Gospel of Mark

[abucs]

Thankyou fnr for your respectful and detailed response.

I would clarify that I am not walking away, nor am I critical of searching for the truth using all credible avenues.

My criticism is for the abuse of the historical critical method in Theology and passing off anti-Christian politics under the cover of respectable process.

In my experience very often what comes after the words ‘most scholars agree’ in Theology, tends to be politically motivated, unsupported, anti-Christian spin and conjecture that is then forced on students as respectable findings.

Having been immersed in such a process I see red when I am told to accept something simply because ‘most scholars agree’.

 

[KyivAndrew]

I think the author of Mark never intended to end his Gospel so abruptly, and the later longer ending may have been added later, possibly by someone not Mark but who based the longer ending on some other related (Marcan?) composition.

Mark might have not finished his planned ending, or, perhaps more likely, the original longer ending was lost. I don’t know how these documents were kept but the ending of Mark may have been the last part of a scroll which was not rewound, or the last page of a codex which detached from the other pages.

I mean we’ve all had books where either the front or back pages fall off first, after much use.

Who knows. Sometimes a mundane answer (losing a page) makes more sense an explanation, especially given the turbulent times in which the Gospels were being written, Mark probably being written before the Jewish/Roman War and the destruction of the Temple.

 

[patrick457]

Today in Bible study we finished up our review of the Gospel of Mark. It got me thinking… why do you think the Gospel ended so abruptly? I know Mark’s style of writing is short and sweet, but it seems to come to an abrupt end. But then in the Bible, it also shows alternate endings (long/short version)… so that got me thinking, who wrote those? And why? For people like me who felt like the Gospel was not complete???

Anyone care to share their thoughts on this?

God Bless!!!

There’s a lot of explanations on that, as you might infer if you’ve read all the replies to your question. Some people believe that Mark never got to pen a conclusion to the gospel because he was somehow prevented from finishing it (e.g. he died, he got arrested, he moved out or some other factor). Others believe that Mark did write an ending, but got lost somewhere along the way - either accidentally (the scroll got ripped off, the codex lost the last pages*) or on purpose (it wasn’t satisfactory enough so it was suppressed and replaced). There’s a third option too: Mark may have intended to finish his gospel here.

• Granted, there is a weakness to the “lost page” theory: the codex (the ancestor of the modern book) only became widespread around the end of the 1st century to the beginning of the 2nd. While there is a very slim chance that the original manuscript of Mark’s gospel was written on a codex if we postulate that the gospel was written around the 80s or 90s, virtually all scholars acknowledge that Mark was probably written way before that time (around the early 70s or maybe even earlier), and so the original would have been written on a papyrus roll, where the end of the document would be the most protected section (if you roll a scroll back up, the end would be inside), and thus the least likely place of the document to be torn off.

Admittedly the third possibility (that Mark’s gospel does end at 16:8) might raise some eyebrows given the cliffhanger nature of the ending (something more obvious in the original Greek, where the phrase commonly translated as “because they were afraid,” ephobounto gar, literally runs “they-were-afraid because”). But such suspended endings, while uncommon, are attested in some literature of the period. (Ending a sentence with gar is also uncommon, but not ungrammatical or unattested - we also have a few examples of this.) Texts which end on such an abrupt note are usually geared as such so that the readers can find themselves as active participants in the story rather than just passive observers. It’s like a “Choose Your Own Adventure” book: the reader is invited to participate in the story and supply his own conclusion.

Some of the themes within Mark’s gospel can be read as pointing to this direction, for instance the “blind disciples” motif. Throughout Mark, the male disciples of Jesus are bumbling idiots who repeatedly say and do the wrong thing most of the time. The last time they appear in the undisputed parts of the gospel is when they run away and leave Jesus to be arrested. Add to that the general Markan love of ambiguity and mystery: his Jesus is an enigmatic, shadowy figure who puzzles and confounds everyone around Him, and it seems that the gospel itself concludes by compounding the mystery, as if it were challenging the audience with the same questions Jesus had posed to His disciples.

