Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [Synoptic-L] Reconstructions of the original Ending of Mark

Expand Messages
  • Matson, Mark (Academic)
    I think that the original ending is Mk 16:8. Just the way we have it. J. Lee Magness book, Sense and Absence, I find convincing. Literarily, it works. Mark
    Message 1 of 23 , Feb 18, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      I think that the original ending is Mk 16:8. Just the way we have it.

      J. Lee Magness' book, Sense and Absence, I find convincing. Literarily, it works.

      Mark A. Matson
      Academic Dean
      Milligan College
      423-461-8720
      http://www.milligan.edu/administrative/mmatson/personal.htm


      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Synoptic@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
      > Of Wieland Willker
      > Sent: Friday, February 18, 2011 8:47 AM
      > To: Synoptic-L
      > Subject: [Synoptic-L] Reconstructions of the original Ending of Mark
      >
      > It is very improbable that there ever was an original, true ending of the
      > Gospel of Mark (published).
      >
      > Nevertheless, for the history of research it is interesting that attempts
      > have been made to find this original ending.
      >
      > So far I know of two:
      >
      > 1. Harnack/Rohrbach, 1893/94: suggested that the original ending was
      > utilized in the ending of the Gospel of Peter and that it then continued
      > along the lines of Jo 21.
      >
      > 2. Eta Linnemann 1969 suggested that Mt 28:16-17 + Mk 16:15-20 was
      > basically the original ending of Mk.
      >
      >
      > Do you know any other attempts like this?
      >
      >
      > Best wishes
      > Wieland
      > <><
      > --------------------------
      > Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
      > http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie
      > Textcritical commentary:
      > http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > ------------------------------------
      >
      > Synoptic-L homepage: http://NTGateway.com/synoptic-lYahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >
    • Graham Budd
      I suppose one might look for a triple tradition remnant in Luke and Matthew, of which there seems little trace. On the other hand, Luke seems so thoroughly
      Message 2 of 23 , Feb 18, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        I suppose one might look for a "triple" tradition remnant in Luke and
        Matthew, of which there seems little trace. On the other hand, Luke
        seems so thoroughly to have suppressed the Galilee appearance
        tradition that perhaps this is to be expected anyway.

        I quite like Casey's idea that the "incompleteness" of the ending of
        Mark is only one aspect of the draft-like nature of the entire text,
        suggesting that the ending was yet to be added and the text polished
        by the time the author was eh removed from the scene.

        Matthew is like Mark; Luke is like John, and Paul is like none of them
        (apart from the mention of the appearance to Simon in Luke?)! All very
        mysterious.

        Best wishes

        Graham

        Graham Budd
        Professor in Palaeobiology
        Uppsala University
        Sweden


        On 18 feb 2011, at 15.28, Matson, Mark (Academic) wrote:

        > I think that the original ending is Mk 16:8. Just the way we have it.
        >
        > J. Lee Magness' book, Sense and Absence, I find convincing.
        > Literarily, it works.
        >
        > Mark A. Matson
        > Academic Dean
        > Milligan College
        > 423-461-8720
        > http://www.milligan.edu/administrative/mmatson/personal.htm
        >
        > > -----Original Message-----
        > > From: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Synoptic@yahoogroups.com]
        > On Behalf
        > > Of Wieland Willker
        > > Sent: Friday, February 18, 2011 8:47 AM
        > > To: Synoptic-L
        > > Subject: [Synoptic-L] Reconstructions of the original Ending of Mark
        > >
        > > It is very improbable that there ever was an original, true ending
        > of the
        > > Gospel of Mark (published).
        > >
        > > Nevertheless, for the history of research it is interesting that
        > attempts
        > > have been made to find this original ending.
        > >
        > > So far I know of two:
        > >
        > > 1. Harnack/Rohrbach, 1893/94: suggested that the original ending was
        > > utilized in the ending of the Gospel of Peter and that it then
        > continued
        > > along the lines of Jo 21.
        > >
        > > 2. Eta Linnemann 1969 suggested that Mt 28:16-17 + Mk 16:15-20 was
        > > basically the original ending of Mk.
        > >
        > >
        > > Do you know any other attempts like this?
        > >
        > >
        > > Best wishes
        > > Wieland
        > > <><
        > > --------------------------
        > > Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
        > > http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie
        > > Textcritical commentary:
        > > http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > ------------------------------------
        > >
        > > Synoptic-L homepage: http://NTGateway.com/synoptic-lYahoo! Groups
        > Links
        > >
        > >
        > >
        >
        >



        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Mark Goodacre
        ... I suppose the difficulty, though, is whether or not one thinks Matthew and Luke are independent here. If they are independent, there are some hints of
        Message 3 of 23 , Feb 18, 2011
        • 0 Attachment
          On 18 February 2011 10:47, Graham Budd <graham.budd@...> wrote:

          > I suppose one might look for a "triple" tradition remnant in Luke and
          > Matthew, of which there seems little trace.  On the other hand, Luke
          > seems so thoroughly to have suppressed the Galilee appearance
          > tradition that perhaps this is to be expected anyway.

          I suppose the difficulty, though, is whether or not one thinks Matthew
          and Luke are independent here. If they are independent, there are
          some hints of material they could have taken over from a lost ending
          of Mark, especially Matt. 28.19 // Luke 24.47 (in his name / all the
          nations), but if one thinks that Luke has contacted with Matthew, he
          has simply recast Matthew's Great Commission.

