The wrong conclusion: Mark 16.1–8 and literary theory

Four points are made, with examples, challenging the literary arguments in favour of Mark 16.8 being the Gospel’s intended ending. First, the passage is full of unexplained loose ends such as ancient authors were careful to explain. Then, it lacks the closure given to ancient narrative of every genr...

Full description

Saved in:  
Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Oakeshott, Philip (Author)
Format: Electronic Article
Language:English
Check availability: HBZ Gateway
Journals Online & Print:
Drawer...
Fernleihe:Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste
Published: Sage 2010
In: Theology
Year: 2010, Volume: 113, Issue: 872, Pages: 105-113
Online Access: Volltext (lizenzpflichtig)
Parallel Edition:Non-electronic
Description
Summary:Four points are made, with examples, challenging the literary arguments in favour of Mark 16.8 being the Gospel’s intended ending. First, the passage is full of unexplained loose ends such as ancient authors were careful to explain. Then, it lacks the closure given to ancient narrative of every genre. Third, Kelber’s ‘parabolic style’ does not fit: parables do often close abruptly, but not ambiguously, and always with a strong final line. Last, the early Church never from the first accepted 16.8 as the ending; Matthew and Luke not only tidy Mark’s loose ends but finish the narrative properly.
ISSN:2044-2696
Contains:Enthalten in: Theology
Persistent identifiers:DOI: 10.1177/0040571X1011300205