In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Journal of Early Christian Studies 11.2 (2003) 236-238



[Access article in PDF]
James A. Kelhoffer Miracle and Mission: The Authentication of Missionaries and Their Message in the Longer Ending of Mark Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, Reihe 2/112 Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 2000 Pp. xix + 530. $99.50.

This published dissertation comes from a promising young scholar of New Testament (= NT) and early patristic literature whose interests and subsequent publications are oriented toward the development of second-century Gospel traditions. Directed by Adela Yarbro Collins and defended at the University of Chicago (1998), the study provides an examination of the origins and nature of the longer ending of the Gospel of Mark (= LE). Unlike much doctoral work, this study is readable and clear. At the same time, the subject matter and its presentation are likely to be beyond the abilities of most undergraduates and non-specialists in the field. [End Page 236]

The manuscript contains seven chapters and an epilogue with key arguments in chapters 2-5. Chapter 1 summarizes representative research on the question of the LE from 1801-1993 (5-46). Kelhoffer's primary goal is stated here: to explore and explain the origins of Mark 16.9-20 and the author's distinctive views about the Christian mission (46).

In chapter 2 Kelhoffer argues against previous efforts to attribute the LE to a hypothetical tradition, and he endorses the view that the LE uses ("imitates") the New Testament (= NT) as its source. This stance challenges Helmut Koester's preference for oral traditions, a position which is virtually a "school of thought" for most students. After comparing numerous literary parallels, Kelhoffer also rejects Joseph Hug's belief that a non-canonical source lies behind the LE (65). Instead, he asserts that, "the LE's author composed this passage to improve Mark's ending in conscious imitation of the NT Gospels" (65).

Chapter 3 defines the type of tradition that the author of the LE used. Kelhoffer rejects Koester's view that the burden of proof is on scholars to show that the ancients drew from written texts instead of oral traditions, and he believes that Hug's thesis concerning the use of independent motifs is speculative and unconvincing. Instead, Kelhoffer proposes that the author of the LE finished the earlier work of Mark through an imaginative effort (137). The author possibly knew a version of John that included chapter 21, but he certainly was familiar with the Synoptic Gospels and perhaps also with Acts. Thus, he probably did not write before 120 C.E. Comparable "forgeries" from Christian antiquity (Epistle to the Laodiceans, 5 Ezra, 3 Corinthians, etc.) are reviewed to show that this trend in LE was not unique. Indeed, knowledge of such a wide array of texts runs counter to Koester's view that the Gospels did not circulate together as scripture before 200 C.E.

The remainder of the book seeks a context for the composition of the LE. Chapter 4 insists "that the LE is a novel, unified composition written for the purpose of completing the narrative left off at Mark 16.8" (158) and is not borrowed from a canonical text. A probable date of ca. 120-150 C.E. is offered with the observations that Justin Martyr (First Apology 1.45) is the earliest external attestation to the text and that Justin's knowledge of the Acts of Pilate (which reflects this segment of Mark) may help to date the fragment no later than ca. 140 C.E. Kelhoffer reviews various literary forms that appear within the LE, and he provides a long discourse on Mark 16.17-18 and the presence of 'miracle lists' in late Jewish and early Christian literature (199-228). Literary analogies to the LE are found in the Gospel of Peter, John 20.11-29, materials in Luke-Acts, and Matthew 28.

The primary purpose of chapters 5-7 is "to place the LE in relation to other texts which touch upon both...

pdf

Share