Paper.....

The Voice of the Tempter

The presence of a voice is all you need to identify a speaker. This assumption is the case in the well-known novel authored by Flannery O’Connor: The Violent Bear It Away. In the novel “the stranger” is one of the main characters who is sent to tempt and disorient a young boy named Tartwater. Moreover, the stranger’s character is juxtaposed to Satan’s character as he is portrayed in The Bible, and specifically in Matthew chapter 4 where he tempts Jesus in the desert. Both these characters, in these stories, possess detrimental qualities that seek to “kill, steal, and destroy” all who cross their paths (John 10:10). A question that comes to mind, in light of these sources is, what similar tactics do the stranger and the Devil employ as they interact with their adversaries namely, Tartwater and Jesus?

The stranger and the Devil seek to conceal their identities and therefore remain non-existent to their adversaries. This deceptive trait of non-existence is explicitly seen in The Violent Bear It Away as the stranger ridicules Tartwater’s belief in Jesus. He says, "Jesus. Jesus this and Jesus that. Ain’t you in all your fourteen years of supporting his foolishness fed up and sick to the roof of your mouth with Jesus? My Lord and Saviour…I am if you ain’t … there ain’t no such thing as a devil. I can tell you from my own self-experience. I know that for a fact "(Flannery O’Connor, 39).

In this scenario the stranger is deliberately trying to confuse Tartwater. His goal is to convince him that Jesus is a waste of time and that the Devil does not exist. David Eggenschwiler, author of The Christian Humanism Of Flannery O’Connor comments that it is the strangers hope, as he preys upon Tartwater’s inner conflict, that he would choose the “self sufficiency of estrangement” rather than Jesus (David Eggenschwiler, 125).

Furthermore, in relation to the stranger’s character we see similar traits in Satan’s character as he tests Jesus in the wilderness. During their engagement with each other, Satan plots to conceal himself as a threat by pertaining to Jesus’ specific need for food. Namely, by requesting Jesus to turn stone into bread (Mt. 4:3). In addition, Davis K. Joseph notes that Satan “occurs variously as the tempter, the accuser, and the infernal evil one…he can assume diverse, multiple roles, as the absolute master of disguise”…(Studies in Literary Imagination, 126). Joseph also states that being a “master of disguise” is similarly seen as the Devil’s greatest trick, to blind the minds of man by “convincing them that he does not exist” (Studies in Literary Imagination, 126-127). Moreover, striving to be non-existent is a similar tactic that both the stranger and the Devil employ to deceive their enemies.

Secondly, the stranger and the Devil both wield together discouragement and doubt to pierce the hearts of their adversaries. For instance, at the time of Old Mason’s death, Tartwater’s uncle and caregiver, the stranger coincidentally appears to Tartwater with a number of discouraging words. Concerning Tartwater’s relationship with Old Mason the stranger says, “you weren’t anything to him but something that would be big enough to bury him when the time came”…(O’Connor, 44). Susan Srigley author of Flannery O’Connor’s Sacramental Art comments that the stranger cruelly aims to target Tartwater’s “isolation” by creating a despairing reality that God has utterly forsaken him so he therefore stands as one “independent” of God (Srigley, 118). The stranger continues to emphasise Tartwater’s isolation in whispering, “you’re left by yourself in this place. Forever by yourself in this empty place… you don’t mean a thing to a soul as far as I can see” (Flannery O’Connor, 36).

Proceeding the stranger’s tool of discouragement, he then moves to his next arrow of attack: doubt. Tartwater strives to muffle the voice of the stranger because, he knows if he lets the words sink they will go straight to the pit of his soul. It is with this goal in mind that the stranger hisses, “[the] Lord ain’t studying about you, don’t know you exist, and wouldn’t do a thing about it if He did” (166). Knocking at the gateway of Tartwater’s soul he continues to hiss, “what did you expect to hear? The Lord speaks to prophets personally and He’s never spoke to you, never lifted a finger, never dropped a gesture… where is the voice of the Lord? I haven’t heard it. Who’s called you this morning? Or any morning?”(161 + 42)

In addition to the stranger’s malicious ridicule, he also seeks to destroy Tartwater’s hope: That God would call him to be a prophet. This hope, to be called a prophet, rests on Tartwater’s knowledge and teaching of The Bible that he received from Old Mason. However, the stranger explains that in order for Tartwater to be a prophet sent by God; he must experience supernatural signs from God, just like Elijah, Moses and Jonah (161-162). Similarly, the Devil also uses what Jesus knows to be truth, The Bible, to sow seeds of doubt and deception. As the stranger alludes to biblical prophets and proceeds to point out that this is not Tartwater’s experience, so the Devil uses scripture to twist a lie. He challenges Jesus to throw himself down because in scripture “it is written: He will command his angels concerning you, and they will lift you up in their hands, so that you will not strike your foot against a stone” (Mt.4: 6). Therefore, the same tactics are hurled at both Tartwater and Jesus from their opponents- the twisting of scripture to produce a deceptive lie. The conniving antagonists of both stories aim to throw what their victims hold to be true against them.

