Talk:Gospel of Mark

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is supported by WikiProject Bible, an attempt to promote the creation, maintainance, and improvement of articles dealing with the Bible. Please participate by editing this article, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Archive 1

Contents

[edit] Dating

I changed some of the statements on dating of Gospel. My source clearly says that 60's-slightly post 70 is position held by large majority of scholars who study issue. If anyone has a reliable source that says different, then let's talk about it here. We can easily include other hypotheses but unless the source for them says they are majority view they need to be labeled as minority position. Note that a minority position doesn't make it any less valid, but we need to accurately relay state of scholarship on an issue, and I have four sources that say majority view is not pre 60 or 80 or after and have cited from Brown's Introduction to the New Testament, which is a generally reliable mainstream source. Roy Brumback 09:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

My only comment is that we should use more than one source, even when characterizing the ever moving "view of most scholars" (wording I like to avoid when possible). See my changes on Paul's epistles. Lostcaesar 12:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
That's fine, but is there another source that says the majority view is different? Views on Bible among scholars don't change much over decade, usually takes several decades to swing majority views. And why do you object to simply stating what the majority view of scholars is on the issue. This doesn't endorse the view, just tells you the state of the scholarship. Roy Brumback 21:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
First of all, there was a previous discussion concerning this exact topic back in May. We decided that a more inclusive range 60-80 was a good compromise. It covers the extreme early date of 60 that not many scholars push, and the extreme late date of 80, that not many scholars push. However, because the range is so broad, it can cover virtually every scholarly view, except the very fringe skeptics who argue for ridiculously late dates, and the fringe apologists who argue for a ridiculously early date. The current wording is misleading because saying "60" and "slightly" seem to weigh the range towards a more conservative date. It also ignores Brown, who specifically gives the range 68-73. The connotations of saying "dated in the 60s to slightly after the year 70" vs. "68-73" is extreme, and as I said, biased towards the conservative view. If we do not want the more general range 60-80 (which was previously agreed upon, and which has support from Lostcaesar), I wouldn't mind with the more specific dates given in Brown "68-73", but I strongly feel the current wording is misleading, if not a downright misquote of Brown. (Furthermore, more contemporary scholarship, which may have a liberal bias, gives later dates. I can dig up more specific references if necessary later tonight, but for now look at this: "the period of five years between 70 and 75 CE is the most plausible dating for the Gospel of Mark within the broader timeframe indicated of 65 to 80 CE.") --Andrew c 22:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

My opinion on this is as follows. If we want to describe something like a concensus, or more reasonably a majority, then 60-80 is broad enough to capture this. If we want the plurality view of scholars today, 65-75 is in my understanding fair. Personally I prefer indulging the years of 60-65 because it includes the possibility that the text was written before Peter died, which is represented by at least one ancient tradition, but as long as we properly describe the material then I will sign off. For that reason, I don’t think the wording “60s to 70 or slightly after” is representative of a majority view of scholarship, and so such wording is better avoided. The year 70 happens to be quite significant concerning dating, and such ambiguity on that year is problematic here. My personal view, just to state where I am, would think 63-68, but of course this article is not about describing my view. So, I would prefer 60-80, but could agree to 65-75 in the right wording. I am not in support of 60s - 70 or slightly after. Lostcaesar 22:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

