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

Re: [textualcriticism] Answering Objections to the Long Ending of Mark

Expand Messages
  • Peter Williams
    George wrote: ... I actually thought that Jim was producing a discussion engaging in the evidence in a way that was of scholarly interest even if one did not
    Message 1 of 20 , Mar 10, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      George wrote:

      At 05:14 10/03/2006 -0500, you wrote:
      >It seems that you WILL accept the longer ending even though it requires
      >you to jump through hoops in order to explain all of the evidence that the
      >longer ending was not in the original text.

      I actually thought that Jim was producing a discussion engaging in the
      evidence in a way that was of scholarly interest even if one did not come
      to the same conclusions as he.

      Pete

      ------------
      Peter Williams
      Senior Lecturer in New Testament
      Deputy Head of School of Divinity, History and Philosophy
      University of Aberdeen
      p.j.williams@...
    • Peter M. Head
      ... Granted that we know next to nothing about Ammonius work, I m not sure that it follows from Eusebius description that it wouldn t contain passages from
      Message 2 of 20 , Mar 10, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        At 06:43 10/03/2006, you wrote:
        >As for Ammonius, this seems like a phantom-witness, since we have no
        >writings of Ammonius. What you're really referring to is the
        >Ammonian Sections, but inasmuch as it is something of a misnomer to
        >call them, in the form in which they are used in the Eusebian Canons
        >"Ammonian," it seems a bit of a stretch to use the Ammonian Sections
        >to suggest that we have Ammonius' view on the subject -- especially
        >when one considers that, extrapolating from Eusebius' description of
        >Ammonius' harmony, one would not expect it to necessarily contain
        >passages from Mark, Luke, and John that are not paralleled in
        >Matthew.

        Granted that we know next to nothing about Ammonius' work, I'm not
        sure that it follows from Eusebius' description that it wouldn't
        contain 'passages from Mark, Luke, and John that are not paralleled
        in Matthew'. It is a DIA TESSARWN Gospel synopsis with Matthew as the
        base text. This disrupts the narrative sequence of the other three
        (TON THS AKOLOUQIAS EIRMON), but it doesn't follow that the contents
        of the other three are not present in Ammonius' scheme - otherwise it
        would not be called a DIA TESSARWN. (Probably it would be helpful to
        know what Eusebius meant by OSON EPI TW UFEI THS ANAGNWSEWS too!)

        It is worth noting that Jerome described Ammonius as the one who
        worked out the Gospel canons which Eusebius followed. So perhaps
        Eusebius exaggerated his originality; or perhaps Jerome thought he
        was summarising ad Carpianum.

        In any case there seems to me to be grounds for treating the
        text-critical information embedded in the Section Numbers
        independently from Eusebius' own direct testimony to the questionable
        nature of 16.9-20.

        Peter



        Peter M. Head, PhD
        Sir Kirby Laing Senior Lecturer in New Testament
        Tyndale House
        36 Selwyn Gardens
        Cambridge CB3 9BA
        01223 566601
      • James Miller
        ... I am a late-comer to this discussion, but I have studied the Eusebian canons and am trying to appreciate what is being said about them. If I understand
        Message 3 of 20 , Mar 10, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          On Fri, 10 Mar 2006, Peter M. Head wrote:
          > At 06:43 10/03/2006, you wrote:
          >> As for Ammonius, this seems like a phantom-witness, since we have no
          >> writings of Ammonius. What you're really referring to is the
          >> Ammonian Sections, but inasmuch as it is something of a misnomer to
          >> call them, in the form in which they are used in the Eusebian Canons
          >> "Ammonian," it seems a bit of a stretch to use the Ammonian Sections
          >> to suggest that we have Ammonius' view on the subject -- especially
          >> when one considers that, extrapolating from Eusebius' description of
          >> Ammonius' harmony, one would not expect it to necessarily contain
          >> passages from Mark, Luke, and John that are not paralleled in
          >> Matthew.
          >
          > Granted that we know next to nothing about Ammonius' work, I'm not
          > sure that it follows from Eusebius' description that it wouldn't
          > contain 'passages from Mark, Luke, and John that are not paralleled
          > in Matthew'. It is a DIA TESSARWN Gospel synopsis with Matthew as the
          > base text. This disrupts the narrative sequence of the other three
          > (TON THS AKOLOUQIAS EIRMON), but it doesn't follow that the contents
          > of the other three are not present in Ammonius' scheme - otherwise it
          > would not be called a DIA TESSARWN. (Probably it would be helpful to
          > know what Eusebius meant by OSON EPI TW UFEI THS ANAGNWSEWS too!)

          I am a late-comer to this discussion, but I have studied the Eusebian
          canons and am trying to appreciate what is being said about them. If I
          understand correctly, what is being said is that the Ammonian sections on
          which Eusebius claims to be building his system should have excluded the
          longer ending of Mark since it is peculiar to that Gospel. Is that
          correct? If so, is it therefore being presumed that Eusebius likewise
          would _not_ have included the longer ending among the material he
          categorized in his canons? I.e., the fact that the longer ending receives
          no Eusebian canon designation (it does not) is somehow explained by
          Eusebius' reliance on Ammonius, who would likewise not have included it in
          whatever scheme (diatessaric?) he developed? It's a rather unclear
          argument. Is its crux our poor attestation for Ammonius and his work, or
          rather that Eusebius faithfully appropriates the poorly-documented
          Ammonian scheme with respect to the longer ending? If the latter, how do
          we explain the 19 Markan pericopes Eusebius assigns to canon X (10;
          pericopes peculiar to Mark) and the existence of canon VIII (8; pericopes
          paralleled in Mark and Luke but not in the other two Gospels)? Was
          Eusebius being selective in his appropriation of Ammonius' alleged work
          with special attention to the longer ending? I don't pose these as a
          rhetorical questions begging the answer provided by those who hold the
          longer ending is in one way or another spurious (I am agnostic on that),
          but so that the correct questions are being asked and, where possible,
          answered.

          James
        • voxverax
          George F. Somsel, Greetings. The view that Mark 16:9-20 was included as part of the Gospel of Mark before its initial publication is currently a minority view
          Message 4 of 20 , Mar 10, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            George F. Somsel,

            Greetings. The view that Mark 16:9-20 was included as part of the
            Gospel of Mark before its initial publication is currently a minority
            view among text-critics. (Partly, I think, because the idea /almost/
            occurred to Hort, but not quite, and his treatment of the issue has
            been echoed and embellished for over a century.) However, I oppose
            the competing views not because I have "jumped through hoops," as you
            put it, but because this theory explains the external and internal
            evidece that I have studied better than any other theory.

            Whatever determination I do or don't have, it does not alter the
            evidence, which is where I have put the emphasis in my presentation
            of the case for the authenticity of Mark 16:9-20. (See, I could just
            as easily say that those who reject Mark 16:9-20 are jumping through
            hoops to explain all of the evidence that it *was* in the original
            text, and I could attribute their rejection of the passage as due to
            their determination to reject it, and claim that they are acting in
            contradiction to all evidence. But such rhetorical claims really do
            not do justice to the issue, the evidence, or the theory.)

