The New Testament book of Mark is the most basic of the known Jesus narratives. Compared to the other Synoptic accounts, the material in the Markan narrative is minimalist and concise. One perspective is that Mark might be a condensed version of Matthew and Luke. Then again, Mark may be the earlier of the accounts, in which case the additional material in the others could be due to the development of the Jesus legend over the course of time. Regardless, I personally find Mark to be the best source to ascertain the basic content of the Jesus narrative.
The basic narrative thus being the tale of a young Hebrew itinerant preacher, who engaged in exorcisms and healings; and who likewise exerted mystical powers over nature, including the power over death itself. He quickly gained a following, and his popularity was such that at times he could not even find the time to eat when at home, leading him to withdraw to remote areas from time to time. Although popular with the masses, his liberal interpretation and loose application of Jewish teachings and traditions lead to disfavor with the Jewish leaders; who subsequently conspired with the Roman officials to have the hero of the narrative executed by crucifixion. Then, depending upon which of the two conclusions of the tale one chooses to accept; either a) three days after his death his grave was found empty, and one sole eyewitness claimed that Jesus had risen from the dead; or b) Jesus made several appearances to numerous disciples after rising from the dead on the third day after his crucifixion. As the narrative asserts that Jesus claimed that he would rise from the dead on the third day, the implications of either documented conclusion have fascinated followers of the Jesus narrative for nigh unto two millenniums.
It seems to me that the existence of two different endings to the narrative raises certain questions as to the composition of its content which merit serious consideration, separate and apart from the content of the material itself. For example, why are there two endings? Was the latter ending (16.9-20) a later rendition than the first ending (16.1-8)? What are implications of the two endings? And perhaps the question most pressing in my mind relates to the credibility of the concept of an alleged united narrative, in the light of a fragmented finale. In other words, since there are two different conclusions to this one single narrative, then can we reasonably assume that the narrative itself is a united text?
To my way of thinking, these questions are reasonable and relative to the study of the Markan narrative, in the light of the existence of two Markan conclusions. One popular means of dealing with the dual conclusion issue has been to gloss over the differences between the two accounts by writing them both into the text as a single conclusion. Yet the end of the first conclusion account states that the women who fled the empty tomb were too afraid to tell anyone what they had seen, which would seem to contradict the account of the second conclusion that Jesus appeared to Mary Magdalene. The latter can hardly be reconciled with the former as a single conclusion since Mary Magdalene was one of the women who according to the first conclusion fled the empty tomb too afraid to tell anyone what they had seen. Clearly then, these two conclusions are two different versions of the Jesus narrative.
My conclusion then with regards to the existence of the two conclusions of the biblical book of Mark is that it is therefore not reasonable to assume such to be a single narrative in and of itself, and furthermore that the entire text should be the subject of studious scrutiny as to its construction. It is thus my personal perspective that there needs to be a reasonable yet critical analysis of the construction of the entire narrative itself, in order to be able to more accurately determine the nature of its composition.
Such an endeavor is for me in fact a work in process.
