I
irenaeuslyons
Guest
I think Evan has it right
Last edited:
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
H
Hunho
Guest
I highly recommend reading Dr. Brant Pitre’s book The Case for Jesus to anyone who wants to get reliable answers to the various questions raised in this thread. Dr. Pitre’s doctorate is in New Testament and Judaism and he is currently a professor at Notre Dame Seminary in New Orleans. He is a very readabl, knowledgeable, and enjoyable writer.
B
BartholomewB
Guest
What does Pitre say about the subject of this thread? Who wrote Matthew? And what conclusion does he reach about the “Hebrew” (or Aramaic) Matthew?I highly recommend reading Dr. Brant Pitre’s book The Case for Jesus
Last edited:
E
Evan
Guest
I believe the longer ending is on the Gospel of Mark rather than Matthew
T
Tolle_Lege
Guest
Dr. Pitre upholds the traditional teaching that St. Matthew wrote his Gospel. While he cites ancient references implying that St. Matthew may have written an original Gospel in Aramaic, he does not go so far as to endorse that theory himself.
T
Tolle_Lege
Guest
This is a question that will never be conclusively answered. I have read quite a bit on this topic and the answers are all over the place. I tend to believe that the ending was original to St. Mark’s Gospel and is still quite ancient. The reason I think it is still quite old is because Mark chapter 16 includes a very brief reference to Jesus’s disciples on the road to Emmaus: " After this he appeared in another form to two of them, as they were walking into the country." (Mark 16:12).
Now, I believe that St. Luke’s Gospel was written no later than the mid-60s. But even going with the “modern” scholarly consensus that it was written in the 80s allows for an ancient pedigree of Mark 16. Most scholars who claim that Mark 16 was an addition say that it was added sometime in the very late 1st or early 2nd century. But these same scholars also claim that Matthew and Luke wrote after Mark, but added on and enhanced many of the stories.
If this is the case, why would an author adding Mark 16, clearly with knowledge of the Emmaus passage from Luke, give it such short treatment? This flies in the face of the scholars who claim that in every other instance, an author writing later than another will tend to add to the stories. But Mark 16:12 is just one line, very off-handedly referencing the Emmaus encounter. Luke writes about Emmaus at length - over 20 verses!
In my opinion, the comparison of the Emmaus encounter between Mark and Luke gives clear proof that the entirety of Mark was written first. And if Luke was written in the mid-60s, I think Mark can easily be placed in the late 50s - early 60s.
Now, I believe that St. Luke’s Gospel was written no later than the mid-60s. But even going with the “modern” scholarly consensus that it was written in the 80s allows for an ancient pedigree of Mark 16. Most scholars who claim that Mark 16 was an addition say that it was added sometime in the very late 1st or early 2nd century. But these same scholars also claim that Matthew and Luke wrote after Mark, but added on and enhanced many of the stories.
If this is the case, why would an author adding Mark 16, clearly with knowledge of the Emmaus passage from Luke, give it such short treatment? This flies in the face of the scholars who claim that in every other instance, an author writing later than another will tend to add to the stories. But Mark 16:12 is just one line, very off-handedly referencing the Emmaus encounter. Luke writes about Emmaus at length - over 20 verses!
In my opinion, the comparison of the Emmaus encounter between Mark and Luke gives clear proof that the entirety of Mark was written first. And if Luke was written in the mid-60s, I think Mark can easily be placed in the late 50s - early 60s.
D
Dan_Defender
Guest
I agree with this. Because Acts starts with ‘in the first book’, the first book being Luke’s gospel. And as Acts ends before St Paul’s martyrdom in the mid 60s AD, then Luke’s gospel dates to the mid 60s at the latest.Now, I believe that St. Luke’s Gospel was written no later than the mid-60s.
Last edited:
P
Pattylt
Guest
Aren’t there at least four different endings to Mark?
Besides ending with the women being afraid, there is the long ending included in brackets, and even longer version with additional lines inserted into the long ending, a short version nothing like the long ending we now use and an odd variant that is similar to our current long ending (or maybe it’s a variant of the short ending…I can’t remember).
It’s true that the current long ending is best attested in the number of MSS that have additional lines after Mark 16:8 but not in the earliest or best ones.
Scholars state that all the additional endings are at odds with Marks style and vocabulary. They feel confident that Mark ends at 16:8 for whatever that means to you. It is an interesting puzzle.
Besides ending with the women being afraid, there is the long ending included in brackets, and even longer version with additional lines inserted into the long ending, a short version nothing like the long ending we now use and an odd variant that is similar to our current long ending (or maybe it’s a variant of the short ending…I can’t remember).
It’s true that the current long ending is best attested in the number of MSS that have additional lines after Mark 16:8 but not in the earliest or best ones.
Scholars state that all the additional endings are at odds with Marks style and vocabulary. They feel confident that Mark ends at 16:8 for whatever that means to you. It is an interesting puzzle.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.