The Original Ending of the Gospel of Mark - 2nd Century Patristic Witness - "Matthew"

1. Introduction of the Issue

The Parallels of Pauline

  The argument for LE is generally based on quantity and supposed 2nd century Patristic evidence. I assume, as does authority, that GMark was written first and that GMatthew used GMark as a primary source. GMatthew often follows GMark closely. Metzger does not mention GMatthew as evidence against LE as he generally avoids arguments from silence. Modern arguments against LE generally do. The potential strength of GMatthew as evidence here is the quality of age (GMatthew is commonly thought to have been written late first century). This would not only be the earliest known Patristic evidence but the earliest External evidence. This is especially applicable to arguments for LE as their primary claimed evidential quality is age, specifically, early Patristic references.

  The only known significant Christian author before GMark was Paul. In one disputed passage, mostly thought to be likely original, Paul says that a resurrected Jesus appeared to disciples apparently in the same way he appeared to Paul. But Paul does not provide any other description such as the setting. GMark goes beyond Paul to provide a narrative of Jesus' supposed resurrection. An ending of 16:8 does not show any resurrection appearance. The LE does but does not agree with Paul/Fake Paul regarding the order and the witnesses.

 

2. Discussion

 

If you want the women to sing out, sing out

The weakness of GMatthew here as evidence is it is indirect but this is offset by the width (scope) of the evidence:

1. Generally follows GMark closely.
2. Specifically follows what comes before LE (16:1-8) closely.
3. Does not follow 16:9-20.

This is evidence that GMatthew did not follow the LE because it was not there at the time GMatthew copied from GMark. And now a look at GMark 16:1-8 compared to GMatthew 28:1-8 verse by verse:

 

  GMark to 16:8 sure looks like GMatthew's source to 28:8. Most of the content and nouns are the same or at least similar and both have the strong emotion of fear/amazement for flavor. The only significant difference is the last line of each where GMatthew's women run to tell as opposed to GMark's woman who run not to tell.

We have the following reasons to think that GMatthew, did not have the LE in his copy of GMark:

1. GMark in general is GMatthew's source. There is little of the LE in GMatthew.
2. GMatthew closely follows GMark to 16:8 (see 1).
3. GMatthew flips the key assertion of 16:8, "ran and told no one", to "ran and told everyone", to change the expectation of what follows.

We have seen that GMatthew closely follows GMark to 16:8. Let's see how well it than follows the LE. I've flipped the last column to "Significant Parallels":

 

3. Conclusion

 

Who's been messing with the ending of GMark?

 Note that for 16:9-20, there is only one good parallel in GMatthew. Also note that GMatthew's ending is consistent with 16:1-8 (after editing the women telling rather than not telling) but not 16:9-20:

1) The biggest individual story in 28:9-20 concerns The Empty Tomb. This is the dominant story of GMark 16:1-8.

2) GMatthew has the disciples meet Jesus in Galilee. Just as "Mark's" angel of 16:7 instructed.

Conclusion = The LE was not a source for GMatthew and the ending GMatthew had to work with from GMark was dominated by The Empty Tomb. GMatthew is a witness (the earliest) against LE.