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

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

Expand Messages
  • Jack Kilmon
    ... From: Wieland Willker Sent: Friday, February 18, 2011 7:47 AM To: Synoptic-L Subject: [Synoptic-L]
    Message 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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.