Why does mark have 2 endings

He then commands them to go and share this good news with the disciples in Galilee Mark This command came with a promise—if the women believed and obeyed, they would see Jesus there when they arrived. Mark Trembling, they flee the scene. So the gospel ends with fleeing and fearing! Why would Mark write this? Remember, the gospel authors are supposed to be convincing us of the gospel.

Why did Mark include women, who were culturally less-credible witnesses than men? Did he forget to conclude the story? But what if we asked ourselves another question? We may not see the risen Jesus, but we do know his tomb is empty. This should stir up curiosity—if Jesus is not there, then where is he?

The promise that follows gives an answer to that question. The only obvious response to this message—then and now—should be to set off on a journey to meet the risen Jesus for yourself. But perhaps this is actually a subtle encouragement. The early church had a practice of reading the gospels out loud, together.

Imagine yourself hearing this abrupt conclusion decades later in an ever-expanding room full of Jesus-followers. Despite your doubts, maybe you too could step forward in obedience to the gospel, just like these women must have. This was his opportunity to prove the resurrection, the hinge of the gospel. Clearly, Mark could have told the story of how others were convinced of the risen Christ. But this clever omission sheds light on his true intention—for you as a reader to become a character in the story and participate in the ending yourself.

Mark leaves us to wrestle with all the questions and implications surrounding the good news. It would seem no one else can do that work for us. And remember that these women went on to become the first proclaimers of the resurrection to their community! However, we are left with a challenge to continue where the story leaves off. For some think that they should fast one day, others two, yet others more; some, moreover, count their day as consisting of forty hours day and night.

And this variety in its observance has not originated in our time; but long before in that of our ancestors. It is likely that they did not hold to strict accuracy, and thus formed a custom for their posterity according to their own simplicity and peculiar mode. Yet all of these lived none the less in peace, and we also live in peace with one another; and the disagreement in regard to the fast confirms the agreement in the faith. They neither observed it themselves, nor did they permit those after them to do so.

And yet though not observing it, they were none the less at peace with those who came to them from the parishes in which it was observed; although this observance was more opposed to those who did not observe it. But none were ever cast out on account of this form; but the presbyters before thee who did not observe it, sent the eucharist to those of other parishes who observed it. And when the blessed Polycarp was at Rome in the time of Anicetus, and they disagreed a little about certain other things, they immediately made peace with one another, not caring to quarrel over this matter.

For neither could Anicetus persuade Polycarp not to observe what he had always observed with John the disciple of our Lord, and the other apostles with whom he had associated; neither could Polycarp persuade Anicetus to observe it as he said that he ought to follow the customs of the presbyters that had preceded him.

But though matters were in this shape, they communed together, and Anicetus conceded the administration of the eucharist in the church to Polycarp, manifestly as a mark of respect. And they parted from each other in peace, both those who observed, and those who did not, maintaining the peace of the whole church. So the evidence is not as clear as you want everyone to believe on the ending of Mark. God in the flesh, promised before, through the prophets, in the Holy Scriptures, concerning His Son?

Read 7 things Paul mentions about the gospel in Romans Papias refers to Mark He wrote around a. In his homily on the heresy of Noetus he refers to Mark He wrote while he was Bishop of Portus a.

Sir: It is obvious your grasp on bible history was a slippery hold. Point one mark wrote his gospel while in Rome with Luke and Paul,who was a prisoner there. Point 2. John wrote his letters and Gospel on or near Patmos in This is all a heap of nonsense.

Mark may have been the first to report the story of Jesus, but Matthew and John were there when Jesus appeared to the disciples, not Mark. All the gospels work together to give a complete story, a complete picture, of the life of Jesus Christ. They all work together…. Quit making problems where there are none! France, in his commentary on Mark, said there are so many speculations about the ending of Mark that further theorizing is pointless.

But I have heard or read many explanations, or theories, about Mark—including that both beginning and ending are lost, that the gospel t was meant to be read aloud in one sitting, that Mark did not know how to end the gospel, that he died before he could end it, that Mark did not intend to end a story already well known, that it ended as it did because by the time of writing, everyone already knew that Jesus had gone ahead and met with the disciples in Galilee.

Mark has been dated to the 50s and to the 60s and later by others, and Tabor is on the later end of things. By the mids Paul had written his letter to the Corinthians reciting a statement of belief in the multiple sightings of a physically written Jesus—and in a format that some scholars believe was repeated by Paul as he had received it in his own earlier training. New Scientist, issue 6 I think, published an analysis of NT books as written down at dictation to professional scribes on standard sheets, folded, bought eight sheets at a time, lined and written at standard spacings.

