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

2964Re: Mk. 16:9-20 - A Pastiche?

Expand Messages
  • Eric Rowe
    Feb 26, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      > 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.

      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.
    • Show all 16 messages in this topic