Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

2962Mk. 16:9-20 - A Pastiche?

Expand Messages
  • James Snapp, Jr.
    Feb 26, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      First, to answer Mark Thunderson:

      MT: "How did you find out?"

      By reading the Long Ending the other Gospels and Acts, of course.

      Again, what piece of internal or external evidence is left
      unaccounted for by the hypothesis I summarized in my previous post?

      Now about jtantley's question:

      Jtantley: "Isn't an alternate theory that the post 16:8 ending
      derives originally from Q, Luke, or Matthew, and was later added to
      Mark to agree with the other synoptic gospels?"

      I don't know that Q is necessarily in the mix, but yes; a leading
      alternative theory -- promoted in great detail by James Kelhoffer in
      his dissertation "Miracle and Mission" -- is that the author of the
      LE was intentionally writing something to finish the Gospel of Mark,
      and that this author borrowed a lot of phrases from Matthew, Mark,
      Luke, John, and Acts. I offer a step-by-step review of Kelhoffer's
      approach in the newer editions of my essay "The Authenticity of Mark
      16:9-20," a copy of which I will be glad to send to you by e-mail on
      request. Or you can download a copy from the Files at the TC-
      Alternate Yahoo! Groups discussion-board.

      The gist of the "Long-Ending-as-pastiche" theory, as proposed by
      Kelhoffer, is that the author consulted about 60 passages from which
      he gleaned vocabulary and phraseology. If one figures that the Long
      Ending is 171 words long (give or take a few words, depending on
      textual variants), that would mean that the author was exceptionally
      meticulous -- consulting Matthew or Mark or Luke or John or Acts (or
      Revelation!) about every three words. A few problems with the LE-as-
      pastiche theory are:

      (1) The author of the LE would have no reason not to abundantly use
      John 21. (Unless it was absent from his copy of John -- but
      Kelhoffer clearly assumed that the author of the LE used John 21 a
      (2) The author of the LE would have no reason to separate the
      response of the disciples when they heard the report from the two
      road-travelers, and the appearance of Jesus to the disciples. In
      Luke these two events essentially share one scene.
      (3) The author of the LE would have no reason to write part of
      16:18, which is without close verbal parallels.
      (4) The author of the LE would have no reason not to pick up the
      narrative directly from the end of 16:8.
      (5) Matthew gives no indication that the disciples rejected Mary
      Magdalene's report that Jesus was risen and that she had seen Him.
      Luke reports that the disciples rejected Mary Magdalene's report
      about the angels at the tomb; she does not say, in Luke, that Jesus
      appeared to her, and Luke does not say that the disciples rejected
      her report that Jesus had appeared to her. And in John 20, there is
      no statement that the disciples, as a group, disbelieved her report
      that Jesus was alive and that she had seen Him. Rather, in John 20,
      the narrative fast-forwards to the evening, at which time Jesus
      appears to the disciples, and His words, in John 20:19-23, are not
      words of rebuke.

      So, where does the author of the LE get the idea that Mary Magdalene
      saw the Lord, and reported to the disciples that she had seen the
      Lord, and that the disciples -- not just Thomas, but the entire group
      -- had not believed her, and that Jesus rebuked the Eleven (not just
      Thomas) for refusing to believe those who had seen Him after He had
      risen? Not from John. Not from Luke. And certainly not from
      Matthew, who concludes one scene in 28:10 with Jesus telling the
      women to tell His brothers to go to Galilee, and begins another scene
      in 28:16 with the eleven disciples going to Galilee. There's no hint
      in Matthew that they did not believe the women's report. So, it
      looks like our meticulous and imitative author has become rather non-
      meticulous and non-imitative; instead of affirming his sources, he
      created a fresh new event in 16:11 -- the disciples' rejection of
      Mary Magdalene's report that she had seen Jesus alive -- and another
      fresh new event in 16:14 -- Jesus' rebuke of the disciples for their
      refusal to believe those who had seen Him after He had risen.

      I'm looking forward to reading about the coming conference about Mark
      16:9-20 in April, to see just how J.K. Elliott and Daniel Wallace
      explain these looming obstacles -- all of which are blown down by the
      theory that Mark 16:9-20, before being incorporated into the text of
      the Gospel of Mark before the book was released, was a freestanding
      composition written by Mark without knowledge of the contents of the
      Gospels of Matthew, Luke, and John.

      Yours in Christ,

      James Snapp, Jr.
      Curtisville Christian Church
      Indiana (USA)
    • Show all 16 messages in this topic