            Yours in Christ,

            James Snapp, Jr.
            Minister, Curtisville Christian Church
            Elwood, Indiana (USA)
            www.curtisvillechristian.org.MarkOne.html
          • P.M. Head
            ... There are too many problems to give easy answers. I suppose it is generally agreed that the lack of any numbers and canons for the LE is most probably
            Message 5 of 20 , Mar 10, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              On Mar 10 2006, James Miller wrote:

              >I am a late-comer to this discussion, but I have studied the Eusebian
              >canons and am trying to appreciate what is being said about them. If I
              >understand correctly, what is being said is that the Ammonian sections on
              >which Eusebius claims to be building his system should have excluded the
              >longer ending of Mark since it is peculiar to that Gospel. Is that
              >correct? If so, is it therefore being presumed that Eusebius likewise
              >would _not_ have included the longer ending among the material he
              >categorized in his canons? I.e., the fact that the longer ending receives
              >no Eusebian canon designation (it does not) is somehow explained by
              >Eusebius' reliance on Ammonius, who would likewise not have included it in
              >whatever scheme (diatessaric?) he developed? It's a rather unclear
              >argument. Is its crux our poor attestation for Ammonius and his work, or
              >rather that Eusebius faithfully appropriates the poorly-documented
              >Ammonian scheme with respect to the longer ending? If the latter, how do
              >we explain the 19 Markan pericopes Eusebius assigns to canon X (10;
              >pericopes peculiar to Mark) and the existence of canon VIII (8; pericopes
              >paralleled in Mark and Luke but not in the other two Gospels)? Was
              >Eusebius being selective in his appropriation of Ammonius' alleged work
              >with special attention to the longer ending? I don't pose these as a
              >rhetorical questions begging the answer provided by those who hold the
              >longer ending is in one way or another spurious (I am agnostic on that),
              >but so that the correct questions are being asked and, where possible,
              >answered.
              >

              There are too many problems to give easy answers. I suppose it is generally
              agreed that the lack of any numbers and canons for the LE is most probably
              because Eusebius didn't assign any numbers because the LE was lacking from
              his system/mss. One issue is the extent to which the LE may also have been
              lacking in whatever system/synopsis/Gospel canon that Ammonius had
              constructed much earlier. Advocates of the authenticity of the LE have
              generally (following Burgon) argued that there is little evidence for a
              numbering system which predates Eusebius. My post was pointing out that
              there could be more to be said for this than the previous post (Jim) had
              allowed.


              >On Fri, 10 Mar 2006, Peter M. Head wrote:
              >> At 06:43 10/03/2006, you wrote:
              >>> As for Ammonius, this seems like a phantom-witness, since we have no
              >>> writings of Ammonius. What you're really referring to is the
              >>> Ammonian Sections, but inasmuch as it is something of a misnomer to
              >>> call them, in the form in which they are used in the Eusebian Canons
              >>> "Ammonian," it seems a bit of a stretch to use the Ammonian Sections
              >>> to suggest that we have Ammonius' view on the subject -- especially
              >>> when one considers that, extrapolating from Eusebius' description of
              >>> Ammonius' harmony, one would not expect it to necessarily contain
              >>> passages from Mark, Luke, and John that are not paralleled in
              >>> Matthew.
              >>
              >> Granted that we know next to nothing about Ammonius' work, I'm not
              >> sure that it follows from Eusebius' description that it wouldn't
              >> contain 'passages from Mark, Luke, and John that are not paralleled
              >> in Matthew'. It is a DIA TESSARWN Gospel synopsis with Matthew as the
              >> base text. This disrupts the narrative sequence of the other three
              >> (TON THS AKOLOUQIAS EIRMON), but it doesn't follow that the contents
              >> of the other three are not present in Ammonius' scheme - otherwise it
              >> would not be called a DIA TESSARWN. (Probably it would be helpful to
              >> know what Eusebius meant by OSON EPI TW UFEI THS ANAGNWSEWS too!)
              >>James
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
              > Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and
              > healing http://us.click.yahoo.com/B6T8nB/Vp3LAA/EcBKAA/GuTslB/TM
              > --------------------------------------------------------------------~->
              >
              >
              >Yahoo! Groups Links
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
            • James M. Leonard
              Deeply appreciate the discussion, including James Snapp s challenging arguments for inclusion. As we sensitively and carefully read the Greek text of Mark, are
              Message 6 of 20 , Mar 11, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                Deeply appreciate the discussion, including James Snapp's
                challenging arguments for inclusion.

                As we sensitively and carefully read the Greek text of Mark, are we
                struck by a change of style and vocabulary as we come to the
                spurious endings? Yes, probably, notwithstanding the comparative
                argument to the other chapter mentioned by Snapp.

                But, more important to me, is an instinctual incongruity of the
                narrative going from 16:8 through to the end of the long ending.
                This extra narrative doesn't seem very compatible with the whole of
                Mark' narrative. Mark's narrative style is otherwise rather
                decompressed--lots of words to describe simple stories. In
                contrast, in the long ending of Mark we are assaulted--rather,
                bombarded by a sweeping range of extremely compressed items. We get
                the impression that the author crams Intro to Christianity 101 and
                102 into the last few verses. We are hard pressed to see how this
                fits not only his narrative style, but also his narrative program.

                In particular, we might wonder whether there is also a shift of
                theological emphases in the longer ending. How does its unfettered
                triumphalism fit with Mark's sustained argument that discipleship is
                defined in terms of taking up one's cross?

                In another discussion--regarding the trinitarian baptismal formula
                in Matt 28:19, given the opportunity, I would have argued that the
                formula, surprising as it might be at first glance, is really fully
                compatible with the rest of the book--almost inevitable! I'm not
                sure I can make the same kind of claim for the spurious ending of
                Mark.

                If I were a musician writing a score for a movie production of
                Mark's Gospel, I'm not sure I could conclude the longer ending of
                the movie with music recapitulating musical themes from earlier
                parts of the movie.


                Jim Leonard
                Southwest Pennsylvania
              • voxverax
                James M. Leonard, While the staccato style of 16:9-20 constitutes a change from what precedes it, this is just one of several such shifts in the Gospel of Mark
                Message 7 of 20 , Mar 11, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  James M. Leonard,

                  While the staccato style of 16:9-20 constitutes a change from what
                  precedes it, this is just one of several such shifts in the Gospel of
                  Mark (from fast-moving miracle-stories, to discourse-transcript, to
                  Passion Narrative). I grant the shift in style and vocabulary; my
                  point is that even granting that, there's nothing in the Long Ending
                  that precludes the idea that it was originally a separate composition
                  written by Mark, while it contains some features which support Markan
                  authorship (which W. Farmer has pointed out).

