Mark's dependence on Luke - the end of Markan priority - plus support for the traditional ending

[Steven Avery]

There is a lot of error built around Markan priority theory.

We will leave that open for discussion here, and in the next post show why Markan priority is a totally false theory.

As a bonus this adds to the overwhelming evidences for the authenticity of the traditional ending of Mark.

And I will be making sure the AV is used, and adding more information.

 

[Steven Avery]

Here I am using the thread started on the BCHF forum, by Ben C. Smith, and include my additions on p. 8 and 9.

BCHF
Presumptions of reader knowledge in Mark
Ben C. Smith - Feb, 2020
http://earlywritings.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3818&sid=17fb0cff1b608c1e3ed3cdedc9bb6d2c

There are several junctures in the gospel of Mark at which the author/editor seems to presume previous knowledge, on the part of the reader, of significant parts of the overall storyline.

1. The imprisonment of John.

Mark 1.14-15 (AV - all scriptures)
Now after that John was put in prison, [μετὰ δὲ τὸ παραδοθῆναι τὸν Ἰωάννην] Jesus came into Galilee,
preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God,
And saying,
The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand:
repent ye, and believe the gospel.

While John himself has been introduced (in 1.2-6), nothing has been said which would imply that he was going to be imprisoned. Therefore, this notice seems to presume readers will already know about John's imprisonment, in much the same way that John seems to presume that his readers will know about it:

Luke 3:20
Added yet this above all,
that he shut up John in prison.

John 3.23-24
John also was baptizing in Aenon near Salim,
because there was much water there;
and people were coming and were being baptized —
for John had not yet been thrown into prison.

Matthew 14:3
For Herod had laid hold on John, and bound him,
and put him in prison for Herodias' sake,
his brother Philip's wife.

The notice in Mark 1.14-15 suggests that readers of Mark, are expected to have known that John had been placed in prison.

Likewise, for readers of Mark, the imprisonment of John seems to have been a known event.

2. Simon Peter.

Mark 1:16
Now as he walked by the sea of Galilee,
he saw Simon and Andrew his brother casting a net into the sea: for they were fishers.

Mark 1.16 seems to presume that readers will already know who Simon is. Unlike most characters in the gospel, Simon is given no introduction by nickname, patronymic, or any of the usual manners; and his brother, Andrew, is identified by his relationship to Simon. Refer to my post on named characters in Mark for more information:

Introducing named Marcan characters.
http://earlywritings.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2551.

4. The disciples of John.

Mark gives the reader no early indication that John might have disciples. His description of the prophet is as a loner in the desert: surrounded by crowds, to be sure, but not calling them to himself or instructing them as a mentor instructs pupils. So that John has disciples comes a bit abruptly:

Mark 2.18
And the disciples of John and of the Pharisees used to fast:
and they come and say unto him,
Why do the disciples of John and of the Pharisees fast, but thy disciples fast not?

To be fair, however, all groups in Mark seem to be introduced abruptly: "the scribes" (1.22), "the scribes of the Pharisees" (thus introducing the Pharisees themselves, as well, 2.16), and the Herodians (3.6). So the introduction of groups may not follow the pattern of introducing individual characters.

ETA: Stefan points out that the Sadducees are actually a group which Mark gives something of an introduction for. I missed that.

We do have the calling of the disciples explained in Luke and Matthew

Luke 1:5-11
And it came to pass, that, as the people pressed upon him to hear the word of God, he stood by the lake of Gennesaret,
And saw two ships standing by the lake: but the fishermen were gone out of them, and were washing their nets.
And he entered into one of the ships, which was Simon's, and prayed him that he would thrust out a little from the land.
And he sat down, and taught the people out of the ship.
Now when he had left speaking, he said unto Simon, Launch out into the deep, and let down your nets for a draught.
And Simon answering said unto him, Master, we have toiled all the night, and have taken nothing:
nevertheless at thy word I will let down the net.
And when they had this done, they inclosed a great multitude of fishes: and their net brake.
And they beckoned unto their partners, which were in the other ship,
that they should come and help them.
And they came, and filled both the ships, so that they began to sink.
When Simon Peter saw it, he fell down at Jesus' knees, saying,
Depart from me; for I am a sinful man, O Lord.
For he was astonished, and all that were with him,
at the draught of the fishes which they had taken:
And so was also James, and John, the sons of Zebedee, which were partners with Simon.
And Jesus said unto Simon, Fear not; from henceforth thou shalt catch men.
And when they had brought their ships to land, they forsook all, and followed him.

Matthew 4:18-22 AV
And Jesus, walking by the sea of Galilee, saw two brethren, Simon called Peter, and Andrew his brother,
casting a net into the sea: for they were fishers.
And he saith unto them, Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men.
And they straightway left their nets, and followed him.
And going on from thence, he saw other two brethren, James the son of Zebedee,
and John his brother, in a ship with Zebedee their father,
mending their nets; and he called them.
And they immediately left the ship and their father, and followed him.

5. The betrayal by Judas.

In the list of disciples, long before Judas has betrayed his Lord, Mark already mentions that betrayal:

Mark 3:16-19
And Simon he surnamed Peter;
And James the son of Zebedee, and John the brother of James;
and he surnamed them Boanerges, which is, The sons of thunder:
And Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas,
and James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus, and Simon the Canaanite,
And Judas Iscariot, which also betrayed him: and they went into an house.

John 11:1-2:
Now a certain man was sick, Lazarus of Bethany, the village of Mary and her sister Martha.
It was the Mary who anointed the Lord with ointment,
and wiped His feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was sick.

This anointing will not take place until a chapter later, in 12.1-11. It is as if John expects his readers to already know this story (from earlier gospels, at least), and he is merely pointing out that this is that Mary. Similarly, it is as if Mark expects his readers to already know the story of the betrayal by Judas, and he is merely pointing out that this is that Judas.

This is a good argument against Markan priority and Johannine priority.
Ben then goes into Old Testament and Josephus analogies.

6. Pilate

Pilate, like Simon Peter, is one of the characters in Mark who needs no introduction:
http://earlywritings.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2551.
He comes in unannounced:

Mark 15.1:
And straightway in the morning the chief priests held a consultation
with the elders and scribes and the whole council,
and bound Jesus, and carried him away, and delivered him to Pilate.

Luke 3.1 and Matthew 27.2, on the contrary, give Pilate a proper introduction into the narrative.

It is clear that this is a strong evidence for Luke before Mark.

Luke 3:1
Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar,
Pontius Pilate being governor of Judaea,
and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee,
and his brother Philip tetrarch of Ituraea and of the region of Trachonitis,
and Lysanias the tetrarch of Abilene,

Matthew 27:2
And when they had bound him, they led him away,
and delivered him to Pontius Pilate the governor.

John 18.29
Pilate then went out unto them, and said,
What accusation bring ye against this man?

By proper early dating 1 Timothy 6:13-16 is not relevant, since the Gospels were circulating.
Similarly, I snip Ben's later ECW entries.

Mark's first mention of Pilate is every bit as abrupt as the creeds' mentions of Pilate are, suggesting that his readers already knew under whose authority Jesus was crucified.

8. The second Mary.

Mark 15:40
There were also women looking on afar off:
among whom was Mary Magdalene,
and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salome;

Mark 15.40 seems to presume that readers will know how to sort out the names of the women:
Μαρία ἡ Μαγδαληνὴ καὶ Μαρία ἡ Ἰακώβου τοῦ μικροῦ καὶ Ἰωσῆτος μήτηρ καὶ Σαλώμη.

The issue is that second Mary. The Greek wording is capable of being understood in six different ways, including three in which two separate women are in view:

• Mary (the wife) of James the Less and the mother of Joses.
• Mary (the daughter) of James the Less and the mother of Joses.
• Mary the mother of James the Less and of Joses.
• (A) Mary (the wife) of James the Less and (B) the mother of Joses.
• (A) Mary (the daughter) of James the Less and (B) the mother of Joses.
• (A) Mary the mother of James the Less and (B) the mother of Joses.

How is the reader supposed to know which option is correct unless s/he already has some knowledge of these women? (This point comes from Theissen.)

The Gerd Theissen material is interesting, but weakened by his mis-dating of Corinthians as before the Gospels.
https://books.google.com/books?id=3ZU97DQMH6UC&pg=PA497

Then we have Ben's conclusion:

To summarize, I think that the author of the gospel of Mark was writing for readers who already knew at least certain parts of the story. One part of the story involves John the baptist, since readers are expected to know both that he was imprisoned and that he had disciples. Another part of the story involves the crucifixion of Jesus, since readers are expected to know who Pilate is, that Jesus was betrayed, who Alexander and Rufus are, and at least something about the women at the cross. There may be other presumed parts of the story that I have not sussed out yet. The title "son of man" may not be a story element at all, but rather an element of early Christian theology. And knowledge of Simon Peter may or may not include stories about him; he may simply have been known as a famous Christian apostle.

This analysis says nothing about whether what Mark's first readers knew came from historical facts, from legendary tales, or from previous gospel texts. Any or all of those options are left wide open, much in the same way that there are many different ways in which Josephus' readers might have come to learn about the Temple.

Ben

 

[Steven Avery]

These are the two that I added.
They are also evidence for the long ending.

Appearance in Galilee

Mark 14:28 (AV)
But after that I am risen,
I will go before you into Galilee.

Mark 16:7 (AV)
But go your way,
tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee:
there shall ye see him, as he said unto you.

Matthew 28:16-20
Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them.
And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted.
And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

John 21:1
After these things Jesus shewed himself again to the disciples at the sea of Tiberias;
and on this wise shewed he himself.

Since Mark does not write of this appearance, even in the massively supported traditional ending, it is a reasonable understanding that the appearance is available in an existing writing, at the time of the publication of Mark's Gospel. Note: I place the Gospel in the 40s, YMMV.

This was also covered here:

A Proposal that the Longer Ending of Mark is Dependent on the Gospel of Luke
Galilee post-Resurrection appearance references in Mark point to Matthew preceding Mark
http://earlywritings.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=6286&start=20#p106808

Mary Magdalene - cast out seven devils

Mark 16:9 (AV)
Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week,
he appeared first to Mary Magdalene,
out of whom he had cast seven devils.

Luke 8:2 (AV)
And certain women,
which had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities,
Mary called Magdalene, out of whom went seven devils,

Another one that shows the same type of relationship from the traditional ending and Luke. So now it is becoming a corroborative evidence for the traditional ending! Since you are totally right on the Markan connection to earlier writings.

And the death-knell to Marcan priority. An interesting question, how many of these have been mentioned in earlier "synoptic/priority" writings, of any stripe? Who, where, and what did they say. Please note, I have been mentioning the Galilee one for some years as an evidence for non-Markan priority and the authenticity of the traditional ending.

 

[Steven Avery]

Not used in my exposition.

3. The son of man.

The gospel of Mark uses the title "son of man" in a way which seems to expect its readers already to know what it means. Mark 2.10 and 2.28 may be using the phrase "son of man" to mean "human," which is one of its main functions as a Semitic idiom. But in Mark 8.31 it means something more, and this "something more," as a title for Jesus, is never really explained, leaving modern scholars to write entire monographs on the topic.

This one would not have a lot of pizazz unless "son of man" was more specifically explained in another Gospel.

This next one is not internal to NT, it is interesting for knowledge of the Old Testament, by Mark and his readers.

7. Alexander and Rufus.

The book of Ruth gives, with the birth of Obed, a miniature genealogy leading down to David:

Ruth 4.17
And the women her neighbours gave it a name, saying,
There is a son born to Naomi; and they called his name Obed:
he is the father of Jesse, the father of David.

Clearly, readers of this book are expected to already know who David is, and the author is merely telling them that Obed happens to be this famous
David's grandfather. In a similar manner, readers of Mark are expected to know who two sons of one of the supporting characters is:

Mark 15.21
And they compel one Simon a Cyrenian, who passed by,
coming out of the country, the father of Alexander and Rufus, to bear his cross.

This kind of jumping out of the narrative to mention later people or events which depend in some way upon what is happening in the narrative is a fairly common storytelling device:
http://earlywritings.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3125&p=71433#p71433.
In this case, Alexander and Rufus, while unknown to us, must have been known in some way to the first readers of this text.

 

[Steven Avery]

This was from Ben on the first one, a minor addition:

The notice itself is of the kind found frequently in the Hebrew scriptures whereby the narrative or oracle at hand is dated with reference to a well known event:

Jeremiah 24.1 (AV)
The Lord shewed me, and, behold, two baskets of figs were set before the temple of the Lord,
after that Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon had carried away captive Jeconiah the son of Jehoiakim king of Judah,
and the princes of Judah, with the carpenters and smiths, from Jerusalem, and had brought them to Babylon.

Baruch 1.1-2, 8-9 (AV)
And these are the wordes of the booke, which Baruch the sonne of Nerias, the sonne of Maasias, the sonne of Sedecias, the sonne of Asadias, the son of Chelcias, wrote in Babylon, In the fift yere, and in the seuenth day of the moneth, what time as the Caldeans tooke Ierusalem, and burnt it with fire.
...
At the same time, when he receiued the vessels of the house of the Lord that were caried out of the Temple, to returne them into the land of Iuda the tenth day of the moneth Siuan, namely siluer vessels, which Sedecias the sonne of Iosias king of Iuda had made, After that Nabuchodonosor king of Babylon had caried away [μετὰ τὸ ἀποικίσαι Ναβουχοδονοσορ βασιλέα Βαβυλῶνος] Iechonias, and the Princes, and the captiues, and the mightie men, and the people of the land from Ierusalem, and brought them vnto Babylon:

Lamentations 1.1 LXX:
1 And it came to pass, after Israel was taken captive [μετὰ τὸ αἰχμαλωτισθῆναι τὸν Ισραηλ], and Jerusalem made desolate, that Jeremiah sat weeping, and lamented with this lamentation over Jerusalem, and said, "How does the city that was filled with people sit solitary! She is become as a widow: she that was magnified among the nations, and princess among the provinces, has become tributary."

1 Maccabees 1.1: 1
And Alexander, son of Philip the Macedonian, who came from the land of Kittim, after he had smitten [μετὰ τὸ πατάξαι] Darius, king of the Persians and the Medes, succeeded him as king. (He had previously become king of Greece.)

 

[Steven Avery]

The simple fact that Mark does not have any origin/genealogy of Jesus, like there is in Luke and Matthew, should be added as another point, a presumption of reader knowledge.

This was brought up now on the BCHF forum.

Presumptions of reader knowledge in Mark.
http://earlywritings.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=106888#p106888

 

[Steven Avery]

Also, in another element of the dating question, the Lukan Prologue is a strong evidence that neither Mark or Matthew were circulating. The Theophilus proposal is also in harmony with this point.

Johann David Michaelis made this point in the 1700s.

The section should be here:

Introduction to the New Testament, Volume 3, Part 1
By Johann David Michaelis
http://books.google.com/books?id=sLAXAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA140

Around p. 138-140, right now I am going by a note that I made. Oh, it might be around p. 106
http://books.google.com/books?id=sLAXAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA106

"St. Luke, as I shall shew hereafter, could not well have seen the Gospel of St. Matthew before he wrote his own; or, he would have avoided every apparent contradiction to an eye-witness, and moreover would not have arranged his facts in a manner so very different from that of Sr. Matthew. But if St. Matthew's Gospel .was written several years before that of St. Luke, it could hardly have been unknown to this Evangelist, especially as he had been in Jerufalem, and even wrote his Gospel, as I shall endeavour to shew hereafter, during St. Paul's imprisonment at Cæfarea. Besides, when an ancient father assigns a date to the publication of a book, we have rather reason to suspect, that he has made it too ancient, than that he has made it too modern. "

This mentions the eyewitnesses element, however it does not specifically say that Luke's somewhat negative comment about earlier writers on Jesus would not fit with any of the Gospels. So I need to look for the "shew thereafter".

Also there should be a number of Evangleicals who say that Luke must precede the other Gospels based on the Prologue. Will try to document some here.

Michaelis mentions Origen's Homily on the Preface to Luke's Gospel, perhaps through Jerome.

 

[Steven Avery]

Facebook - PureBible
https://www.facebook.com/groups/purebible/permalink/677573729001186/

Evangelical Implications of Matthean Priority
James Breckenridge (1983)
https://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/26/26-1/26-1-pp117-121_JETS.pdf

First, there is an obvious theological benefit in Matthean priority. All of the elements in Matthew that fortify a strong evangelical gospel may be seen as primary data (as much as that term may be used). The genealogies, vivid eschatology, miracles, great commission, and importance of the Church all assume a foundational integrity. If evangelical assumptions precede Griesbach’s order— Matthew, Luke, Mark and John—an even greater emphasis is placed on the miraculous ministry of Christ and his Spirit.

Second, Matthean priority reminds us not to neglect patristic testimony. Clement states that “the gospels containing the genealogies . . . were written first.”12 Augustine insists that our gospels “are believed to have been written in the order which follows: first Matthew, then Mark, thirdly Luke, lastly John.”13 Origen observes that “the first was written by Matthew.”14 Papias notes that “Matthew wrote the oracles in the Hebrew language, and every one interpreted them as he was able.”15

12 Eusebius Hist. eccL 6.14, The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979), 1. 261.

13 Augustine, Harmony of the Gospels 2.2, The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series (Grand Rapids: Eerdmana, 1979), 6. 78.

14 Eusebius Hist. eccl. 6.24, p. 272.

l5 Ibid., pp. 172-173.

