LOL, this thread will probably be shut down super fast because it’s all about religion but Mark originally ended at 16:8. There was no resurrected Jesus seen after that. The rest of the Mark after 16:8 was written and added to the text by church officials sometime in the 4th century so it would match the other three stories. Mark is dated by scholars to around 68 CE and was the first one written.
One can see in the Codex Vaticanus, the oldest complete New Testament Bible dating to between 300-350 CE, that it ends at the 16: 8. Being the first story written and having no Jesus seen by “multitudes” is a bit of a problem.
Contrary to OPs title, this is not a settled matter in scholarship, admittedly, as this tends to be the nature of scholarship, questions rarely get settled.
The “Long Ending” of Mark has been hotly debated, since the 19th century onwards. Proponents of the “addition” ending believe it was added somewhere after 4th century since some early important manuscripts such as Codex Vaticanus do not contain the Long Ending.
However, the Diatessaron, written as a Gospel harmonisation between the four Gospels in the 2nd Century, the long ending of Mark is included, that is, the ending with the Resurrection of Jesus.
It’s also worth noting that St Irenaeus of Lyons in Against Heresies quoted the long ending of Mark’s Gospel. [You can see that here](https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103310.htm), it’s a lengthy section, so I’d suggest Ctrl + F and typing, “Mark”. St Irenaeus explicitly says that he is quoting from the ending of Marks Gospel.
An important point about St Irenaeus, he is who gives us the names of the Four Gospel authors, that is Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. It’s quite telling that since the long ending of Mark was well known to the person from whom we get the authorship of the Gospels from, it was very likely an original part of the Gospel. Also, St Irenaeus is known as the last of the Apostolic Father’s, as he had been taught directly by St Ignatius of Antioch, Bishop of Smyrna, who himself was taught by St John the Apostle. Thus, he is the last known person to know someone who knew the Apostles.
If you’re still not convinced, the Catholic Apologist Joe Heschmeyer did a digestible dive into this topic, [which you can find here](https://youtu.be/aHwR8Gj5YKY?si=e-XEosoaDmGRSOlw), bear in mind that this video was created after a debate he conducted with another Christian who did not believe the long ending of Mark was canonical.
And finally, regardless of its validity, if you think this is an argument against the Resurrection, or that the Resurrection was only invented centuries later… yeah, don’t count on it. The earliest New Testament documents written, according to the vast majority of scholars (I am trying to avoid the OPs error, but it is true), were the letters of St Paul. 1 Corinthians written in roughly 50-60AD states,
>”For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.”
I am a massive neckbeard reddit atheist, but I don’t think that’s what the Wikipedia page is saying. We don’t know what the original texts were. I know I’m not the most knowledgeable on this topic, but where does it say that scholars believe this shortest ending to be the original ending?
Edit:
“Scholars disagree whether verse 8 was the original ending, or if there was an ending which is now lost.”
Edit 2: It seems like the Wikipedia page may have written that sentence poorly. From what OP says, and what the page says after the sentence I quoted, it seems like actually modern scholars agree.
I find it fascinating that some people use this as proof that he didn’t really resurrect.
As opposed to, you know, the fact that people never resurrect regardless of what any book claims.
If you look at it from a purely historical standpoint it’s fascinating though, because Mark is considered to be the oldest remaining source. There are arguments that some old sources were lost, though, so there could have been texts older than Matthew or Luke claiming he resurrected. I guess the later edition in Mark was added to fit the other gospels. Anyway, the resurrection of Christ must have been a pretty early belief if it was already present in the other gospels. But could not have been accepted by at least some communities at the earliest stages, or else it would appear in Mark.
“Archeologists near mount Sinai have discovered what is believed to be a missing page from the Bible. The page is currently being carbon dated in Bonn. If genuine it belongs at the beginning of the Bible and is believed to read “To my darling Candy. All characters portrayed within this book are fictitous and any resemblance to persons living or dead is purely coincidental.” The page has been universally condemned by church leaders.”
It is true that the original text of Mark that has survived to this day ends at Mk 16:8. However, it is false to claim that biblical scholars know whether there was ever an ending. It may have been lost. Scholars are divided, holding various opinions. The ending may have been lost, or it may have intentionally ended on Mk 16:8 (but why would it end on the fear of women? Why would there be promises of meeting in Galilee? etc. – on the other hand it is really a dramatic ending). Both are possible. (I’m writing this as a biblical scholar)
More and more I learn about just the writing the Bible, they all just where just normal writers trying create interesting story that been edited by a dozens of different producers and editors over the years , who didn’t like the ending, the words involved or out right the messages.
It is true that the original text of Mark that has survived to this day ends at Mk 16:8. However, it is false to claim that biblical scholars know whether or not there was an ending. It may have been lost. Scholars are divided, with various opinions. It may have been lost, or it may have been intentionally omitted. Both are possible. (I’m writing this as a biblical scholar)
挿話
コメント
Hopefully Mark finishes the story one day so we can find out what happened to Jesus
As long as you’re not turning it into an idol or worshipping the text, Bible scholarship is absolutely fascinating.
Still not as bad as cancelling off Firefly.
LOL, this thread will probably be shut down super fast because it’s all about religion but Mark originally ended at 16:8. There was no resurrected Jesus seen after that. The rest of the Mark after 16:8 was written and added to the text by church officials sometime in the 4th century so it would match the other three stories. Mark is dated by scholars to around 68 CE and was the first one written.
One can see in the Codex Vaticanus, the oldest complete New Testament Bible dating to between 300-350 CE, that it ends at the 16: 8. Being the first story written and having no Jesus seen by “multitudes” is a bit of a problem.
