Mark’s Ending

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

An acceptable claim.

Unless something is discovered in the future, at present it is a fact

There seems to be a distinct lack of intent to deceive in the content, which gives rise to the question, "what end would this supposed forgery be intended to achieve?" Commentators' supplementary notes would be quite likely.

When is a forgery not a forgery? If someone much later adds verses to a text, is that not still a forgery, irrespective of the motive?

Lack of conclusive (to the level of beyond reasonable doubt) evidence makes that a subjective assessment. "In all probability, not added by the original author" would be a reasonable claim.

The earliest MSS do not have it, nor do Sinaiticus and Vaticanus which were produced centuries later, and Clement of Alexandria and Origen have no knowledge of it.

Where do you suppose this longer text may have been lurking throughout those centuries?

[Mountain Man]

They are not the original MSS as they do not exist any more.

The question being is the later ending of Mark a forgery? It was clearly not written by the original author.

You missed the point entirely. Whether or not the original parchments held by the authors themselves still exist is entirely irrelevant to the question of whether or not we know what was originally written, and the answer to that question is yes, we de know what was originally written with a high degree of confidence.

As for your question about the ending of Mark being forgery, what is your basis for suspecting that the addendum was produced with the intent of deceiving the reader?

[tabibito]

Unless something is discovered in the future, at present it is a fact.

Astounding. You suddenly have a desire to yield to logical conclusions that are not grounded in unassailable fact.

When is a forgery not a forgery? If someone much later adds verses to a text, is that not still a forgery, irrespective of the motive?

Forgeries are produced with the intent to deceive. Nothing in the longer endings of Mark points to any such attempt. The longer endings are, however, not within bounds for the aim stated in the introduction.

[One Bad Pig]

The most interesting thing to me about the ending of Mark's gospel is that it should put to rest any skeptical objections that the Biblical manuscripts were poorly preserved throughout the centuries. In fact, they were so well preserved, and we have such an abundance of original manuscripts available to us today, that we know for a fact the ending of Mark was not the original! That's testament to the high degree of accuracy with which scholars have been able to reconstruct the original texts.

The 'long ending' is sufficiently early that it is a prominent part of the lectionary (being one of the 11 Sunday Matins gospel readings). For comparison, the pericope adulterae is not a regular part of the lectionary (although it is occasionally read for the feast day of St. Pelagia the courtesan of Antioch, who was a harlot before she repented), and the book of Revelation is not part of the lectionary.

The fact that each gospel has distinct turns of phrase, emphases, extensive use of chiasm and other memnonic devices, Semitisms, etc., should make laughable the idea of wholesale change qua change in the early texts. The idea of 4 canonical gospels was present by the mid-second century, testifying to their widespread distribution by that point.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Astounding. You suddenly have a desire to yield to logical conclusions that are not grounded in unassailable fact.

I am not in the habit of ignoring possibilities. However, until any such texts are discovered the present facts stand.

Forgeries are produced with the intent to deceive.

It might be suggested that the longer endings did precisely that in that these additional verses claimed to be genuine.

However, it seems that more narrative was required given the somewhat cliff-hanger ending of the shorter Mark. People enjoy a good story and the desire to know What Happened Next is hardly unusual and so someone provided additional material in the manner of Now Read On...

We have the intermediate ending which rounds things up very quickly in two sentences but is not overly satisfying as a narrative conclusion. However, the longer ending provides far more dramatic action and offers a climactic dénouement with the apotheosis. After which the disciples as it were walk off into the sunset to continue their mission. The End.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

You missed the point entirely.

You initially referred to:

an abundance of original manuscripts

We have no original MSS.

As for your question about the ending of Mark being forgery, what is your basis for suspecting that the addendum was produced with the intent of deceiving the reader?

See my above reply to tabibito.

[Mountain Man]

You initially referred to:

an abundance of original manuscripts

We have no original MSS.



See my above reply to tabibito.