Thirdly, the stranger and the Devil both appeal to the flesh in order to tempt their adversaries. The stranger weaves and presents a different web of temptations to Tartwater with each encounter. One of the first temptations the stranger appeals to is a suggestive interest in whores (Flannery O’Connor, 40). Moments later he attacks again in the area of self-control only with a different arrow: Alcohol. The stranger jumps at the opportunity and in a “soft tone” says to Tartwater, “well, a little won’t interfere. Moderation never hurt no one”, and once Tartwater has had a couple of sips the stranger continues in saying … “you might as well drink all that liquor since you’ve already drunk so much. Once you pass the moderation mark, your passed it”…(O’Connor, 44+46). Moreover, the stranger’s lure to the flesh succeeds in this instance and Tartwater drinks until he is unconscious.

In addition to the temptations of sexual immorality and drunkenness the stranger turns to another evil: the murder of an innocent child named “Bishop”. During the birth of this temptation Tartwater is struggling with his destiny appointed by Old Mason: to baptise Bishop and so fulfill his duty as a prophet. Therefore this is Tartwater’s most intimate struggle with the Lord because, it involves either accepting Jesus Christ and his prophetic mission, or denying Jesus Christ and his prophetic mission. The stranger, knowing Tartwater’s inner conflict seeks to further his turmoil and distance from Christ by tempting Him with the murder of the “dim-witted” child to prove that he doesn’t have to be a prophet (215). In strategy the stranger speaks, “[but] remember: water is made for more than one thing. Hasn’t the time come? Don’t you have to do something at last, one thing to prove you ain’t going to do another?” (167). He continues to harass Tartwater with immeasurable pressure, “[make] haste…[be] a man…[its] only one dimwit you have to drown….[there] is no time to dawdle…[once]its done, its done forever”(O’Connor, 214+215). Moreover, just as the temptations thrown at Tartwater are plural in number so are the temptations presented to Jesus. Three times the Devil approaches Jesus with the motivation to ensnare him in a sin: To defame his honour, glory and power.

In conclusion, it is remarkably noted that the stranger’s interactions with Tartwater accurately personify and portray the interactions of the Devil with Jesus. The tools and tactics commonly used by these characters are deception, discouragement, doubt and temptation. The ultimate goal is power over another soul and sin to keep the captive chained. As the novel draws to a close, O’Connor moulds an ending that is most catastrophic and intrusive in the truest sense, but also implies hope for a fresh future as well. In the article “Time and the Demonic” O’Connor makes reference to this hope as she says… “the demonic which may seem to triumph in the here and now, will in the end be overcome” (Studies in Literary Imagination, 143).

In addition, writer Marilyn McEntrye comments on The Violent Bear It Away and concludes that “behind the most horrific moments of violence, pain, and defeat in [O’Connor’s] stories is the good news of mercy and grace” (Marilyn McEntrye, 37). Hope is portrayed from these authors, however; the corruptible nature of the stranger can not be denied. The Devil’s character is also corrupt as he mirrors the representation of the stranger. The deceptions that they strive to mask themselves into serve to reveal their true character. These tactics the stranger and the Devil employ give manifestation and light to who they are: a spiritual embodiment of lies.

Word Count: 1550

Capstone Paper

Just a note I used footnotes in this paper they didn't copy over though, just in case the reader is wondering.

The Irish and Immigration to Canada

Today when we think of Canada one of the first things that comes to mind is multiculturalism. Thousands of immigrant come every year to make a new life in Canada. We as Canadians often celebrate our openness to those from other countries. Yet as Canadians we must remember that Canada has not always been such a place of open diversity. For the Irish who came to Canada in the early nineteenth century there was little acceptance for their race or way life. The question that lies before us is the question of why the Irish unlike other cultures that came to Canada around that time, had so much trouble being accepted into Canadian culture. The difficulty the Irish had in fitting in with Canadian culture is due to the Irish’s distrust of authority, the different religious beliefs that the Irish held, and racial tensions between British Canadians and Irish Canadian.

The Irish before they came over to Canada had a distrust of authority which made the immigrants to Canada less willing to cooperate with and obey the laws of the land. This distrust of authority started in Ireland with what was known as the Irish Land Act of 1870. Most of the land in Ireland was owned by landlords many of whom were actually British. The Irish farmers paid rent to their landlords in exchange for the right to farm the land. However, with 1870 Land Act the landlords sold most of their land to the Irish farmers. In the short term this massive sale of land had a devastating effect on the economy and in particular the poor farmers. Many of the poor farmers could not afford to buy the land they farmed. Thus many experienced farmers were left homeless and helpless despite the fact they were skilled farmers.

The Land Act combined with the famines that occurred around this time caused great unrest and distrust of all authority. One newspaper stated this, “Almost every hour brings intelligence from each section of this country of murder, assault, robbery of arms, and posting of threatening notices“. The law is being ignored and the landlords and the leaders of Ireland are under heavy fire from the Irish farmers who feel that they have been wronged. Many Irish feel like emigration is the only way left open for them. The Irish poor people had been betrayed by their government left helpless in the grip of poverty.

However, I think what cemented the Irish’s distrust of authority was the Canadian government‘s actions. The Canadian Government advertised Canada as a place of “milk and honey” where land was handed out instead of sold. The government put posters up around the ports in Ireland advertising free land for Immigrants. To Irish, many of whom were kicked off their land saw these posters as a dream come true. However, this dream faded fast as the Irish arrived in Canada only to find no free land and little government help. Dr. Kori points out in his article, “land ownership was of central importance to many Irish immigrant families.” Land was the very reason many of Irish had left their homeland in the first place. When James Boyles, a twenty three year immigrant, was interviewed on the state of trust between the Irish and the Canadian government he stated that, “The fact is that people in Ireland are getting so now that they will not believe the blackguards that promise these things.”

