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

Re: New Ending to the Gospel of Mark?

Expand Messages
  • jtantley89
    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
    Message 1 of 16 , Feb 25, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      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?
    • yennifmit
      Years ago my New Testament lecturer, Dr Richard K. Moore, suggested that the reason for the abrupt ending of Mark is that all surviving copies stem from a
      Message 2 of 16 , Feb 26, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        Years ago my New Testament lecturer, Dr Richard K. Moore, suggested
        that the reason for the abrupt ending of Mark is that all surviving
        copies stem from a codex which had lost its final leaf or leaves. (I
        don't know whether the idea originates with him.)

        I think that this is a plausible explanation but there is one
        weakness: the earliest codices are of single quire construction. That
        is, they were made by laying many papyrus sheets on top of each other
        then folding the lot in half (e.g. P46). So, if this is what happened
        to the ending, one would expect there to be a missing beginning as well.

        Best

        Tim Finney


        --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, Mark Thunderson
        <mark.thunderson@...> wrote:
        >
        > Concerning another ending...
        >
        > It is amazing just how many attempts have been made to
        > reach beyond Mark 16:8. Surely, the Gospel of Mark
        > ends at 16:8. But to the credit of those who have
        > argued for an extension beyond 16:8 (and these
        > extensions have been less than satisfactory), it does
        > seem plausible that Mark 1:1-16:8 expects indeed hopes
        > for closure. In order for the textual critic to
        > perceive this, he must first understand what Mark is
        > saying. So, I would argue on a very precise level
        > that Mark expects his reader not only "to understand"
        > but to continue the work he began (hence, Matthew and
        > Luke). Therefore, those in the past who have written
        > "an ENDING" have done so with little success. That an
        > ending must come, however, is imminent. But who is
        > worthy to write an end to Mark? Who is worthy to break
        > the seal at 16:8?
        >
        > Mark Thunderson.
        >
        >
      • James Snapp, Jr.
        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
        Message 3 of 16 , 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
          little.)
          (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)
          www.curtisvillechristian.org/BasicTC.html
        • Wieland Willker
          ... suggested ... surviving ... leaves. (I ... one ... construction. That ... each other ... what happened ... beginning as well. And exactly this has been
          Message 4 of 16 , Feb 26, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            Tim Finney wrote:
            > Years ago my New Testament lecturer, Dr Richard K. Moore,
            suggested
            > that the reason for the abrupt ending of Mark is that all
            surviving
            > copies stem from a codex which had lost its final leaf or
            leaves. (I
            > don't know whether the idea originates with him.)
            >
            > I think that this is a plausible explanation but there is
            one
            > weakness: the earliest codices are of single quire
            construction. That
            > is, they were made by laying many papyrus sheets on top of
            each other
            > then folding the lot in half (e.g. P46). So, if this is
            what happened
            > to the ending, one would expect there to be a missing
            beginning as well.


            And exactly this has been suggested, too, already.
            Check the online commentary!

            . R. Way-Rider "The Lost Beginning of St. Mark's
            Gospel" in Studia Evangelica Vol. VII, Akademie Verlag,
            Berlin 1982, p. 553-6

            . N. Clayton Croy "Where the Gospel text begins: A
            non-theological interpretation of Mk 1:1." NovT 43 (2001)
            106-127


            Best wishes
            Wieland
            <><
            ------------------------------------------------
            Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
            mailto:willker@...-bremen.de
            http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie
            Textcritical commentary:
            http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/index.html
          • Peter M. Head
            ... It doesn t originate with him, it has been suggested for quite a while (can t document the originator at the moment though). ... This is argued by Clayton
            Message 5 of 16 , Feb 26, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              At 14:45 26/02/2007, Tim wrote:
              >Years ago my New Testament lecturer, Dr Richard K. Moore, suggested
              >that the reason for the abrupt ending of Mark is that all surviving
              >copies stem from a codex which had lost its final leaf or leaves. (I
              >don't know whether the idea originates with him.)

              It doesn't originate with him, it has been suggested for quite a
              while (can't document the originator at the moment though).


              >I think that this is a plausible explanation but there is one
              >weakness: the earliest codices are of single quire construction. That
              >is, they were made by laying many papyrus sheets on top of each other
              >then folding the lot in half (e.g. P46). So, if this is what happened
              >to the ending, one would expect there to be a missing beginning as well.

              This is argued by Clayton Croy in The Mutilation of Mark's Gospel
              (2003): Mark lacks a beginning and an end due to damage to a single
              quire codex. Incidentally he could well document the originator of
              the above theory.


              Peter


              >

              Peter M. Head, PhD
              Sir Kirby Laing Senior Lecturer in New Testament
              Tyndale House
              36 Selwyn Gardens
              Cambridge CB3 9BA
              01223 566601
            • Eric Rowe
              ... Jim, 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
              Message 6 of 16 , 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.

