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

1690Re: [textualcriticism] The Longer Ending of Mark 16:9-20

Expand Messages
  • Dora Smith
    Mar 5, 2006
      Didn'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.
      Dora Smith
      Austin, TX
      ----- Original Message -----
      Sent: Saturday, March 04, 2006 9:48 PM
      Subject: [textualcriticism] The Longer Ending of Mark 16:9-20

      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.


    • Show all 14 messages in this topic