Racial tension between the Canadians further contributed to the lack of acceptance of Irish in Canada. The Irish were practically penniless when they came over from Ireland. Having little money caused many Irish to move into the cheapest and consequently the lowest part of town. Many Canadians started equating the Irish with scum and vice. This reputation was furthered by the many poor Irish woman who came over to Canada. The bishop of Toronto noted that many of the poor Irish women who came to Canada with little or no opportunity to get a honest job. Instead many of these Immigrant women turned to prostitution in order to keep themselves from starving. This in turn worsened the Irish reputation and further causes the male dominated protestant to look down on the Irish as race.

The Irish were thought of as party animals who did nothing but partied and started fights. One news paper argued that like the Chinese the Canadian should place a head tax on the Irish in order to keep them out of Canada .The Donnelly’s, who are poor Irish farmers, provide us with ample evidence the racial stereotyping that went on in nineteenth century Canada . Throughout their lives the Donnellys are in constant conflict with their Canadian neighbours. They were looked down on as not respectable. The authorities did not like the Donnellys and openly condemned them to the community. Though as Dr. Jennifer Pettit notes, “The Donnellys were found not guilty of a fair number of the charges lodged against them.” This feeling of being condemned by society is not merely confined to the Donnellys. In the Newspaper the Irish Canadian the Irish express their concern at the way the Catholic Irish Canadian are being bullied and pushed around by English Protestants. Society stereotyped them and saw them as a threat not based on the immigrants actions but rather society’s own fear.

Doubts about the Irish as a race ever making good Canadians is furthered by the English immigrants in Canada. The Irish are considered to be of inherently lower value. On the other hand The English as a breed is seen as much more noble high minded race who should and will rule society. The Irish represent a threat to this idea of a English ruled society for while they do speak English the Irish are seen like the Jews tied to their religion at the expense of freedom. They stick to their ideology no matter what. This is looked down as somewhat backwards to Canadians. It is also seen as threat to the protestant way of life.

Directly Connected with the prejudice against the Irish race we see concerns about the Irish religion. The Irish religion was not just a side issue but rather one of the most important parts of life. The Religious wars in Ireland are both famous and infamous. These wars were fought between the Irish Catholics and Protestant. In Canada we see a similar separation though not as bloody it is still a factor. Thus, when the Irish come to Canada over we see a heightening of the already tense conflict. We see concerns that the Irish and French together will overthrow the Protestants and take control of Canada. There is a fear that Canada will go back to the dark ages
and that the Canada white male protestants want build will be gone.

This conflict come to light in groups such as the Orange Men. The Orange men were a white male group of men composed largely of protestants. These men openly looked down on Irish as merely ditch diggers who were only fit to serve the Protestants. One letter from an Orange man goes so far as to call the Irish the spawn of the devil. William Port in his diary gives accounts of over two thousand Orange coming out to celebrate their club. This is a significant movement which sharply increases the tension between the Irish and the English. In reaction to groups like the Orange Men the Irish start their own clubs. One such club was the known as the “Whiteboys.” This was a group largely composed of Irish Catholics. These to Group waged wars with each other both in Ireland and to some degree in Canada increasing the religious rivalry and encouraging violence among Irish immigrant and the their host the Canadians.

The Irish are not only divided with Canadians they are also profoundly divided as race when they came to Canada. Miller paints a very compelling picture of the dividedness of Irish by describing the different Factions in Tipperary, Ireland. There are three Major factions the Orange Men, the White Boys, and the Blackfeet. Each one of these faction hates each other and will go at great lengths to boycotte and destroy each other. An Irish Canadian James Joseph in his letter notes that, “Religion strange to say, divides us.” The beliefs that defines the Irish is also the beliefs divides the Irish and keep them apart from each other. This dividedness further hinders the Irish from settling into Canadian culture for they cannot identify with or help out fellow Irish citizens.

During the time that the Irish immigrate to Canada the Protestant English are in control. Their are flagrant attacks on Irish from the English Radicals. John Hanley notes in reference to violence against Irish Catholics, that, “hoodlums never deliberately transgress in this manner unless they feel well assured the respectables are at their back.” Basically its open season on Irish Catholics. The protestant government will turn a blind eye towards violence as long as it goes against the right people. Yet again we see the Irish face in Canada the very thing they were trying to escape from in Ireland. For in Ireland we saw countless act of violence and unrest due to religion and the Government. Here in Canada the supposedly peaceable land the same sorts of things are happening further alienating the Irish from Canada and its government.

Ultimately these factors have horrible consequences for the Donnelly family who are killed in there home by their fellow Canadians. This ethnic strife, distrust of authority and religious conflict tare apart the Donnellys and the society around them. It is easy to look on these factors like ethnic strife as something that does not happen now a days. We believe everybody is equal in Canada right? However, I would argue that this kind of thought still goes on today how often do we as Canadians look down at someone with a turban or someone who cannot speak English. We must be aware as Canadian that we are susceptible to the same prejudices as those who lived a Hundred and fifty years ago. Let us then learn from our history to make sure we stay a nation the embraces diversity and gives everyone a chance to enjoy freedom and prosperity.