=================================

Facebook - Patristics for Protestants
https://www.facebook.com/groups/purebible/permalink/677573729001186/?comment_id=3669954336429762

Facebook - PureBible
https://www.facebook.com/groups/purebible/permalink/677573729001186/?comment_id=3669954336429762

 

[Steven Avery]

(The ETC Galilee post now moved to post #19)

 

[Steven Avery]

A ton of information on the Facebook thread on the next post, it will take a while to get it here and digested:

Facebook - NT Textual Criticism - Nov 2015
https://www.facebook.com/groups/302249746528699/user/100000786212850/

A bit of this previously put on:

early references from the Nicholas P. Lunn book discussed - Epistle of Clement, Shepherd of Hermas, Barnabas

This is important for our list of ECW references. Also the various pseudo-authenticity stands. From the James Snapp blog: Tuesday, November 17, 2015 Nick Lunn's Book about Mark 16:9-20 - Reviewing a Review http://www.thetextofthegospels.com/2015/11/nick-lunns-book-about-mark-169-20.html...

www.purebibleforum.com

Steven Avery
These evidences singularly and collectively are very salient. In this post I will discuss some others that are corroborative to the traditional ending of Mark being very early == most assuredly, authentic.
.
(Having a conviction that Mark and Luke were published before 50 AD, the "freestanding" objections I consider significant but overdone, capable of lessening an evidence, but not suppressing. These 5+ less discussed early evidences are cumulative and corroborative, we should not lessen our scholarship simply because the hortians are skilled at hand-waving and conjectural objection.)
.
Scrivener (Edward Miller editor in the 1894 posthumous edition of Plain Introduction) understood this solid aspect:
.
A plain introduction to the criticism of the New Testament for the use of Biblical students, 4th edition (1894)
Frederick Henry Ambrose Scrivener
https://archive.org/stream/cu31924092355118...
http://www.bible-researcher.com/endmark.html
.
" Dr. C. Taylor, Master of St. John's College, Cambridge, in The Expositor for July 1893, quotes more evidence from Justin Martyr — hinting that some also remains behind — proving that that Father was familiar with these verses. Also he cites several passages from the Epistle of Barnabas in which traces of them occur, and from the Quartodeciman controversy, and from Clement of Rome. The value of the evidence which Dr. Taylor's acute vision has discovered consists chiefly in its cumulative force. From familiarity with the passage numerous traces of it arose; or as Dr. Taylor takes the case reversely, from the fact of the occurrence of numerous traces evident to a close observer, it is manifest that there pre-existed in the minds of the writers a familiarity with the language of the verses in question."
.
This is why the best scholarship will include all the allusions, unconcerned with objections like "freestanding". To include some but not others is to miss the point.
.
=======================
.
Remember, too that Charles Taylor (1840-1908) discusses the Apology of Marcianus Aristides c. 125 AD.
.
Aristides of Athens
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristides_of_Athens
.
The Witness of Hermas to the Four Gospels (1892)
Charles Taylor
https://books.google.com/books?id=8Fvs5_rYYNIC&pg=PA67
.
Which has translations from Greek and Syriac and Armenian and is a solid evidence. Taylor is working with the Greek, chapter 15. There is related text in the Syriac Chapter 2.
http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/aristides_02_trans.htm#6
.
The Month Volume 72 (1891)
The Apology of Aristides
Herbert Walker Lucas (1852-1933)
https://books.google.com/books?id=gT0-AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA517
"The Armenian version seems (as Mr. Harris points out) to contain an allusion to St. Mark xiv. 20"
.
The Apology of Aristides on behalf of the Christians : from a Syriac ms. preserved on Mount Sinai (1893, pubilshed 1891)
James Rendel Harris (1852-1941)
https://archive.org/stream/apologyofaristid00arisrich...
.
Note that Harris was affirming a "signs following" reference in the Armenian, however Charles Taylor is going into the allusion from the Greek that did not need that extra pizazz.
.
=======================
.
Also from Charles Taylor is discussed the how Mark's ending text likely contributed to the 2nd century Quartodeciman Controversy involving Polycarp, Anicetus and Xystus (Sixtus).
.
The Expositor (1893)
Some Early Evidences For the Twelve Verses St Mark XVI 9-20
Charles Taylor
http://books.google.com/books?id=DKcQAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA79
.
=======================
.
James Anthony Kelhoffer (b. 1970) has a somewhat negative view on the Taylor view of the Aristides evidence, while being reasonably bullish on Taylor's discussion of Justin Martyr (p. 172-173.) which he does say that he "overstates the evidence" but that "a persuasive knowledge of Justin's knowledge can nonetheless be made".
.
Miracle and Mission: The Authentication of Missionaries and Their Message in the Longer Ending of Mark
James Kelhoffer
https://books.google.com/books?id=3z9hz6VrD_8C&pg=PA233
.
Kelhoffer discusses the Letter of Peter to Philip on p. 236-237 and can be helpful in discussing other early evidences like the Gospel of Peter.
.
=======================

Steven Avery
Joseph, thanks From the point of view of logic, your objection is impeccable. However, this is textual criticism science, so we have to leave logic and sense aside.
.
When opposition to the Mark ending developed, it was seen by most that Mark would not deliberately end at verse 8. So an explanation was needed, and it was theorized that either we had Markus Interruptus (Roman storm troopers, death) the end of
Mark
's writing ironically right as he approached the end, or that the ending was lost. (Neither has a smidgen of actual evidence.)
.
In these theories "freestanding" became a convenient way to explain why one ending took over the Greek, Latin, Syriac and versional lines so massively. And was even used by Justin Martyr in the early 2nd century. Thus "freestanding" has a theoretical history, much like Q, a theorized text, with no real evidence, one that is convenient for the modern paradigms.
.
James Snapp, virtually alone, attempted to turn freestanding on its head. And James says that freestanding was so early, and so close to Mark or friends of Mark or allowable writers of Mark, that it zaps into authenticity. This is where James departs from Burgon, Maurice Robinson and others, and where I am his sharp critic. And I have this written up in another land, we try not to rehash it too often here.
.
Note, though, that this makes James a proponent of "freestanding". And thus James has to be especially sensitive to the concept, its use and abuse.
.
Theoretically, James could similarly turn the conjectured objection around and say :
,
"you claim Aristides, Clement, et al uses freestanding, yet I have the only freestanding standing, and it is scripture. Ergo you are accepting scriptural support authenticity by Aristides, Clement".
.
You can see that this would be awkward, as it would expose his own freestanding to even more examination and negative scrutiny (some Mark ending contras have noted forcefully this Achilles heel in his position). And freestanding does not hold up well under scrutiny. As you point out, even for another reason, it is totally an argumentum ad ignoratiam. Thus James will prefer to bypass evidences that have a freestanding objection. Thus, he bypasses some good evidences in his generally excellent presentation of Mark ending ECW evidences.
.
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Thanks, Joseph. Good points. I heartily concur on gospel harmony (an evangelical approach that is not really appreciated in textual criticism and form and source criticism circles) and find the Jerusalem-Galilee explanation interesting.
.
>James Snapp
>The normal definitions of "original text"
There is no normal definition that is based on an ahistorical, convoluted, unlikely idea of our canonical text being chopped up, caused by Markus Interruptus. This is so far from any normal understanding that it does not even qualify as special pleading.
.
None of the components have any actual evidence, and the same steps up to Mr. Pericope fit just as well, or better, with an attachment decades after Mark, not scripture, as theorized by hortians using the pericope idea.
.
And in the non-authentic realm Floating Pericope and Added Pericope are non-scripture. Plus they can choose from Markus Interruptus or Abbreviatus. Once you wrongly see the text as divided, the opponents of authenticity are in the catbird seat. And the moment that even one copy of what you theorize as Mark's original text, the woman afraid text, reached one church down the road, your artificial construct of "production-stage" is over. Finito.
.
So the very best you could hope for, in terms of apologetic defense, is a scholastic stalemate, and realistically the floating pericope is sunk!

.
You would do so much better to come over to full authenticity, joining Burgon, Maurice Robinson and a heavenly and earthly host of full Mark authenticity defenders. Oh, happy day!
.
Steven Avery

Steven Avery .
James Snapp affirming from Aland
"the moment it began its literary history through transcription for distribution."
.
You never even remotely demonstrate this in your scenario. You would have some years or decades from when the ahistorical (there is not a trace of it known or implied in church history) interruption occurred to when the conjectural floating pericope, written by we can not tell who or where or why\, was found, analyzed and attached by unknown personages. And you have no way to tell if the attaching crew knew Mark.
.
Conjecture upon speculation upon wild supposition, multiplied by special pleading extrapolation.
.
Yet, for arguments sake, let us allow all the above, as if it were fact. And as if the Pericope were written by Mark, and found by friends of Mark, who did the attachment. We still have:
.
*** And within those years or decades you have no way to tell whether the original short-Mark was distributed. ***
.
ANY distribution, to one church fifty miles away, or 500 feet away, makes your scenario no longer scripture. By YOUR definitions. ANY.
.
Thus your scenario is already falsified as an apologetic attempt, even allowing your group of wildly convoluted and ahistorical conjectures. The very best you could claim is a stalemate of comparative unknowns, with you on the far weaker side.
.
========================
.
And I have reviewed the internals many times. And I have pointed out why you are wrong on various specifics, and Joseph does similarly above.
.
That is not the major point of this thread currently. See above.
.
*** Your scenario is fatally flawed, making you a de facto defender of non-authenticity. ***
.
If you were consistent, you would either become an agnostic or opponent of authenticity.
.
Or, much better, YOU should reexamine the internal and historical evidences afresh. "The time has come today." Maybe Maurice Robinson could help you in that journey. My sense is that he has wanted to help you for a decade.
.
As it is, you are an albatross to defense of authenticity, because what I see above has been easily seen by the contras. Your research and tech-geek work on the ending of
Mark
is excellent, helping many in understanding the historical evidences. Yet your conceptual defense falls like a sunken pericope.
.
==================
.
ahistorical
lacking historical perspective or context.
.
You had a mistaken definition of the word, above, leading to circular, blah-blah.
.
==================
.
One other point. In the James Snapp scenario, there is an amazing coincidence. The dropping of text in the Alexandrian line matches exactly the original unknown, untransmitted, short text of Marcus Interruptus. There is no transmissional connection, it is just an ironic reverse duplication.
.
Steven Avery

 

[Steven Avery]

Steven Avery
Let's us go down the James Snapp one in a million scenario, used to try to agree with the Alexandrian contras about the nature of the Mark Gospel text and yet claim a weak-kneed "authenticity." Remember, contra argumentation from hortian-types, that there were two documents, arose as an apologetic to claim Vaticanus authenticity. It had no innate historical or exegetical base.
.
=======
.
(1) Mark, working as Peter's assistant in Rome, writes a summary of Jesus' post-resurrection appearances, which is then used in the church.
.
Ahistorical, unlikely, and even more unlikely to be the point of coincidental absurdity to be a 12-verse floating pericope that just happens to fit what later occurs when Mark later dies suddenly or is executed or is however interrupted. Even post-facto probability I would put at 1 in 1,000, more as 1 in a million, falsifying the theory in the sense of making it probabilistically irrelevant.

.

Maybe you want the pericope to be part of a larger unknown publication? There are not many 1/5 page historical accounts of events circulating. Is this allowable in the various Snapp theory iterations? (See next post.)
.
(2) Mark, in the mid-60's, begins to composed the Gospel of Mark, to create a definitive written collection of Peter's remembrances about Jesus.
.
Far too late, my belief and conviction, the gospel was written in the 40s, the contras, including many evangelical contras, say the 80s. And both earlier and later further make difficult, or falsify once again, your theory.
,
The only truth here .. we know that Mark did write a Gospel account. Amen. Thank you Jesus.
.
(3) As Mark is writing about the scene where the myrrh-bearing women depart from the tomb, Mark is permanently interrupted.
.
Totally special pleading, ahistorical, virtually absurd. Nonsensical in the sense that 95%+ of the text is completed, and then after years of research and compilation Mark is "interrupted" with about fifteen minutes to go.
.
* Not a single church writer or historian states or even vaguely hints at this history. * (This was emphasized by Maurice Robinson in his dismissal of your scenario position, in our correspondence.)
.
Ahistorical is a light word. Special pleading is a light word. Total nonsense is more accurate.
So
I would give this element also a 1 in a million probability, even in a post-facto probability analysis sense.
.
(4) Colleagues of Mark, wanting to distribute Mark's composition to the church, but not wanting to deliver such an obviously incomplete text, complete the narrative by attaching the short composition which Mark had written previously.
.
And, even given all the absurd speculation up to this point, it is just as likely that the account would be distributed a little.
.
"Here, this is what we have from Mark. It is a wonderful account of the life of Jesus. [Whether or not they thought of adding to it later.] Hush, hush, we cannot tell history what happened to Mark. Or maybe we do not even know, or we hope he will return from custody, or recover. Dear sister-church, please read what Mark wrote."
.
Remember, if this occurred to one church, there is distribution, and per the Aland-Snapp definition. The SHORT version is the scripture. The historical longer version becomes the inauthentic spin-off.
.
As I pointed out, the contra can accept all the above absurd and unlikely scenarios and simply say that here the abbreviated account was distributed to a couple of churches. And your theory is falsified, it is not scripture, it is man's tampering, even if the theorized pericope was written by Mark. This weakness in your theory was properly emphasized by Joe Wallach and will be the simplest refutation by any skeptic or short-Mark proponent who will, quite properly, say that you have conceded the field. And they will be right.
.
===
.
Remember, you have danced around over the years even as to whether the actual theorized floating pericope was written by Mark, or by friends of Mark (in which case it could have also been written by unknown.)
.
Apparently you have circled the horses and now insist that it was written by Mark. Before you allowed the tack-on to be as late as the 80s, now you are insisting that everything occurred quickly in the 60s. (Would you like me to show earlier iterations?)
.
Your unlikely reconstruction has been a moving target, as you try to plug various holes. One leads to five more. When you change the James Snapp theoretical reconstruction, the earlier writing becomes inoperative.
.
===
.
(5) With the narrative thus complete, the Christians at Rome began making copies of the Gospel of Mark.
This is reasonable in any scenario, although others say it was distributed from other locales. e.g. Mark was known in Alexandria, one of the central cities. And he would have been in Israel (the complaints about geography are simply minority corruptions in the Alexandrian corruption text.) We can guess or conjecture the starting copy point. You can not, because you are looking for the one in a gazillion theory that makes for two documents from Mark combined into one scripture. Thus you say that copying began in Rome.
.
(SA NOTE: And if so, it might have been in Latin, or dual editions, or a Graeco-Latin dialect. And Philo might have received the c. 40 AD Mark edition.)
.
=======
.
You have demonstrated that it is an absurd theory. It is a contra theory, in the sense that it is trivially easy for an opponent to agree with part, and then come to a different confusion conclusion.
.
There are additional problems, such as the coincidence, (Just like you did not know the definition of ahistorical, you seem to not know the definition of coincidental. Coincidental does not by definition mean that there are not related attributes, do not confuse accidental with coincidental.) Or the fact that some would say that the pericope might not fit and was a non-Holy Spirit disjoint account, going against the nature of scripture.
.
========
.
Thank you for laying out step by step the absurdity of why you should be considered an opponent of Mark ending authenticity.
.
You did change the Aland distributed to copied, but that is minor overall.
.
Plus the internal evidence is not on your side, compared to true Marcan single-document authenticity acceptance. First, you can not separate historical fluidity from textual cohesion, the two are interrelated and connected as one unit. And if everything in the gospels was rejected as non-original because somebody or other thought it was difficult in some way or another, the whole New Testament would be eviscerated. Ask the German redactionists.
.
All that theorizing about difficulty is only the result of having your head spinning from the hortian confusions.
.
In apologetics the supposed difficulties in the true Marcan full document are zilch, nothings. Other claims take far more effort and consideration.
.
ALL Marcan concerns are easily handled. There is no difficulty. In fact, you discard of the major ones yourself.
.
DRP and some others would like there to be an apologetic difficulty in the full Gospel ending. Others claim a style difficulty. These are major parts of the contra approach.
.
You, quite properly, say that those contra-ending theories are all wrong. And you are right, the full text was easily written by Mark, and the apologetics is fine. We agree.
.
Yet, you keep a disjoint theory, as the base of mandating two documents and forcing Markus Interruptus. Supported by a group of quibbles. That is all you have left as your base for the probability and historical and conceptual nightmare, Your position that is easily received as an argument de facto contra authenticity.
.
The movement from verse 8 to verse 9 in the full Gospel is totally sensible in describing the most momentous moment in human history . Including the mention of the date (as discussed previously) in verse nine, especially considering the flexibility about the actual resurrection (about which there are many discourses) and the likely correct harmony involving two visits to the tomb by women. What we have in the full Markan gospel account is 1000% proper and acceptable and true.
.
Steven Avery

https://www.facebook.com/groups/302249746528699/user/100000786212850/

Steven Avery
Clearly true. This is one reason why I am trying to get James to say, (1) above, why he calls it freestanding instead of partial-standing (part of some other writing.)

Steven Avery

.

Why do you insist that it is freestanding rather than partial-standing? Or do you allow freestanding to be the end of another document? e.g Why could it not be the end of a crucifixion-resurrection summary, per the Snapp theories?
.
Why could it not be by Friends of Mark rather than Mark? (Allowed in your earlier theory.) Could it be 80 AD? (as in your earlier theories.)
.
Why did
Mark
omit "and Mary the mother of James, and Salome" in freestanding? If there was only one tomb visit that he was describing? Was freestanding an inspired or errant (misleading) text? Why the incohesive repetition (if there was only one visit to the tomb by women) in the final combined product? Do you claim one visit to the tomb by women, or two?
.
Since in your scenario, Mark intended to write something else to match "tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee", don't you end up with what we would properly consider a mangled, incorrect and disjointed Gospel account?
.
Why did not the Holy Spirit allow your preferred conclusion that was originally, you think, Mark's harmonistic intention? Is it your claim that the Holy Spirit was deliberately unprotective of Mark because he would have written an inferior ending? Was the patchquilt two-document repetitive ending (per Snapp) a deliberate Holy Spirit design?
.
Since Mark was unable to write what was intended as (per Snapp) harmonistic, does not Ockham say that his shorter harmony account was the scripture, and tack-on should be considered a later disjoint? Especially since there is no way to show that even Marcus Interruptus did not get distributed, if there ever could have been a Marcus Interrruptus.
.
Even given all the unlikelies, why should not the abbreviated Alexandrian ending have been the result of "Friends of Mark" in Alexandria who knew of the interruption, and considered tack-on to be illegitimate. Since we like scenarios that are hyper-conjectural, how would you counter the claim that the shorter ending was defended by TFOM .. true friends of Mark. Who saw freestanding as non-Marcan, or inappropriate in various ways. They rejected "freestanding" as illegitimate, and returned to what Mark actually wrote as his Gospel. Your counter?

Steven Avery

.

"Don't you end up with what we would properly consider a mangled, incorrect and disjointed Gospel account?"
.
This question was related specifically to Galilee. You do believe that Mark intended to discuss Galilee and was interrupted, and the tack-on missed that element solely because of the disjointed nature of combining two texts. You missed the context, which was based on your theoretical construction of why Galilee is missing (historical textual accident, not a deliberate Marcan writing.)
.
And I of course do not consider anything as mangled, and especially appreciated the ease with which Joseph Philips explained one of the critical points above, as to how Mark is fine as a singular account.
.
====================
.
** Two tomb visits to the woman or one? ** Never answered.
.
You apparently insist on one, and that verse 9 is simply a summary of verse one, the repetition ONLY due to the nature of tack-on, not cohesive writing.
.
And this is apologetics gone wrong, since your historical conclusion is based NOT on harmonizing the scripture, but on your hyper-conjectural textual theory that says that the text is awkwardly redundant, even inconsistent. Thus, you can not allow two distinct visits to the tomb by women to be described by Mark.
.
That was the point of:
..
"Why the incohesive repetition (if there was only one visit to the tomb by women) in the final product?"
.
In the Snapp economy, we end up with the same tomb visit described twice, in two different ways, eight verses apart, a sylistic-chronological difficulty, that is incohesive and disjointed.
.
This tack-on requirement also eliminates what is almost surely the proper apologetic (two distinct visits.) Thus, I would say that your method is an apologetic Gospel harmony and chronology disaster.
.
And why would a "summary" omit one of the most salient facts, that three woman visited the tomb? How hard would it be to be accurate on such a basic point?
.
====================
.
How about True friends of Mark in Alexandria? How do you answer the non-authentic who allows all your hyper-conjecturalism and then says the Alexandrian friends of Mark simply posited the true text, rejecting the supposed tack-on as inauthentic. (Rather than coincidentally rejecting or losing the exact same text that was added.) The textual transmission remains the same either way.
.
=====================
.
We have always pointed out that your theory is easily rebuffed as actually non-authentic, and based on piling high and deep hyper-conjectures, to no actual purpose (since you reject the important claims against authenticity from apologetics and style.) All that is, granted, a bit repetitive.
.
What is new here is pointing out that your theory has additional problems, e.g. in apologetics and Galilee Interruptus. Ergo, this is a worthy addition to our early discussions. Plus, it IS important for readers to know the problems with your pseudo-authenticity approach.
.
======================
.
What is Lunn's position on authorship?
.
====================
.
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

.