You guys seem to be missing the point. It is not up to us to decide what the majority view on the issue is. It is simply the statement of a fact. According to my book by Brown, the majority view, by a wide margin, is somewhere in the 60's to the early 70's. Does anyone have a source that says the majority view is sometime before the 60's or up to 80? We can not compromise a fact, like what the majority of scholars believe. It simply is true or isn't. It isn't misleading if it is true. It doesn't "weight" anything one way or the other. I have quoted my source by Brown very accurately. That is what is says on those pages. Check it out for yourself it you don't believe me. The book is in several local libraries.
You guys keep bringing up other points of view and then trying to split the difference among them yourselves. That does not tell you what the majority of scholars actually think. Like I have repeatedly said, we can easily put in other points of view but to label them as part of the majority view, without documentation, is fallacious. Andrew for instance gave the view of that web site, but it's just that, the view of that web site, not necessarily the majority view. I say again, saying what the majority view is does not endorse it. It simply tells you accurately what the state of the scholarship is on the issue. According to not just that source but others I have, the majority view is somewhere in the 60's to slightly after 70, basically slightly before or during the time of the Roman Jewish war, and not much after, and it needs to be labeled as such. I have found no source that says the majority of scholars on the subject think it might have been written as late as 80. In fact, they say that the majority rejects that and says 75 is the last date at which it could have been composed. We need to try to be accurate here and not try to split the difference ourselves about competing views. 60-80 was agreed upon by some editors on this site, not the actual scholars on the issue. Andrew himself admits 60 and 80 view are not held by many, so I don't see what the problem is. Label 60's -few years after 70 as the majority view and then include minority views, like pre 60 and 80 or after, but label them as minority, unless someone has a contradictory source stating majority view is something different. Does anyone have such a source? I'm not trying to upset a consensus among editors, just striving for accuracy. Roy Brumback 13:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Just to clarify, I didn't pull the numbers out of thin air, and it wasn't a matter of expanding the Brown range equally in both directions.
  • "Most scholars date the Gospel of Mark to sometime between 60 AD and 80 AD."[1]
  • "the period of five years between 70 and 75 CE is the most plausible dating for the Gospel of Mark within the broader timeframe indicated of 65 to 80 CE."[2]
  • "The majority of contemporary scholars date the composition of the Gospel somewhere between 65-80 CE."[3]
And here is an apologist page that claims the Jesus seminar date the "Gospel of Mark: 70-80"[4] I know these aren't the most reliable sources in the world. All that said, in my search, I found this good article Marcus, Joel. "The Jewish War and the Sitz im Leben of Mark." Journal of Biblical Literature. Vol. 111, No. 3 (Autumn, 1992), pp. 441-462 [5]. It says things like "...the composition of the Gospel is either slightly before or slightly after the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70" and "Contemporary critics are about evenly split between those who think that Mark was composed shortly before the destrution of the Temple (e.g., Guelich, Mark, 1. xxxi-xxxii) and those who think it was composed shortly after that event (e.g., Pesch, Markusevangelium, 1. 14)." Thessian, Borg, Crossan (and most likely Koester, who focuses less on exact dates, and more on the absolute earliest and absolute latest, giving a terminus ad quem of ~125) all date Mark after 70 (and not just "slightly"). For all this, I would support 65-75, or 68-73, or 60-80 or anything similar, but still strongly oppose "In the 60s, or slightly after 70".--Andrew c 20:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
The early christian writing site is only giving its opinion, not stating the majority view. The ibiblio is a blog and therefore highly suspect. The religion facts cite does say that but then later contradicts itself and says, in a quoted cited statement, "there is a consensus about when he wrote: he probably composed his work in or about the year 70 CE" and labels the Q hypothesis as a theory, which it is not, making this cite somewhat suspect. I think we need to use books over web sites and articles, as books are usually more accurate. My book by the Jesus Seminar, The Complete Gospels ISBN 0060655879, gives a date of 66-70, but does not label that as a majority view. I couldn't take a look at the Marcus article from my computer as access was denied but it dates earlier than Brown's book, so the book is more current. The exact wording Brown uses is "common scholarly view somewhere in the 60's or just after 70" on page 7 and then on page 164 says "there is wide scholarly agreement that Mark was written in the late 60's or just after 70" so I will change it to late 60's. Roy Brumback 05:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Why are you so opposed to using a range of dates? And why are so focused on one citation (if our goal is to give scholarly agreement, we should take into consideration a number of sources)? Furthermore, Brown, in his college level NT textbook states "Mark, a Gospel commonly dated to the 68-73 period." I still feel strongly that using words such as "late" and "slightly" are imprecise and possibly weighs the view to the pre-70 side (when we have a number of sources claiming the scholars are split over whether it was before or after the temple siege). How about we simply say c. 70? If we don't want to give a range, why not give one central number and say circa?--Andrew c 13:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
"if our goal is to give scholarly agreement, we should take into consideration a number of sources"... That I concur with completly. I will say, however, that the textbook you mention, Andrew, is not as good a source for the thoughts of Brown as the other book; textbooks are written more by editorial boards than by authors (which is partly why the cost so much, and a good reason not to read them). Lostcaesar 13:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for the confusion, Roy and myself are both citing the same Brown book. He's on page 7, and I'm on pages 127 and 217. And I agree that books aren't necessarily the best source, which is why I spent some time searching through scholarly journals (which I quoted 3 posts up).--Andrew c 13:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Ah, well I would take that as evidence of editorial changes that resulted in the inconsistency - hence my advice is to not write text books. Lostcaesar 14:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I keep saying I'm not opposed to other views, but what I am opposed to is deciding on our own an average of scholars views. In my opinion and according to most sources I have read the book is dated by most scholars around the year 70. I'm not opposed to certain wording, but when you cite something cite it accurately and on those cited pages that is what is says. On page 127 Brown does say that, but that is his analysis, not him saying what the majority opinion is. On page 217 it says dated to the 68-73 period, not exactly those years. On page 164 he says there is wide scholarly agreement with late 60's to just after 70, and that's what I cited. Roy Brumback 10:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