Capstone

A New Identity

In the mid 1900’s, the United States was in the midst of a cultural battle between the two dominant races in the country: African-American and Caucasian. The beliefs of many white people at this time were that of superiority. Two authors at this time, Alice Walker and James Baldwin, wrote stories of African Americans and the struggles they faced before, during and after the Civil Rights Movement. Walker wrote specifically of women and the added discrimination because of their race and gender as shown in Everyday Use. Baldwin, a man who left America in hope for freedom, wrote of what many would classify as a stereotypical African Americans during the Civil Rights in Sonny’s Blues. Both stories are of characters that have escaped the oppressed lifestyles their families still live in to forge a new identity for themselves. Once the Civil Rights Movement ended, many African Americans struggled with the idea of creating a new identity now that they were considered equal, or to continue living in the oppression. Baldwin and Walker both presented two characters that created a new identity in order to escape the oppression because they knew there was something more.
The Civil Rights Movement occurred throughout the fifties and sixties and was centered on ending discrimination of African Americans in the United States. At this time, schools were divided by race, restaurants refused service to those of color; African Americans had to sit in the back of the bus and were treated as though they were lesser human beings. This movement was most prominent in the south where slavery was most prevalent. Two well-known leaders at this time were Doctor Martin Luther King Junior (MLK) and Malcolm X. Perhaps the more well known of the two, Doctor Martin Luther King Junior; a man who practiced and encouraged passive resistance and stated: “We will not resort to violence. We will not degrade ourselves with hatred. Love will be returned for hate” (Lincoln 450). He led many large gatherings to inspire others to fight for their rights; perhaps the most famous was when he gave his “I Have a Dream” speech. In this speech, he dreamt of a day when African Americans could vote, go to school, have any job and more importantly just treated like regular human beings. The approach Malcolm X took was more violent, “he expressed rage and anger of the ‘oppressed’ black masses in America” (Mamiya 167). Malcolm X came from a rough background and while in jail became a Black Muslim. As a Black Nationalist, he was a contributor to the ‘Black Power Movement’ as well as the development of Black Nationalist ideology. He believed that African Americans should fight for what they want to rise above the oppression that had categorized them. People often gathered to hear him speak and were characterized as those, “in search of a viable identity” (Terrill 8). Both men were quite influential before and after the civil rights movement and continue to influence the way many think of their rights today.
Alice Walker’s story Everyday Use is set at a time when the Civil Rights were at its peak. Through Mama’s perspective, an outlook on the life her eldest daughter Dee has chosen is presented. She is now a Black Muslim and her sister and mother do not understand her life. The battle of two lifestyles is portrayed as Mama tries to give off a dissatisfied attitude, but a sense of admiration shines through when she realizes that it was Dee’s determination that led her to make a new identity for her self, one free of oppression. Dee is described as a strong woman, “no is a word the world never learned to say to her…she was determined to stare down any disaster” (654). As a symbol of her new identity, Dee changes her name to Wangero Leewankia Kemanio because she no longer wants to be, “named after the people who oppress me” (Walker 657). Dee is a woman that chose to not let white people stand in her way and be defined by the color of her skin. This attitude parallels with Malcolm X in that they both believe you should act as if the oppression is not affecting them. One of the women interviewed by Liberato spoke that in order to not be defined by the oppression, African Americans had to maintain positive outlooks as well as downplay the impact of the segregation that took place (Liberato 234). By leaving the neighborhoods she once lived in, Dee took advantage of the freedom African Americans were given after the Civil Rights Movement and did not let anything keep her for the dreams she had for her life.
Some would argue that by leaving her family and changing her name, Dee became superficial and insensitive to the history of her family. Farrell describes her as “insensitive and selfish to a certain degree, she nevertheless offers a view of heritage and a strategy for contemporary African Americans to cope with an oppressive society” (179). As the story progresses, there are parts of Mama that show how she is opposite of Dee in that she is not a fighter, “I never had an education myself… in 1927 colored asked fewer questions than they do now” (Walker 655). Towards the end though, Mama emerges to be more like Dee when she snatches the quilt from Dee to give to Maggie, “ironically, in acting against Dee’s wishes…Mama is truly behaving more like Dee, with her refusal to back down, her willingness to stand up for herself” (Farrell 184). Even with the loss of her heritage, the risks Dee took to find a new identity in herself rather than being defined by the history of her culture proved to be worthwhile. She has now become an independent woman that can stand alone not having to rely on excuses of why she has not made something of herself. This cannot be said for many that have been caught by the trap, including her mother and sister and let others dictate what they are able to do in life.
In Sonny’s Blues by James Baldwin, Sonny’s brother is much like Dee in that he left Harlem for a chance at a new life unlike Sonny who chose a life of drugs rather than making something of himself. Though the brother’s new identity seems more prominent, Sonny has also taken a new identity as a black musician. In a letter written to his brother, Sonny expressed sadness over where his decisions in life had left him, “I feel like a man who’s been trying to climb out of some deep, real deep and funky hole, and just saw the sun up there, outside. I got to get outside” (Baldwin 276). For many in Harlem, it was hard to forge a new identity because of the stigma that followed, “some escaped the trap, most didn’t. Those who got out always left something of themselves behind” (Baldwin 278). This identity transformation is not as easy as many times it required a person leaving their family in hopes to one day return a new person. This is especially hard at a time when, “close family ties, religiosity, and communication strategies that accentuate the internal value of being black” were what kept the African Americans strong during the time of Civil Rights (Liberato 232). Because the man came from such a dark and depressed place, he needed to create something new of himself and his story is of, “a man’s need to find his identity, a boy’s growth to adulthood at a place, the Harlem ghetto, where it’s easier to remain a cunning child and at a time when black is not beautiful” (Murray 353). This new identity of being an Algebra teacher separated him from his family up until now when he goes back to see his brother. After the death of his daughter, he can now relate to Sonny as they both have gone through suffering. This common bond helps the narrator better understand the African American culture, which he has tried so hard to run from but is now able to embrace. In the end, Sonny’s new identity as a musician brings the two brothers together as the narrator sees how Sonny has left hi old life behind. The idea that he now accepts Sonny is solidified when he describes Sonny playing, “[his] fingers filled with the air of life, his life” (Baldwin 295). Though they both came from the same background, the journey of a new identity was different for each. In the end though, it is an understanding of Sonny’s identity that completes the narrator quest to find who he truly is and where he comes from.
In each of the stories a person has made a new identity for themselves. Though this was not easy at the time, each person knew they must leave their family in hopes for finding a new life free from oppression and triviality. In Everyday Use Dee left her family behind only to come back disappointed that her mother and sister had not changed at all. The same is true for Sonny’s Brother in Sonny’s Blues as his brother is now in jail for selling drugs. The comparison of these two lives shows the struggles of making a new identity as an African American aside from the discrimination. Before the Civil Rights Movement it was much easier for African Americans to succumb to the discrimination and not fight back for their rights. This lifestyle is not something every person wanted though which is why the movement began.

