2964Re: Mk. 16:9-20 - A Pastiche?
- Feb 26, 2007
> I'm looking forward to reading about the coming conference about MarkJim,
> 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.
The obstacles you present all pertain specifically to the "longer
ending as pastiche" theory, as you put it. Are you sure that Wallace
and Elliot hold to that theory? I admit that it is one popular
approach. But it is certainly not a consensus among those who hold to
the longer ending being secondary. My guess is that the leading
alternative is that of Metzger, Westcott, and Hort, all of whom
specifically excluded the possibility that the longer ending was
dependent on the other canonical Gospels for reasons similar to yours.
In Kelhoffer's paradigm the LE must be dated to the mid-2nd
century--after the development of a 4 Gospel canon and before Irenaeus
quoted it. In the Metzger/Hort paradigm the LE must be dated to the
late 1st or early 2nd century, prior to a widely distributed 4-gospel
I would guess that most NT text-critical scholars will fall into one
of those camps.
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>