Since the further inquiry, research, was misunderstood a bit, I can summarize succinctly the James Snapp Mark authenticity conundrum, just an overview:
.
=========
.
Double Mark Textual Theory - Marcus Interruptus
1) The whole endeavor for creating two Markan documents, and attaching one to another, is pointless. There are no difficulties with the full normal Markan Gospel and ending authenticity.
.
James agrees that stylistic and apologetic concerns commonly given against the traditional Mark text acceptance are worthless quibbles. James offers a remaining group of seven piddle quibbles that center around continuity within the final chapter. The seven piddles are all basically minor nothings, the seven piddles add up to one combined piddle.
.
There simply is no difficulty with the Gospel of Mark.
.
2) To get around the non-problems, a group of totally unlikely ahistorical scenarios are piled high and deep. Mark was just about done, he died, there was a Pericope elsewhere written by Mark, this was quickly found and attached. The new Roman text was built in a day, or two. These are against all known church history and have what can not even be considered a one in a million probability. (Later the Alexandrians even coincidentally recreated the original Mark text.)
.
The proposed scenario would be considered a comical reductio ad absurdism, except that the absurdity is that it is proposed as the actual history.
.
3) The final delicious irony is that the contentions are so flimsy that it is trivially easy for those contra authenticity to play along, accept all the hyper-speculation, and then differ on one simple point and show that the scenario of James is actually contra authenticity. They simply point out that seeing the interrupted short text distributed to a church or two, the likely expectation, means that, by the constructs set up and accepted by James, the scotch tape combined double and overlapping chapter is thus non-authentic.
.
This has been the simplest refutation of the attempt of James by the contra crew, who are thus able to bypass the massive evidences for authenticity.
.
James has wrongly blundered on all the basics, setting up non-authenticity, the contra says thank you, you have conceded, and Mark's text is inauthentic. This simple refutation was pioneered in the public debate by Joe Wallach, who was overjoyed to be given the gift of blatant inauthenticity by the pretender defender.
.
True Mark authenticity defenders should simply reject the Trojan horse. Thank James Snapp for his superb ability to examine and marshall external evidences, helping true authenticity. Smile at, and then ignore and reject totally, his convoluted junque scenario, which should simply be seen as inauthenticity brushed over.
.
After digesting evidences from James and others, follow in the footsteps of Burgon and Maurice Robinson in simply proclaiming true and full Markan authenticity, one author, one text, one time.
.
Steven Avery

 

[Steven Avery]

Steven Avery

.
And I said clearly the above was given as a summary of the truly salient issues, so that some lesser interesting but not fundamental parts of our discussion was bypassed.
.
There is one element that requires elucidation.
.
(And the doctrinal objections are major to some, so they should have been a separate section where James considers it a quibble, there is overlap with apologetics and style but the core problem is disagreeing with doctrine, such as the linkage in 16:16 of baptism with salvation.)
.
James, since you have the whole work as written by Mark, and have referenced the refutations of the stylistic objections, how could you maintain a stylistic objection to the full ending?
.
Since you have fully countered the apologetic objections, accepting the full text as 100% Holy Spirit inspired scripture, how could you maintain an apologetic objection to the full ending?
.
If you maintain that those two points (unlike chapter continuity) are 100% fine in the current text, then why would you object to my using the word quibble as a shorthand work for totally invalid?
.
It is important to me not to mischaracterize your position, and I thought it was crystal clear that your position totally rejects three of the four important historical objections to the traditional Mark ending, A and B.
.
A) the full text section was not written in the style of
Mark
B) the full section fails apologetically
C) the full section is disjointed, lacking fluidity and continuity
D) the full section doctrine is improper
.
========================
.
A) the section was not written in the style of Mark
Lunn:
Ch. 4 - Linquistic Evidence (1) Vocabulary and Style p. 117-162
Ch. 5 - Linquistic Evidence (2) Other Features p. 165-208
.
James, afaik, quite properly, with Lunn, Robinson, et al. does not see this as any difficulty to the full ending. An account of the most momentous event in history surely is allowed some specialness of language and style.
.
Note:
Ch. 9 Miscellaneous Issues starts at p. 318
"The question of non-Markan elements" p. 329-335 is doctrinal, not stylistic. James of course does not agree with those objections to the traditional ending.
..
==
.
B) the full section fails apologetically
Lunn:
Ch. 7 Thematic Evidence - p. 240 -271
See also the Eusebius section earlier.
Also
Ch. 9 Miscellaneous Issues
p. 318: The Question of Linkage
p. 318 The promise to appear in Galilee
p. 325 The women fleeing from the tomb
.
Generally, the apologetic (and doctrinal, such as the need for the ascension, or the resurrection support or the concern about drinking poisons or baptismal preferences) evidences and arguments can be on either side.
.
The point here is that you (James) fully accept the full ending as apologetically Holy Spirit correct, there is no apologetic difference, you claim, between the two-document theory and the one-document view (I believe you are wrong, I see the two-document theory as apologetically weak and confusing at best with its support of a singular repetitive tomb visit based on the scotch tape nature of the final text, but that is an auxiliary issue. Similar to the fact that you would join in conjecturing what was planned for the original Galilee-included ending as ethereal potential scripture, similar to lost ending theories.)
.
Perhaps you still have a Galilee apologetic objection to one document? Really? If so, you would then be fighting Holy Spirit consistency in the final scripture text.
.
==
.
C) the section is disjointed, lacking fluidity and continuity
Lunn
Ch. 6 Literary Evidence p. 209-240
."features point to .. being an integral part of his original composition." - p. 209
.
This is where your two document theory can agree with some of these objections that Lunn is countering. James Snapp is strongly contra Lunn in saying that in fact the evidence does not point to the ending being an integral part of his original composition.
.
This is a critical difference in their positions, and that of James Snapp and Burgon and Robinson.
.
It would be an interesting exercise to line up your seven objections with the discussion in this section.
.
Note that
p. 162-163 Linguistic Considerations concerning the final clause of 16:8 - James would have a special take, because of the interruption theory. This is an argument against the short ending so it is not relevant to our summarizing or listing the objections contra the full ending. James could keep the long ending argument (since Mark was interrupted it was not his planned text).
.
===
D) the full section doctrine is improper
Lunn covers this in baptism, tongues and poison and snakes and other discussions. As with (A) and (B) opposition to (D) is the same whether you have the normative single Mark source text or a dual Mark source text.
.
========================
.
Similarly I did not include the ultra-quibble about a supposed dependence on other Gospels:
.
Ch. 8 The Longer Ending and the Gospel: The Question of Dependence p. 273-317
.
Which is only a vapid apologetic attempt to "explain" the longer ending, with no inherent quality. It goes into synoptic theories and related stuff and I think we can agree that it is adjunct to contra authenticity theory only, not a base objection.
.
=============
.
I reject all three, you affirm (C) in your seven points. How could you possibly now be affirming (A) or (B)? This would be taking a position against your own text.
.
And I do think it is important for the forum readers, myself included, to have a solid summary in an A-B-C form, of the short ending position. Where else has that been given?
.
============
.
Lunn's position on authorship and two-documents
.
Lunn says that:
.
Ch. 10 -
"At the root of the problem there can of course be only two basic
alternatives. Perhaps the last twelve verses were inadvertently lost
or some person or persons intentionally removed them. Either
accidental or deliberate—those are the options" p. 335
.
Lunn makes a fundamental error here in not pointing out and emphasizing that the two causes are complementary, not adversarial. An early accidental loss can be affirmed by later scribes who prefer the shorter ending (as per the apologetic issues discussed by Eusebius, or even concerns about tongues, poison and snakes) and thus what would be a nothing piddle accidental corruption becomes the "viable" minority reading. It is frequently a major error of textual criticism analysis to atomistically separate accidental and deliberate causation. Lunn makes that error here.
.
Lunn should have a lectio brevior section, since that whole theory is now "under a cloud" and can be a helpful pro-authenticity point.
.
Similarly, Lunn is unable to address the preservational imperative.
.
And again, perhaps due to his intended audience, he leaves aside dismantling Vaticanus-primacy (i.e hortianism) which is in fact the key force behind Mark ending opposition.
.
=============
.
It does not seem that Lunn even bothers with the absurd theories of James Snapp that you had two documents from Mark, interruption, reconnection, etc. That is quite understandable, since Nicholas Lunn accepts full authenticity and should be easily able to see the gaping holes in the James Snapp theory. Including the change away from "Friends of Mark" authorship. Since just about nobody else in the world holds this theory, it would be a diversion from the purposes of the book. Why introduce a papier mâché Trojan horse into the citadel?
.
=============
.
Does Lunn offer much "new"? (See the title of the book.) That is an interesting question, for your response, or another day.
.
The Original Ending of Mark:
A New Case for the Authenticity of Mark 16:9-20 (2014)
Nicholas P. Lunn
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00OU6OB78
==============
.

=====================

Steven Avery

.
Overall, though, since he argues for true authenticity, I would say that, along with:
Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel According to S. Mark Vindicated Against Recent Critical Objectors and Established (1871)
John William Burgon
https://archive.org/details/lasttwelveverse01burggoog
https://archive.org/details/lasttwelveverses00burg
https://archive.org/details/thelasttwelvever26134gut
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/burgon/mark.html
https://books.google.com/books?id=lYHF-HUMNJUC
https://books.google.com/books?id=LtpJAAAAMAAJ
https://books.google.com/books?id=2gYQAAAAYAAJ
it is a must-have.
.
The seminar-debate book:
.
Perspectives on the Ending of Mark (2008)
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004OR17WK
.
is helpful, (I have hard copy but it looks like Kindle is .99c !! )
.
And of course with the caveat about the position taken, the James Snapp material on external evidences is excellent. He can give the latest and best urls, much is here:
.
The Authenticity of Mark 15:9-20
http://www.curtisvillechristianchurch.org/MarkOne.htm
.
Jim Snapp II on textual criticism and the endings of Mark.
http://www.textexcavation.com/jimsnapp.html
.
More is on youtube, there is much exposing of deficient scholarship, those who have turned around the Snapp theory such as Joe Wallach etc.
.
Charles Taylor
.
Some Early Evidences for the Twelve Verses St. Mark XVI 9. 20 (1893)
http://books.google.com/books?id=t9oZAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA71
.
The Witness of Hermas to the Four Gospels (1892)
http://books.google.com/books?id=8Fvs5_rYYNIC&pg=PA57
.
is a necessary adjunct to those who really want to view the ECW, and the two articles are fully online.
.
=====
.
And I can probably point you to one of the better studies of the discussion before the mid-1800s (this is on the net).
https://www.facebook.com/groups/NTTextualCriticism/permalink/877714438982224/?comment_id=891290610957940&offset=0&total_comments=32&comment_tracking={tn%3AR}
.
Note that the Jan Krans post got this research started.
.
Lunn's bibliography is almost too big, without telling you what is what , so here is some of what I have found online that has stood out and some notes:
.
And I do believe that James Morison is important, George Salmon is a good read, Broadus and McGarvey and Scrivener also in that era are significant, Charteris may be helpful on ECW, and Clarence Russell Williams, you have to try to plow through turgid Hort, Griesbach is untranslated, also in contra and parrot mode Metzger and Wallace (also Ehrman and Aland) are always center stage with the great bulk of other writers adding little or nothing, you should be familiar with Heuer's critique of Burgon on the ECW, Kelhoffer and Farmer and Bruce Terry are in the study mix, Amy Donaldson's paper on ECW references to NT textual variants is online, while Jean P. P. Martin is said to be excellent, but is French only. Three that I would like to know what they write specifically are Lenski, Raymond Brown and Franz Pieper. Maybe Zahn. Anything from Maurice Robinson ("The Long Ending of Mark as Canonical Veracity" in Perspectives) or Wilbur Pickering is helpful. The Joseph Hug book in French needs a review. And I am not sure offhand if any TR-AV defenders (e.g. Hills, Holland, Kinney, Zwemer published by Fuller) add much to Burgon.
.
Kelhoffer is helpful on additional defenders (putting aside the Panin nonsense) including a few in German.
https://books.google.com/books?id=3z9hz6VrD_8C&pg=PA18
.
It would be nice to have a list of modern non-"consenus" scholars, more so when they have relevant writings. Also helpful would be the variety of contra and pseudo-contra views (e.g. loss of original ending, designed to be v. 8 ending as existential angst, not authentic but canonical per Metzger, two authors, two documents etc.). Also important are dating issues, such as John A. T. Robinson and others who place Mark early, way before 70 AD. Also the Philo in Rome issues. And more directly, Luke writing to Theophilus the high priest, placing Gospels c. 40-45 AD. And Latin involvement in origination issues.
.
============
.
And I do give my endorsement of the Lunn Kindle book edition at $9.99. It works reasonably well. For external notes, I use Notezilla which is one of the sticky programs, so that you can have it up on the page. Kindle reader is apparently not note-friendly, there are other formats that are strong there, but not available easily (maybe there is a converter, which may or may not be permitted.) My recommendation for cut-and-paste from such a web reader is Abbyy Screenshot Reader.
.
=============
.
The Carlson review is an unmitigated disaster.
.
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

.
.Given two posts up:
.
Some Early Evidences for the Twelve Verses St. Mark XVI 9. 20 (1893)
Charles Taylor
http://books.google.com/books?id=t9oZAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA71
.
The Witness of Hermas to the Four Gospels (1892)
Charles Taylor
http://books.google.com/books?id=8Fvs5_rYYNIC&pg=PA52
p. 52-54 p. 57-68
.
On Hermas, Kelhoffer gives a typical modernist harumph:
.
Miracle and Mission: The Authentication of Missionaries and Their Message in the Longer Ending of Mark (2000)
James A. Kelhoffer
https://books.google.com/books?id=3z9hz6VrD_8C&pg=PA172
."unpersuasive"
Lunn on Hermas is on p. 68-69, I'll plan on giving the salient material. Also the related footnotes 282-286 on p. 116.
.
Note below, however, that there has been a funny, quirky situation where the TWO Hermas sections have never been discussed together as a combined evidence. And the Kelhoffer harumph was not about the full evidence.
.
Meanwhile, here are two Lunn summaries of early evidence in general, the context of the second is a bit more complex. Notice how multiple allusion evidences support each other corroboratively.
.
Keep in mind that it is very difficult for a contra-authenticity position to consider and discuss sensibly any evidence that is essentially probative for authenticity, as Lunn is discussing here. The contra can not even allow a reasonable probability, so hand-wave is the normal mode. Hort was a master at this techinque. (For a common example, see how many discuss the Cyprian citation of the heavenly witnesses.)
.
=================
.
Lunn
.
"Conclusions to external evidence
... (l) First and foremost there is the proposed echo of wording from Mark 16 in the letter written by Clement of Rome, the earliest post-NT evidence here appealed to for the existence of the longer ending. If this is accepted, and since it meets the established criteria it warrants recognition, then to all intents and purposes the case is closed in certain favor of the ending. For this late first-century writer to refer to the passage in this way entails the composition of the latter several decades earlier. This would, needless to say, place the origins of the ending within the apostolic age itself, undoubtedly within the life-time of John Mark, who could therefore have readily been its author. The allusions in Clement are supported by other possible allusions in church fathers as negative witnesses, as is sometimes done, on account only of their lack of any citation is to exceed the degree of their actual testimony. It is simply not reasonable to conclude that every writer who fails to quote from Mark 16:9-20 provides evidence against it, since there are numerous other Gospel passages of which they likewise make no mentions The individuals included in the above list are sufficiently numerous and widespread to establish the common knowledge of the Markan ending during this period." p. 116
.
"If the allusions to the end of Mark claimed for Clement of Rome and Hermas carry conviction, then the Gospel of Mark, complete with 16:9-20, had to have been circulating in Rome during the 70s and 80s of the first century. Justin Martyr too, who showed certain acquaintance with the ending, was writing in Rome a few decades later. The early comment of Papias to the effect that Mark, as Peter's interpreter, "made it his one concern not to omit anything that he heard" also does not square with a version that lacked resurrection appearances." p. 134-135
.
=================
.
The paper by James Snapp, 2007 version, has one Hermas allusion:
.
The Authenticity of Mark 16:9-20 (2007)
James Snapp
http://www.textexcavation.com/snapp/PDF/snappmark.pdf
.
Finally, conceivable support is found in Shepherd of Hermas,
which was composed in about 130-140..In Mandate 4 , ch. 31, as two individuals discuss baptism, one says, “For now I know that if I no longer add to my sins, I will be saved.” “You will be saved,” says the other individual. ... Mark 16:16 may be reflected here. See
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/shepherd.html
.
Similar text at:
.
The Apostolic Fathers, Volume 2 (1917)
translation by Kirsopp Lake
https://books.google.com/books?id=lqsNAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA83
"eighth mountain" section
https://books.google.com/books?id=lqsNAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA279
.
The Apostolic Fathers (1898 edition).
Joseph Barber Lightfoot
https://books.google.com/books?id=VT9tuM7y8LEC&pg=PA425
,The "eighth mountain" section is at:
https://books.google.com/books?id=VT9tuM7y8LEC&pg=PA485
.
In 2005, James wrote:
.
[textualcriticism] The End of Mark in the Second Century
James Snapp - June 2, 2005
https://groups.yahoo.com/.../tex.../conversations/topics/936
.
"The evidence from Shepherd of Hermas seems flimsy, since the author could have gotten the idea of baptism for salvation from other sources besides 16:16."
.
And I disagree and added a lot more to this here (although I should recheck for accuracy since we have so much more, including from Lunn
.
[TC-Alternate-list] Shepard of Hermas and the Mark traditional ending, "shall be saved" - Charles Taylor
Steven Avery - Nov. 11, 2010
https://groups.yahoo.com/.../conversations/topics/3702
.
What is still perplexing me is that there seem to be two totally different Hermas sections which get emphasis. The more direct one is discussed above, below is another section that seems to be the emphasis in Taylor, Kelhoffer and Lunn. This is taking some effort to unravel, any help appreciated.
.
====================
.
Note that the post above was only emphasizing Hermas. Clement and Barnabas have similar discussions, Clement being more significant. In the future I will try to add more on Clement and Barnabas
.
Below is the main page on Hermas from Lunn p. 68, which is also here, there are a number of Greek word allusions referenced:
.
The Original Ending of Mark: A New Case for the Authenticity of Mark 16:9-20 (2014)
Nicholas P. Lunn
https://books.google.com/books?id=MtDwCAAAQBAJ&pg=PA68
.
And from the eighth mountain, where there were many springs and all the creation [Grk.] of the Lord drank from the springs, arc believers [Grk] such as these: apostles and teachers who preached [Grk] to the whole world [Grk], and who taught the word [Grk] of the Lord [Grk] soberly and purely, and who misappropriated nothing for evil desire, but always walked [Grk] in righteousness and truth •... (Herm. 102.1-2)
.
One short topic == "fair use". Getting the whole Kindle book is recommended, keep in mind that there is a Kindle reader on Windows.



.
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

.
YW, Joshua. Finding out that nobody has gone through Hermas on this topic fully, with both salient references, was a bit of the surprise shockeroo of the day!
.
The combined evidences magnify each one, and the many other corroborating early evidences.
.
Clement of Rome I will try to do next. I don't expect any big surprises there

.
Note that Clement of Alexandria is commonly misrepresented, placed as omission improperly, as well.
.
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

.
Thanks for your thoughts, Joshua. The absurdity is, as you indicate, charged against one particular view, not in any sense James in general, nor is it a criticism of his methods of marshaling evidences and exposing scholarship hypocrisy on the ending of Mark by the general hortian crew.
.
There are times when a position is seen as so absurd and probabilistically impossible and conceptually special pleading that to not speak bluntly would be a disservice to my own scholastic integrity before God. The interrupted two-document Mark theory is one such situation. Especially since two-document theories, awkwardly taped together, are properly, by nature, theories of inauthenticity, a point forcefully and continually used by non-authentists (short ending proponents) contra the arguments of James. So I am trying to be clear for those who like common sense over a feigned complexity.
.
And I have in fact gone over the details of this position of James carefully with Maurice Robinson, the strongest public proponent of true authenticity today. (Allowing that his language about it would likely be more moderate than mine.) And in addition I have gone over the position of James in great detail, the many places where he rejects the inauthentic arguments and the one area, his seven points of chapter fluidity, where he tried to support two documents and still, ironically and unusually, support authenticity by the attachment of two related documents of Mark (earlier he allowed Friends of Mark, that seems to have been quietly dropped.)
.
Here is an example where the earlier iteration of the two-document theory is dismissed by the Australian scholar Henry Deane (1807-1874). You will see that the two-document theory is by nature inauthenticity, and it is only by large special pleading hula hoops that any other claim can be made:
.
First there is a disassembling of one of the ho-hum stylistic objections, "dissimilarity of language and style". The article referencing Deane (primary source so far unavailable) is perhaps by Andrew Edward Breen (1863-1938) although it could have been the Journal editor Arthur Preuss (1871-1934). Then we have from:
.
Fortnightly Review
http://books.google.com/books?id=fLMOAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA263
The Gospel According to St.
Mark
Henry Deane
"In these matters there is danger of being too subjective. Some have felt the weight of the difficulties urged so much as to suggest that St. Mark wrote his conclusion at a later period, and so occasioned the circulation of incomplete copies. This is a hazardous conjecture, and we may well content ourselves with the authoritative answer of the Biblical Commission, that the non-Marcan authorship is a thing not proven."
.
James has tried to get around all this problem of the unlikely dual Markan authorship being inauthentic (conceptually, it does not matter if the conclusion was written later or if he was interrupted and somewhere, somehow, a pericope was attached, the former is more likely than the latter) by simply making a fiat declaration that nothing of the original ending at verse 8 was ever circulated "distributed" is the word used, which means essentially that nobody read it. Even given all the unlikelies up to that point, there is simply no basis for the claim.
.
None of this is logical, and none of it can be supported historically. So the inauthentist just thanks James for the concession, properly claims victory against full Markan Gospel authenticity, and moves on.
.
James Snapp has, ironically, given them the one scenario where the massive external evidence is insufficient for authenticity. And James simply has no response, other than to claim that his scenario is remotely possible (my view, one in a million is a severe overestimation) and he believes it, and you should too. Not a cogent argument. The contra can says that James believes the remote possibility of non-distribution of the conjectured (ahistorical) original ending as acceptable simply because of the a priori view that Mark 16:9-20 is scripture. The contra wins the argument, logically.
.
So, no, I cannot temper my position as if this is minor.
.
ADDED:
.
Similarly:
.
The Origin of the Evolution of the Gospels
Bernard Orchard (1918-2006)
https://docs.google.com/viewer...
"But as the first private edition of Mk, which lacked these verses, had already been in circulation for some years, the textual tradition has remained divided to this day, suggesting an equal authority for both endings."
.
This is unsatisfactory for James, since he can not allow "circulation for some years" by his own definitions.
.
Has James appealed to another scholar or two? I vaguely remember one, but it may have been Orchard, a scholar who wrote The Making And Publication of Mark's Gospel: An Historical Invesitgation and properly dated Mark in the 40s.
.
===============
.
Incidentally, that article from the Fortnightly Review points out, de facto, that any type of universalism, as held by Lyman Abbott (1835-1922) will act as another doctrinal position favoring the short ending.
.
Also it has a list of those who expressly upheld authenticity.
.
===============
.
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