Works Cited

Baldwin, James. “Sonny’s Blues.” An Introduction to Fiction. Eds. X.J. Kennedy and
Dana Gioia. New York: Longman, 1999. 272-295.

Farrell, Susan. "Fight vs. Flight: A Re-evaluation of Dee in Alice Walker's “Everyday Use”."
Studies in Short Fiction 35.2 (Spring1998 1998): 179. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Trinity Western University Library, Langley, BC. 21 Mar. 2009 .

Liberato, Ana, Dana Fennell, and William Jeffries. "I Still Remember America: Senior African
Americans Talk About Segregation." Journal of African American Studies 12.3 (Sep. 2008): 229-242. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Trinity Western University Library, Langley, BC. 21 Mar. 2009 .
Lincoln, C. Eric. "KING, Martin Luther Jr." Encyclopedia Americana. 16th ed. 1994.
450-51.

Mamiya, Lawrence H. "Malcolm X." Encyclopedia Americana. 18th ed. 1994. 167.

Murray, Donald C. "James Baldwin’s ‘Sonny’s Blues': Complicated and Simple."
Studies in Short Fiction 14.4 (Fall77 1977): 353. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Trinity Western University, Langley, BC. 21 Mar. 2009 .

Terrill, Robert. Malcolm X inventing radical judgment. East Lansing: Michigan State
UP, 2004.

Walker, Alice. “Everyday Use.” Literature: Reading Fiction, Poetry and Drama. Ed.
Robert DiYanni. New York: McGrawHill, 2002. 654-660.

capstone paper draft

Analyze My Communication of Friendships by SPT, Interactional View and IDT

I am the type of person who is interested in interpersonal relationship, especially friendships. I value friendships a lot in my life, so I often think about my friendships deeply. Definitely, I wish all my friendships could be successful. During my seventeen-year-experience of building friendships (since kindergarten school), I summed up many rules that I think they are practical for establishing a better friendship. Of course I messed up some friendships in my past as well. However, since I learned many communication theories from the COMM 250, I realized that these professional theories could really help me explain, evaluate and test my friendships. Therefore, I would like to use Altman & Taylor’s Social Penetration Theory, Watzlawick, Beavin, & Jackson’s Interactional View, and David Buller & Judee Burgoon’s Interpersonal Deception Theory to analyze my success and failures of building friendships in my life.

            First of all, “[the] Social Penetration Theory explains how relational closeness develops” (Griffin 119). According to this theory I understand why I have a successful and continuous friendship with Maggie, but a short-lived friendship with Vivian, because the process of developing self-disclosure is quite different within these two friendships. Maggie is my best friend in Canada. We met each other since I came to Trinity. We were distributed to the same class in ESLI. We firstly didn’t really talk to each other, because she is from Taiwan and I am form the Mainland China. There are some issues between Taiwan and China as many people heard. She is nine years older than me. So at the beginning, there was really no common ground that could make us sit together and communicate. However, through a half semester, we seemed both have a sense of each other’s personality. Then we sometimes had lunch together, and chatted on MSN. We talk about our hometown, hobbies, our studies and so on. Little by little, the communication between us became smoother and more often. We went shopping together. We started to talk about our goals, dreams, and some general states of our family. Of cause our relationship kept developing. Later, we became close friends. I often went to her house and stay there for couple days. If her family needs help, she would ask me to help them. The state of close friends lasted for quite a long time. After that, we became sisters. We would like to share our secret of romance, conflicts in our family, defects in our past and so on. We also helped each other solve problems in life. We both were the best listener and consular for each other. We both were very loyal to our friendship. Currently we are keeping the friendship as sisters very well. We have been such good friends for three years. According to the text, “[we must] end up as best friends [because] we proceed in a ‘gradual and orderly fashion from superficial to intimate levels of exchanges a function of both immediate and forecast outcomes’”(Griffin 119). We basically followed each level of self-disclosure. Throughout the whole development of our friendship, I could easily see the model of the multilayered onion. We both are willing to share each other’s positive and negative experiences, not just enjoy the “happy hours”. So this makes our friendship more meaningful and stable (Griffin 121). In addition, because Maggie and I both are prudential person, we do have a baseline in our friendship. This does not mean we purposely try to prevent each other knowing a pure self. The baseline actually helps us to always respect and appreciate each other (McAllister).

            However, the friendship between Vivian and I is a total different story. We had a “depth without breadth” friendship (Griffin 122). She is my high school mate. More correctly I should say she is my father’s close friend’s daughter. Because of the connection of our family, we were set up to be good friends by our family. Good thing was we had almost similar personality. We became close friends right in the second. We stuck with each other every day except sleep. The high degree of closeness compelled us to talk about many privacy of ours. We seemed jump to the center of the onion. However, “penetration is rapid at the start but slows down quickly as tightly wrapped inner layers are reached” (Griffin 121). We started to realize that our friendship really lacked the base. We both repented of telling that much privacy to each other. So we stopped telling more. “Relationships are likely to terminate not in an explosive flash of anger but in a gradual cooling off the enjoyment and care” (Griffin 121). Finally, she immigrated to America with her family, and our friendship ended at that time. Therefore the friendship between Vivian and I is a typical example that “[fades] or [dies] easily after a separation or a slight strain” because we didn’t have “a stable intimate exchange” (Griffin 121).

            Secondly, Watzlawick, Beavin, & Jackson’s Interactional View specifically focus on how the relational context acts on interpersonal relationship. By understanding this theory, I came to know more about my communication style in friendships. I usually like to use an instructional tone when I am talking to my friends. I like to use imperative, such as “you should do….” I guess I internally assume my role as a teacher and my friends as students. I also like to play power in communications. I like to reframe interaction as well. All of there can be good and bad depending on different situations (Antaki). The positive side would be I do have a lot of friends who like to rely on my opinions and always trust me. My friends Yu Zhou would be the most typical one. We are friends for more than six years She is a very innocent and unsophisticated girl. She does not like to think about her life and the society deeply. Whenever, she meets a problem or a bewilderment, she chronically comes to ask me. She once told me that she thought my tone sounds like her mom or her teacher; and I am always able to reframe interaction that she could not occur.  She is willing to accept my opinions and learn the way that I am thinking. During the communication between Yu and I, we are using the complementary way. We have unequal power through our conversations (Griffin 180). Therefore, in this case, the way I communicate works well in the system.

            However, the negative side would be more obvious. Many times, I found my communication style does not contribute to the system. Typically I found although I did nothing wrong to someone, they just dislike me even hate me. For example, when I was in ESLI, I used to have lunch with other classmates. But I mostly talked to my good friends in my way during the lunch. After a period of time, I received suggestion form one of my friends. He wanted me to be warmer and more friendly, because the way I spoke really upset someone who did not know me very well. They thought I was very overbearing and bossy. They interpreted my purpose was to reframe interaction was to stand out. Honestly, they might misunderstand me in certain way, but their thinking was quite reasonable. Communication includes content and relationship (Griffin 178). Sometimes, even though “the content is about the same, the assumed relationship is quite different” (Strom Lecture 9). Therefore, by using the Watzlawick, Beavin, & Jackson’s Interactional View to analyze my own communication experience, I learned that I should notice the relationship that my verbal implies. In other word, I should be humble (Strom 95-97).

            Lastly, David Buller & Judee Burgoon’s Interpersonal Deception Theory focuses on dealing with truth. This theory sheds light on my success in friendships. The success could be interpreted into two aspects: the way that I deliver truth to my friends and the way that I receive the truth from them. According to the text, people decide to lie or to not tell the complete truth is because they want to “”avoid hurting or offending another person, to emphasize their best qualities, to avoid getting into conflict, or to speed up or slow down a relationship”” (Griffin 97). By this we can see that in most cases, people hold very kind consideration to select what to tell. Basically, they all want to keep healthy and good relationships. Therefore, whenever I deliver information either from others or myself to my friends, I would think about the consequence and the reflection of the receivers. I believe that not telling anything or telling incomplete truth is better than lying. Even thought “[some] theorists list the massage characteristics that reflect strategic intent” (Griffin 102), people still can not avoid human nature. For example, when people are not saying the truth, they “won’t look [the listener] straight in the eye”(Griffin 98). I think firstly it is not very suitable to tell one’s business to another without permission. Moreover, it is not possible for me to record the false information that I have said. I think I will probably forget the details soon and I am not able to repeat the same message. I do not want to make myself in trouble. So if I really want to keep the truth secret, I will not tell anything to anyone at all. Of cause there are some situations that force me to tell something. Then I would say something relevant in order to satisfy my friends. The way that I deal with the truth works very well among my different friendships. I believe everyone wants an honest friend.

            In addition, I also pay attention to the authenticity of the information that others give to me. I chronically “doubt [my] ability to detect deception” (Griffin 107). The thing is once I eventually find out my friend lie to me; I talk to myself that I should be clam and it is not necessary to get angry. I should think about their purpose of lying and try to understand them. Everyone has the right to choose telling or not telling. They probably think lying is a better choice in that situation. They might consider my feeling as well. They might just want to keep privacy (Scott). My experience is to understand their purpose is more efficient than sticking on finding out the truth, because one’s purpose of lying usually implies the real relationship between friends.

