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

2884Re: [textualcriticism] Note re. Mark's LE and Gospels-Harmony

Expand Messages
  • Mark Thunderson
    Jan 23, 2007
      --- David Robert Palmer <watutman@...>

      I can only speculate about what a scribe did and why.
      I'm sure there are scholars that can do that much
      better than I can.


      David, you have answered very well, and I certainly
      agree with many of your conclusions. I would like to
      extrapolate on the "speculative side of things."
      Given the reasonable assumption that Mark 16:9ff. is a
      later addition to the the original ending to Mark's
      Gospel; and given that this assumption does have
      objective text-critical support; and given that this
      text-critical support is also supported by theological
      data; my own speculation as to why this later ending
      has come about is the following:

      Very early on in the history of Christianity (perhaps
      3rd or 4th generation), the original meaning to Mark's
      Gospel was quickly "lost". Mark's Gospel was just too
      difficult to understand for many believers. Moreover,
      since by this time the church had both Matthew and
      Luke and John, it seemed reasonable to "some" that
      Mark's Gospel must end. The seemingly paradoxical
      ending was too much for the Church (especially the
      institutional church) to swallow. Hence, the pressure
      to seal-up the GAP at the end of the Gospel was
      quickly remedied in the fashion you rightly
      recognized: basically a quick summary of the other
      three endings stuck at the end of Mark. However, the
      pressure to make the Gospel of Mark come to an end is
      still so strong, that its better for some to believe
      what is clearly redaction, than what is clearly an

      Mark Thunderson.

      No need to miss a message. Get email on-the-go
      with Yahoo! Mail for Mobile. Get started.
    • Show all 26 messages in this topic