.
The Holy Bible: According to the Authorized Version (A.D. 1611), with an Explanatory and Critical Commentary and a Revision of the Translation by the Bishops and Other Clergy of the Anglican Church (1878)
Frederic Charles Cook (1804-1889)
https://books.google.com/books?id=Lo19WNli0gUC&pg=PA303
.
The learned F. C. Cook gives us some helpful material.
.
He gives us an early example of noting the "verbal coincidences" in the Shepherd of Hermas. This is long before Charles Taylor, and he credits Rudolf Anger (1801-1866) in the:
.
Synopsis Evangeliorum Matthæi, Marci, Lucæ (1852)
Rudolf Anger
https://books.google.com/books?id=lZgPAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA261
.
Taylor likely missed the Cook-Anger references, but did notice the related element from Alfred Resch (1835-1912).
.
The Witness of Hermas to the Four Gospels (1892)
Charles Taylor
https://books.google.com/books?id=u99JAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA148
.
"The Shepherd has lately engaged the attention of the learned author of the Agrapha (p. 105), who has compiled a long list of references thereto in part preparation for a general collection of extra-canonical parallels to the Gospels. Of these references, the majority of which are to the Synoptic Gospels, it is interesting to notice that some are to the last twelve verses of S. Mark."
.
Agrapha: aussercanonische Schriftfragmente, gesammelt und untersucht und in zweiter völlig neu bearbeiteter durch alttestamentliche Agrapha vermehrter Auflage herausgegeben von Alfred Resch. Mit fünf Registern. Aussercanonische Schriftfragmente (1906)
Alfred Resch
https://archive.org/stream/agraphaaussercan00rescuoft
.
Apparently different page numbers in the 1906 edition. Still searching.
.
Apparently Mark 16:9 is referenced in the Anaphora Pilati - The “Report” of Pontius Pilate to the Emperor Tiberius - here:
.
Aussercanonische Paralleltexte zu den Evangelien: th. 4-5. hft. Paralleltexte zu Johannes. Das Kindheitsevangelium nach Lucas und Matthaeus unter Herbeiziehung der aussercanonischen Paralleltexte quellenkritisch untersucht
https://books.google.com/books?id=cC02AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA757
.
Apocrypha sinaitica, Volume 47; Volume 892 (1896)
edited by Margaret Dunlop Gibson
https://books.google.com/books?id=EIIPAAAAYAAJ&pg=PR7
"...seem to be connected with Odessa. There are traces of Pilate literature in Justin Martyr"
.
James Snapp refers to the Gesta Pilati, (Acts of Pilate or the Acts of Nicodemus)
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf08.toc.html#P6572_1985146
as having Mark 16:15-16, which would be a different reference, although Justin Martyr is again referenced.
.
And apparently Resch gives Epiphanius is given for Mark 16:19 here:
https://books.google.com/books?id=cC02AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA804
.
======================
.
Also Cook has an important Origen-Celsus note, I will try to include a bit about that, since Origen later became a "silent" master of the contras.
.
======================
.
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

.
You did not notice any contributions in the posts above related to Lunn's scholarship, and ECW referencing?
.
Do you agree that Hermas has two important sections, and the scholars have been relating to them as trains passing in the night? (I just got a report of snow slowing the Albany-Rochester train! which my Singapore Christian pastor friend and family is on.)

Steven Avery

We do agree on the huge signficance of things like full and proper ECW referencing, in fact I am chiding you a bit for being conservative and for missing some of the Hermas material

. Next, onto Origen, maybe the Clements, maybe Barnabas. I don't mind searching out more from Lunn, the good and the less solid, as well, or the vapid Carlson review.

Steven Avery

.
My first question on Hermas is why nobody, including yourself, references the two major Mark ending apologetic sections together. You did mention Hermas, at least in 2007 and I see the section you mention as a solid claim to Mark 16:16 allusion.
.
Notice above that even the German scholars Resch and Anger apparently support the Hermas connection, although maybe on the second section.
.
In my experience, textual criticism scholars are far inferior to church writer and history scholars in noting connections of their writings with the Bible text. Not surprisingly, I can offer Cyprian and the heavenly witnesses as another example

.

 

[Steven Avery]

Steven Avery

.
And I said clearly the above was given as a summary of the truly salient issues, so that some lesser interesting but not fundamental parts of our discussion was bypassed.
.
There is one element that requires elucidation.
.
(And the doctrinal objections are major to some, so they should have been a separate section where James considers it a quibble, there is overlap with apologetics and style but the core problem is disagreeing with doctrine, such as the linkage in 16:16 of baptism with salvation.)
.
James, since you have the whole work as written by Mark, and have referenced the refutations of the stylistic objections, how could you maintain a stylistic objection to the full ending?
.
Since you have fully countered the apologetic objections, accepting the full text as 100% Holy Spirit inspired scripture, how could you maintain an apologetic objection to the full ending?
.
If you maintain that those two points (unlike chapter continuity) are 100% fine in the current text, then why would you object to my using the word quibble as a shorthand work for totally invalid?
.
It is important to me not to mischaracterize your position, and I thought it was crystal clear that your position totally rejects three of the four important historical objections to the traditional Mark ending, A and B.
.
A) the full text section was not written in the style of
Mark
B) the full section fails apologetically
C) the full section is disjointed, lacking fluidity and continuity
D) the full section doctrine is improper
.
========================
.
A) the section was not written in the style of Mark
Lunn:
Ch. 4 - Linquistic Evidence (1) Vocabulary and Style p. 117-162
Ch. 5 - Linquistic Evidence (2) Other Features p. 165-208
.
James, afaik, quite properly, with Lunn, Robinson, et al. does not see this as any difficulty to the full ending. An account of the most momentous event in history surely is allowed some specialness of language and style.
.
Note:
Ch. 9 Miscellaneous Issues starts at p. 318
"The question of non-Markan elements" p. 329-335 is doctrinal, not stylistic. James of course does not agree with those objections to the traditional ending.
..
==
.
B) the full section fails apologetically
Lunn:
Ch. 7 Thematic Evidence - p. 240 -271
See also the Eusebius section earlier.
Also
Ch. 9 Miscellaneous Issues
p. 318: The Question of Linkage
p. 318 The promise to appear in Galilee
p. 325 The women fleeing from the tomb
.
Generally, the apologetic (and doctrinal, such as the need for the ascension, or the resurrection support or the concern about drinking poisons or baptismal preferences) evidences and arguments can be on either side.
.
The point here is that you (James) fully accept the full ending as apologetically Holy Spirit correct, there is no apologetic difference, you claim, between the two-document theory and the one-document view (I believe you are wrong, I see the two-document theory as apologetically weak and confusing at best with its support of a singular repetitive tomb visit based on the scotch tape nature of the final text, but that is an auxiliary issue. Similar to the fact that you would join in conjecturing what was planned for the original Galilee-included ending as ethereal potential scripture, similar to lost ending theories.)
.
Perhaps you still have a Galilee apologetic objection to one document? Really? If so, you would then be fighting Holy Spirit consistency in the final scripture text.
.
==
.
C) the section is disjointed, lacking fluidity and continuity
Lunn
Ch. 6 Literary Evidence p. 209-240
."features point to .. being an integral part of his original composition." - p. 209
.
This is where your two document theory can agree with some of these objections that Lunn is countering. James Snapp is strongly contra Lunn in saying that in fact the evidence does not point to the ending being an integral part of his original composition.
.
This is a critical difference in their positions, and that of James Snapp and Burgon and Robinson.
.
It would be an interesting exercise to line up your seven objections with the discussion in this section.
.
Note that
p. 162-163 Linguistic Considerations concerning the final clause of 16:8 - James would have a special take, because of the interruption theory. This is an argument against the short ending so it is not relevant to our summarizing or listing the objections contra the full ending. James could keep the long ending argument (since Mark was interrupted it was not his planned text).
.
===
D) the full section doctrine is improper
Lunn covers this in baptism, tongues and poison and snakes and other discussions. As with (A) and (B) opposition to (D) is the same whether you have the normative single Mark source text or a dual Mark source text.
.
========================
.
Similarly I did not include the ultra-quibble about a supposed dependence on other Gospels:
.
Ch. 8 The Longer Ending and the Gospel: The Question of Dependence p. 273-317
.
Which is only a vapid apologetic attempt to "explain" the longer ending, with no inherent quality. It goes into synoptic theories and related stuff and I think we can agree that it is adjunct to contra authenticity theory only, not a base objection.
.
=============
.
I reject all three, you affirm (C) in your seven points. How could you possibly now be affirming (A) or (B)? This would be taking a position against your own text.
.
And I do think it is important for the forum readers, myself included, to have a solid summary in an A-B-C form, of the short ending position. Where else has that been given?
.
============
.
Lunn's position on authorship and two-documents
.
Lunn says that:
.
Ch. 10 -
"At the root of the problem there can of course be only two basic
alternatives. Perhaps the last twelve verses were inadvertently lost
or some person or persons intentionally removed them. Either
accidental or deliberate—those are the options" p. 335
.
Lunn makes a fundamental error here in not pointing out and emphasizing that the two causes are complementary, not adversarial. An early accidental loss can be affirmed by later scribes who prefer the shorter ending (as per the apologetic issues discussed by Eusebius, or even concerns about tongues, poison and snakes) and thus what would be a nothing piddle accidental corruption becomes the "viable" minority reading. It is frequently a major error of textual criticism analysis to atomistically separate accidental and deliberate causation. Lunn makes that error here.
.
Lunn should have a lectio brevior section, since that whole theory is now "under a cloud" and can be a helpful pro-authenticity point.
.
Similarly, Lunn is unable to address the preservational imperative.
.
And again, perhaps due to his intended audience, he leaves aside dismantling Vaticanus-primacy (i.e hortianism) which is in fact the key force behind Mark ending opposition.
.
=============
.
It does not seem that Lunn even bothers with the absurd theories of James Snapp that you had two documents from Mark, interruption, reconnection, etc. That is quite understandable, since Nicholas Lunn accepts full authenticity and should be easily able to see the gaping holes in the James Snapp theory. Including the change away from "Friends of Mark" authorship. Since just about nobody else in the world holds this theory, it would be a diversion from the purposes of the book. Why introduce a papier mâché Trojan horse into the citadel?
.
=============
.
Does Lunn offer much "new"? (See the title of the book.) That is an interesting question, for your response, or another day.
.
The Original Ending of Mark:
A New Case for the Authenticity of Mark 16:9-20 (2014)
Nicholas P. Lunn
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00OU6OB78
==============
.

=====================

Steven Avery

.
Overall, though, since he argues for true authenticity, I would say that, along with:
Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel According to S. Mark Vindicated Against Recent Critical Objectors and Established (1871)
John William Burgon
https://archive.org/details/lasttwelveverse01burggoog
https://archive.org/details/lasttwelveverses00burg
https://archive.org/details/thelasttwelvever26134gut
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/burgon/mark.html
https://books.google.com/books?id=lYHF-HUMNJUC
https://books.google.com/books?id=LtpJAAAAMAAJ
https://books.google.com/books?id=2gYQAAAAYAAJ
it is a must-have.
.
The seminar-debate book:
.
Perspectives on the Ending of Mark (2008)
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004OR17WK
.
is helpful, (I have hard copy but it looks like Kindle is .99c !! )
.
And of course with the caveat about the position taken, the James Snapp material on external evidences is excellent. He can give the latest and best urls, much is here:
.
The Authenticity of Mark 15:9-20
http://www.curtisvillechristianchurch.org/MarkOne.htm
.
Jim Snapp II on textual criticism and the endings of Mark.
http://www.textexcavation.com/jimsnapp.html
.
More is on youtube, there is much exposing of deficient scholarship, those who have turned around the Snapp theory such as Joe Wallach etc.
.
Charles Taylor
.
Some Early Evidences for the Twelve Verses St. Mark XVI 9. 20 (1893)
http://books.google.com/books?id=t9oZAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA71
.
The Witness of Hermas to the Four Gospels (1892)
http://books.google.com/books?id=8Fvs5_rYYNIC&pg=PA57
.
is a necessary adjunct to those who really want to view the ECW, and the two articles are fully online.
.
=====
.
And I can probably point you to one of the better studies of the discussion before the mid-1800s (this is on the net).
https://www.facebook.com/groups/NTTextualCriticism/permalink/877714438982224/?comment_id=891290610957940&offset=0&total_comments=32&comment_tracking={tn%3AR}
.
Note that the Jan Krans post got this research started.
.
Lunn's bibliography is almost too big, without telling you what is what , so here is some of what I have found online that has stood out and some notes:
.
And I do believe that James Morison is important, George Salmon is a good read, Broadus and McGarvey and Scrivener also in that era are significant, Charteris may be helpful on ECW, and Clarence Russell Williams, you have to try to plow through turgid Hort, Griesbach is untranslated, also in contra and parrot mode Metzger and Wallace (also Ehrman and Aland) are always center stage with the great bulk of other writers adding little or nothing, you should be familiar with Heuer's critique of Burgon on the ECW, Kelhoffer and Farmer and Bruce Terry are in the study mix, Amy Donaldson's paper on ECW references to NT textual variants is online, while Jean P. P. Martin is said to be excellent, but is French only. Three that I would like to know what they write specifically are Lenski, Raymond Brown and Franz Pieper. Maybe Zahn. Anything from Maurice Robinson ("The Long Ending of Mark as Canonical Veracity" in Perspectives) or Wilbur Pickering is helpful. The Joseph Hug book in French needs a review. And I am not sure offhand if any TR-AV defenders (e.g. Hills, Holland, Kinney, Zwemer published by Fuller) add much to Burgon.
.
Kelhoffer is helpful on additional defenders (putting aside the Panin nonsense) including a few in German.
https://books.google.com/books?id=3z9hz6VrD_8C&pg=PA18
.
It would be nice to have a list of modern non-"consenus" scholars, more so when they have relevant writings. Also helpful would be the variety of contra and pseudo-contra views (e.g. loss of original ending, designed to be v. 8 ending as existential angst, not authentic but canonical per Metzger, two authors, two documents etc.). Also important are dating issues, such as John A. T. Robinson and others who place Mark early, way before 70 AD. Also the Philo in Rome issues. And more directly, Luke writing to Theophilus the high priest, placing Gospels c. 40-45 AD. And Latin involvement in origination issues.
.
============
.
And I do give my endorsement of the Lunn Kindle book edition at $9.99. It works reasonably well. For external notes, I use Notezilla which is one of the sticky programs, so that you can have it up on the page. Kindle reader is apparently not note-friendly, there are other formats that are strong there, but not available easily (maybe there is a converter, which may or may not be permitted.) My recommendation for cut-and-paste from such a web reader is Abbyy Screenshot Reader.
.
=============
.
The Carlson review is an unmitigated disaster.
.
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

.
.Given two posts up:
.
Some Early Evidences for the Twelve Verses St. Mark XVI 9. 20 (1893)
Charles Taylor
http://books.google.com/books?id=t9oZAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA71
.
The Witness of Hermas to the Four Gospels (1892)
Charles Taylor
http://books.google.com/books?id=8Fvs5_rYYNIC&pg=PA52
p. 52-54 p. 57-68
.
On Hermas, Kelhoffer gives a typical modernist harumph:
.
Miracle and Mission: The Authentication of Missionaries and Their Message in the Longer Ending of Mark (2000)
James A. Kelhoffer
https://books.google.com/books?id=3z9hz6VrD_8C&pg=PA172
."unpersuasive"
Lunn on Hermas is on p. 68-69, I'll plan on giving the salient material. Also the related footnotes 282-286 on p. 116.
.
Note below, however, that there has been a funny, quirky situation where the TWO Hermas sections have never been discussed together as a combined evidence. And the Kelhoffer harumph was not about the full evidence.
.
Meanwhile, here are two Lunn summaries of early evidence in general, the context of the second is a bit more complex. Notice how multiple allusion evidences support each other corroboratively.
.
Keep in mind that it is very difficult for a contra-authenticity position to consider and discuss sensibly any evidence that is essentially probative for authenticity, as Lunn is discussing here. The contra can not even allow a reasonable probability, so hand-wave is the normal mode. Hort was a master at this techinque. (For a common example, see how many discuss the Cyprian citation of the heavenly witnesses.)
.
=================
.
Lunn
.
"Conclusions to external evidence
... (l) First and foremost there is the proposed echo of wording from Mark 16 in the letter written by Clement of Rome, the earliest post-NT evidence here appealed to for the existence of the longer ending. If this is accepted, and since it meets the established criteria it warrants recognition, then to all intents and purposes the case is closed in certain favor of the ending. For this late first-century writer to refer to the passage in this way entails the composition of the latter several decades earlier. This would, needless to say, place the origins of the ending within the apostolic age itself, undoubtedly within the life-time of John Mark, who could therefore have readily been its author. The allusions in Clement are supported by other possible allusions in church fathers as negative witnesses, as is sometimes done, on account only of their lack of any citation is to exceed the degree of their actual testimony. It is simply not reasonable to conclude that every writer who fails to quote from Mark 16:9-20 provides evidence against it, since there are numerous other Gospel passages of which they likewise make no mentions The individuals included in the above list are sufficiently numerous and widespread to establish the common knowledge of the Markan ending during this period." p. 116
.
"If the allusions to the end of Mark claimed for Clement of Rome and Hermas carry conviction, then the Gospel of Mark, complete with 16:9-20, had to have been circulating in Rome during the 70s and 80s of the first century. Justin Martyr too, who showed certain acquaintance with the ending, was writing in Rome a few decades later. The early comment of Papias to the effect that Mark, as Peter's interpreter, "made it his one concern not to omit anything that he heard" also does not square with a version that lacked resurrection appearances." p. 134-135
.
=================
.
The paper by James Snapp, 2007 version, has one Hermas allusion:
.
The Authenticity of Mark 16:9-20 (2007)
James Snapp
http://www.textexcavation.com/snapp/PDF/snappmark.pdf
.
Finally, conceivable support is found in Shepherd of Hermas,
which was composed in about 130-140..In Mandate 4 , ch. 31, as two individuals discuss baptism, one says, “For now I know that if I no longer add to my sins, I will be saved.” “You will be saved,” says the other individual. ... Mark 16:16 may be reflected here. See
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/shepherd.html
.
Similar text at:
.
The Apostolic Fathers, Volume 2 (1917)
translation by Kirsopp Lake
https://books.google.com/books?id=lqsNAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA83
"eighth mountain" section
https://books.google.com/books?id=lqsNAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA279
.
The Apostolic Fathers (1898 edition).
Joseph Barber Lightfoot
https://books.google.com/books?id=VT9tuM7y8LEC&pg=PA425
,The "eighth mountain" section is at:
https://books.google.com/books?id=VT9tuM7y8LEC&pg=PA485
.
In 2005, James wrote:
.
[textualcriticism] The End of Mark in the Second Century
James Snapp - June 2, 2005
https://groups.yahoo.com/.../tex.../conversations/topics/936
.
"The evidence from Shepherd of Hermas seems flimsy, since the author could have gotten the idea of baptism for salvation from other sources besides 16:16."
.
And I disagree and added a lot more to this here (although I should recheck for accuracy since we have so much more, including from Lunn
.
[TC-Alternate-list] Shepard of Hermas and the Mark traditional ending, "shall be saved" - Charles Taylor
Steven Avery - Nov. 11, 2010
https://groups.yahoo.com/.../conversations/topics/3702
.
What is still perplexing me is that there seem to be two totally different Hermas sections which get emphasis. The more direct one is discussed above, below is another section that seems to be the emphasis in Taylor, Kelhoffer and Lunn. This is taking some effort to unravel, any help appreciated.
.
====================
.
Note that the post above was only emphasizing Hermas. Clement and Barnabas have similar discussions, Clement being more significant. In the future I will try to add more on Clement and Barnabas
.
Below is the main page on Hermas from Lunn p. 68, which is also here, there are a number of Greek word allusions referenced:
.
The Original Ending of Mark: A New Case for the Authenticity of Mark 16:9-20 (2014)
Nicholas P. Lunn
https://books.google.com/books?id=MtDwCAAAQBAJ&pg=PA68
.
And from the eighth mountain, where there were many springs and all the creation [Grk.] of the Lord drank from the springs, arc believers [Grk] such as these: apostles and teachers who preached [Grk] to the whole world [Grk], and who taught the word [Grk] of the Lord [Grk] soberly and purely, and who misappropriated nothing for evil desire, but always walked [Grk] in righteousness and truth •... (Herm. 102.1-2)
.
One short topic == "fair use". Getting the whole Kindle book is recommended, keep in mind that there is a Kindle reader on Windows.



