Last week, we looked at the likely possibility that Mark’s ending is lost and gone forever. I would agree with the lost part, but what if it was (and here’s the important part) not gone forever? That’s what we want discuss today, but in order for it to make any sense, we have to reiterate what we said two weeks ago in the script. Matthew “used” Mark’s gospel and oftentimes imported Mark’s exact wording so that if you compare the parallel accounts in Mark and Matthew, you will see a huge amount of similarity. And while I agree that “copied” is such a strong word to describe what Matthew (and Luke) often did to Mark’s gospel, it is awfully close. Let me give you a few examples. Here’s a case where Matthew follows Mark almost word for word.

  • Mark 13:5-7 – “And Jesus began to say to them, ‘See to it that no one misleads you.Many will come in my name, saying, “I am He!” and they will mislead many. And when you hear of wars and rumors of wars, do not be frightened; those things must take place; but that is not yet the end.’”
  • Matthew 24:4-6 – “And Jesus answered them, ‘See to it that no one misleads you.For many will come in my name, saying, “I am the Christ,” and they will mislead many. And you will hear of wars and rumors of wars; see that you are not frightened, for those things must take place, but that is not yet the end.’”

It is possible you may dismiss the overwhelming amount of similarity here, saying, “Of course, there is agreement! They were both quoting Jesus.” However, we must remember that Jesus spoke and taught primarily in Aramaic, but what we see here is significant correspondence in Greek. Plus, even when there is agreement between Mark and Matthew (and again, Luke), when we turn to the parallel account in John, there is often little verbal agreement.

Another example. Look at Mark 1 and Matthew 8.

  • Mk 1:40-42 – “And a leper came to Jesus, beseeching Him and falling on his knees before Him, and saying, ‘If You are willing, you can make me clean.’Moved with compassion, Jesus stretched out His hand and touched him, and said to him, ‘I am willing; be cleansed.’ Immediately the leprosy left him and he was cleansed.”
  • Mt 8:2-4 – “And a leper came to Him and bowed down before Him, and said, ‘Lord, if You are willing, you can make me clean.’Jesus stretched out His hand and touched him, saying, ‘I am willing; be cleansed.’ And immediately his leprosy was cleansed.”

If there is any doubt that there is literary interdependence between Matthew and Mark, this example should remove any skepticism because there is also agreement in parenthetical material.

  • Mk 13:14-16 – “But when you see the abomination of desolationstanding where it should not be (let the reader understand), then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains. The one who is on the housetop must not go down, or go in to get anything out of his house; and the one who is in the field must not turn back to get his coat.”
  • 24:15-16 — “Therefore when you see the abomination of desolationwhich was spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand), then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains. Whoever is on the housetop must not go down to get the things out that are in his house. Whoever is in the field must not turn back to get his cloak.”

Robert Stein (The Synoptic Problem: An Introduction) writes:

“One of the most persuasive arguments for the literary interdependence of the synoptic Gospels is the presence of identical parenthetical material, for it is highly unlikely that two or three writers would by coincidence insert into their accounts exactly the same editorial comment at exactly the same place.”

There is also significant agreement in order.

 

  • Peter’s confession                  Mt 16:13-20               Mk 8:27-30
  • 1st passion prediction           Mt 16:21-23               Mk 8:30-33
  • Teaching on discipleship     Mt 16:24-28              Mk 8:34- 9:1
  • Transfiguration                     Mt 17:1-9                    Mk 9:2-10
  • Return of Elijah                     Mt 17:10-13                Mk 9:11-13
  • Healing of possessed boy    Mt 17:14-21                Mk 9:14-29
  • Second passion prediction  Mt 17:22-23               Mk 9:30-32
  • Temple tax                             Mt 17:24-27               [no parallel in Mk]
  • True greatness                      Mt 18:1-5                    Mk 9:33-37
  • Use of Jesus’ name              [no parallel in Mt]    Mk 9:38-41
  • Teaching on temptation     Mt 18:6-9                   Mk 9:42-50

Here’s the point of all of this. Matthew clearly depended on Mark’s gospel and often used Mark’s words, editorial comments, and order. True, Matthew felt free to edit Mark’s accounts (while Mark’s gospel is much shorter, his individual accounts are much longer) and insert material that he found important (for example, the discussion of the temple tax; see above), including large blocks of material (for instance, the Sermon on the Mount in chapters 5-7 and the latter half of chapter 18), but he clearly follows Mark’s storyline. Matthew also copies some of Mark’s stylistic features (two quick examples: Mark loves to use the words, “immediately” and “for”). In other words, if we know where to look and what to look for, we can see traces of Mark all over Matthew’s gospel. The question for us now is: Do we see any traces of Mark in Matthew’s resurrection account? And the answer is “yes.”

We begin with the incredible similarities between Mark 16:8 and Matthew 28:8.

  • Mk 16:8 – “Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid.”
  • Mt 28:8 – “So the women hurried away from the tomb, afraid yet filled with joy, and ran to tell his disciples.”

Are they different? Absolutely. But those differences could easily be explained by Matthew editing Mark so that Mark’s meaning is made clear (we’ve seen several cases of that in the passages we have quoted above). In other words, Matthew 28:8 is so clearly Matthew’s rendition of Mark 16:8 that what follows it could very well be Mark’s lost ending.

And note this. The problem, as we have said all along, is that Mark’s gospel ends without a sense of resolve. However, if you add verses 9-10 of Matthew 28 to the end of Mark, everything fits together nicely as you can plainly see (Mt. 28:8-10):

  • “So the women hurried away from the tomb, afraid yet filled with joy, and ran to tell his disciples. Suddenly Jesus met them. ‘Greetings,’ he said. They came to him, clasped his feet and worshiped him. Then Jesus said to them, ‘Do not be afraid. Go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee; there they will see me.’”

In fact, there are many Mark-like phrasings in Matthew’s account of the resurrection that further support our suggestion that Matthew 28:8-10 is, in fact, Mark’s lost ending. It both has Mark’s fingerprints (vocabulary, style and feel) all over it and it would act as a very fitting end to Mark’s gospel. More than that, we need something in Mark that would transform the disciples from half-hearted followers into men and women who went out and changed their world in Jesus’ name. In the other gospels, it is the encounter with the resurrected Jesus that changes the disciples, but Mark leaves us without that encounter. We hear the angels’ words that Jesus has risen. We see the empty tomb. We are reminded that Jesus foretold of his death on numerous occasions, but always emphasized that after three days he would rise again and appear to his disciples in Galilee. And yet, in Mark’s Gospel that we have in our Bibles today, all these notes are left without any resolution. Since Mark was a brilliant author, that makes no sense. And so, we are forced to believe that Mark’s ending was lost, but not lost and gone forever. Instead, we find Mark’s ending in Matthew’s account of the resurrection.

It may not be quite the same as Clementine’s lover realizing that what he had lost could be replaced by Clementine’s sister, but sometimes lost things are found in the unlikeliest of places. And I am certainly glad that Matthew “copied” Mark so that we could find a perfect resolution to the story and not have to be dreadful sorry. Jesus is the resurrected Lord and even Mark says so (even if he now says it in Matthew). And that moves us from being “dreadful sorry” to “overwhelmingly joyous.” And that’s the way every gospel should end.