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

2781Re: [textualcriticism] Jesus Dynasty and the Ending of Mark

Expand Messages
  • Oun Kwon
    Jan 1, 2007
      Mark Thunderson <mark.thunderson@...> wrote:
      Dear 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.

      Mark Thunderson.

      Hi Mark,
      Your statement about Messianic secret is not valid argument. You plainly ignored about the contrast between the intent of what Jesus was saying before and after the resurrection event.
      Oun Kwon.

    • Show all 26 messages in this topic