Mark 16:8 is a fitting ending to the Gospel.’ Critically discuss this statement.
Introduction
The Gospel of Mark tells us many interesting things about the ministry of Jesus
Christ including his death and his empty tomb with a view to helping us discover
him as the saviour from sin and way to eternal life and the Son of God.
The Gospel stops with the story of Jesus’ death by crucifixion and men in white
announcing to women who visited his tomb that he had risen from the dead. It
ends with Mark 16:8, “Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from
the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid” (NIV).
Many ideas about why Mark ended at 16:8 are as good as each other.
Alfred Loisy thought that Mark ended with saying nobody
told about the empty tomb for his gospel was the first to even mention it.
Could it be that Mark just stopped for he was afraid of going too far with
fabrication?
If you can assume that the ending was lost or assume that it was removed for it
debunked the resurrection or contradicted what the other gospels were saying
then you can. Considering that religions typically do edit out stuff to
make their case look stronger you could say the disappearance must have been
about hiding something. If the gospel had something like, "The women never
spoke about it not even until this day. The disciples asked them about the
tomb and they said they knew nothing. Then Peter and John went to the tomb
and found nobody there but when they left the tomb two men in white came to them
and said, Jesus is risen and you must go to Galilee to see him. The
apostles went to Galilee and there they saw Jesus who sent them out into the
world to preach the good news until he comes again" is it any wonder it would
have been cut out?
If Mark was making up the story he could have invented the visit of the women to the tomb and their silence as an "explanation" for why nobody had heard of this empty tomb before. Or was his purpose to have angels in white or men in white to announce the resurrection? Was that all the earliest believers had: alleged men or angels from God saying Jesus rose?
When Mark says the women told nobody we don’t know if he
means they never told so we cannot consider his story evidence for the
resurrection. Nor can we consider the women to be witnesses. Those
who say women were never witnesses in those days should take that line. So
there is no reason to think Mark presents any indication that Jesus really rose.
In a secular account or miraculous account we cannot treat the absence of
evidence for something as evidence that it happened. This is even more
true in an account of the miraculous. Credulity means believing in magic or
miracles when there are gaps in the evidence that may mean a natural explanation
is enough.
Problem of the Ending
It seems odd that a gospel would end with simply saying the women were afraid
seemingly in mid-sentence. Also, it gives us a gospel without resurrection
appearances of Jesus being recorded.
It is easily suspected that the end has been lost. As Mark is considered to be
scripture, it seems odd if God would let that happen.
Peter G Bolt
(Bolt, P. G. The Cross from a Distance (IVP, 2004) p. 146) states that
there is “little doubt” that Mark ended at 16:8. Most scholars agree (Strobel,
L. The Case for Easter (Zondervan, 2003) p. 75).
I think the endings are unnecessary and suspect. Some conclude that Mark 16:8 is
where Mark intended to finish the gospel because the endings are suspect. But
that does not follow.
Rather than discuss the authenticity of the longer ending for Mark and the
shorter ending any further then let us ask if Mark could have ended at 16:8.
Does Grammar Refute Mark 16:8 being the End?
Verse 8 ends in the original Greek with a word meaning “for” or "because". The
word is gar. Gar is a more fluid word than many realise. It can be
translated "after all", "in fact" or "surely" which is how according to Why
Priests? A Failed Tradition by Garry Wills (Viking, 2013) it appears in the
letter to the Hebrews. "In its various contexts, gar can thus be
translated as 'in fact', 'indeed', 'naturally' 'obviously'..."
Then our verse becomes "Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, they were afraid after all."
The word gar can be used to end a sentence. There are
examples of this happening in ancient Greek literature – Protagoras’ speech for
example. However, as JP Holding reminds us, Kelly Iverson of Dallas Seminary who
has studied the issue gives us instances of sentences ending like that 6. But
works that end that way have not been found. It could be answered that Mark is
the first example of a work that does. Holding, J.P. JP Holding Did Mark's
Gospel end at 16:8?
http://tektonics.org/lp/markend.html
I don't think that is likely.
The real reason some want to rationalise the fact that the gospel was incomplete
is it refutes the notion that God is author as well as Mark. Would God write a
book he does not finish?
Does Mark provide other examples of “abruptness”?
It may be thought that Mark’s Gospel can be shown to prepare us for a sudden
end. For example, the gospel begins virtually with Jesus’ baptism late on in his
life. His earlier life is not mentioned. The gospel uses “jolts” to put its
message across and for dramatic effect and to force us to go to the Holy Spirit,
who Jesus promises to give in a baptism of spirit and fire, for the rest of the
story.
But that was merely Mark's style. After the abrupt bits there was text. It
defies logic to argue that this abruptness explains the sudden ending.
“The form of the Gospel of Mark is fast-paced and often abrupt” (Carter, J.
W. A Perspective on the Distinctiveness of Mark's Gospel
www.biblicaltheology.com/Research/CarterJ07.html.)