So can we agree on c. 70 then?--Andrew c 12:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Well the source doesn't say circa. It actually seems to weight it more to 60's then approaching 75. How about late 60's to early 70's? Roy Brumback 22:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Well the source I posted from a scholarly journal says slightly before or slightly after 70. I don't think going by a single source is the best thing to do. What I believe we did last time to get 60-80 was gather a large number of sources and choose an inclusive range that we could say was a consensus range. If we ignore the 60-65 part, we are ignoring the traditional view that Mark was written around the time of Peter's death. If we ignore the post 70 range, we ignore basically every single liberal scholar who believes Mark was written with the knowledge of the events during the Jewish war. I still favor a more broad range because then we can say a consensus of virtually every scholar (minus Robinson and Wells). If we focus in the range, then we are limited to the majority of mainstream scholarship (which is ok, however I think Mark is a special case because the conservative and liberal views can be grouped in a range (60-80). In contrast, for Matthew there is a seperation in the ranges, like 50-65 for the traditional view, and 80-90 for the modern view.) All that said, what is the differences between "c. 70" and "late 60's to early 70's"? The latter wording isn't my first choice, but it basically expresses some of the ranges I proposed earlier, so I wouldn't mind it's use.--Andrew c 22:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I would prefer a wording that includes the sources of antiquity which discuss authorship in the context of Peter's death (just before or after) - these are sources that many scholars are not willing to dismiss, and I think the article would do well to inculde this in its summary of relevant scholarship. Lostcaesar 22:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Guys, you keep trying on your own to determine what the scholarly consensus is. You said yourself "What I believe we did last time to get 60-80 was gather a large number of sources and choose an inclusive range that we could say was a consensus range." That is us on our own deciding what the consensus is, not citing a source telling us what the majority of scholars hold. According to the article and Brown's book the opinion of the majority of scholars is late 60's to early 70's. We can easily include the traditional view and the late view, but according to all very reliable sources I have checked, those are not the majority views. If the majority of scholars do not agree with early and late dates, so be it. Put them in but label them as minority positions. Are you opposed to, instead of trying to group them all together, simply labeling one as the majority view and others as minority views.

The Jewish war began before 70, so him having knowledge of it does not mean it was written after 70. According to another book specifically on Mark I have, A Brief Commentary on the Gospel of Mark, ISBN 0809130599, most scholars reject dates much after 70 since if one thinks the discourse refers to the war it is far less accurate then Matthew or Luke and was probably written before the war ended. Circa is vague, late and early are more precise, although not as precise as what the cite says. And I dislike the use of the terms "liberal" and "conservative" for scholars, as they are political terms, not scholarly ones, unless liberal simply means dating it late and conservative means dating it early, in which case just say those who date it late and those who date it early. One could date it early and still be politically liberal or vise versa. Roy Brumback 07:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Traditional vs. critical, conservative vs. liberal, regardless how sloppy these terms may be (althought I do not agree that they are political terms, because someone can dress conservatively, and drink liberally), we have to realize that there are 'scholars' with a strong and dominant POV who date all the books early, and usually accept Matthean priority. Of course "real" scholars do not give this position much weight, just as "real" scholars generally reject the extreme skepticism of the Wells/Mack (or even worse, the Doherty/Freke crowd). Like I said, we are more than welcome to just focus in on the mainstream scholarly POV. However, I have stated before that I prefer a more inclusive range that covers the traditional view and the more skeptical view (60-80). I have also said that I'd not contest the "late 60s, early 70s" either. So I apologize if I still sound argumentative, when we may have settled this matter.--Andrew c 18:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Roy I will say I agree that terms like liberal, conservative, critical, traditional, and the like are words I think we, in the perfect world, could do without, since they are basically tautological and thus not especially informative. The solution is to cite specific authors and books by name. For example, in a reference we could say X, X, X, and X argued for Y, while Z, Z, Z, and Z, argued for W. But that takes a lot of work. The broad terms mentioned above are better than nothing.Lostcaesar 20:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

