For me the most telling feature of Mark’s gospel is the original ending, which had no resurrection account, simply the women finding an empty tomb and fleeing. If we had no other gospel account, we might conclude Jesus was simply a failed prophet whose sacrifice came to naught. Maybe at the time Mark composed his gospel that was the prevailing opinion. There are other peculiar aspects of Mark, like the mysterious young man in white linen, that suggest large parts of the narrative have been lost or redacted out. Perhaps one day a scroll or papyrus will turn up that is close to the autograph version. How many biblical scholars would sacrifice their first-born to get the keys to the Vatican archives?
I once read a viable hypothesis about this. At the time, it wasn’t uncommon for the final pages of a manuscript to get lost due to the binding methods used. Therefore, Mark may have had an ending that we will never know about.
And speculations are all you can get since there is no consensus.
Burton Mack in A Myth of Innocence argues Mark was drawing on a sayings collection similar to Q, plus earlier written or oral accounts of the passion already circulating. Helmut Koester did substantial work on pre-Markan sources, arguing the passion account in particular looks like it was assembled from earlier independent units rather than composed fresh.
John Dominic Crossan went further and proposed a "Cross Gospel" embedded in the Gospel of Peter as a source Mark used, though most scholars don't buy it.
For the miracle stories specifically, Paul Achtemeier made an influential argument that Mark inherited two pre-existing collections of miracle stories, each following a similar pattern, and combined them into a single sequence.
The NRSV is the standard scholarly choice; it's what most of the academics I cite use, and the New Oxford Annotated Bible (NRSV) gives you the notes that flag where the text is doing something interesting.
"The oldest and best Greek manuscripts of Mark, including Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus from the fourth century, end at 16:8"
Those two manuscripts are corrupt, and utterly worthless as a means of determining the original text. Tischendorf, the discoverer of Sinaiticus, counted thousands of places were multiple scribes had tried to correct errors in the text because they had no confidence in it. Entire lines are skipped, some lines are repeated twice.
A faithfully copied MS from the 9th century is a better witness to the text than a sloppily and carelessly made MS from the 4th century.
And no one can explain how many manuscripts from the areas where the originals were most accessible should be in error while the real and most authentic manuscripts were lost and forgotten in Egypt.
Thanks for reading and engaging. You're right that Sinaiticus and Vaticanus both carry corrections; Tischendorf did count them. However, correctors working on a manuscript is evidence that people were checking it against other copies, which is a normal part of transmission rather than a sign of a bad exemplar. The Byzantine tradition is more uniform because it was copied later within a standardized system, and uniformity is downstream of standardization rather than proof of accuracy.
Ultimately, what you're saying sounds more like a personal position than scholarly consensus, and that's an approach I stay away from in my pieces, because what I find most plausible isn't the definition of truth.
As you said, "correctors working on a manuscript is evidence that people were checking it against other copies."
That is certainly true. However, is literally thousands of corrections normal? I don't think so. The fact that a manuscript needed to be constantly corrected shows that the men doing the checking thought it was wrong, and did not have confidence in it.
Byzantine transmission is more uniform because it was "copied later within a standardized system"? Or because there was more immediate access to the originals, and because it was more reverently copied by people who did try to make heretical changes (such as removing references to the deity of Christ)?
True, uniformity MAY be downstream of standardization, but it may also be the result of careful and accurate copying of the originals by people who had great reverence for the text and were careful to copy it accurately.
Also, you ignored this point: "No one can explain how many manuscripts from the areas where the originals were most accessible should be in error while the real and most authentic manuscripts were lost and forgotten in Egypt."
Until a plausible scenario can be demonstrated, the idea that the most authentic texts were lots and forgotten in a Sinai monastery or a library of the Vatican should be rejected.
Such a position is outside of the "scholarly consensus," but what if the many scholars are wrong?
That was an argument against Luther at the time of the Reformation - "How can all of the scholars and authorities of the Roman Church be wrong?" But they were wrong - and much of modern scholarship is wrong. In fact, much of that scholarship has been deeply influenced by secular methodology.