                  JML: "But, more important to me, is an instinctual incongruity of
                  the narrative going from 16:8 through to the end of the long ending.
                  This extra narrative doesn't seem very compatible with the whole of
                  Mark' narrative."

                  All the more reason to ask why a second-century scribe would compose
                  such an incongruous ending, especially if he knew that the scenes
                  shared by the LE and Luke 24 are Judean, rather than Galilean, and if
                  he knew of John 21, which contains precisely the sort of Galilean
                  scene one would anticipate due to 16:7 (as well as an emphasis, in
                  21:19, on the importance of following Jesus). If, however, 16:9-20
                  existed as a Petrine/Markan summary of Jesus' post-resurrection
                  appearances, which was included in the archetype of the Gospel of
                  Mark by his survivors (who decided not to create a fresh ending),
                  these incongruities are explained.

                  JML: "How does its [the Long Ending's] unfettered triumphalism fit
                  with Mark's sustained argument that discipleship is defined in terms
                  of taking up one's cross?"

                  Is there triumphalism in the LE before vv. 19-20? No more than in,
                  say, Mk. 6:10-13. Verses 19-20 are not so much an expression of
                  triumphalism as a report of triumphs which vindicate Christ's
                  servanthood and the believers' discipleship. It's not as if these
                  verses imply that there's no longer a need for discipleship.

                  Yours in Christ,

                  James Snapp, Jr.
                  Curtisville Christian Church
                  Elwood, Indiana (USA)
                  www.curtisvillechristian.org
                • James M. Leonard
                  Here is what strikes me as a triumphalism unfettered by Mark s theology of the cross: And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will
                  Message 8 of 20 , Mar 11, 2006
                  • 0 Attachment

                    Here is what strikes me as a triumphalism unfettered by Mark's theology of the cross:  "And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well."  It's like I bumped my remote and switched channels.

                    Here are other elements which strike me as an odd conclusion to Mark:

                    • The emphasis on the disciples' lack of faith is a protracted Matthean emphasis.  Is it really a befitting ending to Mark's Gospel?  Is the scribe simply filling in Mark's odd ending with an allusion to the doubting disciples from Matt 28:16 (or to John's doubting Thomas)?
                    • Much discussion has been made regarding Matt's Great Commission, with Matthean scholars seeing it as the culmination of a well-crafted narrative.  Does Mark's "Great Commission" also function as a proper culmination of his narrative?  Or is the scribe again filling in Mark's odd ending with stuff from Matthew?
                    • "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned."  Does this really sound like Mark?  It sounds more like Luke's Acts mixed with John.
                    • "And these signs will accompany those who believe...."  Again, does this really sound like Mark?  Does it really fit his depiction of Jesus?  More than that, if we take a high view of Mark's historicity, did Jesus really say this?  If we believe that Mark really recorded Jesus' words, did Jesus really tell his disciples they would not be hurt by snake bites and drinking deadly poison?  Does it not sound more like a devoted follower a few generations later artificially inflating the claims of the Marcan Jesus to inspire the church of a later day?
                    • Was Mark in the habit of referring to Jesus as the "Lord Jesus"? 

                    More could be said, I think.  Some of these items I proffer rather tentatively because I have much to learn about Mark, his narrative, and theological emphases.  But on the surface these items sound like a hodgepodge of items collected from other NT writings rather than a proper culmination of Mark's narrative.

                    Thanks for your patience.

                    Jim Leonard

                    SW Pennsylvania


                    --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "voxverax" <snapp@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > James M. Leonard,
                    >
                    > While the staccato style of 16:9-20 constitutes a change from what
                    > precedes it, this is just one of several such shifts in the Gospel of
                    > Mark (from fast-moving miracle-stories, to discourse-transcript, to
                    > Passion Narrative). I grant the shift in style and vocabulary; my
                    > point is that even granting that, there's nothing in the Long Ending
                    > that precludes the idea that it was originally a separate composition
                    > written by Mark, while it contains some features which support Markan
                    > authorship (which W. Farmer has pointed out).
                    >
                    > JML: "But, more important to me, is an instinctual incongruity of
                    > the narrative going from 16:8 through to the end of the long ending.
                    > This extra narrative doesn't seem very compatible with the whole of
                    > Mark' narrative."
                    >
                    > All the more reason to ask why a second-century scribe would compose
                    > such an incongruous ending, especially if he knew that the scenes
                    > shared by the LE and Luke 24 are Judean, rather than Galilean, and if
                    > he knew of John 21, which contains precisely the sort of Galilean
                    > scene one would anticipate due to 16:7 (as well as an emphasis, in
                    > 21:19, on the importance of following Jesus). If, however, 16:9-20
                    > existed as a Petrine/Markan summary of Jesus' post-resurrection
                    > appearances, which was included in the archetype of the Gospel of
                    > Mark by his survivors (who decided not to create a fresh ending),
                    > these incongruities are explained.
                    >
                    > JML: "How does its [the Long Ending's] unfettered triumphalism fit
                    > with Mark's sustained argument that discipleship is defined in terms
                    > of taking up one's cross?"
                    >
                    > Is there triumphalism in the LE before vv. 19-20? No more than in,
                    > say, Mk. 6:10-13. Verses 19-20 are not so much an expression of
                    > triumphalism as a report of triumphs which vindicate Christ's
                    > servanthood and the believers' discipleship. It's not as if these
                    > verses imply that there's no longer a need for discipleship.
                    >
                    > Yours in Christ,
                    >
                    > James Snapp, Jr.
                    > Curtisville Christian Church
                    > Elwood, Indiana (USA)
                    > www.curtisvillechristian.org
                    >

                  • john1524wagner
                    jmleonardfamily@... wrote: Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. Does this really sound like
                    Message 9 of 20 , Mar 12, 2006
                    • 0 Attachment
                      jmleonardfamily@...> wrote:
                      "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not
                      believe will be condemned." Does this really sound like Mark? It
                      sounds more like Luke's Acts mixed with John."

                      This was my point when I introduced this topic. Aside from the longer
                      ending of Mark, there is nothing in the gospels or letters of
                      Matthew, Mark, John, Jude, Peter, or James to confirm or elaborate
                      upon ANY of the events or theology mentioned in the Acts or in Paul's
                      epistles. Mark 16:9-20 creates the ONLY link between the Paul/Lukan
                      school and the rest of the NT authors.