.
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

.
YW, Joshua. Finding out that nobody has gone through Hermas on this topic fully, with both salient references, was a bit of the surprise shockeroo of the day!
.
The combined evidences magnify each one, and the many other corroborating early evidences.
.
Clement of Rome I will try to do next. I don't expect any big surprises there

.
Note that Clement of Alexandria is commonly misrepresented, placed as omission improperly, as well.
.
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

.
Thanks for your thoughts, Joshua. The absurdity is, as you indicate, charged against one particular view, not in any sense James in general, nor is it a criticism of his methods of marshaling evidences and exposing scholarship hypocrisy on the ending of Mark by the general hortian crew.
.
There are times when a position is seen as so absurd and probabilistically impossible and conceptually special pleading that to not speak bluntly would be a disservice to my own scholastic integrity before God. The interrupted two-document Mark theory is one such situation. Especially since two-document theories, awkwardly taped together, are properly, by nature, theories of inauthenticity, a point forcefully and continually used by non-authentists (short ending proponents) contra the arguments of James. So I am trying to be clear for those who like common sense over a feigned complexity.
.
And I have in fact gone over the details of this position of James carefully with Maurice Robinson, the strongest public proponent of true authenticity today. (Allowing that his language about it would likely be more moderate than mine.) And in addition I have gone over the position of James in great detail, the many places where he rejects the inauthentic arguments and the one area, his seven points of chapter fluidity, where he tried to support two documents and still, ironically and unusually, support authenticity by the attachment of two related documents of Mark (earlier he allowed Friends of Mark, that seems to have been quietly dropped.)
.
Here is an example where the earlier iteration of the two-document theory is dismissed by the Australian scholar Henry Deane (1807-1874). You will see that the two-document theory is by nature inauthenticity, and it is only by large special pleading hula hoops that any other claim can be made:
.
First there is a disassembling of one of the ho-hum stylistic objections, "dissimilarity of language and style". The article referencing Deane (primary source so far unavailable) is perhaps by Andrew Edward Breen (1863-1938) although it could have been the Journal editor Arthur Preuss (1871-1934). Then we have from:
.
Fortnightly Review
http://books.google.com/books?id=fLMOAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA263
The Gospel According to St.
Mark
Henry Deane
"In these matters there is danger of being too subjective. Some have felt the weight of the difficulties urged so much as to suggest that St. Mark wrote his conclusion at a later period, and so occasioned the circulation of incomplete copies. This is a hazardous conjecture, and we may well content ourselves with the authoritative answer of the Biblical Commission, that the non-Marcan authorship is a thing not proven."
.
James has tried to get around all this problem of the unlikely dual Markan authorship being inauthentic (conceptually, it does not matter if the conclusion was written later or if he was interrupted and somewhere, somehow, a pericope was attached, the former is more likely than the latter) by simply making a fiat declaration that nothing of the original ending at verse 8 was ever circulated "distributed" is the word used, which means essentially that nobody read it. Even given all the unlikelies up to that point, there is simply no basis for the claim.
.
None of this is logical, and none of it can be supported historically. So the inauthentist just thanks James for the concession, properly claims victory against full Markan Gospel authenticity, and moves on.
.
James Snapp has, ironically, given them the one scenario where the massive external evidence is insufficient for authenticity. And James simply has no response, other than to claim that his scenario is remotely possible (my view, one in a million is a severe overestimation) and he believes it, and you should too. Not a cogent argument. The contra can says that James believes the remote possibility of non-distribution of the conjectured (ahistorical) original ending as acceptable simply because of the a priori view that Mark 16:9-20 is scripture. The contra wins the argument, logically.
.
So, no, I cannot temper my position as if this is minor.
.
ADDED:
.
Similarly:
.
The Origin of the Evolution of the Gospels
Bernard Orchard (1918-2006)
https://docs.google.com/viewer...
"But as the first private edition of Mk, which lacked these verses, had already been in circulation for some years, the textual tradition has remained divided to this day, suggesting an equal authority for both endings."
.
This is unsatisfactory for James, since he can not allow "circulation for some years" by his own definitions.
.
Has James appealed to another scholar or two? I vaguely remember one, but it may have been Orchard, a scholar who wrote The Making And Publication of Mark's Gospel: An Historical Invesitgation and properly dated Mark in the 40s.
.
===============
.
Incidentally, that article from the Fortnightly Review points out, de facto, that any type of universalism, as held by Lyman Abbott (1835-1922) will act as another doctrinal position favoring the short ending.
.
Also it has a list of those who expressly upheld authenticity.
.
===============
.
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

.
The Holy Bible: According to the Authorized Version (A.D. 1611), with an Explanatory and Critical Commentary and a Revision of the Translation by the Bishops and Other Clergy of the Anglican Church (1878)
Frederic Charles Cook (1804-1889)
https://books.google.com/books?id=Lo19WNli0gUC&pg=PA303
.
The learned F. C. Cook gives us some helpful material.
.
He gives us an early example of noting the "verbal coincidences" in the Shepherd of Hermas. This is long before Charles Taylor, and he credits Rudolf Anger (1801-1866) in the:
.
Synopsis Evangeliorum Matthæi, Marci, Lucæ (1852)
Rudolf Anger
https://books.google.com/books?id=lZgPAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA261
.
Taylor likely missed the Cook-Anger references, but did notice the related element from Alfred Resch (1835-1912).
.
The Witness of Hermas to the Four Gospels (1892)
Charles Taylor
https://books.google.com/books?id=u99JAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA148
.
"The Shepherd has lately engaged the attention of the learned author of the Agrapha (p. 105), who has compiled a long list of references thereto in part preparation for a general collection of extra-canonical parallels to the Gospels. Of these references, the majority of which are to the Synoptic Gospels, it is interesting to notice that some are to the last twelve verses of S. Mark."
.
Agrapha: aussercanonische Schriftfragmente, gesammelt und untersucht und in zweiter völlig neu bearbeiteter durch alttestamentliche Agrapha vermehrter Auflage herausgegeben von Alfred Resch. Mit fünf Registern. Aussercanonische Schriftfragmente (1906)
Alfred Resch
https://archive.org/stream/agraphaaussercan00rescuoft
.
Apparently different page numbers in the 1906 edition. Still searching.
.
Apparently Mark 16:9 is referenced in the Anaphora Pilati - The “Report” of Pontius Pilate to the Emperor Tiberius - here:
.
Aussercanonische Paralleltexte zu den Evangelien: th. 4-5. hft. Paralleltexte zu Johannes. Das Kindheitsevangelium nach Lucas und Matthaeus unter Herbeiziehung der aussercanonischen Paralleltexte quellenkritisch untersucht
https://books.google.com/books?id=cC02AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA757
.
Apocrypha sinaitica, Volume 47; Volume 892 (1896)
edited by Margaret Dunlop Gibson
https://books.google.com/books?id=EIIPAAAAYAAJ&pg=PR7
"...seem to be connected with Odessa. There are traces of Pilate literature in Justin Martyr"
.
James Snapp refers to the Gesta Pilati, (Acts of Pilate or the Acts of Nicodemus)
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf08.toc.html#P6572_1985146
as having Mark 16:15-16, which would be a different reference, although Justin Martyr is again referenced.
.
And apparently Resch gives Epiphanius is given for Mark 16:19 here:
https://books.google.com/books?id=cC02AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA804
.
======================
.
Also Cook has an important Origen-Celsus note, I will try to include a bit about that, since Origen later became a "silent" master of the contras.
.
======================
.
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

.
You did not notice any contributions in the posts above related to Lunn's scholarship, and ECW referencing?
.
Do you agree that Hermas has two important sections, and the scholars have been relating to them as trains passing in the night? (I just got a report of snow slowing the Albany-Rochester train! which my Singapore Christian pastor friend and family is on.)

Steven Avery

We do agree on the huge signficance of things like full and proper ECW referencing, in fact I am chiding you a bit for being conservative and for missing some of the Hermas material

. Next, onto Origen, maybe the Clements, maybe Barnabas. I don't mind searching out more from Lunn, the good and the less solid, as well, or the vapid Carlson review.

Steven Avery

.
My first question on Hermas is why nobody, including yourself, references the two major Mark ending apologetic sections together. You did mention Hermas, at least in 2007 and I see the section you mention as a solid claim to Mark 16:16 allusion.
.
Notice above that even the German scholars Resch and Anger apparently support the Hermas connection, although maybe on the second section.
.
In my experience, textual criticism scholars are far inferior to church writer and history scholars in noting connections of their writings with the Bible text. Not surprisingly, I can offer Cyprian and the heavenly witnesses as another example

.

 

[Steven Avery]

Steven Avery

.
And I said clearly the above was given as a summary of the truly salient issues, so that some lesser interesting but not fundamental parts of our discussion was bypassed.
.
There is one element that requires elucidation.
.
(And the doctrinal objections are major to some, so they should have been a separate section where James considers it a quibble, there is overlap with apologetics and style but the core problem is disagreeing with doctrine, such as the linkage in 16:16 of baptism with salvation.)
.
James, since you have the whole work as written by Mark, and have referenced the refutations of the stylistic objections, how could you maintain a stylistic objection to the full ending?
.
Since you have fully countered the apologetic objections, accepting the full text as 100% Holy Spirit inspired scripture, how could you maintain an apologetic objection to the full ending?
.
If you maintain that those two points (unlike chapter continuity) are 100% fine in the current text, then why would you object to my using the word quibble as a shorthand work for totally invalid?
.
It is important to me not to mischaracterize your position, and I thought it was crystal clear that your position totally rejects three of the four important historical objections to the traditional Mark ending, A and B.
.
A) the full text section was not written in the style of
Mark
B) the full section fails apologetically
C) the full section is disjointed, lacking fluidity and continuity
D) the full section doctrine is improper
.
========================
.
A) the section was not written in the style of Mark
Lunn:
Ch. 4 - Linquistic Evidence (1) Vocabulary and Style p. 117-162
Ch. 5 - Linquistic Evidence (2) Other Features p. 165-208
.
James, afaik, quite properly, with Lunn, Robinson, et al. does not see this as any difficulty to the full ending. An account of the most momentous event in history surely is allowed some specialness of language and style.
.
Note:
Ch. 9 Miscellaneous Issues starts at p. 318
"The question of non-Markan elements" p. 329-335 is doctrinal, not stylistic. James of course does not agree with those objections to the traditional ending.
..
==
.
B) the full section fails apologetically
Lunn:
Ch. 7 Thematic Evidence - p. 240 -271
See also the Eusebius section earlier.
Also
Ch. 9 Miscellaneous Issues
p. 318: The Question of Linkage
p. 318 The promise to appear in Galilee
p. 325 The women fleeing from the tomb
.
Generally, the apologetic (and doctrinal, such as the need for the ascension, or the resurrection support or the concern about drinking poisons or baptismal preferences) evidences and arguments can be on either side.
.
The point here is that you (James) fully accept the full ending as apologetically Holy Spirit correct, there is no apologetic difference, you claim, between the two-document theory and the one-document view (I believe you are wrong, I see the two-document theory as apologetically weak and confusing at best with its support of a singular repetitive tomb visit based on the scotch tape nature of the final text, but that is an auxiliary issue. Similar to the fact that you would join in conjecturing what was planned for the original Galilee-included ending as ethereal potential scripture, similar to lost ending theories.)
.
Perhaps you still have a Galilee apologetic objection to one document? Really? If so, you would then be fighting Holy Spirit consistency in the final scripture text.
.
==
.
C) the section is disjointed, lacking fluidity and continuity
Lunn
Ch. 6 Literary Evidence p. 209-240
."features point to .. being an integral part of his original composition." - p. 209
.
This is where your two document theory can agree with some of these objections that Lunn is countering. James Snapp is strongly contra Lunn in saying that in fact the evidence does not point to the ending being an integral part of his original composition.
.
This is a critical difference in their positions, and that of James Snapp and Burgon and Robinson.
.
It would be an interesting exercise to line up your seven objections with the discussion in this section.
.
Note that
p. 162-163 Linguistic Considerations concerning the final clause of 16:8 - James would have a special take, because of the interruption theory. This is an argument against the short ending so it is not relevant to our summarizing or listing the objections contra the full ending. James could keep the long ending argument (since Mark was interrupted it was not his planned text).
.
===
D) the full section doctrine is improper
Lunn covers this in baptism, tongues and poison and snakes and other discussions. As with (A) and (B) opposition to (D) is the same whether you have the normative single Mark source text or a dual Mark source text.
.
========================
.
Similarly I did not include the ultra-quibble about a supposed dependence on other Gospels:
.
Ch. 8 The Longer Ending and the Gospel: The Question of Dependence p. 273-317
.
Which is only a vapid apologetic attempt to "explain" the longer ending, with no inherent quality. It goes into synoptic theories and related stuff and I think we can agree that it is adjunct to contra authenticity theory only, not a base objection.
.
=============
.
I reject all three, you affirm (C) in your seven points. How could you possibly now be affirming (A) or (B)? This would be taking a position against your own text.
.
And I do think it is important for the forum readers, myself included, to have a solid summary in an A-B-C form, of the short ending position. Where else has that been given?
.
============
.
Lunn's position on authorship and two-documents
.
Lunn says that:
.
Ch. 10 -
"At the root of the problem there can of course be only two basic
alternatives. Perhaps the last twelve verses were inadvertently lost
or some person or persons intentionally removed them. Either
accidental or deliberate—those are the options" p. 335
.
Lunn makes a fundamental error here in not pointing out and emphasizing that the two causes are complementary, not adversarial. An early accidental loss can be affirmed by later scribes who prefer the shorter ending (as per the apologetic issues discussed by Eusebius, or even concerns about tongues, poison and snakes) and thus what would be a nothing piddle accidental corruption becomes the "viable" minority reading. It is frequently a major error of textual criticism analysis to atomistically separate accidental and deliberate causation. Lunn makes that error here.
.
Lunn should have a lectio brevior section, since that whole theory is now "under a cloud" and can be a helpful pro-authenticity point.
.
Similarly, Lunn is unable to address the preservational imperative.
.
And again, perhaps due to his intended audience, he leaves aside dismantling Vaticanus-primacy (i.e hortianism) which is in fact the key force behind Mark ending opposition.
.
=============
.
It does not seem that Lunn even bothers with the absurd theories of James Snapp that you had two documents from Mark, interruption, reconnection, etc. That is quite understandable, since Nicholas Lunn accepts full authenticity and should be easily able to see the gaping holes in the James Snapp theory. Including the change away from "Friends of Mark" authorship. Since just about nobody else in the world holds this theory, it would be a diversion from the purposes of the book. Why introduce a papier mâché Trojan horse into the citadel?
.
=============
.
Does Lunn offer much "new"? (See the title of the book.) That is an interesting question, for your response, or another day.
.
The Original Ending of Mark:
A New Case for the Authenticity of Mark 16:9-20 (2014)
Nicholas P. Lunn
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00OU6OB78
==============
.

=====================

Steven Avery

.
Overall, though, since he argues for true authenticity, I would say that, along with:
Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel According to S. Mark Vindicated Against Recent Critical Objectors and Established (1871)
John William Burgon
https://archive.org/details/lasttwelveverse01burggoog
https://archive.org/details/lasttwelveverses00burg
https://archive.org/details/thelasttwelvever26134gut
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/burgon/mark.html
https://books.google.com/books?id=lYHF-HUMNJUC
https://books.google.com/books?id=LtpJAAAAMAAJ
https://books.google.com/books?id=2gYQAAAAYAAJ
it is a must-have.
.
The seminar-debate book:
.
Perspectives on the Ending of Mark (2008)
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004OR17WK
.
is helpful, (I have hard copy but it looks like Kindle is .99c !! )
.
And of course with the caveat about the position taken, the James Snapp material on external evidences is excellent. He can give the latest and best urls, much is here:
.
The Authenticity of Mark 15:9-20
http://www.curtisvillechristianchurch.org/MarkOne.htm
.
Jim Snapp II on textual criticism and the endings of Mark.
http://www.textexcavation.com/jimsnapp.html
.
More is on youtube, there is much exposing of deficient scholarship, those who have turned around the Snapp theory such as Joe Wallach etc.
.
Charles Taylor
.
Some Early Evidences for the Twelve Verses St. Mark XVI 9. 20 (1893)
http://books.google.com/books?id=t9oZAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA71
.
The Witness of Hermas to the Four Gospels (1892)
http://books.google.com/books?id=8Fvs5_rYYNIC&pg=PA57
.
is a necessary adjunct to those who really want to view the ECW, and the two articles are fully online.
.
=====
.
And I can probably point you to one of the better studies of the discussion before the mid-1800s (this is on the net).
https://www.facebook.com/groups/NTTextualCriticism/permalink/877714438982224/?comment_id=891290610957940&offset=0&total_comments=32&comment_tracking={tn%3AR}
.
Note that the Jan Krans post got this research started.
.
Lunn's bibliography is almost too big, without telling you what is what , so here is some of what I have found online that has stood out and some notes:
.
And I do believe that James Morison is important, George Salmon is a good read, Broadus and McGarvey and Scrivener also in that era are significant, Charteris may be helpful on ECW, and Clarence Russell Williams, you have to try to plow through turgid Hort, Griesbach is untranslated, also in contra and parrot mode Metzger and Wallace (also Ehrman and Aland) are always center stage with the great bulk of other writers adding little or nothing, you should be familiar with Heuer's critique of Burgon on the ECW, Kelhoffer and Farmer and Bruce Terry are in the study mix, Amy Donaldson's paper on ECW references to NT textual variants is online, while Jean P. P. Martin is said to be excellent, but is French only. Three that I would like to know what they write specifically are Lenski, Raymond Brown and Franz Pieper. Maybe Zahn. Anything from Maurice Robinson ("The Long Ending of Mark as Canonical Veracity" in Perspectives) or Wilbur Pickering is helpful. The Joseph Hug book in French needs a review. And I am not sure offhand if any TR-AV defenders (e.g. Hills, Holland, Kinney, Zwemer published by Fuller) add much to Burgon.
.
Kelhoffer is helpful on additional defenders (putting aside the Panin nonsense) including a few in German.
https://books.google.com/books?id=3z9hz6VrD_8C&pg=PA18
.
It would be nice to have a list of modern non-"consenus" scholars, more so when they have relevant writings. Also helpful would be the variety of contra and pseudo-contra views (e.g. loss of original ending, designed to be v. 8 ending as existential angst, not authentic but canonical per Metzger, two authors, two documents etc.). Also important are dating issues, such as John A. T. Robinson and others who place Mark early, way before 70 AD. Also the Philo in Rome issues. And more directly, Luke writing to Theophilus the high priest, placing Gospels c. 40-45 AD. And Latin involvement in origination issues.
.
============
.
And I do give my endorsement of the Lunn Kindle book edition at $9.99. It works reasonably well. For external notes, I use Notezilla which is one of the sticky programs, so that you can have it up on the page. Kindle reader is apparently not note-friendly, there are other formats that are strong there, but not available easily (maybe there is a converter, which may or may not be permitted.) My recommendation for cut-and-paste from such a web reader is Abbyy Screenshot Reader.
.
=============
.
The Carlson review is an unmitigated disaster.
.
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