Many modern textual scholars are not even orthodox in their approach to basic doctrines, and what many "scholars" find plausible, with their "almost certain" or "nearly certain" or "almost nearly certain" conclusions is not truth.
A really interesting essay. My two cents: for the traditions I'm most sympathetic to, the thought that the rough edges must be more authentic or less theological doesn't fit for me - Mark is doing profound theology: the blind man who saw but didn't see clearly, but then saw clearly, the disciples not seeing clearly, the 'don't tell anyone' theme, the Nazarene locals who didn't see Jesus except as a carpenter's son: a theme of spiritual blindness, that nobody really knows Christ until the Cross and Resurrection. Matthew, Luke and John are contemplating this mystery, perhaps, from other angles. Mark's ending, rather than a failure/nobody "seeing" the resurrection: it seems like it's asking whether you (the reader) will go to Galilee, which feels intentional/theological.
Thanks, George. I agree that roughness doesn’t equal authenticity, and Mark is clearly doing deliberate theological work. But a historical reading of these texts isn’t about reconstructing what actually happened but about understanding what people believed or claimed had happened and what we can deduce from that. Deciding what the truth really is belongs to theology, not history.
He did not do many miracles there.....Do you think it was from a lack of ability?
"I see things like trees moving around".....Jesus had just asked him a question - "Do you see anything?" And he saw. Then he touched him again. Do you think Jesus's power meter wasn't set high enough?
To me, the most remarkable thing about Mark is that it is the only gospel where Jesus commands a "teacher of the law" (Mark 12:28-34).
“could do no deed of power there, except that he laid his hands on a few sick people and cured them.” Mark says directly that Jesus couldn’t perform miracles in Nazareth because of the locals’ lack of faith.
This makes sense, if people dont knock he cannot open the door. God cannot interfere with our free will.
For me the most telling feature of Mark’s gospel is the original ending, which had no resurrection account, simply the women finding an empty tomb and fleeing. If we had no other gospel account, we might conclude Jesus was simply a failed prophet whose sacrifice came to naught. Maybe at the time Mark composed his gospel that was the prevailing opinion. There are other peculiar aspects of Mark, like the mysterious young man in white linen, that suggest large parts of the narrative have been lost or redacted out. Perhaps one day a scroll or papyrus will turn up that is close to the autograph version. How many biblical scholars would sacrifice their first-born to get the keys to the Vatican archives?
I once read a viable hypothesis about this. At the time, it wasn’t uncommon for the final pages of a manuscript to get lost due to the binding methods used. Therefore, Mark may have had an ending that we will never know about.
I have been trying to come up with scholarship that has some kind of speculation as to what sources the author of Mark may have used.
And speculations are all you can get since there is no consensus.
Burton Mack in A Myth of Innocence argues Mark was drawing on a sayings collection similar to Q, plus earlier written or oral accounts of the passion already circulating. Helmut Koester did substantial work on pre-Markan sources, arguing the passion account in particular looks like it was assembled from earlier independent units rather than composed fresh.
John Dominic Crossan went further and proposed a "Cross Gospel" embedded in the Gospel of Peter as a source Mark used, though most scholars don't buy it.
For the miracle stories specifically, Paul Achtemeier made an influential argument that Mark inherited two pre-existing collections of miracle stories, each following a similar pattern, and combined them into a single sequence.
What version of Mark do you recommend reading from your sources?
The NRSV is the standard scholarly choice; it's what most of the academics I cite use, and the New Oxford Annotated Bible (NRSV) gives you the notes that flag where the text is doing something interesting.
NRSV is one of the worst translations.
I don't speak Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek well enough to evaluate translation choices myself, so I go with what the scholars I cite use.
Genuinely curious what your evaluation is based on. Textual criticism? A specific passage? Or a general reputation you've picked up somewhere?
"The oldest and best Greek manuscripts of Mark, including Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus from the fourth century, end at 16:8"
Those two manuscripts are corrupt, and utterly worthless as a means of determining the original text. Tischendorf, the discoverer of Sinaiticus, counted thousands of places were multiple scribes had tried to correct errors in the text because they had no confidence in it. Entire lines are skipped, some lines are repeated twice.