                      John


                      --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "James M. Leonard"
                      <jmleonardfamily@...> wrote:
                      >
                      >
                      > Here is what strikes me as a triumphalism unfettered by Mark's
                      theology
                      > of the cross: "And these signs will accompany those who believe:
                      In my
                      > name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues;
                      they
                      > will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly
                      poison,
                      > it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick
                      > people, and they will get well." It's like I bumped my remote and
                      > switched channels.
                      >
                      > Here are other elements which strike me as an odd conclusion to
                      Mark:
                      >
                      > * The emphasis on the disciples' lack of faith is a protracted
                      > Matthean emphasis. Is it really a befitting ending to Mark's
                      Gospel?
                      > Is the scribe simply filling in Mark's odd ending with an allusion
                      to
                      > the doubting disciples from Matt 28:16 (or to John's doubting
                      Thomas)?
                      > * Much discussion has been made regarding Matt's Great
                      Commission,
                      > with Matthean scholars seeing it as the culmination of a well-
                      crafted
                      > narrative. Does Mark's "Great Commission" also function as a proper
                      > culmination of his narrative? Or is the scribe again filling in
                      Mark's
                      > odd ending with stuff from Matthew?
                      > * "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever
                      does
                      > not believe will be condemned." Does this really sound like Mark?
                      It
                      > sounds more like Luke's Acts mixed with John.
                      > * "And these signs will accompany those who believe...."
                      Again, does
                      > this really sound like Mark? Does it really fit his depiction of
                      Jesus?
                      > More than that, if we take a high view of Mark's historicity, did
                      Jesus
                      > really say this? If we believe that Mark really recorded Jesus'
                      words,
                      > did Jesus really tell his disciples they would not be hurt by snake
                      > bites and drinking deadly poison? Does it not sound more like a
                      devoted
                      > follower a few generations later artificially inflating the claims
                      of
                      > the Marcan Jesus to inspire the church of a later day?
                      > * Was Mark in the habit of referring to Jesus as the "Lord
                      Jesus"?
                      >
                      > More could be said, I think. Some of these items I proffer rather
                      > tentatively because I have much to learn about Mark, his narrative,
                      and
                      > theological emphases. But on the surface these items sound like a
                      > hodgepodge of items collected from other NT writings rather than a
                      > proper culmination of Mark's narrative.
                      >
                      > Thanks for your patience.
                      >
                      > Jim Leonard
                      >
                      > SW Pennsylvania
                      >
                      >
                      > --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "voxverax" <snapp@> wrote:
                      > >
                      > > James M. Leonard,
                      > >
                      > > While the staccato style of 16:9-20 constitutes a change from what
                      > > precedes it, this is just one of several such shifts in the
                      Gospel of
                      > > Mark (from fast-moving miracle-stories, to discourse-transcript,
                      to
                      > > Passion Narrative). I grant the shift in style and vocabulary; my
                      > > point is that even granting that, there's nothing in the Long
                      Ending
                      > > that precludes the idea that it was originally a separate
                      composition
                      > > written by Mark, while it contains some features which support
                      Markan
                      > > authorship (which W. Farmer has pointed out).
                      > >
                      > > JML: "But, more important to me, is an instinctual incongruity of
                      > > the narrative going from 16:8 through to the end of the long
                      ending.
                      > > This extra narrative doesn't seem very compatible with the whole
                      of
                      > > Mark' narrative."
                      > >
                      > > All the more reason to ask why a second-century scribe would
                      compose
                      > > such an incongruous ending, especially if he knew that the scenes
                      > > shared by the LE and Luke 24 are Judean, rather than Galilean,
                      and if
                      > > he knew of John 21, which contains precisely the sort of Galilean
                      > > scene one would anticipate due to 16:7 (as well as an emphasis, in
                      > > 21:19, on the importance of following Jesus). If, however, 16:9-20
                      > > existed as a Petrine/Markan summary of Jesus' post-resurrection
                      > > appearances, which was included in the archetype of the Gospel of
                      > > Mark by his survivors (who decided not to create a fresh ending),
                      > > these incongruities are explained.
                      > >
                      > > JML: "How does its [the Long Ending's] unfettered triumphalism fit
                      > > with Mark's sustained argument that discipleship is defined in
                      terms
                      > > of taking up one's cross?"
                      > >
                      > > Is there triumphalism in the LE before vv. 19-20? No more than in,
                      > > say, Mk. 6:10-13. Verses 19-20 are not so much an expression of
                      > > triumphalism as a report of triumphs which vindicate Christ's
                      > > servanthood and the believers' discipleship. It's not as if these
                      > > verses imply that there's no longer a need for discipleship.
                      > >
                      > > Yours in Christ,
                      > >
                      > > James Snapp, Jr.
                      > > Curtisville Christian Church
                      > > Elwood, Indiana (USA)
                      > > www.curtisvillechristian.org
                      > >
                      >
                    • kxj477
                      The question to be answered is not whether Mark 16:9-20 sounds like Luke/Acts or connects with Pauline theology, but how, if a later addition, did it end up in
                      Message 10 of 20 , Mar 12, 2006
                      • 0 Attachment
                        The question to be answered is not whether Mark 16:9-20 sounds like
                        Luke/Acts or connects with Pauline theology, but how, if a later
                        addition, did it end up in all existing Greek manuscripts except for B
                        and 01?

                        If Mark originally ended at 16:8, then by the beginning of the 2nd
                        century there would be hundreds of manuscripts so ending. There would
                        be Christians still alive who had heard the scriptures from the
                        students of the Apostles. The chance that some group could bring out a
                        new ending and pass it off as original would be remote in the least.
                        And then it would have to find its way into the text of all those non-
                        local Greek manuscripts that were by now hundreds of miles away.

                        But if Mark wrote 16:9-20, there are few problems with the fact that 2
                        Greek manuscripts, and some translation manuscripts omit the verses.
                        I've read somewhere (my memory is weak) that there are times when a
                        Church father expounds on the correct text of a verse explaining that
                        all his manuscripts contain the reading but now the variant is nowhere
                        to be found. I'd rather trust in what Irenaeus found in his Gospel of
                        Mark than the words of Eusebius and Jerome writing two centuries
                        later.

                        Kevin James



                        --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "john1524wagner"
                        <john1524wagner@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > jmleonardfamily@> wrote:
                        > "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does
                        not
                        > believe will be condemned." Does this really sound like Mark? It
                        > sounds more like Luke's Acts mixed with John."
                        >
                        > This was my point when I introduced this topic. Aside from the
                        longer
                        > ending of Mark, there is nothing in the gospels or letters of
                        > Matthew, Mark, John, Jude, Peter, or James to confirm or elaborate
                        > upon ANY of the events or theology mentioned in the Acts or in
                        Paul's
                        > epistles. Mark 16:9-20 creates the ONLY link between the Paul/Lukan
                        > school and the rest of the NT authors.
                        >
                        > John
                        >
                        >
                        > --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "James M. Leonard"
                        > <jmleonardfamily@> wrote:
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > Here is what strikes me as a triumphalism unfettered by Mark's
                        > theology
                        > > of the cross: "And these signs will accompany those who believe:
                        > In my
                        > > name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues;
                        > they
                        > > will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly
                        > poison,
                        > > it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick
                        > > people, and they will get well." It's like I bumped my remote and
                        > > switched channels.
                        > >
                        > > Here are other elements which strike me as an odd conclusion to
                        > Mark:
                        > >
                        > > * The emphasis on the disciples' lack of faith is a protracted
                        > > Matthean emphasis. Is it really a befitting ending to Mark's
                        > Gospel?
                        > > Is the scribe simply filling in Mark's odd ending with an allusion
                        > to
                        > > the doubting disciples from Matt 28:16 (or to John's doubting
                        > Thomas)?
                        > > * Much discussion has been made regarding Matt's Great
                        > Commission,
                        > > with Matthean scholars seeing it as the culmination of a well-
                        > crafted
                        > > narrative. Does Mark's "Great Commission" also function as a
                        proper
                        > > culmination of his narrative? Or is the scribe again filling in
                        > Mark's
                        > > odd ending with stuff from Matthew?
                        > > * "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever
                        > does
                        > > not believe will be condemned." Does this really sound like Mark?

