At 01:41 AM 12/20/2004 -0500, Wayne Church of Christ wrote:
>I've been researching Mark 16:9-20 (the Long Ending) for a while now. In
>one theory that helps explain the external evidence, the Long Ending was
>attached to the rest of the Gospel of Mark before the book was published (in
>Rome, in the 60's), but the LE was either excised or accidentally lost
>shortly thereafter. In the same hypothesis, the person who is responsible
>for the presence of the Long Ending in the text of Mark = a person who made
>a final revision of the entire book prior to publishing it. This revision
>was not very thorough; it focused on passages which, when augmented or
>adjusted, made the book more useful for preachers, healers, and exorcists
>(so that readers could better surmise how Jesus did those things).
My own view was the Long Ending was composed in Asia Minor between
130-150 and appended to Mark (see Kelhoffer). I think is fair to
ask about what else did the editor who added the Long Ending did
>The theory is that until the Gospel of Mark was published with the Long
>Ending, it was Proto-Mark. A lot of unique material in Mark (unique in the
>sense that it either doesn't show up in parallel passages in Matthew or
>Luke, or does not appear elsewhere with comparable frequency) is unique
>because it was unavailable to Matthew and Luke -- i.e., it was not in
>Proto-Mark. This explains some Minor Agreements and Shared Omissions. It
>also explains the interesting results one gets when one looks in Mark
>1:1-16:8 for terms and word-combinations that are in the Long Ending. Quite
>a bit of the vocabulary and word-combinations in the Long Ending seem to be
>extraordinarily concentrated in Unique Mark.
The difference between our scenarios affects how we deal with the
text critical evidence. For example, on my view, Codices Sinaiticus
and Vaticanus are witnesses to the form of Mark before the Long
Ending was added. Thus, one would have to look at the Minor
Agreements (MAs) in the Western/Caesarean/Byzantine MSS of Mark that
are lacking in the Neutral MSS for traces of this editor. On your
view, the Long Ending belonged to Archetype (though not the
Autograph), so the MAs that make it in the critical text are
important than the identity of the text-types supporting the MAs.
Ditto for shared omissions.
In other words, if the Long Ending is secondary to the Markan
Archetype, searching for traces of the LE editor in Mark is a
text-critical problem. But, if the LE was part of the Archetype
(as you urge), then searching for traces of the LE editor becomes
a source-critical problem.
>My research into this has been limited, and probably a little sloppy, but I
>think the results are interesting. Clusters of textual features that are
>present in the Long Ending appear in Mark 1:14-15, 1:27-45, 3:13-15,
>3:21-25, 4:8-11, 4:19-20, 4:32-36, 5:3-5, 5:18-19, 5:36-40, 6:1-7, 6:11-13,
>6:21-22, 6:29-30, 6:52-56, 7:2-5, 7:19-37, 8:20-25, 8:32-34, 9:10-12,
>9:29-42, 9:45-47, 10:29-39, 11:17-25, 12:5-7, 12:25-29, 13:10-11, 13:19-25,
>13:34-35, 14:5-11, 14:19-20, 14:24-25, 14:34-35, 14:8-11, and in 16:5.
>There seems to be a distinct lack of such clusters in ch. 2, and in ch.
>10:1-28, and in all of ch. 15.
We'll have to review all the evidence for this.
>The role of a Final Revision could explain why quite a bit of Unique Mark
>shares terms and/or structures with the Long Ending. Some examples:
I think, as the following examples will bear out, that we
will need a rigourous definition of "Unique Mark" to work
the evidence. I'll present statistics like this w/x+y/z,
where w is the number in Matt, x in Mark 1:1-16:8, y in
Mark 16:9-20, and z in Luke.
(Aside: I'm using Lindsey's GREEK CONCORDANCE OF THE
SYNOPTIC GOSPELS instead of Hoffmann et al.'s SYNOPTIC
CONCORDANCE, because Lindsey includes the Long Ending
and Hoffmann et al. don't. The latter's decision is
disappointing to me since Hoffmann et al. shows the
Acts vocabulary data, counts usage for all the NT books,
and highlights parallels to Thomas, so the complete
exclusion of Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:53-8:11 is hard
to justify. Rather, the data for those bits should be
broken out and itemized separately.)
>"prwi" - 1:35, 11:20, 13:35, 15:1, 16:2, and LE.
The statistics are 3/5+1/0. Interesting, no PRWI in
any synoptic is verbatim paralleled by any of the others.
However, Mark 1:35 PRWI ENNUXA LIAN = Luke 4:42 GEGOMENHS
hHMERAS; Mark 15:1 PRWI = Matt 27:1 PRWIAS GENOMENHS =
Luke 22:66 hWS EGENETO hHMERA; and Mark 16:2 LIAN PRWI
= Matt 28:1 THi EPIFWSKOUSH.
Here, Matt and Luke have parallel subject matter to three
instances of PRWI in Mark. Though they do not employ PRWI,
they do not agree against Mark in how use some other rendition.
These are not MAs, and not evidence for proto-Mark as
this stage in the analysis.
>"prwth" - 12:28, 12:29, 14:12, and LE.
I'm not sure why the feminine is singled out, but Mark 12:29
PRWTH = Matt 22:38 PRWTH and Mark 14:12 THi PRWTHi hHMERAI TWN
AZUMWN = Matt 26:17 THi PRWTHi TWN AZUMWM.
In fact Matt 26:17 is more similar to Mark 16:9 PRWTHi SABBATOU
than Mark 14:12.
Not evidence for proto-Mark.
>"prwton" - 4:28, 7:27, 9:12, 13:10, and LE
Stats: 8/6+1/10. Of these only Mark 4:28 is special Mark
(i.e., no parallel passage in Matt and Luke).
>"ekbebkhkei" - 16:9; the only other instances of words with -beblh- are in
>7:30, 9:42, 14:51, and 16:5.
EKBALLW is 28/16+2/17. Only Mark 16:9 uses EKBALLW in the
perfect. Mark 7:30 is BEBLHMENON. Mark 9:42 is BEBLHTAI.
Mark 14:51 PERIBEBLHMENOUS is special Mark (and Secret Mark
III.8). Mark 16:5 PERIBEBLHMENON.
The -BEBLH- category is too artificial to be evidence.
PERIBALLW is 5/2+0/3, in which the only literal parallel
is Matt 6:29 = Luke 12:27.
>"ekeinh" - 2:20, 3:24, 3:25, 4:35, 13:11, and LE.
Again I wonder why the feminine nom. & dat. singular is
singled out, but Mark 13:11 EN EKEINHi THi hWRAi = Matt
10:19 verbatim. Also, Mark 2:20 EN EKEINHi THi hHMERAi
= Luke 5:35 EN EKEINAIS TAIS hHMERAIS.
Not evidence for proto-Mark.
>"met autou" - 1:36, 3:14, 4:36, 5:18, 5:24, 5:37, 5:40, 14:33, and LE.
Mark 1:36 SIMWN KAI hOI MET AUTOU <> Matt --; Luke 4:hOI OXLOI.
Mark 3:16 hINA WSIN MET AUTOU <> Matt 10:1 --; (Luke 6:13 --)
Mark 4:36 KAI ALLA PLOIA HN MET AUTOU <> (Matt 8:23 --), Luke 8:22 --
Mark 5:18 MET AUTOU = Luke 8:38 SUN AUTWi
Mark 5:24 MET AUTOU <> Matt 9:19 --; Luke 8:42 --
Mark 5:37 MET AUTOU = Luke 8:51 SUN AUTWi
Mark 5:40 KAIS TOUS MET AUTOU <> Matt --; Luke --
Mark 14:33 MET AUTOU <> Matt 26:37 --; Luke --
Mark 16:10 TOIS MET AUTOU GENOMENTOIS
But also Mark 2:25 KAI hOI MET AUTOU = Matt 12:3 = Luke 6:3
verbatim and also Mark 14:43 MET AUTOU = Matt 26:47 MET AUTOU.
There is a MA against it too: Matt 12:4 TOIS MET AUTOU =
Luke 6:4 TOIS MET AUTOU <> Mark 2:26 --
Most promising so far, but at least 4 of the 9 were not
due to the redactor of the LE.
>"peripatousin" - 7:5 and LE.
PERIPATEW is 7/8+1/5.
Restriction to 3d pers. plural is arbitrary. Mark 2:9
PERIPATEI = Matt 9:5 = Luke 5:23; Mark 6:48 PERIPATWN =
Matt 14:25; Mark 6:49 PERIPATOUNTA = Matt 14:26. Mark
12:38 PERIPATEIN = Luke 20:46.
Mark 7:5 PERIPATOUSIN = synonymous PARABAINOUSIN at
Category too artificial to be evidence, and the one
parallel is supported in Matt by a synonym. Therefore,
not evidence for proto-Mark.
>"meta de" - 1:14 and LE.
WH and NA25 had KAI META at Mark 1:14, supported by B D
a bo(mss), against META DE. Text is too uncertain to be
clear evidence for or against proto-Mark (and the phrase
is too trivial).
>"anakeimenois" - only in LE; "sunanakeimenois" in 6:22.
Restriction to the masc. dative plural but not to the prefix
is too artificial to be evidence.
>"kai eipen autois" - W. Farmer said "Mark has no exact parallel to this" but
>cf. 1:17, 4:40, 9:29, 10:14.
I don't understand what "no exact parallel" means, but Mark 2:19
KAI EIPEN AUTOIS = Matt 9:15 KAI EIPEN AUTOIS.
>Also note the shared usage of terms for "the gospel" (in 1:1 and 13:10 for
>example) and "the word," and the overlapping emphasis in Unique Mark and in
>the LE upon preaching, healing via the laying-on of hands, and exorcisms.
>Note especially 1:1, 6:12-13, and the unique Markan portions of 9:14-29.
>I haven't run the same sort of comparison on a control-text, and my
>investigation was not as precise as possible (it'd be improved by performing
>searches with BibleWorks or that sort of thing); nevertheless, it seemed to
>say something when many textual features that appear in the LE are
>concentrated in Unique Mark.
Not on this set of evidence. A rigorous set of criteria needs to be
devised for identifying what is "Unique Mark," what is a shared term
and/or structure, and how many matches does it take to be significant,
rather than just coincidental.
Other than that, the idea of looking for what else the composer of the
LE wrote is a great idea, but I would expand the search beyond proto-Mark
into the rest of NT and some early patristic and apocryphal materials.
Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
"Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35
Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...