The Gospel of Mark

I find it interesting that Mark, the oldest of the gospels originally did not end with an actual resurrection. Just an empty grave, which isn't that implausible. Matthew and Luke both uses a lot of material from Mark(look up synoptic gospels [link] ) but added a resurrection. And later on, Mark is "corrected" so it won't conflict with the other two.

"A second ending is the so-called `Longer Ending' (Mk 16.9-20) which is present in the King James version but lacking in our oldest manuscripts as well as from all Greek manuscripts known to Eusebius and Jerome. It is not attested in Greek manuscripts of the New Testament before the ®fth century. Its earliest attestation is by Irenaeus, and so it probably arose in the mid-second century, or shortly before. It was clearly unknown to Matthew or Luke who both sharply diverge, as we have seen, after Mark. 16.8. Lacking Markan style and content (as well as a smooth juncture between Mk 16.8 and 16.9), it presents us with seventeen non-Markan words, or words used in a non-Markan sense. By common consent, it is either an artificial, composite summary of the resurrection traditions in the other Gospels, designed presumably to bring Mark into line with them (W. Marxsen), or a catechetical summary of post-resurrection appearances drawing on some independent elements of the tradition (B. H. Streeter, C. E. B. Cranfield, R. H. Fuller)."
The Theology Of The Gospel Of Mark - W. R. Telford


Mark 16 at Wikipedia:
[link]

Mark 16 at Biblegateway:
[link]

Mark 16 at Skeptic's Annotated Bible:
[link]

Stock with no boring rules by ~bitter-stock: