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

1. Introduction of the Issue

Luukee! Ya got sum splainin ta do.

  Continuing with an examination of 2nd century witness to the original ending of GMark. We have just seen that GMatthew is the earliest Patristic witness for original ending of GMark, testifying for 16:8 due to closely following GMark to 16:8 and than largely ignoring 16:9-20. GLuke likewise looks to have GMark as a source through 16:8:

2. Discussion

 

Package those sources Luukee

 

 

 

  Note that GLuke follows GMark closely to 16:5 although not as closely as GMatthew. More amazing though than the characters' reactions here is that for 16:6 GLuke's angels remind the women of Jesus' resurrection prediction. So per GLuke it is the angels who remember what Jesus predicted and not the women, who have to be reminded. Let the Reader understand here that it is the Reader of GMark, in this case "Luke", who remembers the prediction of Jesus because it is given at the Sub-text level. "Luke" understands that as GMark is written the characters at the Text level do not remember what Jesus predicted. Also note that GLuke while following the rest of 16:1-8 fairly closely, has no reference to 16:7 (or 14:28). Yet more evidence for its forgery! GLuke than uses 16:8 as a source but flips it, just like GMatthew, from the women telling no one to the women telling everyone.

The great Irony is that GLuke as supposed witness here for HJ is completely backwards. The post-resurrection story (only the most important story to Christianity) here has as a source of what the supposed historical witness did = what GLuke wrote rather than GLuke's source for what she wrote = historical witnesses here.

Now that we have established that GLuke's source was GMark to 16:8 the next step is to look at the parallels between 16:9-20 and GLuke.

Bonus material for Solo. Note that GMatthew and GLuke both retain GMark's disbelief that Jesus was resurrected. Now the characters believe the angels (which they considered more believable) and the disbelief is transferred to what mere humans say. Paul, look out!

We have seen that GLuke closely follows GMark to 16:8. Let's see how well she than follows the LE:

 

3. Conclusion

Luukee, you ended up making a mess

The number of significant parallels are similar to the number of significant differences. In total GLuke is somewhat more similar than different than GMark here. The big difference though is comparing how well GLuke parallels to GMark to 16:8 versus how well GLuke parallels to GMark for the LE (16:9-20). For 16.1-8 GLuke uses most of the same/similar words for her corresponding verses with relatively little editing. For 16:9-20, "Luke" uses significantly less of the same/similar words with significant editing.

The question is if the LE was part of GLuke's source of GMark, why would GLuke use 16:1-8 as a base and than stop using it as a base for ALL of the LE (no question Mark as this is asked and answered).

A summary of the key points here:

1) For the LE GLuke has significantly more significant differences than it has for 16:1-8.

2) For the LE GLuke has significantly fewer of the same/similar words than it has for 16:1-8.

3) For the LE GLuke has significantly more editing than it has for 16:1-8.

Conclusion = The LE was not attached to GLuke's source of GMark. Therefore, GLuke, like GMatthew, is evidence against the LE being original.