Yes, original manuscripts, as in authentic ancient texts and not forgeries. If I had meant the physical compositions of the original authors, then I would have said so.

As for your reply to tabibito, it's just more of your speculative nonsense without a shred of evidence to support it.

[tabibito]

I am not in the habit of ignoring possibilities. However, until any such texts are discovered the present facts stand.

You deny that the texts could possibly be accurate records of events. That is very much a matter of ignoring possibilities.

It might be suggested that the longer endings did precisely that in that these additional verses claimed to be genuine.

Based on your speculations that the longer endings are intended to deceive, you claim these sections of the text to be forgeries. They read more as a matter of summaries of what is to be expected based on the available texts.

However, it seems that more narrative was required given the somewhat cliff-hanger ending of the shorter Mark. People enjoy a good story and the desire to know What Happened Next is hardly unusual and so someone provided additional material in the manner of Now Read On...

The speculation has a strong probability of being accurate.

We have the intermediate ending which rounds things up very quickly in two sentences but is not overly satisfying as a narrative conclusion. However, the longer ending provides far more dramatic action and offers a climactic dénouement with the apotheosis. After which the disciples as it were walk off into the sunset to continue their mission. The End.

Likewise, probable. The longer endings are not within the stated aims for Mark's gospel, but they do draw on key points made by that gospel and other New Testament texts without adding anything new.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Yes, original manuscripts, as in authentic ancient texts and not forgeries.

The earliest copies are scraps they are not complete MSS. And neither Sinaiticus or Vaticanus both produced in the fourth century do not have the longer Mark. Why do you suppose that might be?

As for your reply to tabibito, it's just more of your speculative nonsense without a shred of evidence to support it.

The evidence is that the earliest MSS do not have the longer ending of Mark and neither Origen nor Clement of Alexandria appear to have known of it.

We also have to understand that people enjoy a good story and want to know more. Hence we have those, now deemed apocryphal texts, about Jesus' infancy and childhood [the Protoevangelium of James, Pseudo Matthew, and the Infancy Gospel of Thomas] along with the Acts of various apostles and of course Pilate.

[rogue06]

You joined in with your comment.

Again, perhaps you should show where I first said that we shouldn't judge a person on their looks and then in the next sentence proceed to do exactly that. Oh, wait. That wasn't me. That was you.

[rogue06]

The most interesting thing to me about the ending of Mark's gospel is that it should put to rest any skeptical objections that the Biblical manuscripts were poorly preserved throughout the centuries. In fact, they were so well preserved, and we have such an abundance of original manuscripts available to us today, that we know for a fact the ending of Mark was not the original! That's testament to the high degree of accuracy with which scholars have been able to reconstruct the original texts.

Yup. The sheer number of ancient copies has helped us to determine that the ending is an interpolation rather than something that was lost in some versions.

[rogue06]

The 'long ending' is sufficiently early that it is a prominent part of the lectionary (being one of the 11 Sunday Matins gospel readings). For comparison, the pericope adulterae is not a regular part of the lectionary (although it is occasionally read for the feast day of St. Pelagia the courtesan of Antioch, who was a harlot before she repented), and the book of Revelation is not part of the lectionary.

The fact that each gospel has distinct turns of phrase, emphases, extensive use of chiasm and other memnonic devices, Semitisms, etc., should make laughable the idea of wholesale change qua change in the early texts. The idea of 4 canonical gospels was present by the mid-second century, testifying to their widespread distribution by that point.

We need to bring "harlot" back into use.

[tabibito]

We need to bring "harlot" back into use.

I'm not convinced that using a harlot would be appropriate behaviour.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Again, perhaps you should show where I first said that we shouldn't judge a person on their looks and then in the next sentence proceed to do exactly that. Oh, wait. That wasn't me. That was you.

Once again your marked tendency towards duplicity and pusillanimity are noted.

No one else offered any additional comments to what I wrote. However, you could not resist.

[rogue06]

I'm not convinced that using a harlot would be appropriate behaviour.

C'monman! It's a great word. True story.