          I agree about the suppressing of the Galilee appearance tradition in
          Luke and I've always found it fascinating. I wonder if it is largely
          because of the need for narrative segue to Acts with its big Jerusalem
          opening? Since our earliest record, in Gal. 1-2, places Peter and
          James in Jerusalem, perhaps Luke also had history on his side.

          Cheers
          Mark
          --
          Mark Goodacre
          Duke University
          Department of Religion
          Gray Building / Box 90964
          Durham, NC 27708-0964    USA
          Phone: 919-660-3503        Fax: 919-660-3530

          http://www.markgoodacre.org
        • Matson, Mark (Academic)
          ... Yes, there is the history thing. But also here Luke agrees in a number of big issues (and some smaller ones) with John. If Luke has been influence by
          Message 4 of 23 , Feb 18, 2011
          • 0 Attachment
            Mark Goodacre wrote:

            > I agree about the suppressing of the Galilee appearance tradition in Luke
            > and I've always found it fascinating. I wonder if it is largely because
            > of the need for narrative segue to Acts with its big Jerusalem opening?
            > Since our earliest record, in Gal. 1-2, places Peter and James in
            > Jerusalem, perhaps Luke also had history on his side.

            Yes, there is the history thing. But also here Luke agrees in a number of big issues (and some smaller ones) with John. If Luke has been influence by John, that explains the move toward Jerusalem as the locus of post-resurrection activity.



            Mark A. Matson
            Academic Dean
            Milligan College
            423-461-8720
            http://www.milligan.edu/administrative/mmatson/personal.htm
          • Graham Budd
            Presumably it would be asking a bit much of the apostles to have been able to scurry up to Galilee in time to make it for a third day resurrection appearance!
            Message 5 of 23 , Feb 18, 2011
            • 0 Attachment
              Presumably it would be asking a bit much of the apostles to have been
              able to scurry up to Galilee in time to make it for a third day
              resurrection appearance!

              I find the appearance to Simon/Peter/Cephas the most remarkable part
              of all this - why doesn't such an appearance make it into the synoptic
              tradition? I have Rupert Annand's entertaining paper from 1958 in
              front of me where he argues that the Emmaus dialogue was in fact an
              original appearance to Simon, based partly on Codex Bezae, Origen,
              Tertullian and the Longer Ending of Mark, which seems to report that
              Jesus appears to "two of them" who reported it to "the rest".
              (Origen: "And in Luke's Gospel, when Simon and Cleopas were talking to
              one
              another about all that had happened to them, Jesus drew near to them
              and went with them; and their eyes were holden that they should not
              know him."). He also points out that Luke has a sort of subtle clue
              about being a corrective to the Galilee story - "As they approached
              the village to which they were going, Jesus continued on as if he were
              going farther. 29 But they urged him strongly, “Stay with us, for it
              is nearly evening; the day is almost over.” So he went in to stay with
              them." As if he were going farther - to Galilee?


              Graham





              On 18 feb 2011, at 17.21, Mark Goodacre wrote:

              > On 18 February 2011 10:47, Graham Budd <graham.budd@...> wrote:
              >
              > > I suppose one might look for a "triple" tradition remnant in Luke
              > and
              > > Matthew, of which there seems little trace. On the other hand, Luke
              > > seems so thoroughly to have suppressed the Galilee appearance
              > > tradition that perhaps this is to be expected anyway.
              >
              > I suppose the difficulty, though, is whether or not one thinks Matthew
              > and Luke are independent here. If they are independent, there are
              > some hints of material they could have taken over from a lost ending
              > of Mark, especially Matt. 28.19 // Luke 24.47 (in his name / all the
              > nations), but if one thinks that Luke has contacted with Matthew, he
              > has simply recast Matthew's Great Commission.
              >
              > I agree about the suppressing of the Galilee appearance tradition in
              > Luke and I've always found it fascinating. I wonder if it is largely
              > because of the need for narrative segue to Acts with its big Jerusalem
              > opening? Since our earliest record, in Gal. 1-2, places Peter and
              > James in Jerusalem, perhaps Luke also had history on his side.
              >
              > Cheers
              > Mark
              > --
              > Mark Goodacre
              > Duke University
              > Department of Religion
              > Gray Building / Box 90964
              > Durham, NC 27708-0964 USA
              > Phone: 919-660-3503 Fax: 919-660-3530
              >
              > http://www.markgoodacre.org
              >
              >
            • Wieland Willker
              You are getting off topic. ;-) My question was if you know of any other attempts to reconstruct an ending of Mark, besides the two I mentioned. Best wishes
              Message 6 of 23 , Feb 18, 2011
              • 0 Attachment
                You are getting off topic. ;-)
                My question was if you know of any other attempts to
                reconstruct an ending of Mark, besides the two I mentioned.


                Best wishes
                Wieland
                <><
                --------------------------
                Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
                http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie
                Textcritical commentary:
                http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/
              • Matson, Mark (Academic)
                But you spoke of the true ending of Mark, not reconstructions (or, better, constructions0. Just saying.... Mark A. Matson Academic Dean Milligan College
                Message 7 of 23 , Feb 18, 2011
                • 0 Attachment
                  But you spoke of the "true ending of Mark," not reconstructions (or, better, constructions0. Just saying....