On one occasion Jesus was told his mother and brothers wanted to speak to him
(Mark 3:34). He said it was those who obeyed the word of God who were his mother
and brothers and sisters. Mark makes no effort to explain this or to say how
Jesus explained it. He just leaves us in a state of shock to figure it out for
ourselves.
Mark asserted at the start of the gospel that Jesus was the Son of God. Rather
than give us the evidence and then conclude that Jesus was the Son of God he
does the reverse. This incredible confidence is a device he uses to indicate
that Jesus’ disciples had better evidence than any gospel could ever convey.
That is a typical trick used by charlatans, "Oh we know something you don't."
Some then reason, "Mark uses sudden endings to make us ask ourselves questions.
He ends his gospel suddenly to confront us with the biggest question of all
which is, “Do I sense the risen Jesus being with me and do I open my heart to
him to proclaim his salvation without fear restraining me?”" That is total
rubbish. Mark never strives to give people a personal relationship with Jesus.
The gospel is about God and God's kingdom.
It is argued that the gospel gives us evidence for the resurrection in the form
of the empty tomb, the message from the risen Jesus given by a messenger and the
promise of appearances (Strobel, L. The Case for Easter p. 75). It
seems that the prediction of appearances of Jesus would not have been mentioned
if they had not happened. It appears that despite the gospel seeming to have a
sudden end, enough evidence was given to justify belief in the resurrection. Or
does it? I can predict that people will see Elvis Presley. My being right does
not mean that the visions are real.
Why End with the Women’s Fear?
If the abrupt ending really was the ending then why end
there?
The angel gave the women a message from Jesus to tell the disciples to go to
Galilee to meet the risen Jesus. Mark tells us that the women carried this
message away with them and did not mention it to anyone. It is said that Mark
wants us to feel, “They didn’t give the message so it is our duty to embrace the
message and share it. We must ask the world to meet Jesus.” This is not to be
understood as a denial that the women did deliver the message eventually. That
would make Mark contradict the other gospels. And it is unnecessary to assume
that. But the problem is that Mark never visualised the resurrection in terms of
a spiritual relationship with Jesus.
The women did not keep silent for long. If they hadn’t spoken Mark wouldn’t have
their story to record for us. How does this square with what we are told in
Young's Literal Translation “For they were afraid (efobounto gar). Imperfect
tense. The continued fear explains their continued silence.” 9. I think the
answer is that the silence was kept up for a while.
We do not know from Mark if the women said anything later on. Mark chooses not
to tell us that they did. Why? It leaves us realising that the story needs to be
told (The Cross from a Distance p. 152). The implication being that it
is up to us who experienced the risen Jesus to tell. The women were afraid. If
we experience Jesus we will not be afraid to tell the world that it can be saved
through his death and that he is alive to day to be its friend and rock.
William Lane Craig wrote that Mark loves to stress terror and awe when God shows
his presence to people. He wrote,
“this reaction of the women – of fleeing with fear and trembling, and saying
nothing to anyone because they were afraid – is all part of Mark’s literary and
theological style” -The Case for Easter p. 48
I agree. Mark wished to rouse a sense of shock in us when he wrote that Jesus
cried that God had forsaken him. He did not mention that Jesus’ cry was made up
of the start of a psalm that was about hope.
Were the women afraid of getting into trouble with the authorities if they said
anything? John Gill wrote that the women were “were afraid to tell any but the
disciples of these things, for fear of the Jews; lest they should be thought to
have stolen the body of Christ, and so be taken up on that account, and
punished” (Mark 16:8,
http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/gills-exposition-of-the-bible/mark-16-8.html?.
I'm glad Gill wrote that for it is said the women found the tomb open. If the
body was still inside it they could have taken it and hid it and lied that Jesus
rose to cover up their crime. Jesus would have rotted rapidly so if the body
turned up nobody would have known for sure it was him.
Or were they afraid because they had an astounding and supernatural experience
at the tomb wherein they saw angels telling them that Jesus rose from the dead?
Some say this is a better understanding. It is said to be supported in the
original Greek which speaks of tromov kai ekstasiv, trembling and ecstasy
(Young's Literal Translation,
http://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Bible.show/sVerseID/24882/eVerseID/24882/RTD/rwpnt/version/YLT).
But those words do not necessarily imply the supernatural. They could have had a
self-induced charismatic or mystical experience so nothing much should be read
into it.
Mark wants to excite our curiosity. This makes us ask, then how do we know Jesus
rose? He tells us nothing about what happened after Jesus rose from the dead. He
merely says that Jesus rose from the dead and two men in white, presumably
angels, announced this to the women. Believers keep saying he wants the answer
to the question to be, “I have experienced the redemptive power of the risen
saviour and that is how I know that he is risen”. In reality, he was just like
the miracle-mongers of the day. He was out to give spiritual thrills and awaken
an unhealthy fascination with magic and the supernatural.
It must be admitted that the reasons for Mark ending
there do not seem very convincing.
David Guzik's Commentaries on the Bible
http://www.studylight.org/com/guz/view.cgi?book=mr&chapter=016).
Mark 16 http://www.religioustolerance.org/mark_16.htm.