                        > It
                        > > sounds more like Luke's Acts mixed with John.
                        > > * "And these signs will accompany those who believe...."
                        > Again, does
                        > > this really sound like Mark? Does it really fit his depiction of
                        > Jesus?
                        > > More than that, if we take a high view of Mark's historicity, did
                        > Jesus
                        > > really say this? If we believe that Mark really recorded Jesus'
                        > words,
                        > > did Jesus really tell his disciples they would not be hurt by
                        snake
                        > > bites and drinking deadly poison? Does it not sound more like a
                        > devoted
                        > > follower a few generations later artificially inflating the claims
                        > of
                        > > the Marcan Jesus to inspire the church of a later day?
                        > > * Was Mark in the habit of referring to Jesus as the "Lord
                        > Jesus"?
                        > >
                        > > More could be said, I think. Some of these items I proffer rather
                        > > tentatively because I have much to learn about Mark, his
                        narrative,
                        > and
                        > > theological emphases. But on the surface these items sound like a
                        > > hodgepodge of items collected from other NT writings rather than a
                        > > proper culmination of Mark's narrative.
                        > >
                        > > Thanks for your patience.
                        > >
                        > > Jim Leonard
                        > >
                        > > SW Pennsylvania
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "voxverax" <snapp@>
                        wrote:
                        > > >
                        > > > James M. Leonard,
                        > > >
                        > > > While the staccato style of 16:9-20 constitutes a change from
                        what
                        > > > precedes it, this is just one of several such shifts in the
                        > Gospel of
                        > > > Mark (from fast-moving miracle-stories, to discourse-transcript,
                        > to
                        > > > Passion Narrative). I grant the shift in style and vocabulary;
                        my
                        > > > point is that even granting that, there's nothing in the Long
                        > Ending
                        > > > that precludes the idea that it was originally a separate
                        > composition
                        > > > written by Mark, while it contains some features which support
                        > Markan
                        > > > authorship (which W. Farmer has pointed out).
                        > > >
                        > > > JML: "But, more important to me, is an instinctual incongruity
                        of
                        > > > the narrative going from 16:8 through to the end of the long
                        > ending.
                        > > > This extra narrative doesn't seem very compatible with the whole
                        > of
                        > > > Mark' narrative."
                        > > >
                        > > > All the more reason to ask why a second-century scribe would
                        > compose
                        > > > such an incongruous ending, especially if he knew that the
                        scenes
                        > > > shared by the LE and Luke 24 are Judean, rather than Galilean,
                        > and if
                        > > > he knew of John 21, which contains precisely the sort of
                        Galilean
                        > > > scene one would anticipate due to 16:7 (as well as an emphasis,
                        in
                        > > > 21:19, on the importance of following Jesus). If, however, 16:9-
                        20
                        > > > existed as a Petrine/Markan summary of Jesus' post-resurrection
                        > > > appearances, which was included in the archetype of the Gospel
                        of
                        > > > Mark by his survivors (who decided not to create a fresh ending
                        ),
                        > > > these incongruities are explained.
                        > > >
                        > > > JML: "How does its [the Long Ending's] unfettered triumphalism
                        fit
                        > > > with Mark's sustained argument that discipleship is defined in
                        > terms
                        > > > of taking up one's cross?"
                        > > >
                        > > > Is there triumphalism in the LE before vv. 19-20? No more than
                        in,
                        > > > say, Mk. 6:10-13. Verses 19-20 are not so much an expression of
                        > > > triumphalism as a report of triumphs which vindicate Christ's
                        > > > servanthood and the believers' discipleship. It's not as if
                        these
                        > > > verses imply that there's no longer a need for discipleship.
                        > > >
                        > > > Yours in Christ,
                        > > >
                        > > > James Snapp, Jr.
                        > > > Curtisville Christian Church
                        > > > Elwood, Indiana (USA)
                        > > > www.curtisvillechristian.org
                        > > >
                        > >
                        >
                      • john1524wagner
                        I concur with the majority of scholars who consider Mark 16:9-20 to be a scribal addition, and I reach this conclusion not only because these verses do not
                        Message 11 of 20 , Mar 13, 2006
                        • 0 Attachment
                          I concur with the majority of scholars who consider Mark 16:9-20 to
                          be a scribal addition, and I reach this conclusion not only because
                          these verses do not occur in all codexes but because the content is
                          foreign to the Markan theme and mostly closely resembles the theme of
                          Paul or Luke, whose doctrine is otherwise conspicuously absent from
                          the gospels.

                          According to Bart Ehrman, discerning the motivation of scribes is an
                          essential factor in textual criticism. For example the addition of
                          the story of the adulterous woman in John 8 can be attributed to
                          scribes who wanted to soften the image of Jesus.

                          I am also intrigued that none of the events in Acts is ever confirmed
                          or elaborated upon in any of the books outside of the Paul/Luke
                          collection, but it seems I am the only person to notice this.