The non-Markan endings reflect belief and practice of believers at the times and in the places where subsequent copies were made. Jesus appears to credible witnesses, who are not in an ecstatic state, in various ways, but mostly as solid, and sometimes in gardening clothes!

Cute theory regarding the spiritual resurrection and ascension of Christ and not the bodily one. It pre-dates Mark or is contemporary to Mark—and is a major source for Luke and Matthew? Jesus often spoke of being raise on the third day. The young man in Mark at the tomb is clearly an angel, and appears as angels always appear in the Bible when on earthly assignment, not with wings! The gospel of Peter written in the 2nd or 3rd century supplies a missing puzzle piece for him?

Paul is somehow a preacher of the spiritual resurrection of Jesus, really? Have you read the Pauline books, particularly 1 Cor? Have you seen the scorn Paul was given by the Athenians and others in the Greek world when he spoke of the bodily resurrection of Jesus?? Have you—heard what he says about Jesus doing only what God could do—command nature, command death, demons, etc? And Mark not interested in the birth of Jesus? Its clear the birth of Jesus was obscure, clearly localized event forgotten by the time of his baptism.

Luke clearly consulted Mary his mother, and Matthew other sources. The early church proclaim him Lord and Messiah without knowning in the earliest years—about his exact origins.

Matthew and Luke go back to fill in the gap. A scholar with a cute theory that undermines historica CHristianity gets a pass that no one else would get and call themselves careful scholars. Carson et al have agreed that Mk. They have pointed out that the text under consideration is missing from what are generally considered the two most important Manuscripts MSS uncials X and B as well as others. Carson et al have asked an impertinent question: If the Mk. They have provided us with three possibilities:.

Mark had the intention to include the information in Mk. Mark may have written a longer ending to his Gospel, but it may have gotten misplaced in the course of transmission.

That is,as the first gospel to have been written, it was not made public immediately because of fear of persecution from Rome during which Mk. The question we need to ask is: By amending the Gospel of Mark at the very end, was it illegal to have done so? First, the information in Mk. The information was well attested by the time the amendment was attached. Second, it was not illegal to supply the information at the end since it was not an embellishment — it was historical and factual.

The amendment probably took place in the late 1st century or sometime in the 2nd century. The amendment should not be referred to as forgery or false information.

The early believers simply supplied the information that was already known throughout the Christian community — hence, we believe the amendment was done for the preservation of salvation-history; it was not done to mislead the public. I very much appreciate Williams comments as being worth serious consideration.

It is our tendency to allow our beliefs or lack thereof to fill our horizons, to the exclusion of contrary evidence. We also tend to treat our lack of awareness of evidence, as evidence. Lack of evidence proves nothing. Why even mention the Gospel of Peter? It is rife with historical errors and came about much later.

There are plenty of reasons it was rejected, as well it should have been. Luke wrote Acts after his Gospel, and Acts was most likely written around 62 AD or prior, since the deaths of James or Paul do not even come into view. Paul making 10 copies of a letter before distributing them to different couriers inevitably have errors, and there are more discrepancies most minor but some significant between individual copies than the total word count of the New Testament, they must admit that we DO NOT HAVE the originals, only copies of copies of … for dozens or hundreds of copy generations.

Luke, in contradiction, says they started out living in Nazareth, then took a short trip to Bethlehem under dangerous conditions where Jesus was born, and after 40 days the presentation in the Temple , not being bothered by Herod, went back home to Nazareth, with no need to detour to Egypt. In either case, Matthew and Luke would have written stories that agree more closely with each other and with Mark. IF there was a third version of a Nativity story in Mark, which showed a Bethlehem birth, that would have been kept, and Matthew and Luke would have used THAT story rather than the versions they did use.

Additionally, AFTER the Christian Church became dominant, Jewish girls continued to hope that they would be blessed to give birth to the Messiah, even though the vast majority of them did NOT know for sure whether they or their future husbands were of the lineage of David, and did NOT live in Bethlehem or have any future prospect of moving or visiting there, and did NOT expect to conceive the Messiah before their weddings; therefore, none of these conditions was, except possibly in the first century, considered necessary by Jews for Messiahship.

So, if those who are still waiting for the Messiah do not consider these conditions essential, why should the Messiah, whom we believe has already come, have had to fulfill them? I have been away from BAR for awhile and upon my return this is the first article I read actually from your twitter post.

I feel very relieved to not have purchased as subscription. Furthermore, I feel very relived that none of my money went to support sophomoric and secular contemptuousness such as this. What I would like to know is: 1 Did you personally approve of this article? I will be perusing the BAR websites a little more to see if other articles like this are here. If this is indeed the direction you are heading Mr. Not to be combative, but a theological supposition, built on top of another theological supposition based upon a hypothesis, an passed off as self-evident or fact leaves a lot to be desired.

