Shylos Capstone draft

Introduction

There is much controversy concerning the ending of Marks Gospel; a continuous Debate about the originality of its ending. There are three different endings to the Gospel of Mark. “These different endings are added in some bibles. The shortest ending, which is the first one mentioned has no references. The second one is referred to as Mark 16. 9-20”. (p.225) As well as the main ending, that is printed in every bible, and is considered to most, the original ending of Mark. The other two endings are usually added in the footnotes of the bible, so that the reader has the opportunity to see the different accounts. According to some, the second closing, of Mark 16:9-20 became of particular “Interest only became possible only with the publication of editions that relegated verses 9-20 to the footnotes. Until the great Alexandrian codices were known, few paid attention to the scattered references to a Gospel of Mark that lacks a proper conclusion”(p.1) Because of the codices, further examination of vs. 9-20 has been made possible. Although there is great debate as to whether the first second, or original ending is the real ending of mark, the original ending seems the most likely.
First, and shortest ending

There are three different endings. The first, and shortest ending ends with “ After this, Jesus himself sent out form east to west, through their work, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of external salvation. Amen”(p.224) “The shorter ending is quite unlike Mark’s style. It is grandiose and formal…. The longer ending looks very much like a compilation of bits and pieces for the resurrection narratives of Matthew and Luke, with some extra parts added.”(p.226) Many feel this ending of Mark is the least likely to be the true ending. Not as many Scholars have focused their attention on this ending, as much as the other endings. Perhaps the book of Mark could have ended in this way. This ending leaves the reader with a positive outlook, as well as a proclamation of external salvation. Also, this ending leaves the reader with Jesus himself, alive, calling his followers to the spread the Gospel. Although this closing could be effective, it may not be as effective as the second and longest ending. “The shortest ending, ... is the first one mentioned has no references. (P.225)” This one is very unlikely to be the true ending. It does not even have references, and seems to be the least likely to be the ending of Mark.
Second and longest ending

The second ending closes with “They went out and announced the message everywhere. The Lord worked with them, validation their message by the signs that accompanied them”(p.224) This ending “ is referred to as Mark 16. 9-20”. (p.225) Many bibles have this ending added on in the bible, but tell the reader that this ending may not be the true closing to Marks Gospel. Some Scholars suggest that this longer closing was not the original ending, but was added later. Some remain unsure about the real ending, whether it was added later, or if it is the true Closing of Marks Gospel. Still, many feel that the original ending, which is written in all bibles was the intended ending, and perhaps the long ending, as discussed here
“… was not originally part of the forth Gospel but was added by later scribes; the same can be said of the final 12 verses of the Gospel of Mark (Mark 19: 9-20). In many instances, however, the surviving witnesses are so significantly divided that scholars cannot agree concerning the original form of the text.”(p.3)

This claim sounds justifiable. Perhaps the original ending is what is published in most bibles, but the second and longest ending was added later. The thought that some scholars may have problems deciphering what the true ending of Mark might confuse the reader. How can we be certain which ending of Mark is the true ending? The reader may feel that this is the true ending, because it gives examples of Jesus speaking after he is resurrected, and proclaiming the good news. This ending gives the reader a sense of completeness, and clarity of the resurrection of the Christ.
Furthermore, there is a possibility scholars argue, that the longest ending was written as a “second volume”. Perhaps with all the copying, and the continuous spread of the Gospel, the book of Mark grew to have a second volume.
“This possibility must be taken seriously. But if this is the case, how did it come to have a rather wide circulation and use in the early church? Someone obviously was the document as suitable for circulation and widespread use. A second possibility is that what we have really is “ the beginning of the Gospel of Jesus” and that the author intended, much like Luke, to offer a second volume to talk about the continuation of the gospel. (P.45)”

This seems to be a good possibility. Seeing the longer ending as a second volume, allows the first ending to be qualified as the first ending, but also allows the second ending to be effective and have a role in the ending of Mark.
Third, and ending seen in bibles today
The Third ending is the one that is found in most bibles. The first ending ends with three women running away in fear. As stated in the NIV “ Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid”(Mark 16:8). Mary Magdalene, Mary and the mother of James arrived at the tomb; the good news the women received from “heavenly messenger” was not passed on due to their bewilderment. The message the women received was “But go, tell his disciples and Peter. He is going ahead of you to Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you”(Mark 16:7 NIV) The abrupt ending of mark leaves the reader in anticipation. The level of uncertainly caused by the women’s fear, creates a longing for a continuation of the passage. Although there is much controversy,“Many think that Mark intended his Gospel to end with 16:8. If so, the women’s trembling and amazement, dumb-foundness and fear, bring the Gospel to a close on the note of awe, as appropriate to Marks portrayal of Jesus as the Christ, God’s Son.” (Gundry, P.155) This claim represents the way that Mark truly sees Jesus. Ending in this abrupt way gives insight to Marks true feelings and thoughts. However, Many scholars are confused with the ending of Mark, but suggest that the striking urgency and confusion of the ending is all part of Gods plan.