.
.Given two posts up:
.
Some Early Evidences for the Twelve Verses St. Mark XVI 9. 20 (1893)
Charles Taylor
http://books.google.com/books?id=t9oZAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA71
.
The Witness of Hermas to the Four Gospels (1892)
Charles Taylor
http://books.google.com/books?id=8Fvs5_rYYNIC&pg=PA52
p. 52-54 p. 57-68
.
On Hermas, Kelhoffer gives a typical modernist harumph:
.
Miracle and Mission: The Authentication of Missionaries and Their Message in the Longer Ending of Mark (2000)
James A. Kelhoffer
https://books.google.com/books?id=3z9hz6VrD_8C&pg=PA172
."unpersuasive"
Lunn on Hermas is on p. 68-69, I'll plan on giving the salient material. Also the related footnotes 282-286 on p. 116.
.
Note below, however, that there has been a funny, quirky situation where the TWO Hermas sections have never been discussed together as a combined evidence. And the Kelhoffer harumph was not about the full evidence.
.
Meanwhile, here are two Lunn summaries of early evidence in general, the context of the second is a bit more complex. Notice how multiple allusion evidences support each other corroboratively.
.
Keep in mind that it is very difficult for a contra-authenticity position to consider and discuss sensibly any evidence that is essentially probative for authenticity, as Lunn is discussing here. The contra can not even allow a reasonable probability, so hand-wave is the normal mode. Hort was a master at this techinque. (For a common example, see how many discuss the Cyprian citation of the heavenly witnesses.)
.
=================
.
Lunn
.
"Conclusions to external evidence
... (l) First and foremost there is the proposed echo of wording from Mark 16 in the letter written by Clement of Rome, the earliest post-NT evidence here appealed to for the existence of the longer ending. If this is accepted, and since it meets the established criteria it warrants recognition, then to all intents and purposes the case is closed in certain favor of the ending. For this late first-century writer to refer to the passage in this way entails the composition of the latter several decades earlier. This would, needless to say, place the origins of the ending within the apostolic age itself, undoubtedly within the life-time of John Mark, who could therefore have readily been its author. The allusions in Clement are supported by other possible allusions in church fathers as negative witnesses, as is sometimes done, on account only of their lack of any citation is to exceed the degree of their actual testimony. It is simply not reasonable to conclude that every writer who fails to quote from Mark 16:9-20 provides evidence against it, since there are numerous other Gospel passages of which they likewise make no mentions The individuals included in the above list are sufficiently numerous and widespread to establish the common knowledge of the Markan ending during this period." p. 116
.
"If the allusions to the end of Mark claimed for Clement of Rome and Hermas carry conviction, then the Gospel of Mark, complete with 16:9-20, had to have been circulating in Rome during the 70s and 80s of the first century. Justin Martyr too, who showed certain acquaintance with the ending, was writing in Rome a few decades later. The early comment of Papias to the effect that Mark, as Peter's interpreter, "made it his one concern not to omit anything that he heard" also does not square with a version that lacked resurrection appearances." p. 134-135
.
=================
.
The paper by James Snapp, 2007 version, has one Hermas allusion:
.
The Authenticity of Mark 16:9-20 (2007)
James Snapp
http://www.textexcavation.com/snapp/PDF/snappmark.pdf
.
Finally, conceivable support is found in Shepherd of Hermas,
which was composed in about 130-140..In Mandate 4 , ch. 31, as two individuals discuss baptism, one says, “For now I know that if I no longer add to my sins, I will be saved.” “You will be saved,” says the other individual. ... Mark 16:16 may be reflected here. See
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/shepherd.html
.
Similar text at:
.
The Apostolic Fathers, Volume 2 (1917)
translation by Kirsopp Lake
https://books.google.com/books?id=lqsNAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA83
"eighth mountain" section
https://books.google.com/books?id=lqsNAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA279
.
The Apostolic Fathers (1898 edition).
Joseph Barber Lightfoot
https://books.google.com/books?id=VT9tuM7y8LEC&pg=PA425
,The "eighth mountain" section is at:
https://books.google.com/books?id=VT9tuM7y8LEC&pg=PA485
.
In 2005, James wrote:
.
[textualcriticism] The End of Mark in the Second Century
James Snapp - June 2, 2005
https://groups.yahoo.com/.../tex.../conversations/topics/936
.
"The evidence from Shepherd of Hermas seems flimsy, since the author could have gotten the idea of baptism for salvation from other sources besides 16:16."
.
And I disagree and added a lot more to this here (although I should recheck for accuracy since we have so much more, including from Lunn
.
[TC-Alternate-list] Shepard of Hermas and the Mark traditional ending, "shall be saved" - Charles Taylor
Steven Avery - Nov. 11, 2010
https://groups.yahoo.com/.../conversations/topics/3702
.
What is still perplexing me is that there seem to be two totally different Hermas sections which get emphasis. The more direct one is discussed above, below is another section that seems to be the emphasis in Taylor, Kelhoffer and Lunn. This is taking some effort to unravel, any help appreciated.
.
====================
.
Note that the post above was only emphasizing Hermas. Clement and Barnabas have similar discussions, Clement being more significant. In the future I will try to add more on Clement and Barnabas
.
Below is the main page on Hermas from Lunn p. 68, which is also here, there are a number of Greek word allusions referenced:
.
The Original Ending of Mark: A New Case for the Authenticity of Mark 16:9-20 (2014)
Nicholas P. Lunn
https://books.google.com/books?id=MtDwCAAAQBAJ&pg=PA68
.
And from the eighth mountain, where there were many springs and all the creation [Grk.] of the Lord drank from the springs, arc believers [Grk] such as these: apostles and teachers who preached [Grk] to the whole world [Grk], and who taught the word [Grk] of the Lord [Grk] soberly and purely, and who misappropriated nothing for evil desire, but always walked [Grk] in righteousness and truth •... (Herm. 102.1-2)
.
One short topic == "fair use". Getting the whole Kindle book is recommended, keep in mind that there is a Kindle reader on Windows.



.
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

.
YW, Joshua. Finding out that nobody has gone through Hermas on this topic fully, with both salient references, was a bit of the surprise shockeroo of the day!
.
The combined evidences magnify each one, and the many other corroborating early evidences.
.
Clement of Rome I will try to do next. I don't expect any big surprises there

.
Note that Clement of Alexandria is commonly misrepresented, placed as omission improperly, as well.
.
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

.
Thanks for your thoughts, Joshua. The absurdity is, as you indicate, charged against one particular view, not in any sense James in general, nor is it a criticism of his methods of marshaling evidences and exposing scholarship hypocrisy on the ending of Mark by the general hortian crew.
.
There are times when a position is seen as so absurd and probabilistically impossible and conceptually special pleading that to not speak bluntly would be a disservice to my own scholastic integrity before God. The interrupted two-document Mark theory is one such situation. Especially since two-document theories, awkwardly taped together, are properly, by nature, theories of inauthenticity, a point forcefully and continually used by non-authentists (short ending proponents) contra the arguments of James. So I am trying to be clear for those who like common sense over a feigned complexity.
.
And I have in fact gone over the details of this position of James carefully with Maurice Robinson, the strongest public proponent of true authenticity today. (Allowing that his language about it would likely be more moderate than mine.) And in addition I have gone over the position of James in great detail, the many places where he rejects the inauthentic arguments and the one area, his seven points of chapter fluidity, where he tried to support two documents and still, ironically and unusually, support authenticity by the attachment of two related documents of Mark (earlier he allowed Friends of Mark, that seems to have been quietly dropped.)
.
Here is an example where the earlier iteration of the two-document theory is dismissed by the Australian scholar Henry Deane (1807-1874). You will see that the two-document theory is by nature inauthenticity, and it is only by large special pleading hula hoops that any other claim can be made:
.
First there is a disassembling of one of the ho-hum stylistic objections, "dissimilarity of language and style". The article referencing Deane (primary source so far unavailable) is perhaps by Andrew Edward Breen (1863-1938) although it could have been the Journal editor Arthur Preuss (1871-1934). Then we have from:
.
Fortnightly Review
http://books.google.com/books?id=fLMOAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA263
The Gospel According to St.
Mark
Henry Deane
"In these matters there is danger of being too subjective. Some have felt the weight of the difficulties urged so much as to suggest that St. Mark wrote his conclusion at a later period, and so occasioned the circulation of incomplete copies. This is a hazardous conjecture, and we may well content ourselves with the authoritative answer of the Biblical Commission, that the non-Marcan authorship is a thing not proven."
.
James has tried to get around all this problem of the unlikely dual Markan authorship being inauthentic (conceptually, it does not matter if the conclusion was written later or if he was interrupted and somewhere, somehow, a pericope was attached, the former is more likely than the latter) by simply making a fiat declaration that nothing of the original ending at verse 8 was ever circulated "distributed" is the word used, which means essentially that nobody read it. Even given all the unlikelies up to that point, there is simply no basis for the claim.
.
None of this is logical, and none of it can be supported historically. So the inauthentist just thanks James for the concession, properly claims victory against full Markan Gospel authenticity, and moves on.
.
James Snapp has, ironically, given them the one scenario where the massive external evidence is insufficient for authenticity. And James simply has no response, other than to claim that his scenario is remotely possible (my view, one in a million is a severe overestimation) and he believes it, and you should too. Not a cogent argument. The contra can says that James believes the remote possibility of non-distribution of the conjectured (ahistorical) original ending as acceptable simply because of the a priori view that Mark 16:9-20 is scripture. The contra wins the argument, logically.
.
So, no, I cannot temper my position as if this is minor.
.
ADDED:
.
Similarly:
.
The Origin of the Evolution of the Gospels
Bernard Orchard (1918-2006)
https://docs.google.com/viewer...
"But as the first private edition of Mk, which lacked these verses, had already been in circulation for some years, the textual tradition has remained divided to this day, suggesting an equal authority for both endings."
.
This is unsatisfactory for James, since he can not allow "circulation for some years" by his own definitions.
.
Has James appealed to another scholar or two? I vaguely remember one, but it may have been Orchard, a scholar who wrote The Making And Publication of Mark's Gospel: An Historical Invesitgation and properly dated Mark in the 40s.
.
===============
.
Incidentally, that article from the Fortnightly Review points out, de facto, that any type of universalism, as held by Lyman Abbott (1835-1922) will act as another doctrinal position favoring the short ending.
.
Also it has a list of those who expressly upheld authenticity.
.
===============
.
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

.
The Holy Bible: According to the Authorized Version (A.D. 1611), with an Explanatory and Critical Commentary and a Revision of the Translation by the Bishops and Other Clergy of the Anglican Church (1878)
Frederic Charles Cook (1804-1889)
https://books.google.com/books?id=Lo19WNli0gUC&pg=PA303
.
The learned F. C. Cook gives us some helpful material.
.
He gives us an early example of noting the "verbal coincidences" in the Shepherd of Hermas. This is long before Charles Taylor, and he credits Rudolf Anger (1801-1866) in the:
.
Synopsis Evangeliorum Matthæi, Marci, Lucæ (1852)
Rudolf Anger
https://books.google.com/books?id=lZgPAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA261
.
Taylor likely missed the Cook-Anger references, but did notice the related element from Alfred Resch (1835-1912).
.
The Witness of Hermas to the Four Gospels (1892)
Charles Taylor
https://books.google.com/books?id=u99JAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA148
.
"The Shepherd has lately engaged the attention of the learned author of the Agrapha (p. 105), who has compiled a long list of references thereto in part preparation for a general collection of extra-canonical parallels to the Gospels. Of these references, the majority of which are to the Synoptic Gospels, it is interesting to notice that some are to the last twelve verses of S. Mark."
.
Agrapha: aussercanonische Schriftfragmente, gesammelt und untersucht und in zweiter völlig neu bearbeiteter durch alttestamentliche Agrapha vermehrter Auflage herausgegeben von Alfred Resch. Mit fünf Registern. Aussercanonische Schriftfragmente (1906)
Alfred Resch
https://archive.org/stream/agraphaaussercan00rescuoft
.
Apparently different page numbers in the 1906 edition. Still searching.
.
Apparently Mark 16:9 is referenced in the Anaphora Pilati - The “Report” of Pontius Pilate to the Emperor Tiberius - here:
.
Aussercanonische Paralleltexte zu den Evangelien: th. 4-5. hft. Paralleltexte zu Johannes. Das Kindheitsevangelium nach Lucas und Matthaeus unter Herbeiziehung der aussercanonischen Paralleltexte quellenkritisch untersucht
https://books.google.com/books?id=cC02AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA757
.
Apocrypha sinaitica, Volume 47; Volume 892 (1896)
edited by Margaret Dunlop Gibson
https://books.google.com/books?id=EIIPAAAAYAAJ&pg=PR7
"...seem to be connected with Odessa. There are traces of Pilate literature in Justin Martyr"
.
James Snapp refers to the Gesta Pilati, (Acts of Pilate or the Acts of Nicodemus)
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf08.toc.html#P6572_1985146
as having Mark 16:15-16, which would be a different reference, although Justin Martyr is again referenced.
.
And apparently Resch gives Epiphanius is given for Mark 16:19 here:
https://books.google.com/books?id=cC02AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA804
.
======================
.
Also Cook has an important Origen-Celsus note, I will try to include a bit about that, since Origen later became a "silent" master of the contras.
.
======================
.
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

.
You did not notice any contributions in the posts above related to Lunn's scholarship, and ECW referencing?
.
Do you agree that Hermas has two important sections, and the scholars have been relating to them as trains passing in the night? (I just got a report of snow slowing the Albany-Rochester train! which my Singapore Christian pastor friend and family is on.)

Steven Avery

We do agree on the huge signficance of things like full and proper ECW referencing, in fact I am chiding you a bit for being conservative and for missing some of the Hermas material

. Next, onto Origen, maybe the Clements, maybe Barnabas. I don't mind searching out more from Lunn, the good and the less solid, as well, or the vapid Carlson review.

Steven Avery

.
My first question on Hermas is why nobody, including yourself, references the two major Mark ending apologetic sections together. You did mention Hermas, at least in 2007 and I see the section you mention as a solid claim to Mark 16:16 allusion.
.
Notice above that even the German scholars Resch and Anger apparently support the Hermas connection, although maybe on the second section.
.
In my experience, textual criticism scholars are far inferior to church writer and history scholars in noting connections of their writings with the Bible text. Not surprisingly, I can offer Cyprian and the heavenly witnesses as another example

.

Steven Avery

.
Note the additions from Resch made above (Report of Pilate, Epiphanius).
https://www.facebook.com/groups/NTTextualCriticism/permalink/1004706499616350/?comment_id=1007579125995754&comment_tracking={%22tn%22%3A%22R6%22}
.
And in the checking I ran into the PDF of Colwell on Armenian mss referenced by Lunn:
.
Journal of Biblical Literature (1937)
“Mark 16.9–20 in the armenian Version,” 369–86.
Ernest Cadman Colwell
.https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwittKm1i6bJAhUC2SYKHZOkDNUQFgghMAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fir.nmu.org.ua%2Fbitstream%2Fhandle%2F123456789%2F131028%2F47932d42ac305de4672f15fb76eb5e29.pdf%3Fsequence%3D1%26isAllowed%3Dy&usg=AFQjCNFnTQeXHvYelDLjJ5KzpybtkMqWSg&sig2=b4NQkrsMYhojWPf4boa8BA

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...DSeXFBHtW8FVpqtsZ-qOndA_nujvgi47pSzlVWdA_3ddg

 

[Steven Avery]

Steven Avery
,
Here is Cook on Origen, Contra Celsius, and the ending of Mark :
The Holy Bible: According to the Authorized Version (A.D. 1611), with an Explanatory and Critical Commentary and a Revision of the Translation by the Bishops and Other Clergy of the Anglican Church (1878)
Frederic Charles Cook (1804-1889)
https://books.google.com/books?id=Lo19WNli0gUC&pg=PA303
p. 303-304
.
pic of section below, also discussed by
.
The Last Twelve Verses of Mark (2005)
William R. Farmer
https://books.google.com/books?id=yT-13BpsyQ0C&pg=PA32
.
And then Lunn, below
.
============
.
This is different than James Snapp on Celsus:
.
"12. Origen (died 254) - did not quote explicitly from Mark 16:9-20 in his extant works, but in Against Celsus VII:17 he mentioned that signs of the destruction of Satan's kingdom include deliverance from the power of demons; this may be an allusion to Mark 16:17. He mentions signs again at the beginning of Book VIII."
http://www.textexcavation.com/snapp/Evidence.html
.
And if Origen alludes to Mark 16:17-18 in Philocalia, then so much for his silence.
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php...
.
===
.
In this one, James apparently wrote Origen for Clement of Alexandria, so I leave out the text. It is "right hand of God".
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php...
.
============
.
Lunn on Origen p. 84-87
.
The Original Ending of Mark: A New Case for the Authenticity of Mark 16:9-20
Nicholas P. Lunn
https://books.google.com/books?id=D1UNBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA84
.
p. 85 follows the Cook and Farmer Origen-Celsus material above about the "frantic" woman regarding the resurrection
.
p. 86 the Philocalia (through Basil or Greg Naz - reference centering around "signs")
.
Philocalia 1.5
http://www.tertullian.org/.../origen_philocalia_02_text...
And, according to Job, He came who subdued the great sea-monster, and has given authority to His true disciples to tread upon serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy, being in no wise hurt by them. Let a man observe how the Apostles who were sent by Jesus to proclaim the Gospel went everywhere, and he cannot help seeing their superhuman daring in obedience to the Divine command. And if we inquire how it was that men when they heard new doctrines and strange words welcomed the Apostles, and in spite of their desire to plot against them were overcome by a certain Divine power guarding the speakers, we shall not disbelieve even if we are told that the Apostles did work miracles, God bearing witness to their words both by signs and wonders and by manifold powers.
.
=============
.
To which we add for consideration:
.
Against Celsus VII:17 and beginning of 18.
Also relating to "signs". Could use text here.
.
So I count three references involving Origen.
.
==============
.
Related to Origen, James and I discussed, and agreed upon, the reverse evidence from silence (if Mark had a truncated resurrection, why is it unmentioned) at:
.
[TC-Alternate-list] Silence of Clement of Alexandria and Origen
Steven Avery - March, 2009
https://groups.yahoo.com/.../conversations/topics/2504
https://groups.yahoo.com/.../conversations/topics/2507
.
============
.
ORIGEN FROM COOK

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?...4mW5pHUwrOe0ld5ujR196-o59zPrG_0fI&__tn__=R]-R

Steven Avery

.
ORIGEN, PHILOCALIA AND THE MARK ENDING
.
James Snapp was the first one to find the Philocalia allusions, Nicholas Lunn nicely gives him credit. And this is partly because the Philocalia was published in 1911, after the deep research times of Anger, Resch, Burgon, Cook, Taylor and others. The hortians are not known for looking or acknowledging allusions that show their text to be deficient

