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

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

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