According to the New Oxford Annotated Bible; as quoted below, There is a strong pull toward the possibility that the urgent ending of mark was done on purpose to allow readers to search for the continuation of the story in the other Gospels, such as Matthew Luke and John. When we look at the other Gospels, we have the opportunity to search deeper to find out about the resurrection.
“Nothing is certainly known either about how this Gospel originally ended or about the origin of vv. 9-20, which cannot have been part of the original text of Mark…. Through it is possible that the compiler (!) of the gospel intended this abrupt ending, one can find hints that he intended to descried events after the resurrection”(p.1238)

In continuation, this quote raises a good point. It’s interesting to think Mark was intended to end in this abrupt way. But if the purpose of Christ’s death was to bring good news to the world, why would the gospel of Mark end in this way? Wouldn’t it have been more appropriate to continue the message? According to Witherington, he states that
“If this gospel is meant to help meet the need to proclaim the good news about Jesus the son of God to all the gentile nations, this ending is hardly in keeping with the aim. Mark 18:6 is not good news. As Kermode at one point says, such an ending is “either intolerably clumsy, or it is incredibly subtle.”(p.45)

Perhaps Mark ended the book the way he did, so the reader would look to the other Gospels such as Luke, Matthew or John to find out more about the resurrection of the Christ. “Mark speaks of a young man who greeted the women at the tomb, Luke of two men, Matthew of an angel, and John of two angles. Mark’s and Matthew’s Jesus appears only in Galilee: Luke’s, only in Jerusalem”(P.137) Although there are differences to some of the details to these other Gospels. Matthew and Luke give the reader what they are looking for. Maybe Mark felt it was appropriate to leave the reader wanting more. Perhaps Marks goal was to capture the reader’s attention by giving them something, but not enough, thus creating a longing for more. Allowing an opportunity for the seeking heart to dig deeper, to create a desire to go into the details, in order to find the true meaning of Christ’s resurrection. It’s interesting to see that the other Gospels allow the reader to see not only differences of the Gospels, but also the continuation of the Christ’s resurrection



Conclusion
Although there is much controversy about which ending is true the ending of the gospel, evidence points towards the original ending of the confused and bewildered women running away in fear. Many scholars feel that ending the book of Mark, in this fashion, leaves the reader with a sense of intensity. Also, leaving the reader in this way creates a longing deep within, to search for the continuation of the good news. This ending seems to fit as Marks style as quoted above, and allows the reader to search other places, in order to find the continuation of Christ’s resurrection. Other evidence shares that
“That’s the end. “The earliest Gospel never mentions—at least not in the best ancient manuscripts—the risen Jesus' re- unions with his followers as described in Matthew, Luke and John. Accounts of the appearance of the risen Jesus were added to the end of Mark by later scribal hands. The NRSV labels these as "shorter" and "longer" endings, and relegates to foot- notes a discussion of how these endings were fashioned.” (p.1 Dart)

Although the main ending may seem abrupt, it still holds true to Marks gospel and message. The shorter and longer endings are placed in footnotes in the bible, and are not referred to as the true ending of the Gospel. The original ending is the real ending. We are still able to continue our search on the resurrection, in different gospels. And we are even able to read the other versions if necessary, but the original ending seems the most appropriate to end the Gospel of Mark.




























Bibliography


Bart. D. Ehrman. Studies in the textual Criticism of the New Testament. NV: Koninklijke Brill, 2006.

Ben, Witherington. The Gospel Of Mark. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2001.

Beverly, Gaventa. R, and Miller.D Patrick. The Ending of Mark and the Ends of God. Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 2005.

Craig L., Blomberg . The Historical Reliability of the Gospels. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2007.

Dart, J. (2006, April 18). Unfinished gospel? Mark's enigmatic ending. Christian Century, 123(8), 28-32. Retrieved March 21, 2009, from ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials database.

Gundry, Robert H.. A Survey of The New Testament. Michigan: Zondervan, 2003.

The New Oxford Annotated Bible (New York Univ. Press, 1977), 1238.

Tom, Wright. Mark foe Everyone. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2004.