                          John

                          --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "kxj477" <kxj477@...> wrote:
                          >
                          > The question to be answered is not whether Mark 16:9-20 sounds like
                          > Luke/Acts or connects with Pauline theology, but how, if a later
                          > addition, did it end up in all existing Greek manuscripts except
                          for B
                          > and 01?
                          >
                          > If Mark originally ended at 16:8, then by the beginning of the 2nd
                          > century there would be hundreds of manuscripts so ending. There
                          would
                          > be Christians still alive who had heard the scriptures from the
                          > students of the Apostles. The chance that some group could bring
                          out a
                          > new ending and pass it off as original would be remote in the
                          least.
                          > And then it would have to find its way into the text of all those
                          non-
                          > local Greek manuscripts that were by now hundreds of miles away.
                          >
                          > But if Mark wrote 16:9-20, there are few problems with the fact
                          that 2
                          > Greek manuscripts, and some translation manuscripts omit the
                          verses.
                          > I've read somewhere (my memory is weak) that there are times when a
                          > Church father expounds on the correct text of a verse explaining
                          that
                          > all his manuscripts contain the reading but now the variant is
                          nowhere
                          > to be found. I'd rather trust in what Irenaeus found in his Gospel
                          of
                          > Mark than the words of Eusebius and Jerome writing two centuries
                          > later.
                          >
                          > Kevin James
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "john1524wagner"
                          > <john1524wagner@> wrote:
                          > >
                          > > jmleonardfamily@> wrote:
                          > > "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does
                          > not
                          > > believe will be condemned." Does this really sound like Mark?
                          It
                          > > sounds more like Luke's Acts mixed with John."
                          > >
                          > > This was my point when I introduced this topic. Aside from the
                          > longer
                          > > ending of Mark, there is nothing in the gospels or letters of
                          > > Matthew, Mark, John, Jude, Peter, or James to confirm or
                          elaborate
                          > > upon ANY of the events or theology mentioned in the Acts or in
                          > Paul's
                          > > epistles. Mark 16:9-20 creates the ONLY link between the
                          Paul/Lukan
                          > > school and the rest of the NT authors.
                          > >
                          > > John
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "James M. Leonard"
                          > > <jmleonardfamily@> wrote:
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > > Here is what strikes me as a triumphalism unfettered by Mark's
                          > > theology
                          > > > of the cross: "And these signs will accompany those who
                          believe:
                          > > In my
                          > > > name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new
                          tongues;
                          > > they
                          > > > will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink
                          deadly
                          > > poison,
                          > > > it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on
                          sick
                          > > > people, and they will get well." It's like I bumped my remote
                          and
                          > > > switched channels.
                          > > >
                          > > > Here are other elements which strike me as an odd conclusion to
                          > > Mark:
                          > > >
                          > > > * The emphasis on the disciples' lack of faith is a
                          protracted
                          > > > Matthean emphasis. Is it really a befitting ending to Mark's
                          > > Gospel?
                          > > > Is the scribe simply filling in Mark's odd ending with an
                          allusion
                          > > to
                          > > > the doubting disciples from Matt 28:16 (or to John's doubting
                          > > Thomas)?
                          > > > * Much discussion has been made regarding Matt's Great
                          > > Commission,
                          > > > with Matthean scholars seeing it as the culmination of a well-
                          > > crafted
                          > > > narrative. Does Mark's "Great Commission" also function as a
                          > proper
                          > > > culmination of his narrative? Or is the scribe again filling
                          in
                          > > Mark's
                          > > > odd ending with stuff from Matthew?
                          > > > * "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but
                          whoever
                          > > does
                          > > > not believe will be condemned." Does this really sound like
                          Mark?
                          >
                          > > It
                          > > > sounds more like Luke's Acts mixed with John.
                          > > > * "And these signs will accompany those who believe...."
                          > > Again, does
                          > > > this really sound like Mark? Does it really fit his depiction
                          of
                          > > Jesus?
                          > > > More than that, if we take a high view of Mark's historicity,
                          did
                          > > Jesus
                          > > > really say this? If we believe that Mark really recorded
                          Jesus'
                          > > words,
                          > > > did Jesus really tell his disciples they would not be hurt by
                          > snake
                          > > > bites and drinking deadly poison? Does it not sound more like
                          a
                          > > devoted
                          > > > follower a few generations later artificially inflating the
                          claims
                          > > of
                          > > > the Marcan Jesus to inspire the church of a later day?
                          > > > * Was Mark in the habit of referring to Jesus as the "Lord
                          > > Jesus"?
                          > > >
                          > > > More could be said, I think. Some of these items I proffer
                          rather
                          > > > tentatively because I have much to learn about Mark, his
                          > narrative,
                          > > and
                          > > > theological emphases. But on the surface these items sound
                          like a
                          > > > hodgepodge of items collected from other NT writings rather
                          than a
                          > > > proper culmination of Mark's narrative.
                          > > >
                          > > > Thanks for your patience.
                          > > >
                          > > > Jim Leonard
                          > > >
                          > > > SW Pennsylvania
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > > --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "voxverax" <snapp@>
                          > wrote:
                          > > > >
                          > > > > James M. Leonard,
                          > > > >
                          > > > > While the staccato style of 16:9-20 constitutes a change from
                          > what
                          > > > > precedes it, this is just one of several such shifts in the
                          > > Gospel of
                          > > > > Mark (from fast-moving miracle-stories, to discourse-
                          transcript,
                          > > to
                          > > > > Passion Narrative). I grant the shift in style and
                          vocabulary;
                          > my
                          > > > > point is that even granting that, there's nothing in the Long
                          > > Ending
                          > > > > that precludes the idea that it was originally a separate
                          > > composition
                          > > > > written by Mark, while it contains some features which
                          support
                          > > Markan
                          > > > > authorship (which W. Farmer has pointed out).
                          > > > >
                          > > > > JML: "But, more important to me, is an instinctual
                          incongruity
                          > of
                          > > > > the narrative going from 16:8 through to the end of the long
                          > > ending.
                          > > > > This extra narrative doesn't seem very compatible with the
                          whole
                          > > of
                          > > > > Mark' narrative."
                          > > > >
                          > > > > All the more reason to ask why a second-century scribe would
                          > > compose
                          > > > > such an incongruous ending, especially if he knew that the
                          > scenes
                          > > > > shared by the LE and Luke 24 are Judean, rather than
                          Galilean,
                          > > and if
                          > > > > he knew of John 21, which contains precisely the sort of
                          > Galilean
                          > > > > scene one would anticipate due to 16:7 (as well as an
                          emphasis,
                          > in
                          > > > > 21:19, on the importance of following Jesus). If, however,
                          16:9-
                          > 20
                          > > > > existed as a Petrine/Markan summary of Jesus' post-
                          resurrection
                          > > > > appearances, which was included in the archetype of the
                          Gospel
                          > of
                          > > > > Mark by his survivors (who decided not to create a fresh
                          ending
                          > ),
                          > > > > these incongruities are explained.
                          > > > >
                          > > > > JML: "How does its [the Long Ending's] unfettered
                          triumphalism
                          > fit
                          > > > > with Mark's sustained argument that discipleship is defined
                          in
                          > > terms
                          > > > > of taking up one's cross?"
                          > > > >
                          > > > > Is there triumphalism in the LE before vv. 19-20? No more
                          than
                          > in,
                          > > > > say, Mk. 6:10-13. Verses 19-20 are not so much an expression
                          of
                          > > > > triumphalism as a report of triumphs which vindicate Christ's
                          > > > > servanthood and the believers' discipleship. It's not as if
                          > these
                          > > > > verses imply that there's no longer a need for discipleship.
                          > > > >
                          > > > > Yours in Christ,
                          > > > >
                          > > > > James Snapp, Jr.
                          > > > > Curtisville Christian Church
                          > > > > Elwood, Indiana (USA)
                          > > > > www.curtisvillechristian.org
                          > > > >
                          > > >
                          > >
                          >
                        • voxverax
                          James M. Leonard, The description of word-confirming signs in 16:17-18 isn t all that different from the description of the disciples authoritative deeds in
                          Message 12 of 20 , Mar 13, 2006
                          • 0 Attachment
                            James M. Leonard,

                            The description of word-confirming signs in 16:17-18 isn't all that
                            different from the description of the disciples' authoritative deeds
                            in 6:7-13. In ch. 6, Jesus gives the disciples power over unclean
                            spirits. Their judgment against unbelieving cities is promised to be
                            binding on Judgment-Day. They cast out many devils. They anoint
                            many with oil, and heal them. And, as they go exorcizing and
                            healing, they "preached that men should repent." Where is Mark's
                            theology of the cross in 6:7-13? Have we switched channels /here/?
                            Or is it that the theology of the cross is just one of several themes
                            that Mark develops?