            In conclusion, I highly appreciate Altman & Taylor’s Social Penetration Theory, Watzlawick, Beavin, & Jackson’s Interactional View, and David Buller & Judee Burgoon’s Interpersonal Deception Theory. These three theories effectively enlightened me on my way of dealing with friendships. I became more aware of my communication style between friends. Therefore, I could apply these theories to my future communication in order to build better friendships and maintain my current friendships. 

Capstone Research Draft

The failure of Mentors
Mary Shelly’s Frankenstein is a dark novel about a happy man’s unforgivable mistake and the consequences that led him into a broken, miserable life. Had his male mentors paid more attention to Frankenstein’s wayward path, they might have been able to prevent his catastrophic creation. The creature is more than ignored by the man who created him, he is shunned and cursed. Victor obviously should have been a father and a teacher to his creation but he abandoned the Creature. This left the Creature to learn the ways of a cruel world on his own and it made him a monster. Frankenstein and his creature were both let down by their teachers and it led the both of them to a miserable life with an early end.
Victor Frankenstein’s childhood studies fed his ravenous scientific mind with out of date works by ancient alchemists. He started reading Cornelius Agrippa at a young age and when his father say it, he said: “Ah! Cornelius Agrippa! My dear Victor, do not waste your time upon this; it is sad trash” (Shelley 24). Looking back on this incident, Victor says to his audience:
If, instead of this remark, my father had taken the pains to explain to me that the principles of Agrippa had been entirely exploded and that a modern system of science had been introduced which possessed much greater powers than the ancient, because the powers of the latter were chemical, while those of the former were real and practical, under such circumstances I should have certainly thrown Agrippa aside and have contented my imagination, warmed as it was, by returning with greater ardour to my former studies. It is even possible that the train of my ideas would never have received the fatal impulse that lead to my ruin. But the cursory glance my father had taken of my volume by no means assured me that he was acquainted with its contents, and I continued to read with the greatest avidity. (Shelley 24)
Victor chooses to use the words “taken the pains” to describe his father’s negligence; this phrase suggests that Alphonse Frankenstein did not explain to Victor the error of his studies out of laziness. As a child, Victor mistook his father’s mild sloth as a lack of knowledge in the area of his studies and ignored the advice. Dismissing the comment and assuming his father’s opinion was born in ignorance may have been justified seeing as Victor was only a child and his father was not a man of science. Victor continued his self directed studies and he was led to more old-fashioned alchemists like Albertus Magnus and Paracelsus.
Alphonse’s second mistake was to send Victor to the University of Ingolstadt. This is where Victor had the resources to learn how to create his monster and the equipment to make it possible. The first professor Victor spoke with was M. Krempe. This man had the same opinion as Alphonse considering “Cornelius Agrippa, Albertus Magnus, and Paracelsus, the lords of [Victor’s] imagination” (Shelley 26). M. Krempe was very harsh with Victor’s study choice:
Every instant that you have wasted on those books is utterly and entirely lost. You have burdened your memory with exploded systems and useless names. Good God! In what desert land have you lived where no one was kind enough to inform you that these fancies in which you have so greedily imbibed are a thousand years old and as musty as they are ancient? I little expected in this enlightened and scientific age, to find a disciple of Albertus Magnus and Paracelsus. My dear sir, you must begin your studies entirely anew.”
Krempe’s opinion was the same as Alphonse’s but this time, Victor could not dismiss it as born from ignorance since M. Krempe was a well read man of science. Victor dismissed Krempe’s advice because of Krempe’s “repulsive countenance” (Shelley 31). Because Krempe was “conceited“ (Shelley 32), Victor hardly attended his lectures and because Krempe valued the work of modern chemists so much, Victor grew a disdain for them. He was “required to exchange chimeras of boundless grandeur for realities of little worth” (Shelley 32).
The encounter with M. Waldman removed Victor’s prejudice against modern chemists. M. Waldman was the fist of Victor’s mentors to tell him that the time he spent with outdated alchemists was not wasted and shared his view with the young Frankenstein:
“The ancient teachers of this science,” said he, “promised impossibilities and performed nothing. The modern masters promise very little; they know that metals cannot be transmuted and that the elixir of life is a chimera. But these philosophers, whose hands seemed only to dabble in dirt and their eyes to pore over the microscope or crucible, have indeed performed miracles. They penetrate into the recesses of nature and show how she works in her hiding-places. They ascend into the heavens; they have discovered how the blood circulates, and the nature of the air we breathe. They have acquired new and almost unlimited powers; they can command the thunders of heaven, mimic the earthquake, and even mock the invisible world with its own shadows”
These well meant words of encouragement were the most harmful. Waldman’s view pushed Frankenstein to his creation. It was because of Waldman’s ideas that Victor began attending lectures on natural history and chemistry. Waldman was the one who showed Victor the equipment used in a chemistry lab. Under M. Waldman’s instruction Victor’s unhealthy ambition was fed and fostered by knowledge. This encouraging environment coupled with a lasting fountain of information pushed Victor to his goal which would eventually wreck his life.
Victor had mentors in his life who meant well but failed him. Victor’s creature had no one. The Creature is often compared with Adam, the first human. One of the main differences between him and Adam however, is the environment. Adam was brought into the Garden of Eden, a perfect world, with God, the perfect mentor. The Creature was brought into a cold, dark, rainy, fallen world, abandoned by his sinful creator. The result is the Creature becomes a monster, a reflection of his surroundings (Nardo 47). This result supports the common enlightenment ideal of Tabula Rasa (Latin for “blank slate”). The idea of Tabula Rasa states that a child as no natural instinct. Everything that a child will grow into is a result of his/her surroundings during infancy and childhood (Dussinger 69). Because he had no guiding mentor, the creature became hostile to humanity.
Recently there have been studies concerning the absence of a father figure in a child’s life. When the child is brought up with a father, he/she will learn how to speak much faster (Park 166). “It was necessary for [Shelley’s] plot that the Monster should learn to speak and read; but it was necessary much more fundamentally for her purpose that he should do so without a teacher” (Nardo 49). As a lonely, cursed creature, the Monster still gained independence and knowledge.
The only people who taught the Creature anything did so unintentionally. These people were the cottagers. “[The Creature] is like a lonely child creating an ideal fantasy-family for himself” (Nardo 50). These unaware tutors taught the Creature love and joy but took away his hope for these feelings when they rejected him. Ultimately, it was the fault of Victor Frankenstein for his utter abandonment of his creation. Had he mentored the creature as a father should, the swathe of destruction could have been prevented.
The only perfect mentor on our planet would be God, the rest of us are fallen and cannot expect to make our students or sons perfect human beings. Adam was the only human with the perfect mentor. During the enlightenment, some new scientific ideas concerning God were brought forward. Sir Isaac Newton said “God is above all quantitive measurements; indeed he effects those coordinates which make all measurements possible” (Dussinger 41). God gives us all the means to scientific advancements. In Frankenstein God is not thought of as a source of scientific knowledge, “in Frankenstein’s fantasy the mysteries of the created world inhere in the mother as manifest nature, while the laws of reason are attributed to the father” (Dussinger 42). The replacement of God the father with Reason the father was a perversion of the common Christian faith and Frankenstein paid for it dearly.





