Gospel of Mark background and studies and abrupt ending

The oldest manuscripts do show this abrupt ending . The chapter's remaining material that appears today derives from other later sources, calling into doubt the text's authenticity. The abrupt ending may have been designed with readeras in mind familiar with the traditions of Jesus' post resurrection appearances. The longer ending may have been unknown from patristic times and added during the second century to fill out Jesus' post resurrection traditions. Had the material been lost or the book been stopped in its completion by intervention of the authorities.

• The directions the narrative would have taken re: the post resurrection appearances. The later meeting in Galilee with the disciples: had that the intention of focusing on further suffering of the community and not the happy return home of Jesus? Post resurrection appearances might have detracted from the message of the necessity of further earthly suffering for the community.
• The church had not yet experienced power and riches and the abrupt ending may have implied the symbolic nature of Jesus' going ahead in martyrdom, and that the same awaited his true followers maintaining their faith to the end. The abrupt announcement that Jesus has arisen is only the start of their new covenant with God . "And greater works than these shall ye do because I go to the Father."
  

The oldest manuscripts of Mark end with verse 8 of chapter 16. This is a
very abrupt ending; in fact in Greek it ends almost ungrammatically on a
conjunction. The rest of the chapter that typically appears today contains
language and symbolism which strongly suggest that they were taken from other,
later sources; thus, validity of the rest of Mark is the subject of much
speculation and debate.
Was it Mark’s intention to end the gospel in this
manner? It’s not unreasonable to suppose this as possible. Mark’s audience may
have already been familiar with various traditions of Jesus’ post-resurrection
appearances, so there wouldn’t necessarily have been any great need for Mark to
go into detail. An abrupt ending may have been perceived as more dramatic and
ending on a conjunction, while odd, isn’t totally ungrammatical.
In addition
to being absent on the earliest available manuscripts, the longer ending of Mark
also appears to have been unknown in patristic times. This suggests that it was
likely added during the second century in order to flesh out Jesus’
post-resurrection traditions. There are any number of reasons for the scribes to
think that a longer ending was appropriate: perhaps that material had since been
lost, or perhaps Mark had been prevented by authorities from completing his
book.
The fact that Matthew and Luke expanded on Mark’s material to create
longer endings testifies to an early feeling that something more was needed in
the story — that the clumsy ending of Mark wasn’t adequate to the task at hand.
Many scholars even today tend to agree with this and argue that perhaps Mark did
intend to have more before his story finished. Why we don’t have such an ending,
though, is anyone’s guess.
What direction the narrative would have taken
seems clear. Verse 7 states that Jesus was to meet his disciples in Galilee and
it’s inconceivable that Mark wouldn’t have regarded that meeting as having
occurred. Mark always depicts Jesus as a reliable prophet whose statements about
the future consistently come to pass. Mark must have been aware of something,
some tradition, but if he had anything to say on the mater we don’t have it.
Then again, perhaps Mark’s audience was expected to fill in the end of the
story themselves — specifically, with themselves. Jesus is supposed to “go
ahead” of the disciples to Galilee, but Jesus’ mission was to be one of
suffering and death, not a return to a happy life back home. Jesus may have
risen, but suffering and persecution remained realities for Mark’s community and
post-resurrection appearances would have detracted from this.

____________________________________________________________
If the words
were meant symbolically, perhaps the disciples were to understand that Jesus has
“gone ahead” of them in terms of having been martyred and that they would soon
follow, assuming that are able to remain faithful to his message. Mark’s
audience may have been expected to think of themselves as “disciples” as well,
followers of Jesus who have been persecuted for their beliefs and who are
expected to maintain faith even in the face of torture and death.
The
Christian church for Mark was not one that yet enjoyed power, glory, or riches.
It was still characterized by oppression and suffering, both at the individual
level and institutionally. Jesus predicted to his disciples that his death
implied their own later on, a reality being experienced by Christians in Mark’s
day. There is then some sense behind ending the gospel not on a note of hope and
glory, but fear and silence.
Thus, Mark may have regarded his gospel as
simply the beginning of the story. His narrative may end abruptly with the
announcement that Jesus is risen, but for the Christian community this is only
the start of their new covenant with God. Mark’s readers may have been expected
to complete the gospel themselves by taking up the cross as Jesus did and
suffering for his sake, just as Mark described him suffering for them.

http://atheism.about.com/od/markcommentaryanalysis1/Gospel_of_Mark_Bible_Study_Analysis_Commentary_Background_History.htm

