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...
| Main 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
|
| 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 |