert. With the majority texts we find just what we would expect – fragments in the garbage.Mark 16:7 does seem to hint at a subsequent Resurrection appearance to follow in the text. But if 16: 8 is the original ending it just explains why the message of the Resurrection became known even in the face of the women’s fear and silence.
If the original ending was lost it would have been very early in the transmission. Matthew and Luke, whatever form of the ending they had in front of them when they copied Mark, both apparently found it unsatisfactory.
I have been reading lately that the original text of Mark ends at 16:20, not at 16:8 and that there is strong evidence for it grounded on historical facts. The passage is present in 1700 manuscripts of Mark and absent (suspiciously) in two corrupt manuscripts from the FOURTH century. It was quoted and identified as being from “towards the end of Mark’s Gospel” by Irenaeus in the SECOND century. It was included by Tatian in the Diatessaron in the SECOND century. Moreover, No copyist would intentionally omit the passage; scribes did not take it upon themselves to alter Holy Writ. Clearly the last page of a manuscript was lost or was destroyed, and it was used as an exemplar by a few scribes. Most likely they knew it wasn’t completely, which is why the scribes of Codex Sinaiticus left blank space at the end of Mark to allow the ending to be added later.
Yes, wherever you come down on the question of the original ending it’s pretty clear vs 9-20 ain’t it. Scholars point out that the verses demonstrate an awareness of the Resurrection stories in the other gospels. And of course 16:10 directly contradicts 16:8.
I think you can make a convincing case that 16:8 was intended to be the ending. You do this by locating the final episode within Mark’s overall approach in his gospel. What makes this difficult for many readers are the inevitable verse/chapter divisions. It fragments the text and makes it difficult to see Mark as an unified single text serving a specific point of view.
A lost ending would seem to have interesting theological implications. What happens to inerrancy or divine inspiration?
Stephen said
Yes, wherever you come down on the question of the original ending it’s pretty clear vs 9-20 ain’t it. Scholars point out that the verses demonstrate an awareness of the Resurrection stories in the other gospels. And of course 16:10 directly contradicts 16:8.I think you can make a convincing case that 16:8 was intended to be the ending. You do this by locating the final episode within Mark’s overall approach in his gospel. What makes this difficult for many readers are the inevitable verse/chapter divisions. It fragments the text and makes it difficult to see Mark as an unified single text serving a specific point of view.
A lost ending would seem to have interesting theological implications. What happens to inerrancy or divine inspiration?
Stephen, thank you a lot for your thoughts on this matter.
I wouldn´t go that far by sounding disrespectful questioning the inerrancy or divine inspiration. I myself is a Christian but I tend to have a more liberal view not bias at all. Eventhough I do not hold the believe on the inerrancy of the Bible, I do believe that the reports of the entire scripture and especially in NT are reliable with sufficient historical ground to support it.
I read a lot of Bart Ehrman´s book and I really enjoy reading his articles and publications and the reason I am still a christian is because the hasn´t convince the contrary, and nonetheless, I still find the authors of the Gospels to be authentic and honest enough on their own limits to report reliable events.
Anyway, I am really learning a lot with all of you.
Robert said
Coimbra1982 said
I have been reading lately that the original text of Mark ends at 16:20, not at 16:8 and that there is strong evidence for it grounded on historical facts. The passage is present in 1700 manuscripts of Mark and absent (suspiciously) in two corrupt manuscripts from the FOURTH century. It was quoted and identified as being from “towards the end of Mark’s Gospel” by Irenaeus in the SECOND century. It was included by Tatian in the Diatessaron in the SECOND century. Moreover, No copyist would intentionally omit the passage; scribes did not take it upon themselves to alter Holy Writ. Clearly the last page of a manuscript was lost or was destroyed, and it was used as an exemplar by a few scribes. Most likely they knew it wasn’t completely, which is why the scribes of Codex Sinaiticus left blank space at the end of Mark to allow the ending to be added later.