Gospel of Mark Dating and Origins

• The gospel is dated 65-75 CE due top references to the 2nd temple's destruction.
• Because of the reference to the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in 70 CE (Mark 13:2), most scholars believe that Mark was written some time during the war between Rome and the Jews (66-74). Most early dates fall around 65 CE and most late dates fall around 75 CE.
• Arhument for a later date is given in this quote: Those who argue for a later date say that Mark was able to include the prophecy about the destruction of the Temple because it had already happened. Most say that Mark was written during the war when it was obvious that Rome was going to exact a terrible vengeance on the Jews for their rebellion, even though the details were unknown. Some lean more towards later in the war, some earlier. For them, it doesn’t make a great deal of difference whether Mark wrote shortly before the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE or shortly after. Rome's xaction of vengeance being obvious is not obvious to me and needs to be clarified. Had it been that obvious would the zealots have directed their efforts so filled with vengeance and savagery even against their fellows?
• Mark's Latinisms indicate a Roman audience: Those who argue for a later date say that Mark was able to include the prophecy about the destruction of the Temple because it had already happened. Most say that Mark was written during the war when it was obvious that Rome was going to exact a terrible vengeance on the Jews for their rebellion, even though the details were unknown. Some lean more towards later in the war, some earlier. For them, it doesn’t make a great deal of difference whether Mark wrote shortly before the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE or shortly after.
• Written in Rome? Perhaps not due to the prevalence of Latinisms and Roman customs across the empire.Because of the dominance of Roman customs across their empire, though, the existence of such Latinisms really doesn’t require that Mark was written in Rome. It’s quite plausible that people in even the most distant provinces could have become used to using Roman terms for soldiers, money, and measurement. The inference that Mark’s community was suffering persecution is also sometimes used to argue for a Roman origin, but the connection isn’t necessary. Many Christian and Jewish communities suffered at this time, and even if they didn’t, simply knowing that somewhere Christians were being killed just for being Christian would have been sufficient to produce fear and doubt.
• Responsibility for Jesus' death laid with the Jews , inthe desire to absolve th Romans of all responsibility. It’s likely, though, that Mark was written in an environment where Roman rule was a constant presence. There are many clear signs that Mark has gone to great lengths to absolve Romans of the responsibility for Jesus’ death — even to the point of painting Pontius Pilate as a weak, indecisive leader rather than the brutal tyrant that everyone knew him to be. We cannot use the argument of Pilate's indecisiveness as an absolving factor of Roman complicity in Jesus' death in that Pilate was kinown to be ferocious and tyrranical : even to the point of painting Pontius Pilate as a weak, indecisive leader rather than the brutal tyrant that everyone knew him to be.
• It’s quite plausible that people in even the most distant provinces could have become used to using Roman terms for soldiers, money, and measurement. The inference that Mark’s community was suffering persecution is also sometimes used to argue for a Roman origin, but the connection isn’t necessary. Many Christian and Jewish communities suffered at this time.
• The Jews' leaders and the people, to a degree, were saddled with blame for th death pf Jesus and this was more palatable to his Gentile audience, his Roman audience.

Dating and Origins of Mark’s Gospel
When Was the Gospel According to Mark
Written?
By Austin Cline, About.com Guide
See More About:
christian history
biblical criticism
gospel of mark

Lion of St Mark
zSB(3,3)
Because of the reference to the destruction
of the Temple in Jerusalem in 70 CE (Mark 13:2), most scholars believe that Mark
was written some time during the war between Rome and the Jews (66-74). Most
early dates fall around 65 CE and most late dates fall around 75 CE.
Those
who favor an earlier date argue that Mark's language indicates that the author
knew that there would be serious trouble in the future but, unlike Luke, didn't
know exactly what that trouble would entail. Of course, it wouldn’t have taken
divinely inspired prophecy to guess that the Romans and Jews were on yet another
collision course. Supporters of early dating also need to make room between Mark
and the writing of Matthew and Luke, both of which they also date early — as
early as 80 or 85 CE.
Conservative scholars who favor an early date often
rely heavily upon a fragment of papyrus from Qumran. In a cave sealed in 68 CE
was a piece of a text which it is claimed was an early version of Mark, thus
allowing Mark to be dated before the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem.
This fragment, though, is just one inch long and one inch wide. On it are five
lines with nine good letters and one complete word — hardly a firm foundation
upon which we can rest an early date for Mark.
Those who argue for a later
date say that Mark was able to include the prophecy about the destruction of the
Temple because it had already happened. Most say that Mark was written during
the war when it was obvious that Rome was going to exact a terrible vengeance on
the Jews for their rebellion, even though the details were unknown. Some lean
more towards later in the war, some earlier. For them, it doesn’t make a great
deal of difference whether Mark wrote shortly before the destruction of the
Temple in 70 CE or shortly after.
Mark's language contains a number of
"Latinisms" — loan words from Latin to Greek — which would suggest that he
thinks in Latin terminology. Some of these Latinisms include (Greek/Latin) 4:27
modios/modius (a measure), 5:9,15: legiôn/legio (legion), 6:37:
dênariôn/denarius (a Roman coin), 15:39, 44-45: kenturiôn/centurio (centurion;
both Matthew and Luke use ekatontrachês, the equivalent term in Greek). All this
is used to argue that Mark wrote for a Roman audience, perhaps even in Rome
itself, long the traditional location of Mark’s work in Christian beliefs.
Because of the dominance of Roman customs across their empire, though, the
existence of such Latinisms really doesn’t require that Mark was written in
Rome. It’s quite plausible that people in even the most distant provinces could
have become used to using Roman terms for soldiers, money, and measurement. The inference that Mark’s community was suffering persecution is also sometimes used
to argue for a Roman origin, but the connection isn’t necessary. Many Christian
and Jewish communities suffered at this time, and even if they didn’t, simply
knowing that somewhere Christians were being killed just for being Christian
would have been sufficient to produce fear and doubt.
It’s likely, though,
that Mark was written in an environment where Roman rule was a constant
presence. There are many clear signs that Mark has gone to great lengths to
absolve Romans of the responsibility for Jesus’ death — even to the point of
painting Pontius Pilate as a weak, indecisive leader rather than the brutal
tyrant that everyone knew him to be. Instead of the Romans, Mark’s author lays
the blame with the Jews — primarily the leaders, but also to the rest of the
people to a certain degree.
This would have made things much easier for his
audience. Had the Romans discovered a religious movement focused upon a
political revolutionary executed for crimes against the state, they would have
clamped down much harder than they already were doing. As it was, a religious
movement focused upon on obscure Jewish prophet who broke a few irrelevant
Jewish laws could be largely ignored when there weren’t direct orders from Rome
to increase the pressure.