                  Mark A. Matson
                  Academic Dean
                  Milligan College
                  423-461-8720
                  http://www.milligan.edu/administrative/mmatson/personal.htm


                  > -----Original Message-----
                  > From: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Synoptic@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
                  > Of Wieland Willker
                  > Sent: Friday, February 18, 2011 12:48 PM
                  > To: Synoptic-L
                  > Subject: [Synoptic-L] Re: Reconstructions of the original Ending of Mark
                  >
                  > You are getting off topic. ;-)
                  > My question was if you know of any other attempts to reconstruct an ending
                  > of Mark, besides the two I mentioned.
                  >
                  >
                  > Best wishes
                  > Wieland
                  > <><
                  > --------------------------
                  > Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
                  > http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie
                  > Textcritical commentary:
                  > http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > ------------------------------------
                  >
                  > Synoptic-L homepage: http://NTGateway.com/synoptic-lYahoo! Groups Links
                  >
                  >
                  >
                • Chuck Jones
                  It s worth noting that Mk 16:1-8 does not contain a resurrection appearance, but rather predicts appearances will occur later in Galilee.  This cannot, of
                  Message 8 of 23 , Feb 18, 2011
                  • 0 Attachment
                    It's worth noting that Mk 16:1-8 does not contain a resurrection appearance, but rather predicts appearances will occur later in Galilee.  This cannot, of course, be reconciled with the third-day appearance legends in Mt, Lk and Jn.

                    Rev. Chuck JonesAtlanta, Georgia



                    --- On Fri, 2/18/11, Graham Budd <graham.budd@...> wrote:

                    From: Graham Budd <graham.budd@...>
                    Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Reconstructions of the original Ending of Mark
                    To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
                    Date: Friday, February 18, 2011, 12:17 PM

                    Presumably it would be asking a bit much of the apostles to have been 
                    able to scurry up to Galilee in time to make it for  a third day 
                    resurrection appearance!

                    I find the appearance to Simon/Peter/Cephas the most remarkable part 
                    of all this - why doesn't such an appearance make it into the synoptic 
                    tradition? I have Rupert Annand's entertaining paper from 1958 in 
                    front of me where he argues that the Emmaus dialogue was in fact an 
                    original appearance to Simon, based partly on Codex Bezae, Origen, 
                    Tertullian and the Longer Ending of Mark, which seems to report that 
                    Jesus appears to "two of them" who reported it to "the rest".   
                    (Origen: "And in Luke's Gospel, when Simon and Cleopas were talking to 
                    one
                    another about all that had happened to them, Jesus drew near to them 
                    and went with them; and their eyes were holden that they should not 
                    know him.").  He also points out that Luke has a sort of subtle clue 
                    about being a corrective to the Galilee story - "As they approached 
                    the village to which they were going, Jesus continued on as if he were 
                    going farther. 29 But they urged him strongly, “Stay with us, for it 
                    is nearly evening; the day is almost over.” So he went in to stay with 
                    them."  As if he were going farther - to Galilee?


                    Graham








                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • Chuck Jones
                    I concur with Mark that we have the original ending of Mk, which is at 16:8. Rev. Chuck JonesAtlanta, Georgia ... From: Matson, Mark (Academic)
                    Message 9 of 23 , Feb 18, 2011
                    • 0 Attachment
                      I concur with Mark that we have the original ending of Mk, which is at 16:8.


                      Rev. Chuck JonesAtlanta, Georgia


                      --- On Fri, 2/18/11, Matson, Mark (Academic) <MAMatson@...> wrote:

                      From: Matson, Mark (Academic) <MAMatson@...>
                      Subject: RE: [Synoptic-L] Re: Reconstructions of the original Ending of Mark
                      To: "Synoptic@yahoogroups.com" <Synoptic@yahoogroups.com>
                      Date: Friday, February 18, 2011, 1:32 PM

                      But you spoke of the "true ending of Mark," not reconstructions (or, better, constructions0. Just saying....



                      Mark A. Matson

                      Academic Dean

                      Milligan College

                      423-461-8720

                      http://www.milligan.edu/administrative/mmatson/personal.htm



                      > -----Original Message-----

                      > From: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Synoptic@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf

                      > Of Wieland Willker

                      > Sent: Friday, February 18, 2011 12:48 PM

                      > To: Synoptic-L

                      > Subject: [Synoptic-L] Re: Reconstructions of the original Ending of Mark

                      >

                      > You are getting off topic. ;-)

                      > My question was if you know of any other attempts to reconstruct an ending

                      > of Mark, besides the two I mentioned.

                      >

                      >

                      > Best wishes

                      > Wieland

                      > <><

                      > --------------------------

                      > Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany

                      > http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie

                      > Textcritical commentary:

                      > http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/

                      >

                      >

                      >

                      >

                      > ------------------------------------

                      >

                      > Synoptic-L homepage: http://NTGateway.com/synoptic-lYahoo! Groups Links

                      >

                      >

                      >




























                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • jgibson000@comcast.net
                      ... Except that the prediction in Mark 16 is back grounded by Jesus passion predictions in which a third day theme has already been sounded out, no?
                      Message 10 of 23 , Feb 18, 2011
                      • 0 Attachment
                        On 2/18/2011 12:36 PM, Chuck Jones wrote:
                        > It's worth noting that Mk 16:1-8 does not contain a resurrection appearance, but rather predicts appearances will occur later in Galilee. This cannot, of course, be reconciled with the third-day appearance legends in Mt, Lk and Jn.
                        >
                        Except that the prediction in Mark 16 is back grounded by Jesus "passion
                        predictions" in which a "third day" theme has already been sounded out, no?

                        Jeffrey

                        --
                        Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon)
                        1500 W. Pratt Blvd.
                        Chicago, Illinois
                        e-mail jgibson000@...
                      • Wieland Willker
                        Ok, for the nit-pickers I rephrase my question here: It is very improbable that there ever was anything original after 16:8 of the Gospel of Mark (published).
                        Message 11 of 23 , Feb 18, 2011
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Ok, for the nit-pickers I rephrase my question here:

                          It is very improbable that there ever was anything original
                          after 16:8 of the Gospel of Mark (published).

