RE: [textualcriticism] A Plea: End the Ending of Mark Discussions (or at least 'shorten' them)
- If anybody has ideas, suggestions or an opinion regarding these issues,
please send them to me in private. Thanks!
[mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] On Behalf Of Rory Crowley
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2012 12:02 AM
Subject: [textualcriticism] A Plea: End the Ending of Mark Discussions (or
at least 'shorten' them)
Hey guys and gals,
Greetings. I must make my address here with brevity. Please forgive me for
I had the honor of finding this group a few years back. I'm am currently
concentrating in NTTC in my grad program and this group has provided me
much-needed insight into the world of TC--esp. the LE, SEs, and all things
that pertain to the ending of Mark....
So, it needs to be stated that what I am about to say, really, has nothing
(read: absolutely nothing) to do with my views of any ending of Mark and its
claim to authenticity. Rather, it has to do with a grievance, an annoyance,
a certain vein of indifference--which actually, has been fostered by such
unabating discussions about the ending of Mark.
With all due respect, I am glad we are engaging the issue. However, it is
becoming very, very taxing to always have my inbox flooded with such
discussions on the ending of Mark. I want to suggest a number of things
here, and then get some feedback:
(1) For those who are so very enthralled with the ending of Mark, why not
start your own Ending-of-Mark-TC yahoo group? After all, this is the TC
group, not the LE group;
(2) this very yahoo group, that we are all a part of, could limit any
particular discussion (I'm thinking of one specifically that deals with
endings) to say, oh, one or two posts a month by any particular user;
(3) those who love the ending of Mark discussions, as their own Magdalen,
could cordially start respecting the fact that, to others, it is taxing to
always be in the middle of such incessant, hobby-horse tennis matches of
(4) If all else fails, I could, sadly, leave the group. (Yes, it has come to
Cheers. Let me know your thoughts.
On Sep 26, 2012, at 2:50 PM, rslocc wrote:
--- In email@example.com, "Vox Verax" <james.snapp@...>
> MK: "So, do we have most or much of Justin's Synoptic Harmony?"
> No; the existence of a Synoptics-Harmony used by Justin is a deduction
drawn from his consistent use of blended citations (i.e., citations that
contain material from both Mt. and Lk, for example) when he quoted from the
You wouldn't happen to have a small list of examples where Justin gives
blended citations would you? This is a very interesting observation and a
common practice amongst Teachers & Preachers of the Bible. The very men who
penned the gospel used this method of amalgamated referencing (by the
inspiration of the Holy Spirit no less!). James, is it not more probable
(however slightly) that Tatian could have simply picked up on this
"strength" in Justin's teaching technique? Justin surely had notes and
outlines which Tatian was privy to (as an ardent student) in some capacity.
Would you oppose the notion that Tatian followed Justin in suit and this
"Synoptic-Harmony" is more of thread throughout Justin's teaching, sermons,
notes and writtings, than an actual singular work. The structure of which
came into existence later by the hand of Tatian. Not that I disagreee with
you in essence, I personally think you are on to something here. Yet I am
weary of all the "lost" works, whic h, if we only had them would prove such
and such theory. Not implying that your hypothesis comes into this arena.
-Matthew M. Rose
I received a lot of feedback. Thanks!
Overall I get the impression that it is best to leave things as they are.
If you don't like posts regarding certain topics you can simply delete them, or you can use the filter function of your email program.
Generally I'd like to advise everybody to keep in mind that this is a scholarly mailing list and that everything you post will be read by 500+ people. Please avoid simple one-liners and full quotes. If you are uncertain if your reply is useful for the list there is always the possibility to reply to a certain person off-list.
Regarding the issue of the Longer-Ending it would be useful to make yourself familiar with the complete evidence first!
You could read Jim Snapp's file:
or my own file:
I agree with Jim Snapp that a lot of false or misleading information is floating around on the internet regarding the endings of Mark. But I think it is not the function of this list to point these out or to discuss them, except perhaps in extremely outstanding instances. It has been suggested that Jim could set up a website for this material.
An important point that is often not seen is the distinction one has to make between a) the Long Ending being canonical and b) being an integral part of Mark's Gospel. A lot of churches (and scholars, e.g. Metzger!) consider the Long Ending canonical, i.e. they have it in their lectionary and read and preach it in the church. This canonical question cannot be answered by textual critics. In the end it is a question for the church.
On the other hand most textual critics consider the Long Ending to be somewhat separate from the Gospel of Mark. It may have been written by someone else, perhaps somewhat later. It makes a secondary impression on many counts and was probably not part of the oldest stratum of Mark's Gospel. This secondary nature is a matter of debate.
So, if you have *interesting* new evidence regarding the Endings of Mark or have a question that is not answered in the above mentioned files, feel free to discuss that on the list.
If you want to reply to this post, please do this off-list.
Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
Please check out the TC forum: