Conclusion to Mark's Gospel

[Douglas Somerset]

For those (like me) who accept the inspiration of the conclusion to Mark's Gospel (16:9-20), how do you account for the abrupt transition from "story mode" to "conclusion mode" at verse 9? Particularly when this comes in the middle of illustrating the unbelief of the apostles regarding the Resurrection? Any light on this would be welcome.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Theory: As Mark's Gospel is (supposed, I think well considered) colored with specifically Petrine memories of the common storyline, my theory is that Peter might have used a variety of conclusions to his outline, as his way of fulfilling the thrust of the angelic command found in v7--which like many of the details in Mark point to that apostle. But rather than a written ending of Peter's, which could easily devolve into a kind of Peter-centric, self-referential conclusion, there is no such thing.

Instead, the ending is all Mark's voice. I think Mark is the anonymous youth of 14:51-52. I think Mark--after the debacle during Paul's first missionary journey, cf. Act.12:25, 13:13, & 15:37ff--eventually came to accompany Peter's travels (see 1Pet.5:13) much like Timothy came to do for Paul. Paul recognizes Mark positively one last time in his final letter, 2Tim.4:11, a contrast to the last mention of him in Acts.

Mark is the inspired writer of the Gospel, so if his conclusion is admitted as conveying the Holy Spirit's inspiration, then it doesn't matter at all if it bears the signs of "wrapping up," rather than references to Christ's personal appearance to Peter alone (Lk.24:34), and his reinstatement following his denials (Jn.21:15ff), items that other Gospel writers do include.

Perhaps it was obvious varied stylistic nuance that first separated the conclusion from the body; or those who knew first hand how Peter might typically turn in his conclusion to a trumpet call to faith in this Jesus, transitioning to a call similar to his famous Pentecost sermon. That there have been located up to two (2) alternate written endings (besides the proposals that a) the original was lost, or b) there was no more written after v9) does not argue that the ending we have is neither original or Markan.

The test of inspiration is not, in the final analysis, a textual history question. But whether the Voice/Word of the Lord is discerned in a given text. The fact of history is that the majority of the church agrees to having heard the Spirit speaking from the text of Mk.16:9-20. Now then, do you hear the same? That is the question.

The above is my theory.

 

[Douglas Somerset]

Thanks for this. In replying to it, I am not arguing with it at all, but just groping after some vague idea. To me, the idea that the conclusion of Mark is not part of Scripture raises such serious problems that I reject it out of hand. So I accept the conclusion as part of Scripture. Furthermore there are some important and blessed verses in there. Being part of Scripture, it comes to us exactly as the Holy Ghost intended. However, it is also the writing of Mark who was writing to express ideas in his mind. So what was his idea around verses 8 and 9? He seems to be describing events immediately after the Resurrection, but abruptly (so it seems) he switches to a summary of events over a period of time. My suggestion, which has just occurred to me, would be that verse 8 is a sort of conclusion to that immediate story, and that there is more weight and significance in that verse than one first realises. So having completed that picture, Mark then moves to his general conclusion from verse 9 onwards. So verse 9 is not the continuation of the events of verse 8 but, as it were, the start of a new chapter. If this is correct, there is an emphasis thrown on verse 8, and there should be some distinct spiritual lesson to be learned from that verse.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Hello Douglas @Douglas Somerset ,

Have you never, in talking, or writing, finished a train of thought, and then switched to another distinctly different but related – as from drama, to depicting related events?

 

[Douglas Somerset]

Yes, I expect I have.

J.A. Alexander says of the book of Acts that it was "constructed on a definite, consistent plan, designed to make a definite impression, and to answer a specific purpose". The same is true of Mark's Gospel, surely, and I think that the transition at verses 8-9 is a bit puzzling, which means that we are not quite grasping Mark's purpose at that point. At least, I feel that I am missing something.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Good day, Douglas,

In Matthew's account (Matt 28:8,9,10) it is written so,

"And they departed quickly from the sepulchre with fear and great joy; and did run to bring his disciples word.
And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him. Then said Jesus unto them, Be not afraid: go tell my brethren that they go into Galilee, and there shall they see me."​

Here, in a parallel to Mark's account, we see Jesus hailing them, telling them not to fear ("Rejoice" or "Be of good cheer"), which continues the drama seamlessly, from the dramatic meeting with the angels, to their hurrying to tell the disciples, and then the enormous drama of being accosted by Jesus now alive and telling them that gladness is to replace their fear.

Mark's version is a bit more abbreviated, but the continuity is maintained. Perhaps the remarkable words in Mark 16:9a, "Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week", is what appears to be a break in the narration concerning the women, but it is a most welcome revelation to their grieving hearts, and not only to them, but to us as well these millennia later!