                          Nevertheless, for the history of research it is interesting
                          that attempts have been made to find some longer, "original"
                          ending.

                          So far I know of two:

                          1. Harnack/Rohrbach, 1893/94: suggested that the original
                          ending was utilized in the ending of the Gospel of Peter and
                          that it then continued along the lines of Jo 21.

                          2. Eta Linnemann 1969 suggested that Mt 28:16-17 + Mk
                          16:15-20 was basically the original ending of Mk.


                          Do you know any other attempts like this?



                          Best wishes
                          Wieland
                          <><
                          --------------------------
                          Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
                          http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie
                          Textcritical commentary:
                          http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/
                        • Jack Kilmon
                          ... From: Wieland Willker Sent: Friday, February 18, 2011 7:47 AM To: Synoptic-L Subject: [Synoptic-L]
                          Message 12 of 23 , Feb 18, 2011
                          • 0 Attachment
                            --------------------------------------------------
                            From: "Wieland Willker" <wie@...>
                            Sent: Friday, February 18, 2011 7:47 AM
                            To: "Synoptic-L" <Synoptic@yahoogroups.com>
                            Subject: [Synoptic-L] Reconstructions of the original Ending of Mark

                            > It is very improbable that there ever was an original, true ending of the
                            > Gospel of Mark (published).
                            >
                            > Nevertheless, for the history of research it is interesting that attempts
                            > have been made to find this original ending.
                            >
                            > So far I know of two:
                            >
                            > 1. Harnack/Rohrbach, 1893/94: suggested that the original ending was
                            > utilized in the ending of the Gospel of Peter and that it then continued
                            > along the lines of Jo 21.
                            >
                            > 2. Eta Linnemann 1969 suggested that Mt 28:16-17 + Mk 16:15-20 was
                            > basically
                            > the original ending of Mk.
                            >
                            >
                            > Do you know any other attempts like this?
                            >
                            >
                            > Best wishes
                            > Wieland
                            > <><


                            Hi Wieland:

                            Here is my go at TWO possibilities for the ending of Mark. Firstly, even
                            though Mark's Greek is very noticeably that of an Aramaic speaker using a
                            second language and essentially "bad Greek," a Greek sentence did not end in
                            GAR and it is not the result of a Semitism. The syntax of the ending leads
                            one to expect further discourse in Galilee. On the second point there are
                            two possibilities:

                            1. The Matthean scribe, writing in the Syrian diaspora some 55 years after
                            Jesus was crucified, relies on Mark and uses Mark nearly in its entirety. If
                            the missing ending of Mark is considered, uses Mark IN its entirety. Why
                            would Matthew ignore the ending? If there was one. If Matthew does, in fact,
                            contain those parts of the ending of Mark that are missing, it should be
                            relatively easy to reconstruct the
                            ending of Mark from Matthew by extracting it from the resurrection
                            appearances in Matthew and retroverting them to Markan style. In that case,
                            the ending of Mark would have been:

                            Mark 16:9 And Jesus met them and said, "Peace be to you." (Mt. 28:9a)
                            Mark 16:10 And they went up to him and clasped his feet and bowed on the
                            ground before him (Mt. 28:9b)
                            Mark 16:11 Jesus said to them, "You need not be afraid." (Mt. 28:10)
                            Mark 16:12 Go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee and they will see me
                            there. (Mt. 28:10)
                            Mark 16:13 And they went with great joy and ran to tell his disciples. (Mt.
                            28:8)
                            Mark 16:14 And the eleven disciple went to Galilee to the mountain to which
                            the Jews had directed them (Mt. 28:16)
                            Mark 16:15 And Jesus came up to them and said, "Go and preach the good news
                            to all the heathen. I will always be with you, to the end (Mt. 28:19

                            Ockham's Razor, in this case, say's that if Matthew copied Mark, the ending
                            of Mark is still imbedded in Matthew.

                            2. The second possibility, and I have mentioned it before, is that the 21st
                            chapter of John, first appearing in Codex Bezae but missing in all earlier
                            manuscripts, was originally the ending of Mark and "transplanted" in order
                            to soften and harmonize Johannine anti-markan rhetoric.


                            Mark anticipates a first resurrection appearance in Galilee and John 21
                            without the "third appearance" editorial insert at 21:14 is that first
                            appearance. In Mark, Peter denies Jesus three times (14:67-72). In John
                            (21:15-17), Peter affirms his love three times....the pro-Petrine redemption
                            anticipated in Mark. This completes what form critics have come to
                            recognize as Markan brackets (like the bracketed blind men at 8:22 and
                            10:46). In Mark, the shepherd is struck down and the sheep scattered. In
                            John 21 Peter becomes the new shepherd..completing another incomplete Markan
                            bracket. In Mark,
                            the first words spoken to a disciple are "follow me." In John 21 the LAST
                            words spoken are "follow me" (Jn 21:22) completing another Markan bracket.

                            If John 21 was originally the first resurrection appearance account of the
                            ending of Mark, Mark would become unified literarily if the appendage is
                            restored to Mark..less a few Johannine phrases. It does. As an Aramaicist,
                            I am, to the point of annoyance to some, the "follow the Aramaic" guy and
                            also find support in this from Burney. If John 21 was removed from Mark,
                            edited with a few Johannine signature phrases, we should see typically
                            Markan Aramaisms noted in Mark and John with none or little in Matthew and
                            Luke. I find this in Mark's frequent use of the historic present resulting
                            from Aramaic narrative participle also frequent in John 21. There is also
                            a connection between John and Mark's use of imperfects, the rare use of de
                            and frequent use of kai, the partitive APO in 21:10 used by Mark at 5:35,
                            6:43, 7:4 and 12:2.

