2961Re: New Ending to the Gospel of Mark?
- Feb 26, 2007Years ago my New Testament lecturer, Dr Richard K. Moore, suggested
that the reason for the abrupt ending of Mark is that all surviving
copies stem from a codex which had lost its final leaf or leaves. (I
don't know whether the idea originates with him.)
I think that this is a plausible explanation but there is one
weakness: the earliest codices are of single quire construction. That
is, they were made by laying many papyrus sheets on top of each other
then folding the lot in half (e.g. P46). So, if this is what happened
to the ending, one would expect there to be a missing beginning as well.
--- In email@example.com, Mark Thunderson
> Concerning another ending...
> It is amazing just how many attempts have been made to
> reach beyond Mark 16:8. Surely, the Gospel of Mark
> ends at 16:8. But to the credit of those who have
> argued for an extension beyond 16:8 (and these
> extensions have been less than satisfactory), it does
> seem plausible that Mark 1:1-16:8 expects indeed hopes
> for closure. In order for the textual critic to
> perceive this, he must first understand what Mark is
> saying. So, I would argue on a very precise level
> that Mark expects his reader not only "to understand"
> but to continue the work he began (hence, Matthew and
> Luke). Therefore, those in the past who have written
> "an ENDING" have done so with little success. That an
> ending must come, however, is imminent. But who is
> worthy to write an end to Mark? Who is worthy to break
> the seal at 16:8?
> Mark Thunderson.
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>