>>>b) Luke also uses the heightened term "the Lord Jesus" only in
>>>Luke 24:3, after His resurrection.
>>You didn't mention that Luke uses the phrase "Lord Jesus" not just in
>>Lk 24:3, but in Acts 1:21; 4:33; 7:59; 8:16; 11:20; 15:11; 16:31;
>>19:5, 13, 17; 20:24, 35; 21:13.
>I fail to see how Lukan use of this phrase *beyond* his gospel
>establishes anything in regard to the gospels themselves, particularly
>when (as pointed out) Luke himself refrains from using the term until
>a post-resurrection context exists.
Assuming a two-source hypothesis, it would be odd to find Luke using
"Lord Jesus" within his Gospel since the phrase is used by neither Mark
nor Q, unless some pecular Lukan source had used it. The use of "Lord
Jesus" in 16:19-20 is similar to the repeated use of "Lord Jesus" in
Acts. On a previous post, I already argued for Mk 16:17-20 as being a
pastiche based on *Acts*. "Lord Jesus" in 16:19-20 is further evidence
for 16:17-20 being dependent not just on episodes, but even on phrasing,
>>BTW, the phrase (whether including "Christ" or not) is found *nowhere*
>>any of the canonical Gospels. This points to the *Lucan* nature of the
>>phrase, not the Markan nature of the phrase.
>Seems that this assumes the point to be proven, making the Markan long
>ending _a priori_ inauthentic when in fact the existence of the phrase
>within that long ending is being adduced as one evidence of
You are arguing my point precisely. The use of "Lord Jesus" is out of
character for Mark 1:1-16:8.
>Markan borrowing ("cribbing") from Luke of course cannot
>be ruled out as a hypothesis,
Mark as in the entire Gospel or Mark as in 16:9-20? If the latter, that
is precisely my point. Mk 16:9-20 is dependent upon Luke and Acts.
>but one similarly should not say the phrase occurs
>"nowhere else" when in the present context it indeed is there.
I don't follow your logic here. It is nowhere *else.* How do you define
"nowhere else"? I define that to be found in no place other than the
designated location. "Lord Jesus" is only found in Mk 16:19-20,
irregardless of whether you think Mk 16:9-20 was original or not. It is
found *nowhere else* in Mark.
>By the same analogy, the *shorter* ending of Mark must be the
>product of Mark himself since it uses "Jesus" alone to describe the
>risen Lord, with none of the "Lukan" trappings.
No, you've jumped ahead to conclusions. The shorter ending's use of
"Jesus" instead of "Lord" or "Lord Jesus" does not necessitate that it be
the product of Mark himself. It doesn't rule out the possibility, but it
does not mean the shorter came from Mark. There are plenty of other
reasons to rule out Markan authorship of the shorter ending.
>>Why no Galilee in Mk 16:9-20?
>As I asked previously, why no place names whatsoever in Mk 16:9-20,
>even though various changes of venue obviously occur? Answer: because
>the author of that section did not choose to mention any place names.
>Little more can be determined beyond that.
Sorry that I missed your previous explanation. You've made my point
exactly. Why the lack of geographical designations if Mk 16:9-20 came
from the same author as Mk 1:1-16:8? Based on Occam's razor, isn't it
just more plausible that Mk 16:9-20 is from a different author at a later
time that didn't pick up on the need to mention Galilee?
I'm not arrogant enough to think that my responses are the final word to
this matter, but I'm going to sign off on this one for another day
because I don't want to weary the good people on this list. My apologies
for too many posts on a stylistic issue of TC. Maurice, I welcome your
responses to my personal e-mail address.
Jeff Cate, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Christian Studies
California Baptist University
Riverside, California 92508
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]