So are we agreed on "late 60's to early 70's" as the majority view? I agree noting all views takes more work, but Wikipedia has enough time, even if individual editors don't. Personally I think, as I have said, that we should state the majority opinion, which is this, and then state "a minority date it early for x reason and another minority date it late for y reason" or something like that. It just seems to me that is more accurate then lumping early and late dates together under "consensus". Roy Brumback 07:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Works for me. I think in my mind there is a difference between majority and consensus. A majority can be 51%, while a consensus generally means nearly everyone can agree. As stated previously, I prefer the latter in an general overview statement. However, your proposal sounds good. I'm glad we could clear this up, and sorry if I was nitpicky and edgy with this issue.--Andrew c 15:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

What happened to the old Gospel of Mark page? Where did all the comments from Carlson etc go? -Michael —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 140.116.55.72 (talk • contribs) 22:33, 29 November 2006.

Maybe try Talk:Gospel of Mark/Archive 1.-Andrew c 05:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!163.17.7.193 11:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)Michael

Based on the recent question asked of me, I neither agree or disagree with Brown's belief that the majority of scholars support dates from 68 to 73 as Brown does not back up his assertion. If he's quoting a Gallop poll or something of that nature and discussing concrete results, then that's something to sink the teeth into. Merely stating it's the case, shouldn't equate to fact. I am bothered by the idea that we seem to compose the entire dating section based upon 1 page from a book. That doesn't seem that we are doing our scholarly duty. Bbagot 16:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I do agree that it could have a cite or two more. But the fact is that this has been well discussed and is now cited. I don't think we should change it unless someone has some useful references to add. --Rtrev 02:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Characteristics unique to Mark

Both passages recently deleted by Lostcaesar contain attributes unique to Mark, as stated clearly in the descriptions. Only Mark has Jesus explicitly admit that "the Son" does not know when the end of the world will be, and only Mark allows that Jesus was not able to perform miracles in his own country: Matthew's alternate wording suggests that Jesus chose not to perform miracles because of the lack of faith. Grover cleveland 07:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The section on elements unique to Mark is a mess. There are significant elements, such as the Messiah Secret. There are petty elements, such as whether the possessed swine are counted. I propose splitting these uniquenesses up among significant and petty lists so that the reader can quickly assess what is special about Mark as what merely happens to be "unique." Jonathan Tweet 07:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

How would you decide what is "significant" and what is "petty" without introducing POV problems? Grover cleveland 17:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
NPOV doesn't mean we can't use common sense. I would find a sensible Christian editor and agree on what's major and what's minor. Most cases are pretty clear. Or I would take a crack at it and just see how difficult it really is. Someone stop me if they don't want me even to try. Jonathan Tweet 00:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mark 6

Mark chapter 6:4-6 reads as:

Jesus said to them, "Only in his hometown, among his relatives and in his own house is a prophet without honor." He could not do any miracles there, except lay his hands on a few sick people and heal them. And he was amazed at their lack of faith.

Matthew chapter 13:57-58 reads as:

And they took offense at him. But Jesus said to them, "Only in his hometown and in his own house is a prophet without honor." And he did not do many miracles there because of their lack of faith.

The article here contained the following passage:

Mark is the only gospel that definitively states that Jesus' ability to perform miracles was not unlimited. Mark relates that on one occasion when Jesus visited his own "country" or "hometown" that he "was not able to do any mighty work" (KJV, NIV has "miracles") (Mark|6:5) (although he immediately adds as an exception that he healed some sick people by laying hands on them). The equivalent verse in Matthew says that Jesus "did not do many mighty works there, because of their unbelief" (Matthew), leaving open the possibility that Jesus chose not to perform miracles there, rather than that he was unable to do them.[citation needed]

Mark does not definitively state that Jesus' ability to perform miracles was not unlimited. One reason why Jesus perhaps could not work miracles except healings is that he chose not to. The only way this becomes remotely like a passage unique to Mark is if we accept the hypothesis that Mark wrote first, that Matthew edited Mark, that Matthew was "beefing up Mark" and then also the interpretation that Mark was definitively stating Jesus' miraculous limitations. Whatever the case, I think this, as an encyclopedia and not and argumentative article, should merely state obvious and uncontroversial uniqueness, which do not require either an interpretation or the acceptance of an hypothesis. wanting to You at the least need a source to support the notion that the passage in Mark should be understood as unique. When I read the passages, they say the exact same thing. Jesus was upset at X people because they had no faith and thus worked no major miracles. Lostcaesar 16:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