.
.
James Snapp casual commentary:
"*if* one were to use the same method of locating/identifying dependence that Kelhoffer used -- and which is used by other commentators such as (NIV-translator) France -- then it's not hard at all to find passages in the writings of Clement of Rome, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen that use Mk. 16:9-20. When they want to see dependence upon the parallel-accounts in the Gospels, anything will do. When they look for dependence in those other compositions, it's all just too fuzzy and imprecise.
.
My view is more positive or aggressive. I believe that textual commentators, as opposed to church historians who really know the ECW, are far too conservative in seeing and acknowledging allusions to the Bible text. This is largely because they come out of the hortian milieu which is short-text omission based, ergo argumentation has been geared to deny allusions.
.
=================
.
Here is James Snapp on the Philocalia. This is largely mirrored by Nicholas Lunn.
.
===============================
.
The Authenticity of Mark 16:9-20 (2012)
James Snapp
http://www.textexcavation.com/.../AuthEndingMkTextEx2012.doc
.
A few statements from Origen exist in which he may have alluded to the contents of Mark 16:9 to 20. Perhaps the most interesting such statement is found in the fifth chapter of Philocalia, paragraph 5, a collection of miscellaneous comments by Origen edited and released by Gregory of Nazianzus (d. 389) and Basil of Caesarea (d. 379). In the fifth chapter of Philocalia, in the course of a review of prophecies about Jesus, Origen wrote,
.
“Even the place of His birth was foretold: ‘For thou Bethlehem, land of Judah, art in no wise least among the princes of Judah; for out of thee shall come forth a governor, which shall be shepherd of my people Israel.’ And the seventy weeks were fulfilled, as Daniel shows, when Christ the ‘governor’ came. And, according to Job, He came who subdued the great sea-monster, and has given authority to His true disciples to tread upon serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy, being in no wise hurt by them. Let a man observe how the Apostles who were sent by Jesus to proclaim the Gospel went everywhere, and he cannot help seeing their superhuman daring in obedience to the Divine command.” 057n
057n See http://www.tertullian.org/.../origen_philocalia_01_intro.htm for introductory material for Philocalia. For an English translation of the text see http://www.tertullian.org/.../origen_philocalia_02_text.htm
.
In this paragraph, Origen has linked together a series of Scripture-references, beginning with Micah 5:2, Daniel 9:24, Job 3:8, and Luke 10:19. After presenting Luke 10:19 in a somewhat paraphrased form, when Origen mentions that the apostles went everywhere, having been sent by Jesus to proclaim the gospel, he uses these Greek words:
. . . επιστησάτω δέ τις και τη τωναποστόλων πανταχόσε επιδημία των υπο του ’Ιησου επι το καταγγειλαι το ευαγγέλιον πεμφθέντων, και όψεται και το τόλμημα ου κατα άνθρωπον και το επίταγμα θειον. 058n
.
058n - See page 12 of J. Armitage Robinson’s book The Philocalia of Origen, © 1893 Cambridge University Press
https://archive.org/stream/philocaliaorige00robigoog...
.
In terms of vocabulary, there are two interesting parallels between Origen’s terms and Mark 16:15 to 20. Origen’s term πανταχόσε (pantachose, “everywhere”) matches Mark 16:20’s term πανταχου (pantachou, “everywhere”), and Origen’s reference to the proclamation of το ευαγγέλιον (to euangelion) matches Mark 16:15’s command to preach το ευαγγέλιον (to euangelion, the gospel). The odds that Origen was thinking of Mark 16:15 to 20 when he wrote the fifth chapter of Philocalia may increase if Origen’s statement was the offspring of a chain of thematically cross-referenced passages: Luke 10:19, the preceding link in the chain, is connected to Mark 16:15 to 20 by the idea of divine protection, and Hebrews 2:4, the following link, is connected to the same passage by the mention of signs. But neither in Luke 10:19 nor in Hebrews 2:4 is there any impetus to bring to mind an episode in which the apostles were sent to proclaim the good news everywhere, or in which they apply superhuman daring. In Mark 16:15 to 20, however, there is a sufficient basis for both statements. Thus the often-repeated claim that Origen shows no knowledge of Mark 16:9 to 20 is open to question.
.
===============================
.Steven Avery

Steven Avery

.
CLEMENT OF ROME and the Mark Ending
.
For the Clement of Rome question, the situation is a bit simpler. Word-context allusions, muliple. The first known study is Charles Taylor, then we fast-forward to Nicholas Lunn, with Lunn adding a lot more.
.
With apparently a reference by Scholz historically, earlier, with Tregelles saying nahh (this is given by Lange, I have not checked either). James Snapp is respectful of the idea but did not include it in his papers.
.
Introduction to the New Testament (originally 1866)
Johann Peter Lange
http://books.google.com/books?id=bYnNAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA158
.
Some Early Evidences For the Twelve Verses St Mark XVI 9-20 (1893)
Charles Taylor
https://books.google.com/books?id=DKcQAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA80
.
The Original Ending of Mark: A New Case for the Authenticity of Mark 16:9-20 (2014)
Nicholas P. Lunn
https://books.google.com/books?id=D1UNBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA65
p. 65-68
.
This counts as one of the "new" aspects from Lunn, that Stephen Carlson would have discussed, if his goal had been to do a real scholarship review

.

Steven Avery

,
Going through Lunn's book, he is willing to show, in a limited way, the doctrinal significance in the Preface, how the skeptics and mythicists like Farrell Till (1933-2012) and Richard Carrier, and the islamists, and other Bible adversaries, use the Mark ending absence was a primary point of attack (Lunn omits mentioning the linkage with the deficient Markan priority view.)
.
Good job by Lunn, clearly though the modern mostly largely unbelieving textcrits, or those with a faux neutrality, are not in a position to handle the truf.
.
============================
.
On p. 1 & 2 of Lunn's book he references seven "notable" defender books, one is Christopher Wordsworth. (Yet James Morison is omitted, also from the Bibliography!). Wordsworth is equivocal as to Markan authorship, unlike e.g. Burgon and Lenski and Robinson, but makes some decent points. Here is one:
.
The New Testament of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ in the Original Greek (1861)
Christopher Wordsworth
https://books.google.com/books?id=lSYKov0NTqUC&pg=PA154
.
But. If the verse itself had been absent from the MSS. Generally in other parts of the world, the question proposed to Eusebius and Jerome would never have arisen. The mention of the difficulty in these verses is itself a proof that the verses were found in MSS. In other parts of the world, particularly in the West. And, inasmuch as St. Mark's Gospel was in all probability written in the West, and particularly for the use of the West, the testimony of the West is of more value than that of the "libri Graeciae," to which S. Jerome refers; and the evidence of S. Irenaeus in the West, early in the third century, must outweigh that of Eusebius and that of S. Jerome in the East, in the fourth; particularly that of S. Jerome, which is not in harmony with itself, and may have been borrowed from Eusebius.
Besides, if it had been true, that these verses were not found in the MSS. Generally in the fourth century, how is it, that of the many hundreds of MSS. Which exist now, there should be only one, of any note, in which these verses, and the whole of the residue, to the end of the Gospel, are not found? How is it that they exist also in almost all Versions of the Gospel?
.
============================
.
The western/eastern issue I find interesting. This clearly goes well with theories that Latin was a language of authorship (dual editions, Graeco-Latin dialect, or original Latin) but it also is a general point even if written in Greek. I do not remember anybody else touching on this point.
.
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

.
Fact-checking ms counts.
.
"If an actual figure were calculated, as regards Greek manuscripts (uncials, minuscules, lectionaries) that included the ending, it would probably be in excess of a thousand. Elliott estimates "a thousand or so." - p. 25
.
The number is about 1700, one fellow listed them on CARM.
.
"All extant copies of the Vulgate version of Mark, amounting to several hundred, contain 16:9-20." p. 47
.
This is likely thousands, since the Vulgate mss are conservatively estimated at 8,000, or much more.
.
=========================
.
Not to misunderstand, generally the book is a lot of fun, and worthwhile, and accurate
.
Steven Avery

 

[Steven Avery]

Steven Avery

.
TERTULLIAN and the traditional Mark ending
.
Lunn has an excellent section, about 3 pages p. 86-88, p. 88 shows up in google books) and footnotes 367-379 on p. 116 in the Kindle book. This is on the many Tertullian allusions to the Mark ending.
.
Lunn points out that this has been a neglected area of Mark ending referencing apologetics, wrongly bypassed even by Burgon and Farmer.
.
Lunn in footnote 379 also points out that Pamelius 1536-1587 (Jacques de Joigny De Pamele) was highlighting these uses of the Mark ending material, before there was any Mark ending controversy, ergo, sans polemic position, pure scholarship.
.
"Finally, it is interesting to note that the early critical edition of the works of Tertullian edited by Jacobus Pamelius (Paris, 1608) included marginal references for citations of Mark 16:9, 16-17, and 19. Seeing that this was published long before the scholarly debate concerning these verses, the editor had no particular allegiance respecting the issues" - Nicholas Lunn
.
The CCEL-related note, by Pearse or Snapp, says:
"There are citations for Mark 16:9, 16/17 and 19 in the 1608 Pamelius edition, so these references are not the product of modern agitation on the subject."
.
And Lunn properly gives much of the credit here to James Snapp. As do I, although I may be a bit more expansive or aggressive in including allusions.
.
The pages of Lunn themselves are in the ebook or new paperback. Meanwhile, in addition to the Lunn book, a lot of the material, with some extra, I posted on the textualcriticism forum.
.
[textualcriticism] Tertullian and the ending of Mark - De Anima, De Baptismo, Scorpiace, De Praescriptione Haereticorum, Against Praxeas, An Answer to the Jews, Resurrection of the Flesh, Apology
Steven Avery - May 30, 2011
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/textualcriticism/message/6483
.
Note that my page is more complete and visual, often showing the actual reference and the Bible verse in tandem (what I consider the superior method of exposition). It could likely be improved some by revisiting the excellent pages of Nicholas Lunn. Also Lunn gets credit for being far more clear and expository in giving references than is common today.
.
Along with the notes by James Snapp at:the superb pages compiled by Roger Pearse, which are given in footnote 379 by Lunn:
.
Index of Scripture References
http://www.tertullian.org/scripture.htm
.
=================================
.
From the point of view of the scholarship community this would be new material from Lunn, largely unpublished. Thus Stephen Carlson gets an F again for not highlighting this in his "Review".
.
================================
.
Oh, let us point out that there is a similar situation with the approximately five allusions to the heavenly witnesses in the Tertullian writings. And there is much more historical writing about those allusions, since the research was done when the scholars had more of an ear for the Bible and the church writers. However, this is a bit beyond the pale of the modern scholars

.
.
================================
.
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

.
CYPRIAN and VINCENTIUS at CARTHAGE and the Mark ending
.
The Cyprian section emphasizes that he rarely used Mark. The Vincentius reference is a solid allusion from " the seventh council of Carthage, held in 256".
.
One omission by Lunn here. Cyprian opened that council with a speech and was effectively the chair of the council.
.
========================
.
SUMMARY OF SORTS BEFORE 300 AD
.
The additional two evidences given before 300 AD next given by Lunn are the Didascalia Apostolorum and Porphyry.
.
Note though that in discussing in this thread Clement of Rome, the Shepherd of Hermas, and Aristides, Origen and Tertullian and Cyprian and Vincentius (others? Clementine Homily? let's check our notes...) ..
.
... we have largely bypassed in this thread, so far, before 300 AD, Barnabas and Justin Martyr and Tatian with the DIatessaron, Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria and Hippolytus, all discussed with pizazz by Lunn.
.
And Lunn's discussions of the Gospel of Mary, the Gospel of Peter, Epistula Apostolorum and the Apocryphon of James.
.
We can say that overall Nicholas Lunn did a fine job, an "A", leaving open the possibility of more examination, and possibly addition. To be fair, Lunn largely brought research done by James Snapp over the last 10 years and more out to the public, and even the scholars are now able to learn.
.
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

.
Moving ahead to the conclusion of the external evidence.
.
The Original Ending of Mark:
A New Case for the Authenticity of Mark 16:9-20: (2014)
Conclusions to External Evidences
Nicholas P. Lunn

The Original Ending of Mark

Although traditionally accepted by the church down through the centuries, the longer ending of Mark's Gospel (16:9-20) has been relegated by modern scholarship to the status of a later appendage. The arguments for such a view are chiefly based upon the witness of the two earliest complete...

books.google.com

,
You find that the first seven conclusions have to do with the ECW (early church writers), the mss begin at (8) and even there it is Greek mss until (11). The strangeness of modern theory is that the Greek mss are just about all the weight, and within the Greek mss Vaticanus (with Sinaiticus) has as much weight as all other mss put together. Without really conceptually countering this theory, a Stephen Carlson type will simply blink at the ECW, as in the review, and more on. They will (wrongly) say .. we don't see the ECW as very important.
.
One irony of all the presentation is the huge preponderance of mss evidence can still be hidden. To put it bluntly, with about 5,000 mss (remember that reading Lunn you might have 1,500) in the
Greek, Latin and Syriac, you have
.
** 99.9% .. 999 out of every 1,000 **
.
A truly amazing preponderance.
.. supporting the traditional ending against the abrupt woman afraid (existensial angst) ending. This humongous preponderance of all the three major language lines simply closes the matter to sensible thinkers, which is why there was no issue to note before the 1800s "textual criticism" confusions that are intent on exalting a few early mss against the historic Bible. One of the ironies is that these theories have to ignore "genealogy" which is a sane textual world say that the mass of mss point to the antiquity early text.
.
The preservational imperative can not be addressed by Lunn. God allowing a full section (or even a verse) to be added viably to a principle language line violates the basic concept of preservation. However, textual theory is based on an unbelieving feigned neutrality or direct opposition to such Bible faith basics.
,
There is also a weakness in not discussing inclusion/omission versus dropping of text in the overall conceptual sense.
.
====
.
Since modern non-authenticity theories have to have the true ending attached by 100 AD or so, there is an underlying disharmony and tension in those theories, that they refuse to address. Why assume any discontinuity from c. 50-->100 AD when the proposed discontinuity is based on
.
a) a very few mss that are about 250 years and more later
.
b) opposition (ignoring) the mass of actual Ante-Nicene evidences, that are with the mass of mss.
.
The answer to this is that the underlying paradigm actually remains Vaticanus-primacy (looking for a smidgen of additional support). However, modern theorists can not acknowledge this as their paradigm as they blah-blah about "reasoned eclecticism."
.
====
.
However, I do look forward to reviewing where Lunn gives his reasons for our traditional Mark ending being fully Markan authentic.
.
====
.
Our review of Lunn continues now with the Linguistic Evidence section beginning on pg. 117.
.
=====
.
In an earlier section Lunn had done a fine job discussing how the prominent view switched, mostly since about 1950, from Mark interrupted or the ending being lost, to Mark deliberately ending at verse 8 (what I call "existential angst"). This was a fine section, in the Introduction p. 1-6, fully in Google books, and highly recommended. (9) below is also related to these questions.
.
(The following sections are also discussion worthy and are fully in google books, at least in the USA)
.
(1) Early Christian kerygma p. 6-7
(2) Early Christian creedal formulations p. 7-11
(3) The shape of the other canonical gospels p. 11-12
(4) Resurrection predictions in Mark p. 12
(5) The acceptability of the final clause p. 13-14
(6) The contrast with the beginning p. 15
(7) Lack of historical interpretation p. 15-16
(8) Lack of anti-Christian polemic p. 16
(9) The objections of modern scholarship p. 16-18
.
All are generally worthwhile and interesting, I alluded to (7) and (8) when discussing in agreement with James Snapp what you would call the reverse evidence from silence being more significant that the supposed silence of writers like Origen.
.
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

.
Linguistic Evidence (1)
Vocabulary and Style p. 117-164
https://books.google.com/books?id=bM0SBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA117
(the last section in google books)
.
Linguistic Evidence (2) p. 165-208
Other Featurs
.
While unmentioned by the absurd Carlson "review", this is a super-strong section. It closes the issue, relying and expanding on Bruce Terry's :
.
"The Style Of The Long Ending Of Mark"
Bruce Terry
http://matthew.ovc.edu/terry/articles/mkendsty.htm
.
(Ironically, Terry is generally a follower of the hortian apparatus info.)
.
And also some other work, The previous summary here by Maurice A. Robinson:
.
Perspectives
https://books.google.com/books?id=KtzXR2s1lAoC&pg=PA60
.
And I want to make special notice of "Discourse Peak" p. 134, with acknowledgment to Terry. To me the fact that the most momentous event in human history is being described is almost, by itself, enough to negate any stylistic arguments. However, the Lunn examination shows that those arguments are all exceedingly thin. Does this linguistic-stylistic whole thing NEED 92 pages? Dunno, but if some one somehow thinks there is a linguistic argument remaining, they have to interact with Lunn's work.
.
An A+ section.
.
==================================
.
Next is Literary Evidence beginning on p. 209 (only in the ebook or hard copy, not in Google books.)
.
Steven Avery

================================

Steven Avery

.
Chapter 6: Literary Evidence p. 209-240
,
In this chapter we shall look at the common literary devices available to Mark and study his particular use of these with the specific aim of ascertaining whether such features point to 16:9-20 as being an integral part of his original composition, or whether these verses can be seen to stand apart from the rest of the Gospel. Our approach will take into consideration both structural forms and intratextual relations. With respect to the former we shall analyze Markan microstructures, that is, small-scale compositional strategies, as well as the overall shape, or macrostructure, of the Gospel as a whole.We will examine whether structural design at either of these levels enables us to include the longer ending within that framework. The literary feature generally designated "intratextuality" also forms a major part of our investigation. This denotes the literary procedure whereby one portion of a particular text, such as a book or letter, is related linguistically or thematically to another part of the same text. in analyzing such relations within Mark we shall consider whether 16:9-20 forms an intratext with other portions of the Gospel. It is hoped to demonstrate that as a result of this literary investigation, on both structural and intratextual grounds, the evidence is unambiguously in favor of viewing the longer ending as an integral portion of the Gospel as originally conceived by its author.
.
=========================
.
SA
So this is where Lunn supports full single-document Markan authenticity. He goes into inclusio, microstructure, parallelism, macrostructure, foreshadowing/prolepsis, intertextuality with OT texts,
.
Since I do not see any difficulties that need to be countered, I consider all this mildly interesting, but outside my bailiwick.
.
This would be what Carlsen would discuss, if he was really doing a Review, the heart of the Lunn position is defending full Markan authorship single-document authenticity.
.
==========================
.
Chapter 7: Thematic Evidence p. 241-272
Conclusion
The themes considered in this chapter all point to an essential unity between the last twelve verses and the rest of the Gospel. What Mark in particular of all the Synoptic writers has made prominent in the body of his Gospel, even sometimes by quite subtle means, is given similar prominence in the longer ending. This has been shown to be so on several different accounts: through themes laid out in the programmatic statement of 10:33-34, in the matter of fear giving way to faith, the place given to the proclamation of the gospel, with respect to Elijah typology, and above all with regard to the more pervasive motif of the exodus/new exodus. Taken together, and combined with the literary evidence presented in the previous chapter, these stand as strong indicators that affirm the common authorship of 16:9-20 and 1:1—i6:q.
.
SA
If I took any two document theories seriously (including that of James Snapp) this would be a part of the rebuttal. Again, if Stephen Carlson had actually been doing a review, he would have interacted closely with this section, since it is in what Lunn considers the New case (responding to the recent arguments against Markan authenticity.)
.
==============================
Chapter 8: The Longer Ending and the Gospels
The Question of Dependence
p. 273-317
.
SA
Nice graphs on p. 310-313. I will not spend much time on this, since it is largely an examination of the silly pastiche stuff, and both sides work with the bumbling theory of Markan priority.
.
===
.
Conclusion
In this chapter we have seen that the literary dependence of Mark
16:9-20 upon the supposedly earlier canonical accounts, though
commonly assumed, is generally not argued on the grounds of
detailed textual analysis. When such analysis is undertaken its
methods are questionable and the results unconvincing. Textual
examination shows in fact that very few points of lexical contact
exist between the Gospels of Matthew and John and the material
of the Markan ending. There is nothing of any substance here to
support the notion of dependence. With respect to the writings of
Luke, an altogether different picture emerges ...
.
Lunn p. 318

The Original Ending of Mark

Although traditionally accepted by the church through the centuries, the longer ending of Mark's Gospel (16:9-20) has been relegated by modern scholarship to the status of a later appendage. The arguments for such a view are chiefly based upon the witness of the two earliest complete manuscripts...

books.google.com

.
===
.
SA:
And I don't bother with parts largely dependent on Markan priority, especially with Luke writing to the high priest Theophilus c. 41 AD. However, from the point of view of the inept review of Stephen Carlson he should have interacted with this section as well, as an adjunct to the two preceding chapters.
.
This last Chapter 8 does not relate to James Snapp, however, as he is not a pastiche kind of guy. However, for James the next chapter is important, along with (6) and (7) above, as it has:
===============================
.
Chapter 9: Miscellaneous Issues p. 318-335
Introduction
The Question of Linkage