Assumptions affect our lives and spoken and written words create realities whether they are true or not. Did the ante-Nicene writers draw the same conclusion as Dr. Are Matthew and Luke really just cut and paste jobs? What about the people that believe Lukan Priority or the priority of Matthew? One assumption that has to be addressed is whether the writings are strictly historical records or are also supernatural and inspired as well — thousands of tangents we could go down but it has to be considered.

This supposition only works if Markan Priority and the Q document hypothesis. We found this in Qumran too. Maybe I am out of my league here, but passing a supposition off as an undisputable fact has led to more error over the years — remember when the church was sure that the sun revolved around the earth? I realize Dr Tabor might be taking the stance that he is Galileo or Copernicus in this instance, but for that to be true, proof needs to be offered instead of supposition and hypothesis.

If one believes in God, and that He is powerful enough to keep His word accurately preserved, then you have to take Mark as part of the inspired word of God. I happen to believe that God has the power to accurately preserve His word throughout the centuries. That includes Mark These thoughts about eating bread as divine flesh and wine as divine blood are clearly not Jewish concepts. Its becoming more clear to me that these are some of the reasons why the Jews of that time as today rejected these strange pagan ideas!

Its interesting that this cannabalistic idea has been attributed historically to Jews through the disgusting accusation of the blood libel when it is clearly a pagan-christian concept and has nothing whatsoever to do with Judaism.

Yet Jews have been massacred throughout Christian history during easter for this atrocious and weird belief held by Christians. Yet, the christian movement ultimately has the capacity to serve as an educational transition for pagan cultures to embrace a life of morality in acknowledgment of the omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent Creator who-alone- gives us life.

How do we know the earliest Greek copies are reliable? Earliest does not mean more reliable. What literature shows Eusebius and Jerome that the passage was absent from almost all Greek copies of Mark known to them?

While Dr. However the late Dead Sea Scroll translator, Fr. Jean Carmignac, offers earlier dates for Matt. It also could be the case noted by genealogists, looking at old photographs with no names. At the time everybody knew who it was, so why write it down. Mark says — he is risen and reports the tomb to be empty.

Paul says he is risen and he appeared to people. Not sure i see how this is fundamentally different from Matthew, Luke, or John, just less detail. If you managed to find it years later they sure could have 50 or 60 years after the fact. And why the big deal about the longer end of Mark.

Conservative scholars have long accepted that it was not original. Few would argue otherwise. I strongly believe that giving voice to Dr. Also, the Bible clearly refers to a hour period and a fraction of two days, not a hour period. I am an atheist. Easter or Passover: Which Is for Christians? On April 24 this year, billions of people will celebrate Easter.

About a week earlier, after sunset on Sunday, April 17, many Christians will gather to observe the biblical Passover. Does it matter which festivals you observe? The answer may surprise you! Since Easter is a Pagan custom I think you should do a little more studying. Did Christ stay in the tomb three days and three nights? Not if you have Him going in on good Friday and rising on Sunday at sunrise. Do the math then find the truth. Your email address will not be published. By submitting above, you agree to our privacy policy.

Combine a one-year tablet and print subscription to BAR with membership in the BAS Library to start your journey into the ancient past today! Learn More. Total 1. Tags: about jesus andrew apostle apostles archaeological archaeological evidence archaeologists Archaeology archaeology in israel bib arch org Bible bible and archaeology bible history bible history daily Bible Interpretation bible scholars Biblical biblical sites biblical topics biblicalarchaeology biblicalarchaeology.

Related Posts. By: Biblical Archaeology Society Staff. Sep 7 Who Were the Galatians in the Bible? By: Megan Sauter. November 20, at pm. Steve says:. October 3, at am. Daniel Sharp says:. September 20, at pm. Tom Turowski says:. September 1, at pm. Woodrow Nichols says:. August 27, at pm. George says:. August 26, at pm. Eric says:. August 11, at am. Timothy G Creamer says:. July 21, at pm. June 18, at am. David Wang says:. June 6, at am.

April 30, at pm. Disciple says:. April 25, at pm. Lee says:. April 10, at pm. Jonathan says:. March 31, at pm. William Smith says:. February 26, at pm. D says:. February 23, at am. Rich says:. February 15, at pm. Shane says:. February 14, at pm. Ernesto G. Borunda says:. January 22, at pm. John says:. January 8, at pm. David Booth says:. December 30, at am. December 20, at am. Cody says:. September 12, at am.

August 24, at pm. Jim Cerda says:. August 23, at am. Brandon Collins says:. July 26, at am. Brian Holmes says:. July 7, at am. May 10, at pm. Floyd Satterwhite says:. April 14, at am. Daniel says:. Clev says:. December 25, at am. John Owens says:. Robert says:. October 24, at am. Brad says:. September 27, at pm. June 28, at am. Edward says:. May 31, at am. May 29, at pm. May 23, at pm. Rupert G. Kennedy says:. May 6, at am.

