1690Re: [textualcriticism] The Longer Ending of Mark 16:9-20
- Mar 5, 2006Didn't the extension to Mark add details compatible with the idea that he rose from the dead? The implication I've always seen made of that is that the original author of Mark did not believe that Jesus rose from the dead. Later people weren't comfortable with such a glaring omission.Yours,
tiggernut24@...----- Original Message -----From: john1524wagnerSent: Saturday, March 04, 2006 9:48 PMSubject: [textualcriticism] The Longer Ending of Mark 16:9-20Hello,
I am new to this list.
I just finished "Misquoting Jesus" by Bart Ehrman and wish to further
study "textual criticism" of the bible.
Perhaps a good place to start a dialogue is by asking your opinion on
the motivation of scribes to add the longer ending of Mark 16:9-20.
It seems to me that a Pauline oriented scribe would have the most
reason to add this insertion as a means of gaining some support from
one of the gospels for the doctrine of 'speaking in tongues', since
aside from the longer ending of Mark, the gospels are silent
on 'tongues' imagery.
Curious for your thoughts.
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>