                            JML: "The emphasis on the disciples' lack of faith is a protracted
                            Matthean emphasis. Is it really a befitting ending to Mark's
                            Gospel? Is the scribe simply filling in Mark's odd ending with an
                            allusion to the doubting disciples from Matt 28:16 (or to John's
                            doubting Thomas)?"

                            If the disciples didn't believe Mary Magdalene and the two travelers,
                            then it's not mind-boggling that Mark, as he composed a summary of
                            Jesus' post-resurrection appearances, wrote that the disciples didn't
                            believe Mary Magdalene and the two travelers. Plus, Mark /does/
                            refer to the disciples' lack of faith in 4:40. And the disciples'
                            shortcomings (though not expressed in terms of unbelief) are
                            repeatedly pointed out by Mark in 6:52, 7:18, 10:13-14, 14:40,
                            14:50). There's nothing inconsistent between Mk. 1:1-16:8 and 16:9-
                            20 as far as the presentation of the disciples is concerned.

                            JML: "Much discussion has been made regarding Matt's Great
                            Commission, with Matthean scholars seeing it as the culmination of a
                            well-crafted narrative. Does Mark's "Great Commission" also function
                            as a proper culmination of his narrative?"

                            A hundred times better than the Abrupt Ending does. But it seems
                            like you're overlooking a major point: I'm not proposing that the
                            Long Ending was composed in order to finish the Gospel of Mark. I'm
                            proposing that the text we know as Mark 16:9-20 existed on its own as
                            a summary of Jesus' post-resurrection appearances, and was grafted
                            onto 16:8 by someone other than Mark before the Gospel of Mark was
                            published. Since this "Resurrection Appearances" composition was, as
                            a freestanding text, too short to have a theme to develop (it simply
                            related Jesus' appearances, His final words to the disciples, the
                            ascension, and the beginning of the proclamation of the gospel), the
                            degree of elegance with which it interlocks with the themes in the
                            Gospel of Mark isn't a make-or-break factor.

                            JML: "Or is the scribe again filling in Mark's odd ending with stuff
                            from Matthew?"

                            (Loaded question, your honor.) That seems unlikely, since except for
                            the mention of baptism, there's simply no sustained verbal parallel
                            between Matthew's Great Commission and Mark 16:16. Shared memories
                            (Matthew's and Peter's) adequately account for this.

                            JML: ""Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever
                            does not believe will be condemned." Does this really sound like
                            Mark?

                            For the general question of whether or not the LE sounds like Mark,
                            see the chapters of William Farmer's book in which he focuses on
                            internal evidence. As far as 16:16 specifically is concerned, it's
                            not supposed to sound like Mark, strictly speaking, but Jesus. And
                            doesn't the use of the substantive participle here accord with the
                            usage (also in Jesus' words) in Mark 9:23 and 9:42?

                            JML: ""And these signs will accompany those who believe...." Again,
                            does this really sound like Mark? Does it really fit his depiction
                            of Jesus?"

                            There was no depiction of Jesus to fit in the freestanding
                            Resurrection Appearances text. But, again using 6:7-13 for
                            comparison, nothing here stands up and says "Not Markan" to me. It
                            may indicate that the LE was not written to finish the Gospel of
                            Mark, but, hey, that's what *I'm* saying, versus the alternative view
                            that claims that it was written by some scribe to finish the Gospel
                            of Mark.

                            JL: "More than that, if we take a high view of Mark's historicity,
                            did Jesus really say this? If we believe that Mark really recorded
                            Jesus' words, did Jesus really tell his disciples they would not be
                            hurt by snake bites and drinking deadly poison?"

                            Why should the content of Mark 16:18 cause it to be regarded as less
                            historical than Luke 10:19? Once it is understood that the
                            "serpents" in Mk. 16:18 are the same species as the ones in Lk.
                            10:19, that part of the verse seems utterly unobjectionable.

                            As for the invulnerability-to-poisonous-drinks -- well, first, let me
                            make a little side-point: where's the parallel with the other
                            Gospels? It's not there. Doesn't it seem a little weird that the
                            hypothetical scribe who wished to scramble up an ending based on the
                            other Gospels would just throw this in?

                            JL: "Does it not sound more like a devoted follower a few
                            generations later artificially inflating the claims of the Marcan
                            Jesus to inspire the church of a later day?"

                            No; it sounds like someone who, as he selected details of Jesus'
                            final commission to the disciples before his ascension, decided to
                            emphasize a detail which would draw readers to the idea that the
                            Jesus:Disciples relationship is something similar to the
                            Elijah:Elisha relationship. 16:19 borrows verbage straight from the
                            LXX-text of II Kings 2:11 (where Elijah's ascension is described), so
                            the "Elijah" part of the equation is hard to miss. The
                            invulnerability-to-poison is part of the "Elisha" factor; this was,
                            or was like, one of Elisha's miracles (in II Kings 4:38-41).

                            JL: "Was Mark in the habit of referring to Jesus as the "Lord
                            Jesus"?"

                            No, but (a) Luke also was not in the habit of referring to Jesus as
                            the "Lord Jesus," but he does so in Lk. 24:3 [ack; I overlapped the
                            question of Western Non-Interpolations!], and (b) Mark may have
                            called Jesus "Lord" in 16:19 because it is at this point (the point
                            of Jesus' heavenly enthronement) that He begins to reign (though,
                            earlier in Mark, Jesus refers to Himself as "Lord of the Sabbath,"
                            and implies His Lordship via a quotation of Psalm 110 in 12:36-37).

                            JL: "But on the surface these items sound like a hodgepodge of items
                            collected from other NT writings rather than a proper culmination of
                            Mark's narrative."

                            That was the idea in Dr. James Kelhoffer's "Miracle and Mission" in a
                            nutshell. But think about what such a scenario would require:

                            (1) The scribe simultaneous attempted to mimic the Gospels and
                            avoided prolonged verbal parallels with the Gospels.
                            (2) After gathering material from the Gospels in order to mimic them,
                            he added various phrases that are distinct from them, and replaced
                            perfectly adequate phrases from the other Gospels with different
                            phrases.
                            (3) Although Mark 16:5-8 sets the stage for a meeting between Jesus
                            and the disciples in Galilee, and hints that Jesus will be reconciled
                            with Peter there, the scribe would nevertheless (a) not include any
                            meeting especially between Jesus and Peter, and (b) use Luke's
                            explicitly Judean pericopes as if they are the expected Galilean
                            appearance, knowing that his readers had also read Luke and would
                            recognize that they were Judean apperances, and (c) decide not to use
                            John 21, despite its appropriateness.