An author named Richard Burridge (Four Gospels, One Jesus? A Symbolic Reading) writes: “Mark’s narrative as we have it now ends as abruptly as it began. There was no introduction or background to Jesus’ arrival, and none for his departure. No one knew where he came from; no one knows where he has gone; and not many understood him when he was here.” By the end of the gospel, Mark encourages his listeners to carefully reflect on everything they have just heard, implicating the audience into the story (again Burridge): “Mark’s story of Jesus becomes the story of his followers, and their story becomes the story of the readers. Whether they will follow or desert, believe or misunderstand, see him in Galilee or remain staring blindly into an empty tomb, depends on us.”

But if modern readers love the idea of an abrupt, “make your own conclusion” ending, the ancients apparently didn’t, as one can judge by the presence of the various endings.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Mark got a lot of his information from St. Peter. Does anyone know if it was possible that Mark might have lived in Israel and might have seen Jesus at sometime during His ministry?

 

[Cathoholic]

fnr.

You stated in post 13:

Quote:
“James, the Lord’s brother, succeeds to the government of the Church, in conjunction with the apostles. He has been universally called the Just, from the days of the Lord down to the present time. For many bore the name of James; but this one was holy from his mother’s womb. He drank no wine or other intoxicating liquor, nor did he eat flesh; no razor came upon his head; he did not anoint himself with oil, nor make use of the bath. He alone was permitted to enter the holy place: for he did not wear any woollen garment, but fine linen only. He alone, I say, was wont to go into the temple: and he used to be found kneeling on his knees, begging forgiveness for the people-so that the skin of his knees became horny like that of a camel’s, by reason of his constantly bending the knee in adoration to God, and begging forgiveness for the people. Therefore, in consequence of his pre-eminent justice, he was called the Just, and Oblias, which signifies in Greek Defence of the People, and Justice, in accordance with what the prophets declare concerning him.”

Do you know St. James (St. James the Just, also called “James the Less”, etc.) WAS the head of the Church at Jerusalem? The Bishop of Jerusalem to this very day is often announced as the “successor to St. James”. I have personally met him (Patriarch Michel Sabbah back when he served in that capacity) and had him introduced to me this way.

This is “the Church” that is alluded to in your quote above–The Church at Jerusalem. Not the Universal Church. Archbishop Timothy Dolan is the head of the Church at New York. But we cannot imply because of that Archbishop Dolan is head of the Church Universal (in any capacity), yet he succeeds to the “government of the Church”. So why the doubt that St. James “succeeds to the government of the Church”?

The “holy place” (He alone was permitted to enter the holy place") you are discussing concerning St. James, is the Hebrew Temple as Christians were for all practical purposes, put out of the Temple.

St. James was so revered by the people, the Sanhedrin could not get away with banning him. Ironically, they eventually used the Temple heights to help murder St. James anyway. They stoned and beat him (with a fullers cloth club) to death after hitting the ground and not dying immediately.

Three causes of the death of St. James?

I suppose someone might have reported St. James death as being tossed off the Temple walls.

I suppose others would say he was stoned to death.

And even others would say he was beaten to death by a fullers club.

• Thrown Off The Temple
• Stoned To Death
• Bludgeoned To Death With a Club

If not all told together (as they were), someone undoubtedly may have a tough time harmonizing those three allegedly “differing” accounts of St. James the Just’s death and falsely conclude it as “myth”.

But as it is, we have enough details that it doesn’t bother people. Modern readers know all three aspects are true.

Critically evaluating texts does not eliminate harmonization, even when it seems at first glance, impractical.

I can certainly likewise ascertain possible scenarios concerning Judas’ death.

I am not saying one historical non-Biblical account COULD have been inaccurate surrounding Judas’ death. I am just saying I have not seen anything presented here or anywhere else to make me doubt that ALL the accounts are true and harmonizable.

Historical-critical methodology has been much more fruitful for me with a “yes/and” mindset where possible; and avoiding the “either/or” mindset when I can.

