2778Re: [textualcriticism] Jesus Dynasty and the Ending of Mark
- Dec 31, 2006Dear James,
With the greatest respect, Mark 16: 9-20 sure looks
like someone made it up (at least to me). Moreover,
as you probably already know, there are actually many
endings to Mark other than vv.9-20. A sure sign of
textual anxiety. I realize that there are those "out
there" who for one reason or another prefer those
other endings, and probably because they suppose they
are being pious in doing so. But let wisdom prevail.
This is how I see it:
Mark 16: 9-11 are taken from the Gospel of John
Mark 16: 12-13 are taken from the Gospel of Luke.
Mark 16: 14 is taken from the Gospel of Matthew.
Mark 16: 15-20 is taken from Matthew and Acts.
(I suspect you probably are already aware of this).
One more thing, vv 9-20 appear inconsistent with the
Gospel of Mark as a whole. As you recall, Jesus
continually forbids people to make him know (what
Bultmann referred to as the Messianic Secret), yet
they in fact do just the opposite. Ironically, in the
end, after the resurrection, "they say nothing to
So, it does seem that Manuscrpts - even very early
ones - are not always reliable.
--- "James Snapp, Jr." <voxverax@...> wrote:
My thought is that Dr. Tabor did not really do his
homework, despite assuring readers that he did. My
thought is that
Dr. Tabor, the Chair of Religious Studies at
know what he's talking about. I don't mean to sound
at some point, the writers of deceptive material
should be treated as
deceivers, and they should be held accountable for the
misleading statements that they write.
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>