There are indeed some very staunch supporters, especially among dogmatic supporters of the Textus Receptus or the King James Version, of Mk 16,9-20 being the original ending of Mark’s gospel or an authentic ending written by Mark later after having been interrupted for some reason. They interpret ‘evidence’ in very different ways than the majority of critical scholars.
The fact that the great majority of manuscripts include this longer ending or another shorter ending or both or even a third insertion into this text is not really proof of anything. The Majority Text of the New Testament is merely that which became the accepted text and was copied and recopied for centuries. It has little to no bearing on the original text. That may sound hard to believe, but the majority of manuscripts are very, very late and they show a clear tendency of being late and standardized.
The two 4th century codices that witness to 16,8 being the end of the gospel are Vaticanus (B 03) and Sinaiaticus (א 01). I’m not sure what you (or your sources) mean by these manuscripts being corrupt or suspicious, but I suspect that is just the spin some of these very staunch supporters occasionally use to try and minimize or subvert the very clear evidence they provide. Again, let’s distinguish between facts or evidence and the interpretation of same.
Now the fourth century is not very early so the age of these codices is not correctly used to argue for 16,8 being the original ending of the gospel of Mark. It is just the earliest Greek manuscript evidence we have this part of the text of Mark. And it is true that there is indeed non-manuscript evidence for MK 16,9-20 existing very early. It is also true that there is other early non-manuscript evidence for 16,8 being the ending, eg, some Old Latin, Syriac and Armenian versions also witness to 16,8 being the original ending. Eusbius of Caesarea (c 325) said that “accurate manuscripts” at 16,8. As late as the early 5th century, Jerome said that the majority of Greek manuscripts known to him at that time did not include Mk 16,9-20. Jerome was probably aware of Eusebius’ statement about “accurate manuscripts” but he is still a later witness to this view and it is known that he did his own research on manuscripts. In addition, the manuscripts that contain the shorter ending to Mark’s gospel also witness to the longer ending not being authentic. Similarly the manuscripts and versions that contain both the shorter and the longer endings or additional insertions also witness to there being some doubt about whether the longer ending was authentic. Even some very late manuscripts that contain the longer ending also mark it off as not being original.
It is purely a matter of interpretation whether or not these facts point toward the original ending at 16,8 being original or to an original ending being lost. The majority of critical Markan exegetes are quite comfortable with Mk 16,8 being the original ending to the gospel. The style of Mk 16,9-20 is clearly not Markan and there are a variety of very good interpretations of Mk 16,8 as an ending. (Unfortunately the very best interpretation is not yet published.) Since you asked us to share our own thoughts, I will say that I’ve been reading the gospel of Mark in Greek for over 40 years and I am convinced that Mk 16,8 is the original ending, but that is, of course, a judgment call and no one is infallible.
Dear robert,
Thank you very much for the rich detail of information shared here in my post. I would really like to be your student and learn more about textual criticism, Greek and etc.
Since you asked us to share our own thoughts, I will say that I’ve been reading the gospel of Mark in Greek for over 40 years and I am convinced that Mk 16,8 is the original ending, but that is, of course, a judgment call and no one is infallible.
Hello Robert
do you mind sharing your reasons why 16:8 is the original ending ? some say that the use of “gar” makes the text nonsense.
Unfortunately, I am not at liberty to disclose the single, most convincing reason why I consider Mk 16,8 to be the ending, but the above already seems to have convinced the majority of critical scholars.
You mentioned this once before but I’m too lazy to go look it up. Is somebody writing a paper?
The ending at 16:8 does seem strange in isolation but if we consider Mark as a whole it does fit right into his overall schema. Fear and confusion as a response to Jesus’ revelation. What a weird and wonderful piece of literature. Perhaps begun in the afterglow of the Neronic persecution and the deaths of the first generation of disciples and completed against the backdrop of apocalyptic excitement generated by the First Revolt. It’s as easy to see why Matthew and Luke found it essential as it is to understand why they found it unsatisfying.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)