One reason why Jesus perhaps could not work miracles except healings is that he chose not to.
This sentence seems to contradict the plain meaning of the English word "could", (or of the Greek verb "dunamai" in the original, usually translated as "to be able"). Grover cleveland 16:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
"John was such a bad guy that I just couldn't go to the fair with him again." Perfectly standard use of "to be able" with a volition. Lostcaesar 17:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
It seems as though you are determined to eradicate the distinction between "can" and "will" (and their Greek equivalents). Given your position, what language could Mark (or anyone) have used to indicate that Jesus was unable to perform miracles?
Take a look at Mark 6:19: "Therefore Herodias had a quarrel against him [John the Baptist], and would have killed him; but she could not:" : the Greek words used to say that Herodias "could not" kill John the Baptist ("ouk edunato") are identical to those used to say that Jesus "could not" do any miracles in his home town (except for healing a few people). Herodias wanted to kill John, Mark says, but was unable to do so. Jesus may or may not have wanted to perform miracles in his own country (Mark doesn't explicitly tell us), but he was unable to do so, except for healing a few sick folk. It is crystal clear that "ouk edunato" refers to an inability to do something rather than an unwillingness to do it. Grover cleveland 18:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
And for the record, "I couldn't go to the fair with John" implies that some force outside my control prevents me from going. Maybe he drives me nuts and I am unable to prevent myself from strangling him when he's around. Grover cleveland 18:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Grover, you're giving your own exegesis based on one reading of the passage, actually one word. That's not going to fly. This is not an argumentative thesis, its an encyclopedia. If someone wants an argumentative analysis of Greek verbs and exegetical implications on textual interdependant between Matthew and Mark, then he can go read those kinds of books. Here we just list unique elements of Mark. That this is a unique element is not entierly clear. Provide a source if you wish, but I am not letting such a messy and argumentative passage through. Lostcaesar 21:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough, although it is a viewpoint shared by a large portion of the scholarly community (I don't have the time or energy to find citations now). Perhaps we could list this as a disputed "characteristic unique to Mark", describing each side's position according to WP:NPOV, without getting too involved in the Markan/Matthean priority dispute. Grover cleveland 06:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
What I think you can say is, once you have a source, that X scholar argued .... That would seem fitting. Lostcaesar 08:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unique to Mark -- among the synoptics?

I removed Mark not having the Lord's Prayer as a "characteristic unique to Mark". John also does not have the Lord's Prayer. If we allow a list of things uniquely missing in Mark among the synoptics, then we could have separate items for the entire postulated content of the Q document (e.g. the Beatitudes, the Lost Sheep, the Mustard Seed, etc. etc. etc.).

For the same reason I removed the claim about Mark having the smallest number of parables among the synoptics. Grover cleveland 15:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Use of Template: sourcetext

The problem with sourcetext is that it requires the selection of a particular version, and for the most part only the KJV is offered, which is seriously outdated. The advantage of Template: bibleverse is that it allows the reader to select from a large number, including modern, translations. Maybe one day sourcetext will be as useful and as npov as bibleverse, but currently it has a long way to go. 75.0.15.230 19:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's the list of versions supported by bibleverse: http://php.ug.cs.usyd.edu.au/~jnot4610/bibref.php#srcref

As far as I know, the only complete bible at sourcetext is KJV. The people behind sourcetext have been promising great things for some time now, however, nothing as of yet has changed. 75.0.15.230 19:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Bibleverse also supports the Catholic and Orthodox Deuterocanonicals and Catholic translations such as NAB. 75.0.15.230 19:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely, if we are going to crate external links for every cited bible verse, I would prefer bibleverse over sourcetext.--Andrew c 21:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
On a related note, I would like to know why sometimes with bibleverse (and when http's are cited also) strange spacing will appear in the text. It will look something like "Matthew ....._23:44" (where "."'s are spaces) for apperantly no reason. Lostcaesar 21:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unique to Mark

Every two weeks or so I come back here and check this section, and sure enough there are additions of material that is not unique to Mark. Does anyone have a solution to solve this problem other than routine maintenance? Lostcaesar 01:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Midrash

Speaking of things removed, I have removed my name from the entry. I am not scholar, just an educated reader.163.17.7.193 11:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)Michael Turton

I do plan to put up a section here on Midrash and Mark. But not for another couple of months.