                            Hort's view of the LE, in this regard, seems valid: "Whether they
                            [vv. 9-20] are historically reliable or not, their contents are not
                            such as could have been invented by any scribe or editor of the
                            Gospel in his desire to supply the observed defect by a substantial
                            and dignified ending. They have every appearance of being founded on
                            definite written or oral traditions." The case is simplified if the
                            LE = a freestanding Resurrection Appearances text composed by Mark,
                            based on a summary delivered by Peter, which was available to Mark's
                            surviving associates, and which they added to the (other) Markan text
                            (1:1-16:8) before the Gospel of Mark was published.

                            Yours in Christ,

                            James Snapp, Jr.
                            Curtisville Christian Church
                            Elwood, Indiana (USA)
                            www.curtisvillechristian.org/MarkOne.html
                          • Tony Zbaraschuk
                            ... There are, I think, cases where one would not expect them to (the gospels don t overlap any of the epistles in time, for instance, so if one of them refers
                            Message 13 of 20 , Mar 13, 2006
                            • 0 Attachment
                              On Sun, Mar 12, 2006 at 07:28:32PM -0000, john1524wagner wrote:
                              > jmleonardfamily@...> wrote:
                              > "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not
                              > believe will be condemned." Does this really sound like Mark? It
                              > sounds more like Luke's Acts mixed with John."
                              >
                              > This was my point when I introduced this topic. Aside from the longer
                              > ending of Mark, there is nothing in the gospels or letters of
                              > Matthew, Mark, John, Jude, Peter, or James to confirm or elaborate
                              > upon ANY of the events or theology mentioned in the Acts or in Paul's
                              > epistles.

                              There are, I think, cases where one would not expect them to
                              (the gospels don't overlap any of the epistles in time, for
                              instance, so if one of them refers to a contemporary event to
                              itself one is not, perhaps, likely to find it elsewhere.)

                              > Mark 16:9-20 creates the ONLY link between the Paul/Lukan
                              > school and the rest of the NT authors.

                              I am not sure on what basis you are making this judgment.
                              It seems to me that 1 Cor 7:10 parallels Matthew 19:9,
                              for instance, and of course all four gospels plus 1 Cor
                              have accounts of the Last Supper.

                              <snip 160 lines of excess quoted material>


                              Tony Z
                              --
                              Much of what are called "social problems" consists of the fact that
                              intellectuals have theories that do not fit the real world. From this
                              they conclude that it is the real world which is wrong and needs changing.
                              --Thomas Sowell
                            • schmuel
                              Hi Folks, ... Yes, this is an EXCELLENT example. Of the humongous pitfalls and perils of such motivation analysis ! Where the analyst can pick and choose the
                              Message 14 of 20 , Mar 16, 2006
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Hi Folks,

                                > Subject was: Re: [textualcriticism] Re: Incongruity in the Long Ending of Mark

                                john1524wagner wrote:
                                >I concur with the majority of scholars who consider Mark 16:9-20 to be a scribal addition .... the content is foreign to the Markan theme and mostly closely resembles the theme of Paul or Luke, whose doctrine is otherwise conspicuously absent from the gospels.
                                >
                                >According to Bart Ehrman, discerning the motivation of scribes is an essential factor in textual criticism. For example the addition of the story of the adulterous woman in John 8 can be attributed to scribes who wanted to soften the image of Jesus.

                                Yes, this is an EXCELLENT example.
                                Of the humongous pitfalls and perils of such 'motivation' analysis !
                                Where the analyst can pick and choose the 'motivation' that matches his preferences.

                                And with the Pericope, we have a 'motivation analysis' from 400 AD by Augustine in the other direction. And he was likely working off of first-person experience and/or primary sources. At face, of more textcrit value than Barts view, bringing his agnostic/atheist baggage to the fray. (You cannot separate beliefs from motivations).

                                Question: what does Bart Ehrman say about the Augustine 'motivation' analysis.
                                (No, I don't have the book).

                                Shalom,
                                Steven Avery

                                http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic
                              • mr.scrivener
                                ... Ending of Mark ... to be a scribal addition .... the content is foreign to the Markan theme and mostly closely resembles the theme of Paul or Luke, whose
                                Message 15 of 20 , Mar 17, 2006
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, schmuel <schmuel@...> wrote:
                                  >
                                  > Hi Folks,
                                  >
                                  > > Subject was: Re: [textualcriticism] Re: Incongruity in the Long
                                  Ending of Mark
                                  >
                                  > john1524wagner wrote:
                                  > >I concur with the majority of scholars who consider Mark 16:9-20
                                  to be a scribal addition .... the content is foreign to the Markan
                                  theme and mostly closely resembles the theme of Paul or Luke, whose
                                  doctrine is otherwise conspicuously absent from the gospels.
                                  > >
                                  > >According to Bart Ehrman, discerning the motivation of scribes is
                                  an essential factor in textual criticism. For example the addition
                                  of the story of the adulterous woman in John 8 can be attributed to
                                  scribes who wanted to soften the image of Jesus.
                                  >
                                  > Yes, this is an EXCELLENT example.
                                  > Of the humongous pitfalls and perils of such 'motivation'
                                  analysis !
                                  > Where the analyst can pick and choose the 'motivation' that matches
                                  his preferences.
                                  >
                                  > And with the Pericope, we have a 'motivation analysis' from 400 AD
                                  by Augustine in the other direction. And he was likely working off
                                  of first-person experience and/or primary sources. At face, of more
                                  textcrit value than Barts view, bringing his agnostic/atheist baggage
                                  to the fray. (You cannot separate beliefs from motivations).
                                  >
                                  > Question: what does Bart Ehrman say about the
                                  Augustine 'motivation' analysis.
                                  > (No, I don't have the book).
                                  >
                                  > Shalom,
                                  > Steven Avery
                                  >
                                  > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic
                                  >

                                  This looks like a 'motivation analysis of a motivation analysis'! LOL.

                                  But Ehrman is extremely disappointing in his promotional
                                  (prewritten) 'interview', promoting his book (audio online here):

                                  http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5052156

                                  Here he engages in a shockingly misleading presentation which leaves
                                  unwary non-textual-critics with the strong impression that the
                                  Pericope de Adultera was added in the twelfth century! He does this
                                  by presenting half-truths like "the Greek fathers don't mention it
                                  until the 12th century" and confusing the evidence from pre-4th
                                  century Egypt with the evidence (quite different) from the Byzantine
                                  period (5th to 15th century). This can't be accidental, and his
                                  credibility to anyone who knows the actual textual situation goes
                                  down the tubes, whatever position one takes. It's just a dishonest
                                  presentation, carefully spin-doctored.

                                  regards,
                                  Scrivener
                                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.