Word Count: 1498 Works Cited
Nardo, Don. Readings on Frankenstein. San Diego CA : Greenhaven Press, 2000.

Park, Ross D. Fatherhood. Cambridge, MS. : Harvard University Press, 1996

Shelley, Mary. Frankenstein. New York, NY. : Signet Classics, 1818.

Dussinger, John A. "KINSHIP AND GUILT IN MARY SHELLEY'S FRANKESTEIN." Studies in the Novel 8.1 (Spring76 1976): 38. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Trinity Western University Norma Alloway Library, Langley, B.C. 7 Mar. 2009 .

McLane, Maureen Noelle. "Literate species: Populations, `humanities,' and Frankenstein." ELH 63.4 (Winter96 1996): 959. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Trinity Western University Norma Alloway Library, Langley, B.C. 7 Mar. 2009 .

Social Science Paper

Tyler De Jong
Kevin Schut
Communications 110
March 25, 2009
Anti-Smoking Advertising: The Knife in the Back
Antismoking advertisements are common on television these days, but what is their real agenda? The ads we are all familiar with may appear to be rebelling against the powerful “big tobacco” when in truth, they are stabbing our children in the back. Many of these advertising campaigns are operated and funded by tobacco companies. For example, the televised advertising campaign aimed at parents with the slogan “Talk, they’ll listen” encouraging parents to talk to their children about smoking was started and funded by Philip Morris International, the leading international tobacco company in the world (Melanie Wakefield et al.).
Phillip Morris International has sunk millions of dollars into anti-smoking campaigns, especially during the late 90s. Why would this powerful and wealthy tobacco company target teenagers with antismoking commercials? There doesn’t seem to be any financial gain. These youth targeted ads have an more subtle message underlying the loud message “don’t smoke,” and that is “smoke when your older.” A study for the American Journal of Public Health revealed that more teenagers in a group of high school students exposed to more antismoking advertisements planned to smoke in the future than a separate group exposed to less antismoking ads (Melanie Wakefield et al.).
To get the hidden message to their viewers, tobacco advertisers use some interesting tricks. The aforementioned example of parent targeted antismoking ads focuses on making viewers think that not smoking is a personal belief rather than a health concern (Melanie Wakefield et al.). Other non-smoking slogans only say that smoking is a bad idea if you’re a teen, for example “Tobacco is Whacko if You’re a Teen.”
By the time a person reached adulthood, their minds are already made up concerning heath, their bodies and smoking. Adolescents are more open minded and so these are the customers that tobacco companies try and reach. The tobacco industry’s main idea behind funding antismoking ads is to make future smokers. Even though televised cigarette ads have been outlawed, the companies have found an adequate replacement.

Works Cited:

Murphy-Hoefer, Rebecca, Andrew Hyland, and Cheryl Higbee. "Perceived Effectiveness of Tobacco Countermarketing Advertisements Among Young Adults. (Cover story)." American Journal of Health Behavior 32.6 (Nov. 2008): 725-734. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Norma Marion Alloway Library, Langley, BC. 25 Mar. 2009 .

Wakefield, Melanie, et al. "Effect of Televised, Tobacco Company-Funded Smoking Prevention Advertising on Youth Smoking-Related Beliefs, Intentions, and Behavior." American Journal of Public Health 96.12 (Dec. 2006): 2154-2160. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Norma Marion Alloway Library, Langley, BC. 25 Mar. 2009 .

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.