Gore says:. March 29, at am. John N says:. March 28, at pm. James Snapp, Jr. March 28, at am. Scott Mills says:. March 27, at pm. Theognostos says:. December 14, at pm. Patricia Havens says:. December 14, at am. Ephrem Hagos says:. September 5, at am. Prizm says:. June 27, at am. Gene R. Conradi says:. June 13, at pm. Elena says:. June 13, at am. Terry says:. June 12, at pm. Kurt says:.

Chavoux says:. June 5, at pm. May 15, at pm. May 6, at pm. Rachel says:. April 5, at pm. JXL says:. April 19, at pm. April 6, at am. March 22, at pm. Silverwolf says:. March 10, at am. ALock says:. March 9, at pm. Astrogirl59 says:. March 4, at pm. February 28, at am. February 24, at am. AJ says:. January 26, at am. Allan Halldorson says:. January 18, at pm. Joseph says:. January 4, at pm. December 24, at am.

Richard Chelvan says:. December 21, at pm. Don Foy says:. ME says:. December 13, at am. Andrew says:. November 22, at pm. November 19, at pm. November 17, at pm. Bonnie says:. October 29, at pm. Allison S. October 19, at am.

Richard says:. October 10, at am. Rick Carpenter says:. September 14, at pm. September 13, at am. September 12, at pm. Jofus says:. September 11, at pm. Mickey says:. September 3, at pm. Mercedes says:. August 8, at pm. April 29, at am. Alan says:. April 13, at am. What are the contents of the Bible? April 8, at pm. February 11, at pm. Truth Preacher says:. February 10, at am. Jerry Wierwille says:. February 4, at pm. Mike says:. January 16, at pm. January 3, at pm. Lila says:. December 30, at pm.

Hansie Louw says:. December 12, at am. November 5, at pm. October 18, at am. Milos says:. October 14, at am. June 5, at am. God's kingdom is not just talk, it is power! Joe Davis says:. May 8, at am. JamesS Snapp, Jr. May 7, at pm. James D. Tabor says:. May 7, at am. Outremer says:. May 1, at pm.

Rose Stauros says:. Eugene Baker says:. April 28, at pm. Scott says:. April 28, at am. James says:. Scott I says:. April 27, at pm. James Ashmore says:. April 27, at am. Betterly says:. Robin says:. April 26, at pm. Ian Paul says:. Theory 3. The original author was interrupted or died before he could finish the gospel, and had reached verse at the time of the interruption.

Theory 4. The original author actually did intend to stop at verse , even though the story seems unfinished to most people. The possible loss of the original ending is especially unfortunate because many biblical scholars consider Mark to be the earliest and most reliable gospel. It's also unfortunate that the apparent cutoff of the original text occurs at a critical point in the story, early on the first Easter Sunday just after Mary Magdalene and two other women discover that the tomb is empty.

These women had just been told that Jesus was alive and on his way to Galilee, and that the disciples would see him there. But any account of what happened next, if it ever existed, is now lost. One popular theory is that the original ending beyond verse was lost when part of a scroll accidentally broke off. In fact some scholars think that a portion of verse itself is missing, with the extant text stopping in the middle of a sentence.

If true, this would provide strong support for the theory of an accidental break off. But there is another way to interpret verse in which the final sentence does come to a proper end. If this interpretation is correct, it would mean that the cutoff occurred between sentences, which goes against the theory of an accidental severing of the manuscript.

Another argument against the accidental-loss theory is that an ancient scroll was normally rolled up with the ending on the inside where it would be unlikely to break off.

Another theory is that someone intentionally destroyed the original ending because it was inconsistent with some basic Christian beliefs. Of course this is merely speculation, since there is no direct evidence to support such an idea. Also, if someone had decided to destroy the ending for this reason, he or she probably wouldn't have chosen verse as the cutoff point, because that still leaves inconsistencies.

For example, verse indicates that the disciples will have to go to Galilee to see the risen Jesus, whereas the other gospels say that he was first seen in Jerusalem. And verse says that the women didn't tell anyone about finding the tomb empty, but the other gospels say that they immediately went and told some of the male disciples.

If the original ending really was lost or destroyed, it probably happened within a few years after the gospel was written. Otherwise the authors of Matthew and Luke, who most likely used copies of Mark as a source, would have included versions of his original ending in their gospels. Also, a longer time period would have allowed many copies of the gospel to be made, and this would increase the chance that the original ending would survive.

Some scholars think that the author of Mark stopped at verse on purpose, despite the abrupt cutoff in the story.

This is certainly possible.