APA 6th Edition Mrakovčić, B. (2009). Problem i poruka otvorenog završetka Markova evanđelja. Crkva u svijetu, 44 (1), 7-29. Preuzeto s https://hrcak.srce.hr/35740
MLA 8th Edition Mrakovčić, Božidar. "Problem i poruka otvorenog završetka Markova evanđelja." Crkva u svijetu, vol. 44, br. 1, 2009, str. 7-29. https://hrcak.srce.hr/35740. Citirano 26.02.2020.
Chicago 17th Edition Mrakovčić, Božidar. "Problem i poruka otvorenog završetka Markova evanđelja." Crkva u svijetu 44, br. 1 (2009): 7-29. https://hrcak.srce.hr/35740
Harvard Mrakovčić, B. (2009). 'Problem i poruka otvorenog završetka Markova evanđelja', Crkva u svijetu, 44(1), str. 7-29. Preuzeto s: https://hrcak.srce.hr/35740 (Datum pristupa: 26.02.2020.)
Vancouver Mrakovčić B. Problem i poruka otvorenog završetka Markova evanđelja. Crkva u svijetu [Internet]. 2009 [pristupljeno 26.02.2020.];44(1):7-29. Dostupno na: https://hrcak.srce.hr/35740
IEEE B. Mrakovčić, "Problem i poruka otvorenog završetka Markova evanđelja", Crkva u svijetu, vol.44, br. 1, str. 7-29, 2009. [Online]. Dostupno na: https://hrcak.srce.hr/35740. [Citirano: 26.02.2020.]
Sažetak The problem of the ending of Mark’s Gospel is in the first place a textual, but also an interpretative problem. The authors nowadays almost unanimously agree that the second Gospel ends in 16,8, and the rest of the text (16,9-20) is a secondary addition. The fact that this addition originates probably from the 2nd century A. D. bears witness to the interpretative difficulty of Mark’s open ending. The escape and the silence of women caused by fear, instead of the joyful announcement of resurrection and Easter appearances, have inspired a variety of different interpretations. These are discussed in the article separated in four groups: historical – apologetic, polemical, negative with a positive result, and positive interpretation. After a short survey and a critical review of the first three interpretations, the author deals in detail with the fourth one, which, unlike the previous ones, explains the problematic reaction of the women as positive. The author analyzes the key words of the closing verse, both semantically and in the context of the Mark’s Gospel, to then conclude that the women’s reaction represents an adequate and typical human response to the epiphanic and theophanic event of Jesus’ resurrection. By concentrating the terminology of the holy fear, as well as using the inner perspective in the closure of the Gospel, Mark suggests that Jesus’ resurrection has to be understood as the culmination of the revelation process of the mystery of Jesus’ person and his ministry. In this manner Mark achieved the purpose of his Gospel: to show how the good news – that Jesus from Nazareth is Christ and Son of God (1,1) - started and on what it is based. By concluding the Gospel with the tension of fear, instead of the relaxing description of the appearances, Mark emphasizes that the mystery of Jesus’ person, as much as we can understand it correctly, remains nevertheless a mystery to be constantly revealed. This open ending invites the reader to do what the disciples already did, that is to follow Jesus, because the communion of life with him is the only way to better know him, understand him and announce him.