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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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 13 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 14 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 15 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 16 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 17 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 18 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.