 

[dronald]

Historical critical method has a majority position that makes it appear as if much of Scripture are forgeries, myths, and a compilation of various hands that were thrown together for each book. It has caused more people to doubt the authenticity of Scripture than about anything else I’ve seen. It is prone to treating secular historians with greater regard than Biblical testimony. It even says things like Daniel and Jonah are not the authors of their books, even though Christ himself quotes them and refers to them as historical figures, yet the historical critical folks will say they didn’t even exist, especially Jonah, which is against what the Church and Jewish history has always believed. Then to claim that people used the names of the apostles and prophets in order to trick readers to believe it was them in order to make their writing more attractive, which is deceptive and dishonest, and then somehow it is canonical despite the deception? I cannot imagine devoting my life and time to a faith that had a Bible that was thought to be put together with such a lousy method of construction. I prefer to follow the traditional pious understanding that has been understood by the Church from the beginning, not what some protestant classroom invented system that some modern Catholic theologians have embraced in order to try to fit the latest fads of scholars. I love pope Benedict, but not all his preferences are infallible or in line with the popes before him. But this is all nonbinding stuff we are talking about, so it makes no difference which position we hold as far as our positions as Catholics.

As for the Papias quote, it does reconcile that discrepancy between the death of Judas found in Acts and the gospel.

As for the Church Fathers and their testimonies, again let me repeat that it is good to follow their testimonies with discernment and through the guidance of traditional Catholic scholars.

I appreciate that you’ve written this. To be honest, us Evangelicals take loads of statements from the ECF’s to prove our faith in the Gospels. We will do anything to prove that the Bible is 100% reliable.

As far as the ending of Mark goes, we accept that Irenaeus writing in 177ad commented on the long ending. If it was good enough for a Theologian like him then it’s good enough for me. I also accept the consistent proclamations by the early Church fathers that Mark was a hearer of Peter. If everyone agreed, there’s no reason for skepticism.

I cringe (and I don’t mean to offend) that some Catholics have taken a more secular approach to the Bible; questioning the validity of certain words and chapters.

 

[JohnR77]

Greetings,

As to why we have two endings in Mark, may i suggest reading

How the Gospels Were Written - By Dennis Barton – Free Pamplet

How the Synoptic Problem Was Solved - By Dennis Barton – Free Pamplet

**
See the Fathers on the Gospels here**

churchinhistory.org/s3-gospels/%28g214%29-history-quotations.htm

churchinhistory.org/s3-gospels/%28g319%29-handy-quick-quotes.htm

christendom-awake.org/pages/mcgovern/exegesis.htm

The Ratzinger Report; it deserves to be quoted in full because of its clarity and precision, penetrating, as it does, to the very roots of the problem:
**"The bond between the Bible and the Church has been broken… The historico-critical interpretation has certainly opened many and momentous possibilities for a better understanding of the biblical text. But, by its very nature, it can illumine it only in the historical dimension and not explain it in its present-day claim on us. Where it forgets this limit it becomes illogical and therefore also unscientific. But then one also forgets that the Bible as present and future can be understood only in vital association with the Church. The upshot is that one no longer reads it from the tradition of the Church as a point of departure, and with the Church, but, instead, one starts from the newest method that presents itself as ‘scientific.’ ****
**
**With some scholars this independence has become an outright opposition - so much so that for many the traditional faith of the Church no longer seems justified by critical exegesis but appears only as an obstacle to the authentic ‘modern’ understanding of Christianity. . . The separation of Church and Scripture tends to erode both from within. In fact, a church without a credible biblical foundation is only a chance historical product, one organization among others . . . ****
**
But the Bible without the Church is also no longer the powerfully effective Word of God, but an assemblage of various historical sources, a collection of heterogeneous books from which one tries to draw, from the perspective of the present moment, whatever one considers useful. An exegesis in which the Bible no longer lives and is understood within the living organism of the Church becomes archeology: the dead bury their dead. in any case, the last word about the Word of God as Word of God does not in this conception belong to the legitimate pastors, the Magisterium, but to the expert, the professor with his ever-provisional results always subject to revisions."[29]

Read more at
churchinhistory.org/s3-gospels/%28g216%29-why-how-and-when.htm

churchinhistory.org/pages/orchard/annales.pdf

john