Can’t believe the shit that doesn’t get green lit for another season.
The ending probably goes something like:
“And his body was moved to castle aaaarrrgghhh”
Contrary to OPs title, this is not a settled matter in scholarship, admittedly, as this tends to be the nature of scholarship, questions rarely get settled.
The “Long Ending” of Mark has been hotly debated, since the 19th century onwards. Proponents of the “addition” ending believe it was added somewhere after 4th century since some early important manuscripts such as Codex Vaticanus do not contain the Long Ending.
However, the Diatessaron, written as a Gospel harmonisation between the four Gospels in the 2nd Century, the long ending of Mark is included, that is, the ending with the Resurrection of Jesus.
[Here’s a link to the Diatessaron where you can clearly see each line of Scripture corresponding to the harmonisation](https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/100253.htm)
It’s also worth noting that St Irenaeus of Lyons in Against Heresies quoted the long ending of Mark’s Gospel. [You can see that here](https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103310.htm), it’s a lengthy section, so I’d suggest Ctrl + F and typing, “Mark”. St Irenaeus explicitly says that he is quoting from the ending of Marks Gospel.
An important point about St Irenaeus, he is who gives us the names of the Four Gospel authors, that is Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. It’s quite telling that since the long ending of Mark was well known to the person from whom we get the authorship of the Gospels from, it was very likely an original part of the Gospel. Also, St Irenaeus is known as the last of the Apostolic Father’s, as he had been taught directly by St Ignatius of Antioch, Bishop of Smyrna, who himself was taught by St John the Apostle. Thus, he is the last known person to know someone who knew the Apostles.
If you’re still not convinced, the Catholic Apologist Joe Heschmeyer did a digestible dive into this topic, [which you can find here](https://youtu.be/aHwR8Gj5YKY?si=e-XEosoaDmGRSOlw), bear in mind that this video was created after a debate he conducted with another Christian who did not believe the long ending of Mark was canonical.
And finally, regardless of its validity, if you think this is an argument against the Resurrection, or that the Resurrection was only invented centuries later… yeah, don’t count on it. The earliest New Testament documents written, according to the vast majority of scholars (I am trying to avoid the OPs error, but it is true), were the letters of St Paul. 1 Corinthians written in roughly 50-60AD states,
>”For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.”
I am a massive neckbeard reddit atheist, but I don’t think that’s what the Wikipedia page is saying. We don’t know what the original texts were. I know I’m not the most knowledgeable on this topic, but where does it say that scholars believe this shortest ending to be the original ending?
Edit:
“Scholars disagree whether verse 8 was the original ending, or if there was an ending which is now lost.”
Edit 2: It seems like the Wikipedia page may have written that sentence poorly. From what OP says, and what the page says after the sentence I quoted, it seems like actually modern scholars agree.
I find it fascinating that some people use this as proof that he didn’t really resurrect.
As opposed to, you know, the fact that people never resurrect regardless of what any book claims.
If you look at it from a purely historical standpoint it’s fascinating though, because Mark is considered to be the oldest remaining source. There are arguments that some old sources were lost, though, so there could have been texts older than Matthew or Luke claiming he resurrected. I guess the later edition in Mark was added to fit the other gospels. Anyway, the resurrection of Christ must have been a pretty early belief if it was already present in the other gospels. But could not have been accepted by at least some communities at the earliest stages, or else it would appear in Mark.
Mark: by JJ Abrams.
Some day they will find the Director’s Cut of The Bible and or its sequel, “The Bible: The Return”.
Mark: Uh oh my scroll is out of space <writes hasty ending in tiny letters>
Reminds me of this from Red Dwarf:
“Archeologists near mount Sinai have discovered what is believed to be a missing page from the Bible. The page is currently being carbon dated in Bonn. If genuine it belongs at the beginning of the Bible and is believed to read “To my darling Candy. All characters portrayed within this book are fictitous and any resemblance to persons living or dead is purely coincidental.” The page has been universally condemned by church leaders.”
So, tecnically… a cavehanger?
“Guys, if this gets enough likes, I’ll upload part 2.”
Gotta keep them tuned in for next season with a tasty cliffhanger.
It’s too bad the show lapped the books. Now we’ll never know what the original plan was.
Also the entire story is basically a rip-off of an Egyptian myth anyways.
I did not hide him, I did not! Oh hi Mark!
You gotta stay till the after-credits
Actually it was a crosshanger am I rite
It is true that the original text of Mark that has survived to this day ends at Mk 16:8. However, it is false to claim that biblical scholars know whether there was ever an ending. It may have been lost. Scholars are divided, holding various opinions. The ending may have been lost, or it may have intentionally ended on Mk 16:8 (but why would it end on the fear of women? Why would there be promises of meeting in Galilee? etc. – on the other hand it is really a dramatic ending). Both are possible. (I’m writing this as a biblical scholar)
Makes sense as it’s known as the down to earth less supernatural gospel
Stay tuned for Season 2 of Jesus, coming in 2027 on Disney+
More and more I learn about just the writing the Bible, they all just where just normal writers trying create interesting story that been edited by a dozens of different producers and editors over the years , who didn’t like the ending, the words involved or out right the messages.
It makes everyone involved just much more human
It is true that the original text of Mark that has survived to this day ends at Mk 16:8. However, it is false to claim that biblical scholars know whether or not there was an ending. It may have been lost. Scholars are divided, with various opinions. It may have been lost, or it may have been intentionally omitted. Both are possible. (I’m writing this as a biblical scholar)