Marks Ending

This paper brought together insights and intellectual suggestions from different sources in order to shed light to the inquiry if the ending of Mark, as we know today, is really inspired or not.

Evangelical Quarterly, 2019

The textual status of Mark’s Gospel, specifically the fact that the beginning and end of this gospel were lost at a very early stage, sheds light on the period of time when the stories concerning Jesus’s ministry, death, and resurrection were being transmitted orally. It is proposed that during this time the oral history of Jesus came to include an overarching ‘gospel’ structure, and that Mark’s Gospel is essentially a snapshot of this oral history, marginally altered as Mark personally retold the account of Jesus within the bounds permitted by those exercising control over the oral history. Support for these interrelated proposals comes from the fact that Mark’s Gospel sustained damage and was not immediately repaired: it was not seen as replacing the oral history of the eyewitnesses. However, later (when the eyewitnesses were dying out) Mark’s Gospel was rescued, copied, and circulated, but only in its already damaged form.

The Gospel of Mark is foundational to a minimal historical approach. The methodological approach of this brief introduction is to provide the position of critical scholarship for comparison to the early church perception of the Gospel of Mark. This study is to follow the critical position to the brink of faith that Jesus is the Son of Man. Furthermore, critical academics leave Mark open to the resurrection when female disciples found Jesus’s tomb empty. The accounts of the early church stand firm and yet in contrast to critical scholarship that continues to search for conclusions.

Filologia Neotestamentaria, 2021

Among the theories as to how the Gospel of Mark ended is the proposal that a final page was lost early in its transmission. This article presents evidence to support that theory. Matthew appears to follow Mark closely until 16:8 when our authentic Mark ends abruptly. We may expect him to do so if he has access to Mark's longer ending. Utilizing C. H. Turner's article on Marcan usage, we explore several peculiarities of Mark's style that appear in Matthew 28:9-20. These indicate that Matthew followed Mark as he reshaped the gospel in his own way, but distinctive traces of Mark survived.

HTS Teologiese Studies / Theological Studies, 1996

The Scholars Version' (SV) is a new translation of the Bible-starting out with a translation of all the known gospels-with its major goal to find fresh language that will make biblical narratives come to life for the modem reader (or the reading public, according to.the preface). More specifically, the SV tries to translate the text in a style similar to-that of the original language, while also incorporating the best scholarly insights about the content of the text. Aimed at the modem reading public, the introduction is written in a popular style. Mark's gospel is introduced as a 'war-time gospel', written "between 66-70 CEo A further point of departure of the SV is that the material Mark used in his gospel was probably already circulating in longer units before the story was first written down. These longer units probably included testimonies from scripture (e g Mk 1 :2-3), controversy stories (e g Mk 2:1-3:6), anecdotes (e g Mk 3:20-35), parables (e g Mk 4:2-32), miracles (e g Mk 6:47-52), one-liners (e g Mk 3:28-29), discourse (Mk 13:3-37), a passion narrative (e g Mk 14:2-15:47), other narrative sequences like Mark 1:21-39, and insertions and.framing devices (e g Mk 6:7-13/14-29/30-34). The writer Mark is thus seen as not just a preserver of tradition, but also as a shaper and even originator of some traditions. Mark is therefore a story, that should be appreciated like Ii work of art. 554

2018

This paper seeks to explore the historical character of the Gospel of Mark. It attempts to review and discuss such important aspects of the Gospel that fall within the framework of critical-historical study of an ancient document. Major areas explored and critiqued in the paper are, for instance, the genre, historical accuracy, mythical elements, compatibility with contemporary literary trends, possibility of concurrent sources, dominant religious discourse, and the intended primary audience

African Journal of Kingdom Education , 2023

Although previous scholars have discussed and come to widely accepted conclusions about the background to the gospel of Mark in terms of authorship, purpose, characteristics, structure, date, settings, and recipients of Mark's gospel, its genre as well as Sources of Mark's Gospel; which is a fact that this paper does not dispute. Yet, the essence of this paper is to reexamine some salient issues regarding the background of the gospel of Mark in terms of the author and recipient. John Mark is widely regarded as the author of the fourth gospel, but not so for the reason stated here in this paper. Although the recipient of the book is attributed to Galilee, Syria, the Decapolis and Rome; this research supports a Rome possibility because of the universality of the place and the influence of Paul on John Mark. This is the gap that we are filling here.

This is the third chapter of my contextual introduction to the New Testament, From Crisis to Christ (Nashville, TN: 2014), 51-74. It was published on the Bible and Interpretation site, May 2015 as an example of my new approach to biblical studies, which I call "second criticality." That essay is also posted on the Bible and Interpretation site.