No Factbook Entry for Longer Ending of Mark???

I've tried searching a number of ways and can't find a Factbook entry for just Mark 16:9-20. That seems like an oversight. It's definitely in its own pericope, so I'm not sure why the Factbook is not treating it as such.

I tried typing in the words "Longer Ending of Mark" and "Mark 16:9-20" and nothing comes for that specific reference. I get suggestions for all of Chapter 16 and for just vv.19-20 or vv.9-18. Weird that it doesn't treat 9-20 as it's own pericope.

Find more posts tagged with

Desktop App

Comments

Dave Hooton

9-20 as it's own pericope

Some bibles have that as a pericope e.g. LEB. Jn 7.53-8.11 is recognised as a single pericope, but Mark 16:9-20 is several pericopes, so some may wonder about the 12-13, 14-18, 14-20 pericopes!?

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1141138#Comment_1141138

The pericopes available for the end of Mark in Factbook is below the arrow.

This provides two pericopes in Factbook

Olli-Pekka Ylisuutari

I know my reply doesn’t answer directly your question as to why there is no factbook entry on the “longer ending” of St. Mark’s Gospel, but while waiting for it, here are some commentary links in my library that have appendices that deal with it (many, in case you don’t have a particular one):

The UBS Handbook on Mark by Robert G. Bratcher & Eugene A. Nida (1961). Or the Interpretation Commentary by Lamar Williamson Jr. (1983). Or the Tyndale Commentary by R. Alan Cole (1989). Or the Black’s Commentary by Morna D. Hooker (1991). Or the Westminster Bible Companion by Douglas R. A. Hare (1996). Or the Pillar Commentary by James R. Edwards (2002). Or the Smyth&Helwys Commentary by R. Alan Culpeller (2007). Or the IVP New Testament Commentary by Ronald E. Kernaghan (2007). Or the Paideia Commentary by Mary Ann Beavis (2011).

And then in the NT Introduction Discovering the New Testament by Mark Kewon (2018) (the 3^rd edition is on sale now).

Since our libraries are not identical, I sincerely hope that you have at least some of these resources!

EDIT. The links lead to the right place.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1141167#Comment_1141167

I know my reply doesn’t answer directly your question as to why there is no factbook entry on the “longer ending” of St. Mark’s Gospel, but while waiting for it,

The answer was given - there are entries for the longer ending of Mark - but in multiple pericopes rather than the one he assumed. Unless it is considered a named text, I wouldn't expect entries beyond the pericopes.

Olli-Pekka Ylisuutari

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1141169#Comment_1141169

The answer was given - there are entries for the longer ending of Mark - but in multiple pericopes rather than the one he assumed. Unless it is considered a named text, I wouldn't expect entries beyond the pericopes.

Thanks! I don't understand what you refer to by the term "a named text" (a Logos term, perhaps?), but in exegetical studies I've come to know "the longer ending of Mark" almost as an exegetical concept. Hence the links to the appendices that deal with it. [:)]

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1141170#Comment_1141170

Named texts is a collection of Factbook entries and a dataset for things like the Bread of Life discourse, The Sermon on the Mount, The Song of the Suffering Servant, the Holiness Code ...I've not seen a list of what will be in it but I have given a top of the head list of what I would expect to be in it. When the Factbook is further along in its development, I would expect to see the commentary resources you point to in a section in the Factbook entry I mentioned. From the wording of your post, I was certain you understood that I had pointed to Factbook entries that exist. But as you know, I do overdo a precise reading that exaggerates possible misunderstandings.

Olli-Pekka Ylisuutari

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1141175#Comment_1141175

Named texts is a collection of Factbook entries and a dataset for things like...

Thank You for the clarification. I'm learning... [Y]

Gregory Lawhorn

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1141177#Comment_1141177

MJ, I see that your passage analysis is nice pastel colors. The colors in mine are so dark, and the text is black, so that it's a misery to use. Was yours simply like that, or is there a setting I'm missing? I'm on a Mac, by the way.

SineNomine

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1141169#Comment_1141169

Unless it is considered a named text, I wouldn't expect entries beyond the pericopes.

I think it should be considered a named text.

Kiyah

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1141142#Comment_1141142

The pericopes available for the end of Mark in Factbook is below the arrow.

This provides two pericopes in Factbook

I noted all of this in my original post. My point is that there should be a whole pericope in the Factbook called "The Longer Ending of Mark" that includes Mk 16:9-20, and the data in the factbook entry for this pericope should point to articles/books/dictionaries with discussions on the Longer Ending of Mark and the textual issues surrounding it. My point is it should be treated uniquely and separately as a whole.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1141273#Comment_1141273

Kiyah, I was trying to answer:

It's definitely in its own pericope, so I'm not sure why the Factbook is not treating it as such.

Pericopes in Factbook are by definition the Logos Common Pericopes. They appear in the Compare pericopes so that we know exactly what they are. If you use Compare pericopes, you will see treating it as a single, unified pericope is not the norm.

My point is it should be treated uniquely and separately as a whole.

I do not dispute that the longer ending of Mark deserves treatment as a unit but in the Factbook context, it fits better as a named text. Named texts are not yet implemented although bits and pieces proofing their existence do occasionally pop-up.

My apologies for not being clearer that I was precisely answering your question. I should have been more explicit that I was pointing you to the "definitive definition" of Factbook pericopes.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1141192#Comment_1141192

Was yours simply like that, or is there a setting I'm missing? I'm on a Mac, by the way.

I'm on a PC - mine have always been pastel.