Additional on Streeter
- "Nevertheless, to the attractive hypothesis that the original Mark lacked the section vi.53-viii.21, there are two very formidable objections."
This I read with care, since this would be my suggestion. But it seems his two objections are easily answered if the author of both the first and second editions of Mark was the same person or group. First, the style and content of the omission does not seem different than the rest of Mark. My statistical investigations concur with this finding. However, if the same author produced both, we would expect this.
His second objection involves the ending of Mark, and at least in this section he is pre-supposing that the ending of Mark is damaged. I'd note that if we are already convinced the ending of Mark is damaged then we are pre-disposed toward accepting other damage. If we are not so convinced then we are less disposed to the damage hypothesis.
Streeter argues that any second version of Mark would surly have `fixed' the ending. But if the author of the first and second versions was the same, and if the ending originally seemed satisfactory to him, then it is quite reasonable to suppose that the ending remains satisfactory.
Also, one would suppose that the source of both of these damages was the same. If so then why do we and Matthew have the great omission available to us, but not the lost ending of Mark? This seems to suggest two separate instances of damage, but if that is the case, then the idea of the great omission being due to damage loses most of the support it gained if we accepted the lost ending as being due to damage, since now we can no longer suppose one cause and one explanation for both.