What's up with the end of the Gospel of Mark?

[jas84173]

The end of the Gospel has always confused me.
Most Biblical Scholars believe it ended at Mark 16:8 8Overcome with terror and dread, they fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid.

Now afterwards you have a “short ending” and a “long ending” which could have been added centuries later. So what is the implications of that? If the end was most likely ending abruptly and strangely, and additions were added later on by a pseudonymous author, which ending is true? Are both the short and long ending considered scripture? If not, which one is?

I am not challenging the Gospel of Mark at all, it is just the ending does cause confusion especially in newer Bibles that many times make note that the additions were made much later than the original Gospel. And one has to wonder if these additions should even be scripture and not just apocryphal.

 

[MT1926]

The end of the Gospel has always confused me.

Most Biblical Scholars believe it ended at Mark 26:8 8Overcome with terror and dread, they fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid.

I think you mean 16:8

Now afterwards you have a “short ending” and a “long ending” which could have been added centuries later. So what is the implications of that?

I don’t think there are any implications since the Canon of the Bible was not set for many centuries.

If the end was most likely ending abruptly and strangely, and additions were added later on by a pseudonymous author, which ending is true? Are both the short and long ending considered scripture? If not, which one is?

Many think that Mark would not have stopped abruptly at verse 8. They think that the original ending was lost at a very early date and that this ending was composed at the end of the apostolic period to take its place.

The long ending is true because the Catholic Church, who brought the books of the Bible together, regarded the ending as inspired and canonical scripture, regardless of who wrote it.

And one has to wonder if these additions should even be scripture and not just apocryphal.

Nope never crossed my mind.

God Bless

 

[NotThatHarvey]

The ending of John is even more confusing.

But clearly there were two different hands at work in Mark. If both were divinely inspired, as the Catholic Church maintains, then there is no problem.

Luke admits to taking the information in his Gospel from many sources, for what its worth.

 

[jas84173]

Which one is considered the more authentic ending? I mean how many endings can a book have before it begins contradicting itself?

 

[HarryStotle]

Catholics are not bound to hold that the verses were written by St. Mark. But they are canonical Scripture, for the Council of Trent (Sess. IV), in defining that all the parts of the Sacred Books are to be received as sacred and canonical, had especially in view the disputed parts of the Gospels, of which this conclusion of Mark is one (cf. Theiner, “Acta gen. Conc. Trid.”, I, 71 sq.). Hence, whoever wrote the verses, they are inspired, and must be received as such by every Catholic.
Source: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09674b.htm

That being said, this should be added…

The external evidence in favour of the long, or ordinary, conclusion is exceedingly strong. The passage stands in all the great unicals except B and Aleph–in A, C, (D), E, F, G, H, K, M, (N), S, U, V, X, Gamma, Delta, (Pi, Sigma), Omega, Beth–in all the cursives, in all the Latin manuscripts (O.L. and Vulg.) except k, in all the Syriac versions except the Sinaitic (in the Pesh., Curet., Harcl., Palest.), in the Coptic, Gothic, and most manuscripts of the Armenian. It is cited or alluded to, in the fourth century, by Aphraates, the Syriac Table of Canons, Macarius Magnes, Didymus, the Syriac Acts of the Apostles, Leontius, Pseudo-Ephraem, Cyril of Jerusalem, Epiphanius, Ambrose, Augustine, and Chrysostom; in the third century, by Hippolytus, Vincentius, the “Acts of Pilate”, the “Apostolic Constitutions”, and probably by Celsus; in the second, by Irenæus most explicitly as the end of Mark’s Gospel (“In fine autem evangelii ait Marcus et quidem dominus Jesus”, etc.–Mark xvi, 19), by Tatian in the “Diatessaron”, and most probably by Justin (“Apol. I”, 45) and Hermas (Pastor, IX, xxv, 2). Moreover, in the fourth century certainly, and probably in the third, the passage was used in the Liturgy of the Greek Church, sufficient evidence that no doubt whatever was entertained as to its genuineness. Thus, if the authenticity of the passage were to be judged by external evidence alone, there could hardly be any doubt about it.

So if the longer ending was quoted as early as the second century by Irenaeus, Tatian in the Diatessaron, Justin Martyr and the Shepherd of Hermas, that goes a long way to establish both its authenticity and legitimacy as the intended ending.