                            shlama amek
                            Jack

                            Jack Kilmon
                            San Antonioo, TX
                          • Tony Buglass
                            Firstly, even though Mark s Greek is very noticeably that of an Aramaic speaker using a second language and essentially bad Greek, a Greek sentence did not
                            Message 13 of 23 , Feb 18, 2011
                            • 0 Attachment
                              "Firstly, even
                              though Mark's Greek is very noticeably that of an Aramaic speaker using a
                              second language and essentially "bad Greek," a Greek sentence did not end in
                              GAR and it is not the result of a Semitism. The syntax of the ending leads
                              one to expect further discourse in Galilee."

                              Maurice Casey, in his recently published "Jesus of Nazareth - an independent historian's account of his life and teaching", argues that Mark is not simply missing the ending, but is an unfinished first draft. There are numerous places crying out for revision in the text. He thinks Mark was translating Aramaic sources as he went, and 14:28 and 16:7 indicate that he had every intention of adding a Galilean appearance, but never got that far. He argues that explanations of a missing end-sheet, while plausible to an extent, do not explain why there was only one copy, or if it was the original, why the author could not replace what had been lost. If it is true that this was a document which was not yet complete, and was awaiting revision when something happened to the author, that makes a degree of sense.

                              Cheers,
                              Rev Tony Buglass
                              Superintendent Minister
                              Calderdale Methodist Circuit

                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            • Stephen Carlson
                              ... B. H. Streeter has a proposal on the lost ending of Mark in his FOUR GOSPELS, but it sounds very similar and perhaps even derivative of the above-listed
                              Message 14 of 23 , Feb 18, 2011
                              • 0 Attachment
                                On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 8:47 AM, Wieland Willker <wie@...> wrote:

                                > Nevertheless, for the history of research it is interesting that attempts
                                > have been made to find this original ending.
                                >
                                > So far I know of two:
                                >
                                > 1. Harnack/Rohrbach, 1893/94: suggested that the original ending was
                                > utilized in the ending of the Gospel of Peter and that it then continued
                                > along the lines of Jo 21.
                                >
                                > 2. Eta Linnemann 1969 suggested that Mt 28:16-17 + Mk 16:15-20 was
                                > basically
                                > the original ending of Mk.
                                >
                                > Do you know any other attempts like this?
                                >
                                B. H. Streeter has a proposal on the lost ending of Mark in his FOUR
                                GOSPELS, but it sounds very similar and perhaps even derivative of the
                                above-listed option 1.

                                Stephen
                                --
                                Stephen C. Carlson
                                Graduate Program in Religion
                                Duke University


                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              • Jeff Peterson
                                In his second book on the Gospels (and his third to treat the question), Austin Farrer suggested that the Matthaean conclusion expands on a single, lost
                                Message 15 of 23 , Feb 18, 2011
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  In his second book on the Gospels (and his third to treat the
                                  question), Austin Farrer suggested that the Matthaean conclusion expands on
                                  "a single, lost sentence," along the lines of "But Jesus sent forth his
                                  disciples to preach the Gospel among all nations" (*St Matthew and St Mark*,
                                  1954, p. 157). I think he should have stayed with his position in his
                                  earlier *Glass of Vision* and *Study in St Mark*, viz., 16:8 is the
                                  conclusion as Mark wrote it.

                                  Jeff Peterson
                                  Austin Graduate School of Theology
                                  Austin, TX

                                  On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 5:05 PM, Jack Kilmon <jkilmon@...> wrote:

                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > --------------------------------------------------
                                  > From: "Wieland Willker" <wie@...>
                                  >
                                  > Sent: Friday, February 18, 2011 7:47 AM
                                  > To: "Synoptic-L" <Synoptic@yahoogroups.com>
                                  > Subject: [Synoptic-L] Reconstructions of the original Ending of Mark
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > > It is very improbable that there ever was an original, true ending of the
                                  > > Gospel of Mark (published).
                                  > >
                                  > > Nevertheless, for the history of research it is interesting that attempts
                                  > > have been made to find this original ending.
                                  > >
                                  > > So far I know of two:
                                  > >
                                  > > 1. Harnack/Rohrbach, 1893/94: suggested that the original ending was
                                  > > utilized in the ending of the Gospel of Peter and that it then continued
                                  > > along the lines of Jo 21.
                                  > >
                                  > > 2. Eta Linnemann 1969 suggested that Mt 28:16-17 + Mk 16:15-20 was
                                  > > basically
                                  > > the original ending of Mk.
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > > Do you know any other attempts like this?
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > > Best wishes
                                  > > Wieland
                                  > > <><
                                  >
                                  > Hi Wieland:
                                  >
                                  > Here is my go at TWO possibilities for the ending of Mark. Firstly, even
                                  > though Mark's Greek is very noticeably that of an Aramaic speaker using a
                                  > second language and essentially "bad Greek," a Greek sentence did not end
                                  > in
                                  > GAR and it is not the result of a Semitism. The syntax of the ending leads
                                  > one to expect further discourse in Galilee. On the second point there are
                                  > two possibilities:
                                  >
                                  > 1. The Matthean scribe, writing in the Syrian diaspora some 55 years after
                                  > Jesus was crucified, relies on Mark and uses Mark nearly in its entirety.
                                  > If
                                  > the missing ending of Mark is considered, uses Mark IN its entirety. Why
                                  > would Matthew ignore the ending? If there was one. If Matthew does, in
                                  > fact,
                                  > contain those parts of the ending of Mark that are missing, it should be
                                  > relatively easy to reconstruct the
                                  > ending of Mark from Matthew by extracting it from the resurrection
                                  > appearances in Matthew and retroverting them to Markan style. In that case,
                                  >
                                  > the ending of Mark would have been:
                                  >
                                  > Mark 16:9 And Jesus met them and said, "Peace be to you." (Mt. 28:9a)
                                  > Mark 16:10 And they went up to him and clasped his feet and bowed on the
                                  > ground before him (Mt. 28:9b)
                                  > Mark 16:11 Jesus said to them, "You need not be afraid." (Mt. 28:10)
                                  > Mark 16:12 Go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee and they will see me
                                  > there. (Mt. 28:10)
                                  > Mark 16:13 And they went with great joy and ran to tell his disciples. (Mt.
                                  > 28:8)
                                  > Mark 16:14 And the eleven disciple went to Galilee to the mountain to which
                                  > the Jews had directed them (Mt. 28:16)
                                  > Mark 16:15 And Jesus came up to them and said, "Go and preach the good news
                                  > to all the heathen. I will always be with you, to the end (Mt. 28:19
                                  >
                                  > Ockham's Razor, in this case, say's that if Matthew copied Mark, the ending
                                  >
                                  > of Mark is still imbedded in Matthew.
                                  >
                                  > 2. The second possibility, and I have mentioned it before, is that the 21st
                                  >
                                  > chapter of John, first appearing in Codex Bezae but missing in all earlier
                                  > manuscripts, was originally the ending of Mark and "transplanted" in order
                                  > to soften and harmonize Johannine anti-markan rhetoric.
                                  >
                                  > Mark anticipates a first resurrection appearance in Galilee and John 21
                                  > without the "third appearance" editorial insert at 21:14 is that first
                                  > appearance. In Mark, Peter denies Jesus three times (14:67-72). In John
                                  > (21:15-17), Peter affirms his love three times....the pro-Petrine
                                  > redemption
                                  > anticipated in Mark. This completes what form critics have come to
                                  > recognize as Markan brackets (like the bracketed blind men at 8:22 and
                                  > 10:46). In Mark, the shepherd is struck down and the sheep scattered. In
                                  > John 21 Peter becomes the new shepherd..completing another incomplete
                                  > Markan
                                  > bracket. In Mark,
                                  > the first words spoken to a disciple are "follow me." In John 21 the LAST
                                  > words spoken are "follow me" (Jn 21:22) completing another Markan bracket.
                                  >
                                  > If John 21 was originally the first resurrection appearance account of the
                                  > ending of Mark, Mark would become unified literarily if the appendage is
                                  > restored to Mark..less a few Johannine phrases. It does. As an Aramaicist,
                                  > I am, to the point of annoyance to some, the "follow the Aramaic" guy and
                                  > also find support in this from Burney. If John 21 was removed from Mark,
                                  > edited with a few Johannine signature phrases, we should see typically
                                  > Markan Aramaisms noted in Mark and John with none or little in Matthew and
                                  > Luke. I find this in Mark's frequent use of the historic present resulting
                                  > from Aramaic narrative participle also frequent in John 21. There is also
                                  > a connection between John and Mark's use of imperfects, the rare use of de
                                  > and frequent use of kai, the partitive APO in 21:10 used by Mark at 5:35,
                                  > 6:43, 7:4 and 12:2.
                                  >
                                  > shlama amek
                                  > Jack
                                  >
                                  > Jack Kilmon
                                  > San Antonioo, TX
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >


                                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                • Graham E Budd
                                  So, I have dug up: Schweizer, Mt 28:9-10 plus Mk 16-20 (Good News According to Mark: Eng. tr. 1970) Bartsch: Mt 28:2-5, 9-10 (Mark familiar with 1 Cor 15:3-7)
                                  Message 16 of 23 , Feb 19, 2011
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    So, I have dug up:

                                    Schweizer, Mt 28:9-10 plus Mk 16-20 (Good News According to Mark: Eng.
                                    tr. 1970)
                                    Bartsch: Mt 28:2-5, 9-10 (Mark familiar with 1 Cor 15:3-7) (TZ 1971)
                                    Farmer: most of 16:9-20 was the original.
                                    Osborne: Mt 28:9-10 (Resurrection Narratives), along with Trompf
                                    Haefner: Acts 1:13-14 links Mark 16:8 to Acts 3-4
                                    Burkett: has reconstructed proto-Mark A and proto-Mark B endings;
                                    Schmithals: Like Linnemann's, but his source also contained
                                    appearances to Peter (transposed to the Tranfiguration) and to the
                                    Twelve, which he moved to 3:13-19.

                                    Apparently Bartsch, Ursprungliche SchluB der Leidensgeschichte has more in!
                                    (in L'évangile selon Marc, pp 411-433).

