I have posted before<\/a> (twice, in fact<\/a>) on the question of how Mark\u2019s Gospel originally ended, but without really discussing in depth what I think or why I think it. I am persuaded that the original Gospel of Mark did not end abruptly in 16:8 (as our earliest evidence would suggest). The ending is awkward, and no amount of postmodern literary criticism will make it seem better. It promises that the disciples will see Jesus but the women at the tomb must tell them where to go. Unfortunately, they say nothing to anyone, because they are afraid. Satisfactory ending? Not at all. It might just work as an ending to the Jefferson Gospel, perhaps, but unless one argues that the Gospel of Mark was written by an early Christian author who thought that no one saw Jesus after the crucifixion, then the best explanation is that the original ending has been lost. Clearly this is what many of the earliest Christians thought, since at least two different scribes improved the ending by adding additional material, and Matthew and Luke did so too (and some might even add John here, if they think the author of the Fourth Gospel knew Mark\u2019s).<\/p>\n The ending may well have been lost before Matthew or Luke used Mark as a source, since Matthew and Luke diverge significantly both from Mark and from each other at this point. Matthew adds joy to the fear the women feel, and ensures they do in fact deliver the message by having Jesus himself appear in Jerusalem (which fits awkwardly after a promise that he\u2019ll be seen in Galilee). Luke moves the appearances to Jerusalem.<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/blogger.googleusercontent.com\/tracker\/7622297540113836091-6970892325020038454?l=exploringourmatrix.blogspot.com\")
<\/div>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"