A faithfully copied MS from the 9th century is a better witness to the text than a sloppily and carelessly made MS from the 4th century.
And no one can explain how many manuscripts from the areas where the originals were most accessible should be in error while the real and most authentic manuscripts were lost and forgotten in Egypt.
Thanks for reading and engaging. You're right that Sinaiticus and Vaticanus both carry corrections; Tischendorf did count them. However, correctors working on a manuscript is evidence that people were checking it against other copies, which is a normal part of transmission rather than a sign of a bad exemplar. The Byzantine tradition is more uniform because it was copied later within a standardized system, and uniformity is downstream of standardization rather than proof of accuracy.
Ultimately, what you're saying sounds more like a personal position than scholarly consensus, and that's an approach I stay away from in my pieces, because what I find most plausible isn't the definition of truth.
As you said, "correctors working on a manuscript is evidence that people were checking it against other copies."
That is certainly true. However, is literally thousands of corrections normal? I don't think so. The fact that a manuscript needed to be constantly corrected shows that the men doing the checking thought it was wrong, and did not have confidence in it.
Byzantine transmission is more uniform because it was "copied later within a standardized system"? Or because there was more immediate access to the originals, and because it was more reverently copied by people who did try to make heretical changes (such as removing references to the deity of Christ)?
True, uniformity MAY be downstream of standardization, but it may also be the result of careful and accurate copying of the originals by people who had great reverence for the text and were careful to copy it accurately.
Also, you ignored this point: "No one can explain how many manuscripts from the areas where the originals were most accessible should be in error while the real and most authentic manuscripts were lost and forgotten in Egypt."
Until a plausible scenario can be demonstrated, the idea that the most authentic texts were lots and forgotten in a Sinai monastery or a library of the Vatican should be rejected.
Such a position is outside of the "scholarly consensus," but what if the many scholars are wrong?
That was an argument against Luther at the time of the Reformation - "How can all of the scholars and authorities of the Roman Church be wrong?" But they were wrong - and much of modern scholarship is wrong. In fact, much of that scholarship has been deeply influenced by secular methodology.
Many modern textual scholars are not even orthodox in their approach to basic doctrines, and what many "scholars" find plausible, with their "almost certain" or "nearly certain" or "almost nearly certain" conclusions is not truth.
A really interesting essay. My two cents: for the traditions I'm most sympathetic to, the thought that the rough edges must be more authentic or less theological doesn't fit for me - Mark is doing profound theology: the blind man who saw but didn't see clearly, but then saw clearly, the disciples not seeing clearly, the 'don't tell anyone' theme, the Nazarene locals who didn't see Jesus except as a carpenter's son: a theme of spiritual blindness, that nobody really knows Christ until the Cross and Resurrection. Matthew, Luke and John are contemplating this mystery, perhaps, from other angles. Mark's ending, rather than a failure/nobody "seeing" the resurrection: it seems like it's asking whether you (the reader) will go to Galilee, which feels intentional/theological.
Thanks, George. I agree that roughness doesn’t equal authenticity, and Mark is clearly doing deliberate theological work. But a historical reading of these texts isn’t about reconstructing what actually happened but about understanding what people believed or claimed had happened and what we can deduce from that. Deciding what the truth really is belongs to theology, not history.
He did not do many miracles there.....Do you think it was from a lack of ability?
"I see things like trees moving around".....Jesus had just asked him a question - "Do you see anything?" And he saw. Then he touched him again. Do you think Jesus's power meter wasn't set high enough?
To me, the most remarkable thing about Mark is that it is the only gospel where Jesus commands a "teacher of the law" (Mark 12:28-34).
Okaaay. There goes decades of catechism. Thank you for the eye opener.
“could do no deed of power there, except that he laid his hands on a few sick people and cured them.” Mark says directly that Jesus couldn’t perform miracles in Nazareth because of the locals’ lack of faith.
This makes sense, if people dont knock he cannot open the door. God cannot interfere with our free will.
Nonsense