                                    Graham

                                    Quoting Wieland Willker <wie@...>:

                                    > Ok, for the nit-pickers I rephrase my question here:
                                    >
                                    > It is very improbable that there ever was anything original
                                    > after 16:8 of the Gospel of Mark (published).
                                    >
                                    > Nevertheless, for the history of research it is interesting
                                    > that attempts have been made to find some longer, "original"
                                    > ending.
                                    >
                                    > So far I know of two:
                                    >
                                    > 1. Harnack/Rohrbach, 1893/94: suggested that the original
                                    > ending was utilized in the ending of the Gospel of Peter and
                                    > that it then continued along the lines of Jo 21.
                                    >
                                    > 2. Eta Linnemann 1969 suggested that Mt 28:16-17 + Mk
                                    > 16:15-20 was basically the original ending of Mk.
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > Do you know any other attempts like this?
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > Best wishes
                                    > Wieland
                                    > <><
                                    > --------------------------
                                    > Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
                                    > http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie
                                    > Textcritical commentary:
                                    > http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                  • ddcanne@windstream.net
                                    If Mark is seen as literature, separated from the other gospels and fixed at just after the first Jewish Roman War, the ending (16:8) seems the best way it
                                    Message 17 of 23 , Feb 19, 2011
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      If Mark is seen as literature, separated from the other gospels and fixed at just after the first Jewish Roman War, the ending (16:8) seems the best way it could have been ended. It points to new hope, new possibilities. There is really no compelling reason it should have ended with appearance narratives. "God is salvation." I see the other gospel endings as "requirements" for the new religion, "apologetics." (One finds reason for this need implied in Matthew 27:64-66.)

                                      Dennis Dean Carpenter
                                      Dahlonega, Ga.


                                      ---- Jeff Peterson <peterson@...> wrote:
                                      > In his second book on the Gospels (and his third to treat the
                                      > question), Austin Farrer suggested that the Matthaean conclusion expands on
                                      > "a single, lost sentence," along the lines of "But Jesus sent forth his
                                      > disciples to preach the Gospel among all nations" (*St Matthew and St Mark*,
                                      > 1954, p. 157). I think he should have stayed with his position in his
                                      > earlier *Glass of Vision* and *Study in St Mark*, viz., 16:8 is the
                                      > conclusion as Mark wrote it.
                                      >
                                      > Jeff Peterson
                                      > Austin Graduate School of Theology
                                      > Austin, TX
                                      >
                                    • Graham E Budd
                                      A few more: Probyn (1925): Acts 1:6-11 is a Lucan redaction of the end of Mark. Goodspeed: like Schweizer Rendel Harris: ends for they were afraid of the
                                      Message 18 of 23 , Feb 19, 2011
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        A few more:

                                        Probyn (1925): Acts 1:6-11 is a Lucan redaction of the end of Mark.
                                        Goodspeed: like Schweizer
                                        Rendel Harris: ends "for they were afraid of the Jews". (!)
                                        Moule, ?St Mark XVI.8 Once More,? NTS 2 (1955) 58?59 has "kai euthus
                                        legousin tois mathhtais peri pantwn toutwn"
                                        Bacon: Some account of the rallying of the disciples in Galilee by Jesus.
                                        Streeter: Like John 21
                                        Kevin (1926, JBL): Complex argument that Mark ran on into John 21-like
                                        appearances followed by something like the beginning of Acts, that was
                                        later summarised by the Longer Ending.

                                        GB


                                        Quoting Graham E Budd <graham.budd@...>:

                                        > So, I have dug up:
                                        >
                                        > Schweizer, Mt 28:9-10 plus Mk 16-20 (Good News According to Mark: Eng.
                                        > tr. 1970)
                                        > Bartsch: Mt 28:2-5, 9-10 (Mark familiar with 1 Cor 15:3-7) (TZ 1971)
                                        > Farmer: most of 16:9-20 was the original.
                                        > Osborne: Mt 28:9-10 (Resurrection Narratives), along with Trompf
                                        > Haefner: Acts 1:13-14 links Mark 16:8 to Acts 3-4
                                        > Burkett: has reconstructed proto-Mark A and proto-Mark B endings;
                                        > Schmithals: Like Linnemann's, but his source also contained
                                        > appearances to Peter (transposed to the Tranfiguration) and to the
                                        > Twelve, which he moved to 3:13-19.
                                        >
                                        > Apparently Bartsch, Ursprungliche SchluB der Leidensgeschichte has more in!
                                        > (in L'évangile selon Marc, pp 411-433).
                                        >
                                        > Graham
                                        >
                                        > Quoting Wieland Willker <wie@...>:
                                        >
                                        >> Ok, for the nit-pickers I rephrase my question here:
                                        >>
                                        >> It is very improbable that there ever was anything original
                                        >> after 16:8 of the Gospel of Mark (published).
                                        >>
                                        >> Nevertheless, for the history of research it is interesting
                                        >> that attempts have been made to find some longer, "original"
                                        >> ending.
                                        >>
                                        >> So far I know of two:
                                        >>
                                        >> 1. Harnack/Rohrbach, 1893/94: suggested that the original
                                        >> ending was utilized in the ending of the Gospel of Peter and
                                        >> that it then continued along the lines of Jo 21.
                                        >>
                                        >> 2. Eta Linnemann 1969 suggested that Mt 28:16-17 + Mk
                                        >> 16:15-20 was basically the original ending of Mk.
                                        >>
                                        >>
                                        >> Do you know any other attempts like this?
                                        >>
                                        >>
                                        >>
                                        >> Best wishes
                                        >> Wieland
                                        >> <><
                                        >> --------------------------
                                        >> Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
                                        >> http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie
                                        >> Textcritical commentary:
                                        >> http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/
                                        >>
                                        >>
                                        >>
                                        >>
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                      • Wieland Willker
                                        Wow, Graham, that s great stuff! Thank you! Didn t know about the Harris quote. Interesting suggestion! I will look all these up for the commentary. Of
                                        Message 19 of 23 , Feb 19, 2011
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          Wow, Graham, that's great stuff!
                                          Thank you!
                                          Didn't know about the Harris quote. Interesting suggestion!

