Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

I recently reread Streeter on the hypothesis of a lost ending (not the 16:9-20 "longer ending") of Mark.

https://archive.org/details/fourgospels ... 4/mode/2up

Streeter suggests this long ending resembled the John 21 story of Jesus appearing to the disciples fishing in Galilee as one unknown. Certainly aspects of the story make more sense in the context of Mark, where the women say nothing to anyone, than they do in other gospels.

This modern story shows how a text can be so compelling that people will copy it even if the ending is lost:

https://lostmanuscripts.com/2014/08/31/ ... -34-years/

On analogy, there's not that much difficulty in supposing that the ending of Mark was lost early on. Mark was still too good to ignore.

Daniel 9:26 the messiah will be killed and disappear.

What's more 70 weeks-ish than the sudden ending?

Likely the ending was "too docetic" so it was changed. The fact he "was no more" i.e. disappeared implied he had a body that COULD vanish into thin air.

Mark 16:4 is no different than other gospels in saying that the stone was no longer there, so it doesn't imply vanishing any more than other texts (and certainly does so less than the gospels in which Jesus is depicted as appearing and disappearing, e.g. Luke and John).

In any case, a missing ending hypothesis (some text after the 16:8 ending, now lost) also implies that the shorter ending at 16:8 was later "changed" into a longer one (16:9-20).

But it was first.

Mark 16:6 οὐκ ἔστιν ὧδε

Secret Alias wrote: ↑Sat Jun 24, 2023 10:35 am But it was first.

What was? Why is it?

Secret Alias wrote: ↑Sat Jun 24, 2023 10:37 am Mark 16:6 οὐκ ἔστιν ὧδε

So?

Art isn't always successful at exhibiting its intended meaning the first time.

What do you think the empty tomb signified?