[edit] Mark 16:8-20

The section contains this passage: "The last twelve verses are missing from the oldest manuscripts of Mark's Gospel" - it is referenced but w/o a page number. I think this statement is misleading because it is too vague. In my understanding, the passage does not appear on the Sinaiticus or the Vaticanus, and these are the oldest manuscripts, so it is correct. However, it is only two manuscripts, and the Sinaiticus's leaf containing this section is not original. Saying "the oldest manuscripts" makes it sound as if there is this horde of first-second century manuscripts without it. Why not be more specific about the two manuscripts? (p.s., I will have a reference for the "gar" sentence as soon as I get back to the library, probably tomorrow - ty for the patience). Lostcaesar 08:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll look up this section in NA27 when I get home (and if necessary, check out commentary in any of my other books). I understand that there are probably some people who think the long version is original, and their reasoning is probably important, but every scholar I have read has always said the long ending is surely a later addition. I tagged the 'gar' sentence, because it wasn't sourced so it seemed like OR (or at least wasn't WP:V) and I'm concered about undue weight. But I'llbe patient and see how things look in a few days, and I'll check up on the manuscript issue.--Andrew c 23:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I have been busy with other things and haven't been up to the library - I appreciate the time. The "gar" thing might be undue weight if it were merely arguing that the long version is original, because that is a small position. But it also applies to those who think that the original ending has been lost, or even those who think that Mark was cut short in his wirting by some event (like his death?). Thus it applies to everyone except those who think that Mark actually wanted to end where he did. I agree that almost every scholar thinks that the longer version is a latter addition, but were not just talking about a "addition / non-addition" split. That's why I think the sentence in question is also important. Its one thing to say that the long ending is not in the autograph - its another to say that Mark intentionally ended his gospel at 16:8. Lostcaesar 23:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
PS, here is a crappy website link to show that the "gar" statement is not OR. I want to get a better source than this, of course, but it should suffice to show OR is not a problem. Lostcaesar 23:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Here are some sourced. Online Critical Textual commentary, CAN A BOOK END WITH AP? A NOTE ON MARK XVI. 8, The Narrative Technique of Mark 16:8. I don't have online access to the Oxford Journal, but there is a summary of that article in a footnote of the JBL article that seems to suggest that the answer to the questions is "yes". That's all I could find in online journals that I have access to, but maybe I'm not searching enough. Also, the first link has a list of the MSS evidence for no ending, just the short ending, just the long ending, and both endings.--Andrew c 22:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
A book can end in gar - the argument is that it is very unusual (and it is), and paralleled with the thematic irregularity it makes the likely solution that 16:8 was not the intended ending - the work was either incomplete or the actual ending was lost very early on. I added a couple refs and tried to explain this better. I also placed a link to the article above that you mentioned. Laslty, I stuck the website in there for good mesure. There were other arguments that it would be strange for Mark to end with a mention of the resurrection but no resurrection account, but I felt this was overkill / undue weight and figured to leave it at the one breif sentence. Hope this works for you. Lostcaesar 13:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
PS - Irenaeus mentioned the ending as if it were part of Mark - why do we talk about origen, Jerome, and Eusebius but not mention this early reference? Lostcaesar 13:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I just read Metzger's commentary on Greek UBS4 dealing with the ending of Mark. He says that the committee concludes that neither the short, the long, or the very long ending are likely to be original. The oldest (and 'best') copies stop at 16:8, so it is believed that this is the best we have (in regards to reconstructing the autograph), though it is also probable that the original ending (probably on a single leaf) was lost, instead of simplying ending at 16:8. As for your specific edits, they are fine, and that section sure is referenced now. Good work all around.--Andrew c 22:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Thx =)
Personally, I agree that the ending is lost, though about the long ending I guess we can not be certain, and speculation will likely continue without much profit. I think we can junk the short ending straightaway. But I am no expert. Lostcaesar 22:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Metzger suggested that because the short ending was preserved by multiple sources that it most likely dates back fairly early and was at least respected by the scribes, but it is also telling that the short ending is only found by itself in a single manuscript, where the others always include both the short and the long endings. Metzger also suggested that the longer ending most likely comes from another (now lost) early Christian work, and was simply copied from that source and tact onto the end (to make up for a possible early loss of the original ending). It's all rather fascinating (to me at least). I'll have to check some other books, but I think more liberal scholars such as the JS and Ehrman are more inclinded to believe that no ending is original (I think it helps with their theories that orthodox Christianity ended up going through some major theological development, and thus doesn't accurately represent the 'Christianity' of Jesus nor the earliest Gospel writers, Mk, Q, signs source, etc.)--Andrew c 22:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I had not heard that about the short ending. Both the long and short just contain a summary of material avaliable in the other gospels and acts, so it seems reasonable that scribes would have every reason to respect the content. If Metzger is right that it actually comes from another work, now lost, we may wonder why such a text was not preserved. I think it also depends on how early the endings are. There are reasons to support the hypothesis that Justin quoted the long ending, which would have made its acceptance very early indeed. As for more liberal scholars, I am quite sure they make much ado about Mark's ending. Lostcaesar 23:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

