Arguments From Silence for Mark 16:8 as Original Ending - The Gospel of Matthew

1. Introduction of the Issue

A previous post here The Original Ending of the Gospel of Mark - 2nd Century Patristic Witness - "Matthew"   demonstrated that the Gospel of Matthew is evidence that 16:8 was the original ending of the Gospel of Mark. But how good is this evidence?

2. Discussion

 

And the People Bowed and Prayed, to (the) Theon god they Made

The related Wikipedia article indicates that the following are good criteria for the Argument From Silence:

The evidence in question:

1) Would have been accessible to the author.

2) Would be of general interest to the author.

3) Would have been considered authoritative to the author.

4) Would have been useful to the author.

Because Arguments from Silence than are based on the implicit which is subjective compared to arguments based on the explicit, they are normally not strong evidence. In order to rise to the level of any type of evidence, all four criteria above must be strong. On the other hand, if you have a connected string of Arguments from Silence from a logical grouping of authors which than gives the argument Scope, the argument becomes progressively stronger.

As the Argument from Silence applies to the question of the likely original ending of the Gospel of Mark (GMark), it is generally agreed for the second century that as the century progresses, the evidence gets progressively better that second century Christian authors were aware of the LE. The primary argument for proponents of LE as original (generally fundamentalists) is that the earliest positive evidence for either ending are second century Patristics who support the LE. The earlier second century Patristics who show no or little evidence of being aware of the LE will be ignored/denied as evidence by Fundamentalists invoking "Argument from Silence".

It's generally agreed that the next significant Christian writing after GMark is the Gospel of Matthew (GMatthew). For GMatthew, let's examine the four criteria above for level of strength:

1) Would have been accessible to the author.

It's generally agreed that GMark was GMatthew's primary source = Strong

2) Would be of general interest to the author.

For the same reason as 1) = Strong

3) Would have been considered authoritative to the author.

For the same reason as 1) = Strong

4) Would have been useful to the author.

As far as we know, GMark was the original Gospel narrative and at the time GMatthew wrote, there were not any others. Almost all the stories in GMark are also in GMatthew. The only two action stories missing in GMatthew are the healing at Bethsaida and the widow at the Temple. GMatthew copies GMark's resurrection predictions almost word for word. Presumably, the most important story as far as GMatthew was concerned was a story showing witnesses to a resurrected Jesus. If the LE was in GMatthew's source of GMark it would have been very useful to GMatthew = Strong

3. Conclusion

All of the above criteria than test strong = GMatthew is evidence for 16:8 as original. By itself, not strong evidence, but it is evidence that should be inventoried.