                                          I will look all these up for the commentary.
                                          Of learning there is no end ...


                                          Btw, the book "Side-lights on New Testament research" from
                                          Rendel Harris might be a good addition to archive.org. So if
                                          someone has it within reach ...

                                          Thanks all!

                                          Best wishes
                                          Wieland
                                          <><
                                          --------------------------
                                          Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
                                          http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie
                                          Textcritical commentary:
                                          http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/
                                        • Mark Goodacre
                                          ... Agreed -- some interesting stuff there! ... It s available in toto on Google Books: http://books.google.com/books?id=LuTvz7V3YkUC Is this one of those that
                                          Message 20 of 23 , Feb 19, 2011
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            On 19 February 2011 10:56, Wieland Willker <wie@...> wrote:
                                            >
                                            > Wow, Graham, that's great stuff!
                                            > Thank you!
                                            > Didn't know about the Harris quote. Interesting suggestion!

                                            Agreed -- some interesting stuff there!

                                            > Btw, the book "Side-lights on New Testament research" from
                                            > Rendel Harris might be a good addition to archive.org. So if
                                            > someone has it within reach ...

                                            It's available in toto on Google Books:

                                            http://books.google.com/books?id=LuTvz7V3YkUC

                                            Is this one of those that is locked down to users outside the US? If
                                            so, I could send you a PDF.

                                            Cheers
                                            Markl
                                            >
                                            > Thanks all!
                                            >
                                            > Best wishes
                                            > Wieland
                                            > <><
                                            > --------------------------
                                            > Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
                                            > http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie
                                            > Textcritical commentary:
                                            > http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/
                                            >
                                            >


                                            --
                                            Mark Goodacre
                                            Duke University
                                            Department of Religion
                                            Gray Building / Box 90964
                                            Durham, NC 27708-0964    USA
                                            Phone: 919-660-3503        Fax: 919-660-3530

                                            http://www.markgoodacre.org
                                          • Wieland Willker
                                            ... Schmithals is cool. He thinks that there was no ending, but that Mk added Mk 14:28 and 16:7 to remind the readers of something like 1Co 15:5. The two
                                            Message 21 of 23 , Feb 23, 2011
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              Graham E Budd wrote:
                                              > Schmithals: Like Linnemann's, but his source also contained
                                              > appearances to Peter (transposed to the Tranfiguration) and to
                                              > the Twelve, which he moved to 3:13-19.


                                              Schmithals is cool. He thinks that there was no ending, but that Mk added Mk
                                              14:28 and 16:7 to remind the readers of something like 1Co 15:5. The two
                                              verses are superfluous if the appearances to Peter and the Twelve are
                                              actually told at the end of the Gospel. Compare:
                                              Mark 14:28 But after I am raised up, I will go before you to Galilee."
                                              Mark 16:7 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."

                                              Schmithals continues with the idea that Mk nevertheless knew the stories
                                              about Jesus appearance to Peter and the Twelve from his source, but inserted
                                              them in a pre-Easter context.
                                              Peter: Mk 9:2-8 (the transfiguration), the Twelve: Mk 3:13-19 (the
                                              appointment of the disciples).
                                              He further knew Mk 16:15-20 from his source! Thus, according to Schmithals
                                              the complete ending in Mark's *source* was:
                                              16:1-6, 8 + 9:2-8a + 3:13-19 + 16:15-20 (not literally, but the basic
                                              content).


                                              Best wishes
                                              Wieland
                                              <><
                                              --------------------------
                                              Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
                                              http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie
                                              Textcritical commentary:
                                              http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/
                                            • Chuck Jones
                                              Wieland, If Schmithals is correct, then his analysis begs the question, Why would Mk do all this surgery to his source? Here s an obvious answer:  Mk knew
                                              Message 22 of 23 , Feb 23, 2011
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                Wieland,

                                                If Schmithals is correct, then his analysis begs the question, Why would Mk do all this surgery to his source?

                                                Here's an obvious answer:  Mk knew that the third-day Jerusalem appearance legends were just that, and that the appearances of Jesus in fact occurred in Galilee, some time after Jesus' death.  He walks a redactical tightrope by including the (legendary, I believe) empty tomb story without an appearance of Jesus taking place!
                                                Rev. Chuck Jones
                                                Atlanta, Georgia
                                                ___________________

                                                Schmithals is cool. He thinks that there was no ending, but that Mk added Mk

                                                14:28 and 16:7 to remind the readers of something like 1Co 15:5. The two

                                                verses are superfluous if the appearances to Peter and the Twelve are

                                                actually told at the end of the Gospel. Compare:

                                                Mark 14:28 But after I am raised up, I will go before you to Galilee."

                                                Mark 16:7 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."



                                                Schmithals continues with the idea that Mk nevertheless knew the stories

                                                about Jesus appearance to Peter and the Twelve from his source, but inserted

                                                them in a pre-Easter context.

                                                Peter: Mk 9:2-8 (the transfiguration), the Twelve: Mk 3:13-19 (the

                                                appointment of the disciples).

                                                He further knew Mk 16:15-20 from his source! Thus, according to Schmithals

                                                the complete ending in Mark's *source* was:

                                                16:1-6, 8 + 9:2-8a + 3:13-19 + 16:15-20 (not literally, but the basic

                                                content).



                                                Best wishes

                                                Wieland

                                                <><

                                                --------------------------

                                                Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany

                                                http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie

                                                Textcritical commentary:

                                                http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/






























                                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.