                Jim,
                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
                canon.
                I would guess that most NT text-critical scholars will fall into one
                of those camps.
                Eric
              • Roger Pearse
                ... I vaguely associate the idea with C.H.Roberts, Birth of the Codex , but I haven t got it here to check. All the best, Roger Pearse
                Message 7 of 16 , Feb 27, 2007
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "Peter M. Head" <pmh15@...>
                  wrote:
                  >
                  > At 14:45 26/02/2007, Tim wrote:
                  > >Years ago my New Testament lecturer, Dr Richard K. Moore, suggested
                  > >that the reason for the abrupt ending of Mark is that all surviving
                  > >copies stem from a codex which had lost its final leaf or leaves. (I
                  > >don't know whether the idea originates with him.)
                  >
                  > It doesn't originate with him, it has been suggested for quite a
                  > while (can't document the originator at the moment though).

                  I vaguely associate the idea with C.H.Roberts, "Birth of the Codex",
                  but I haven't got it here to check.

                  All the best,

                  Roger Pearse
                • sarban
                  ... From: yennifmit To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, February 26, 2007 2:45 PM Subject: [textualcriticism] Re: New Ending to the Gospel of
                  Message 8 of 16 , Feb 27, 2007
                  • 0 Attachment
                     
                    ----- Original Message -----
                    From: yennifmit
                    Sent: Monday, February 26, 2007 2:45 PM
                    Subject: [textualcriticism] Re: New Ending to the Gospel of Mark?

                    Years ago my New Testament lecturer, Dr Richard K. Moore, suggested
                    that the reason for the abrupt ending of Mark is that all surviving
                    copies stem from a codex which had lost its final leaf or leaves. (I
                    don't know whether the idea originates with him.)

                    I think that this is a plausible explanation but there is one
                    weakness: the earliest codices are of single quire construction. That
                    is, they were made by laying many papyrus sheets on top of each other
                    then folding the lot in half (e.g. P46). So, if this is what happened
                    to the ending, one would expect there to be a missing beginning as well.

                    Best

                    Tim Finney

                    IMS it has been suggested that the abrupt commencement of Mark is a result of the original beginning having been lost as well as the original ending.

                    I'm afraid I don't remember who made this suggestion.

                    Andrew Criddle

                  • Daniel B. Wallace
                    I suspect that C. F. D. Moule made the suggestion that both the beginning and ending of Mark had been lost. I know he taught this for years, but don t recall
                    Message 9 of 16 , Feb 28, 2007
                    • 0 Attachment
                      I suspect that C. F. D. Moule made the suggestion that both the beginning and ending of Mark had been lost. I know he taught this for years, but don't recall if he ever wrote anything on it.

                      Daniel B. Wallace
                      Executive Director
                      Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts

                      ----- Start Original Message -----
                      Sent: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 19:55:55 -0000
                      From: "sarban" <sarban@...>
                      To: <textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com>
                      Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] Re: New Ending to the Gospel of Mark?

                      >
                      > ----- Original Message ----- From: yennifmitTo: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.comSent:
                      Monday, February 26, 2007 2:45 PMSubject: [textualcriticism] Re: New
                      Ending to the Gospel of Mark?

                      Years ago my New Testament lecturer, Dr Richard K. Moore, suggested
                      that the reason for the abrupt ending of Mark is that all surviving
                      copies stem from a codex which had lost its final leaf or leaves. (I
                      don't know whether the idea originates with him.)

                      I think that this is a plausible explanation but there is one
                      weakness: the earliest codices are of single quire construction. That
                      is, they were made by laying many papyrus sheets on top of each other
                      then folding the lot in half (e.g. P46). So, if this is what happened
                      to the ending, one would expect there to be a missing beginning as
                      well.

                      Best

                      Tim Finney

                      IMS it has been suggested that the abrupt commencement of Mark is a
                      result of the original beginning having been lost as well as the
                      original ending.

                      I'm afraid I don't remember who made this suggestion.

                      Andrew Criddle




                      ----- End Original Message -----
                    • Peter Gurry
                      If I remember right, N. Clayton Croy also traces the theory of a lost beginning and ending of Mark back to C. F. D. Moule. I don t think he cites any written
                      Message 10 of 16 , Mar 9, 2007
                      • 0 Attachment
                        If I remember right, N. Clayton Croy also traces the theory of a lost beginning and ending of Mark back to C. F. D. Moule. I don't think he cites any written source of Moule's, just personal correspondence. Croy talks briefly about it in either the introduction or the foreword of his Mutilation of Mark's Gospel (Abingdon, 2003). I don't have it on hand, otherwise I could verify that.

                        Peter Gurry



                        --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "Daniel B. Wallace" <csntm@...> wrote:

                        I suspect that C. F. D. Moule made the suggestion that both the beginning and ending of Mark had been lost. I know he taught this for years, but don't recall if he ever wrote anything on it.

                        Daniel B. Wallace
                        Executive Director
                        Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts

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