There's more at Mark_16#Possible_Scenarios, if you want to get into it. 75.14.223.78 23:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


just as an aside, someone, or the article mentioned that if Mark originally ended at 16:8, that doesn't appear to be "good news", however, "euaggelion" in the Septuagint always has an ironic twist, see [6]: "v1: George Aichele (2003) writes: "In the Old Testament, euaggelion appears only in 2 Samuel (LXX 2 Kings) 4:10, where David kills the messenger who brings the “good news” of Saul’s death. In addition, the plural form, euaggelia.appears four times in 2 Samuel 18:20, 22, 25, and 27, where it is used in the description of David’s reception of the “tidings” of Absalom’s death, and in 2 Kings (LXX 4 Kings) 7:9, where lepers discover the abandoned camp of the Syrian army. With the exception of this last instance, the message that is brought is not clearly a good one. None of these texts throws much light on the gospel of Mark’s use of the term, unless one wishes to argue that Mark is using the term ironically."" 75.14.223.78 23:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The following may be helpful:

The Gospel of Mark ends at 16.8 in the two oldest Uncial manuscripts of the New Testament, Codex B (Vaticanus) and א (Sinaiticus), both of the 4th century. In the former the subscription KATA MARKON "according to Mark" follows v. 8, but the next column is left blank, suggesting that the copyist of B knew of an ending but did not have it in the manuscript he was copying; in the latter the subscription EUAGGELION KATA MARKON "Gospel according to Mark" follows v. 8, after which the Gospel of Luke begins in the next column. The Gospel ends at 16.8 also in the oldest Syriac version of the Gospels, the Sinaitic Syriac (4th or 5th century): at the end of v. 8 there is written in red ink, "Here ends the Gospel of Mark," followed immediately by the beginning of the Gospel of Luke; and in important codices of the Armenian, Ethiopic and Georgian versions . . . In the Minuscule Greek manuscript 22 (12th century) at the end of 16.8 there is written TELOS "End," followed by a note: "In some of the copies the Evangelist finishes at this point; in many, however, these (words) are current," after which come vv. 9–20 (the "Longer Ending"), followed again by TELOS "End" . . . The Shorter Ending stands alone in the Old Latin manuscript k (4th or 5th century); it is followed by the Longer Ending in the following: the Greek Uncial manuscript of the Gospels L (Codex Regius, 8th century), which has a line after v. 8, with the note, "there also are current in some places," followed by the Shorter Ending, and then, without a break, the words "but these also are current after 'for they were afraid,'" followed by the Longer Ending in full, after which comes the subscription "According to Mark." In the Greek Uncial manuscript [psi] (8th or 9th century) the Shorter Ending is added to v. 8 without a break or note, after which comes the usual note "but there also are current after 'for they were afraid,'" followed by the Longer Ending, and the subscription. The same is true of the Greek Uncial fragments 099 (7th century) and 0112 (7th century). The Shorter Ending is also found (before the Longer Ending, as usual) in the margin of the Greek Minuscule manuscript 274 (10th century) and in 579 (13th century); in the margin of the Harclean Syriac version (7th century), and in several important codices of the Sahidic, Bohairic and Ethiopic versions. (Robert G. Bratcher and Eugene Albert Nida, A Handbook on the Gospel of Mark, UBS handbook series; Helps for translators [New York: United Bible Societies, 1993; c1961], 517–18.) —Wayward Talk 03:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../g/o/s/Talk%7EGospel_of_Mark_7502.html"