The Original Ending of Mark

Although traditionally accepted by the church through the centuries, the longer ending of Mark's Gospel (16:9-20) has been relegated by modern scholarship to the status of a later appendage. The arguments for such a view are chiefly based upon the witness of the two earliest complete manuscripts...

books.google.com

.
"The claim has been made regarding Mark 16:9-20 that these verses "are somewhat clumsily attached to 16:8, for they make no mention of the group of women of 16:8 or the appearance in Galilee promised in 16:7.To some degree this point must be conceded. Yet at the same time it may be argued that this awkwardness is no real indication of different authorship.
Precisely the same phenomenon is to be detected elsewhere within the work of a single writer. Johannine scholars,for instance, speak of "awkward transitions" in the fourth Gospel, a prime example of which occurs between John 12:36 and 37.2 Recent literary studies have shown that the presence of seemingly awkward transitions is often explicable with reference to ancient rhetorical conventions." p. 318
.
SA:
This is another section where Lunn is defending full authenticity by single-document Markan authorship, this is the one we would line up with Snapp's seven arguments that the linkage is deficient and should be explained by two documents, death or arrest of Mark, and scotch tape.
.
(Discourse Peak comes to play here as well.)
.
Mention in the Carlson "Review" -- zero.
Value of the "Review" - less than zero
.
===============================
.
Let's remember that Lunn is, as one major part of the paper, tracing, describing and rebutting a new approach, that Mark actually intended to end at verse 8. A rather weird approach that barely existed until a few decades ago, yet became the majority of modern "scholarship"
.
You would never know about this from Carlson, however!
.
================================
.
Steven Avery

 

[Steven Avery]

Steven Avery

.
GALILEE, MARK and the RESURRECTION APPEARANCES
.
Chapter 9: Miscellaneous Issues p. 318-335
Introduction
The Question of Linkage
https://books.google.com/books?id=V9DwCAAAQBAJ&pg=PT426
(incomplete - full full text go Kindle)
.
And I consider the Galilee question the most interesting one raised, and it is the first one discussed by Lunn, from p. 318-325 and Kindle footnotes 955-970 .
.
Reviewing the objection goes back at least to Johann David Michaelis (1717-1791), Michaelis and Morison were major writers missed by Lunn, and Michaelis used the Galilee absence as part of his hypothesis of two documents, based on the death or arrest of Peter at Rome, followed by finishing in Alexandria.
.
There are many ingenious theories that are not based on real evidence and that are wildly statistically improbable. Here, Michaelis is a smidgen less ahistorical than James Snapp, since his hypothesis (which is all he calls it) is based on the description of the death of Peter given by Irenaeus and others.
.
======================
.
Mark 14:28
But after that I am risen,
I will go before you into Galilee.
.
Mark 16:6-7
And he saith unto them, Be not affrighted:
Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified:
he is risen; he is not here:
behold the place where they laid him.
But go your way,
tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you.
.
My simplest expression on this question has been that Mark was telescoping, and that Matthew was previous and had included the fuller data, and that the full harmony is by all the Gospels by the Holy Spirit.
.
[TC-Alternate-list] Mark 14:28 and Mark 16:7 - into Galilee
Steven Avery - August 28, 2009
https://groups.yahoo.com/.../conversations/topics/2703
.
James responded:
[TC-Alternate-list] Mark 14:28 and Mark 16:7 - into Galilee
James Snapp - August 26, 2009
https://groups.yahoo.com/.../conversations/topics/2707
,
"Then you would probably enjoy Dr. Black's chapter in "Perspectives on the Ending of Mark" very much. But imho, it is pretty evident that Matthew and Luke (and Mark) used a Markan source, or Markan sources which shared much of their content. I do not think that Luke is dependent upon Matthew or upon the Gospel of John; I think that Luke is dependent on a variety of sources that included an early Proto-Mark (which explains a variety of things that are not easy to account for if he had been using a copy of the Gospel of Mark. I briefly present the Proto-Mark model on the webpage on the Synoptic Problem at the Curtisville Christian Church website."
.
Personally I consider Proto-Mark and Markan priority as worthless theories

. However, going to Black's chapter now sounds interesting. While my hardcopy is packed away, I have the kindle book, which is inexpensive.
.
[TC-Alternate-list] resurrection account in Mark - 7 questions - Galilee 14:28 and 16:7
Steven Avery - Sept 10, 2009
https://groups.yahoo.com/.../conversations/topics/2769
.
This 2769 has the fullest grouping of the scripture verses.
.
==
.
There is something like an index of these discussions up to 2012 (more came later, but not on Galilee until this thread) here:
.
[TC-Alternate-list] Mark 16:9-20 - "freestanding" - discussion history
Steven Avery - March 4, 2012
https://groups.yahoo.com/.../conversations/messages/4977
.
======================
.
Note that this next quote from Michaelis is given in the context of proposing a two-edition theory, one in Rome, then Alexandria.
.
Introduction to the New Testament (c .1790 - 1801 English edition)
Johann David Michaelis- translated by Herbert Marsh (1757-1839)
https://books.google.com/books?id=zlEHAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA211
.
"... the twelve last verses of St. Mark's Gospel have the appearance of an addition, which does not tally with the preceding part of the discourse. According to ch. xiv. a8. Christ himself had said, 'After that I am risen I will go before you into Galilee,' and according to ch. xv. 7. the very same account was given by the angel at the sepulchre. From an author who had thus prepared his readers to expect a narrative of Christ's interview with his disciples in Galilee, it might be reasonably expected that he would not neglect to relate it: but in the conclusion of St. Mark's Gospel, no mention is made of an interview in Galilee, though it had been twice declared that Christ would appear there."
.
The burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ, according to the four Evangelists. (1827 edition, translated by George Duckett, 1777-1856)
Johann David Michaelis
https://books.google.com/books?id=AxEGlgNBIR8C&pg=PA186
.
"2. In two passages, the one chap. xiv. 2b, and the other chap. xvi. 7, Mark relates the promise that Jesus should show himself to his disciples in Galilee, annexed to the command that they should go to Galilee; if he had finished his own gospel, and if this latter appendix, say, of the second edition, were from his own hand, he would not have forgotten to have said something of this important vision. But there is no mention of it, and thus it becomes probable, that he was stopped at the eighth verse, either by the death of Peter, or because he had no longer access to him, and that the conclusion of the gospel is from a hand, unknown to us. "
.
The books refer to each other. Burial and resurrection, p. 185 Introduction p. 210, this is because Intro had multiple editions.
.
======================
.
James Snapp included Galilee in his points as to why he does not allow Mark to have written one document, although with some qualification.
.
"(3) Mark indicates, by foreshadowing a rendezvous between Jesus and the disciples in Galilee in 14:28 and 16:7, his intention to describe a rendezvous between Jesus and the disciples in Galilee. As Croy and other authors have shown, Mark establishes a pretty clear pattern of prediction-followed-by-explicit-fulfillment in Mark. However, what is predicted in 14:28 and 16:7 is not explicitly fulfilled in 16:9-20. The encounter between Jesus and the disciples in 16:14ff. could be assumed to have occurred in Galilee, but elsewhere Mark makes the fulfillments explicit, leaving no need for the reader to make assumptions."
.
Before going into Lunn's sharing on this, it is good to mention that how you look at the NT text including Synoptic interrelationship and the theorized "Markan prirority" are part of this issue. It is harder to defend a in-a-sense incomplete Markan text if you insist (Markan priority) that the text was the first Gospel. Also, if your view of the NT text is more harmonistic (the truth is found by using all books, together) and less humanistic form-critical and source-critical you will naturally be less concerned about supposed omissions, since the Holy Spirit guided all the Gospels, and their interrelationships.
.
=================

============================================

Steven Avery
.
Joseph Philips (above)
"Regarding the focus on Jerusalem-centered events rather than Galilean ones (cf. 14:28, 16:6-7), this is not surprising at all. Yes, Jesus told them He would meet them in Galilee, and, yes, the angels told the women to tell the disciples that He would meet them in Galilee, but the crucial point is that “they did not believe” (16:11) and “they did believe [other witnesses] either” (16:13). So if the disciples didn’t believe these reports, then of course they would *not* go to Galilee expecting to see Him. They stayed in Jerusalem, so Jesus had to appear to them there, where, we are told, “He rebuked their unbelief and hardness of heart , because they did not believe those who had seen Him after He had risen (16:14) – the only Gospel book in which such a thing is stated. This is completely consistent with Mark’s theme of the disciples’ denseness and how they just “would not get with the program.” (And all that is recorded after this is the Great Commission and the Ascension, so this can hardly be considered much of a “focus” on location.)
.
================================
.
This is such a foundational question on this issue, and we have not even yet gotten to Lunn! Telescoping is one key element that Lunn discusses. (We will try to do a short review next.)
.
Next Black, then Lunn, with a little side-checking involved.
.
================================
.
Maurice Robinson mentions how this apparent apologetic-consistency issue could have itself have contributed to the ending being omitted, or at least part of the "cumulative case" by which some scribes opted for omission over inclusion in a divided text-line:
.
"To this could be added the fact noted by many commentators and stated with clarity by Delbert Burkett, who noted the aggravated discontinuity between Mark's resurrection narrative and the Gospel of Matthew, in that Mark looks forward to a Galilean resurrection narrative (Mark 14:28; 16:7), which the longer ending does not provide.... [A] scribe may have concluded that the longer ending was not the original ending of Mark and so omitted it." 51. Delbert Burkett, Rethinking the Gospel Sources: From Proto-Mark to Mark (New York: T. & T. Clark International, 2004), 263.
.
================================
.
David Black in his presentation is only relevant in having Matthew before Mark, however not in any detail discussion of the Galilee in Mark question.
.
================================
.
For completeness, here is James Keith Elliott using the Galilee question as a primary part of why he thinks the original gospel did not end at v. 8:
(Elliott thinks that the original ending was lost, and the inferior 9-20, not worthy of being from Mark and inconsistent, was added in the 2nd century per-Irenaeus. Elliott does reject the majority silly season theory that Mark deliberately ended at v. 8. Elliott does fudge the conclusion by the use of the Tregelles quote "authentic part of the second Gospel".)
.
Perspectives
https://books.google.com/books?id=fA65AwAAQBAJ&pg=PA94
.
James Keith Elliott
"The message that the women disobeyed the angelic command out of fear is a bizarre climax. Such an ending leaves unfulfilled the expectation that Peter and the other disciples will see the risen Jesus in Galilee. Are we to assume that the continuation of the story containing this promised Christophany was so well known that Mark felt he could withhold it? I doubt it: it is not in the nature of this Gospel that Mark points us forward without giving us the completion. His emphasis on Jesus' divine foreknowledge of forthcoming events in the passion narrative is a significant part of his Christology—for examples, his predictions about the preparations in the upper room, the double cock crowing, the desertion of the disciples after the arrest, the betrayal by one of the twelve and so on are all fulfilled in the stories that follow. In all these cases Jesus knows what is to happen and inevitably these things come to pass." P. 94
.
Similar examples, the point here is to show that this is the one somewhat consistent element of contra-authenticity, one that at least on first appearances has some pizazz.
.
==
.
Streeter:
"improbable that it was written by Mark himself. But it must have been added at a very early date."
.
The Four Gospels (1924)
The Lost End of Mark
Burnett Hillman Streeter,
http://www.katapi.org.uk/4Gospels/Ch12.htm
https://books.google.com/books?id=oD9KAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA337
.
"At any rate the author of the Gospel cannot have originally meant to end it without the account of the Appearance to the Apostles in Galilee, which is twice prophesied in the text (Mk.xiv.28, xvi.7)."
.
==
.
Meyer considers the tradidional ending an:
"apocryphal fragment of some other evangelical treatise"
.
Critical and Exegetical Hand-book to the Gospels of Mark and Luke (1880)
Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer
https://books.google.com/books?id=8aouAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA246
.
"The circumstance that here preparation is made for a narrative of a meeting together in Galilee, but no such account subsequently follows, is an argument justly brought to bear against the genuineness of ver. 9 ff. "
.
==
.
Hartman - "Mark did not write it"
.
Introduction to the Study of the Holy Scriptures: (1879)
Henry Martyn Harman
https://books.google.com/books?id=b_8UAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA499
.
"...we are struck with the incongruity between the contents of these verses and and the statement in the seventh verse: "Tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you." This refers to Christ's promise : " But after that I am risen, I will go before you into Galilee " (Mark xiv, 28). But in the last verses of Mark there is no account of Christ's appearing to the disciples in Galilee in fulfilment of the promise, or the declaration of the angel, that they should see him in Galilee. This is certainly strange if Mark wrote these last verses."
.
=====================================
.
Now we are almost ready to review Lunn, noting also Joseph Philipps, my notes and other full authenticity defenders. (We may also look at Robert H. Stein.

Steven Avery

.
Now above I have given Snapp, Elliot, Streeter, Meyer and Harman as examples of commentators who used the Galilee question as part of their reason why Mark could not originally end at verse 9. Usually as an argument for inauthenticity, at least for a two documents theory. Lunn references Elliott, WItherington, Edwards and Lane. I would say it is clearly the most significant argument in this direction, by far.
.
Lunn
"compositional strategies .. (1) selectivity, (2) telescoping; and (3) implicit events"
(1) Selectivity - Lunn gives two examples, one is from 2 Kings, the other is more familiar involving how Luke along can give an impression about the timing of the nativity and childhood events of Jesus that needs Matthew for a more accurate picture. This relates more to an "interval of time" that is not shown than an event not happening.
.
(2) Telescoping - is clearly a Biblical auithorial syle or technique closely related to (1) Selectivity. Six examples are given. All similarly relate to "interval of time" not being able to be understood . I would say that (1) and (2) could be one element "Selectivity and Telescoping". In a footnote, Bruce and Mathews are mentioned as acknowledging telescoping in Acts 7:16, even using the word.
.
===
SA:
Other examples include Matthew Black (1908-1994) in "The Arrest and Trial of Jesus and the Date of the Last Supper" talking of the interrogation of Jesus in Luke by Herod in Acts 4:27, not in Matthew or
Mark
or Luke. And Luke telescoping incidents involving Herod and Barabbas
.
New Testament Essays - Studies in Memory of T. W. Manson (1959)
The Arrest and Trial of Jesus

New Testament Essays

books.google.com

.
"In an important study entitled 'The Cleansing of the Temple', Professor Thomas Walter Manson has convincingly argued that St. Mark's 'telescoping' of the Ministry of Jesus extends to his account of its closing phases, in the period traditionally referred to as 'Holy Week.' " - p. 19
.
While Lunn mentions T. W. Manson (1893-1958) as against the theory of accidental loss (with many others) he is not in the bibliography. Since Manson is emphasizing telescoping by Mark, it might be a helpful addition. Discussions of telescoping about, including in the Luke-Acts relationship.
.
===
.
(3) Implicit Events -
(c) Implicit events. Occasionally an author will not include any mention of a particular event at all, yet the expectation is that the reader will nevertheless infer its occurrence. His reasons for this may be various. Possibly the taking place of a certain event may be deduced from other explicitly recorded events or states. For example, a specific result may imply a certain preceding cause, or contrariwise, for the explicit mention of a causal action the ensuing effect may be left assumed. The narrator may not choose to record both. Another reason for omitting explicit reference to an event could be that the writer assumes his readership is in possession of prior knowledge of it. Readers might have heard by other means, or the fact might be common knowledge among his intended audience. Such knowledge would render explicit reference within the narrative unnecessary.
.
============
.
Here, Lunn gives a good example from Matthew 26:67-68.
.
Matthew 26:67-68
Then did they spit in his face, and buffeted him; and others smote him with the palms of their hands, Saying, Prophesy unto us, thou Christ, Who is he that smote thee?
.
To really understand why the demand to say who spit and buffeted you have to know:
.
Matthew 26:64
Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.
.
Luke 22:64
And when they had blindfolded him, they struck him on the face, and asked him, saying, Prophesy, who is it that smote thee?
.
While in Mark "Readers are left to infer that the need for prophesy contained the implication that his vision had been obscured." p. 322
.
The next example is how the death of Judas is in Acts and Matthew, not Luke or Mark, and is an implied event, which is why the Gospel of Luke refers to "the eleven".
.
============

Steven Avery

.
This is followed by a study and compression of events in the infancy narratives and even much more in the ending and resurrection narratives.
.
"Each of the four Gospels shows a severe restriction in its choice of events. In total the NT indicates that Jesus must have appeared to his followers on at least ten separate occasions, yet no individual Gospel records anywhere near that amount." [Wenham, Easter Enigma, 139] ... [good disucssion] .. Both texts [Luke and Mark] begin the telescoping effect following the appearance to the two disciples on the road and continue it through to the ascension. In both the occasion of the telescoped section is overtly the first resurrection appearance to the eleven, and in both material is incorporated most probably from other post-resurrection events in which Jesus speaks of taking the gospel to the nations and the giving of miraculous power. In the light of the foregoing chapter, this correspondence in the use of telescoping is additional evidence that the Gospel of Mark, as known to Luke, included the material in the latter part of chapter 16, since Luke employs the same device for the same events."
.
"So what of the Galilean appearance in Mark? While it is evident that this is not explicitly mentioned in 16:9-20, its occurrence may be assumed as an implicature. One of the telescoped events in the mind of the author is doubtless that in Galilee. At least one commentator on Mark is of the opinion that a "possible connection with Galilee is found in 16:15-20; for Mark's verses 15, 16 resemble Matt. 28:19, which records words spoken by the resurrected Lord in Galilee."^ The similarity of contents, though not so much of language, between Matthew 28 and Mark 16 at this particular point would seem to indicate that within the larger compressed account the specific event upon which Mark 16:15-18 is based is that of the Galilean appearance...[more disucssion].. What is important is that to the mind of the author, according to the literary conventions of the time, a Galilean appearance has been taken into account, being represented, though not explicitly, within the telescoped section consisting of 16:14-20."
.
Lunn discusses the three-fold repetition in Matthew by which the "emphatic build up present in Matthew an explicit Galilean appearance becomes an expected occurrence. Since Mark lacks the same emphasis, such an event is not anticipated to the same degree. As shown above, Mark does indeed represent this event implicitly within his telescoped narrative, but he does not grant it the same status of an independent episode as does Matthew. ... In conclusion, then, we argue that the lack of any explicit reference to Galilee in Mark 16:9-20 fails to provide a strong argument against Markan authorship. 970
970- Indeed were there such a specific Galilean appearance narrated in Mark 16:9-20, the argument could be put forward by those rejecting the ending that its author was merely imitating Matthew and John. The lack of any such explicit appearance is concordant with the fact of the ending's independence of these other Gospels.
.
(The footnote is only related to the pastiche theory.)
.
===================

========================================

Steven Avery

============================
Here is my summary of the key points is saying
... "no Galilee appearances in Mark, no problemo"
.
Your thoughts and ideas and references welcome here and throughout.
.
============================
.
Telescoping (selectivity, compression) is the NT style.
.
All 4 Gospels are ultra-compressed in the resurrection appearances, and Luke and Mark in very similar fashions.
.
Implied Events (es suficiente)
.
Hardness of heart (new point from Joseph Philipps above, fits in well)
.
Matthew emphasis (he emphasizes the Galilee appearance)
.
Holy Spirit 4-Gospel and Acts harmony (key, generally not allowed in textual criticism) This is related closing to Telescoping, the Bible reader is encouraged by the Holy Spirit to read and understand the full New Testament.
.
If there were a problem, it would be a Holy Spirit consistency problem (i.e. not scripture) and it would apply to both short ending and scotch tape ending theories, it is not an authorial problem, it only becomes one by the bumbling of mind-reading the author. Mark recorded accurately, he was not under an obligation to give more details about what was emphasized in Matthew. This leads to one more:
.
The inept theories of Markan priority muddy the waters.
.
============================
.
As for Lunn, I will give this important section an A- or B+. What he writes is generally excellent, however it is not the totally full picture.

.

 

[Steven Avery]

Steven Avery

.
Women Fleeing from the Tomb (p. 325-329)
.
Next in
Ch. 9 - Miscellaneous Issues
.
=================
.
First in discussing Gospel harmony you have to realize that other corruptions come to play as well, here is one:
.
Matthew 28:9
And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him.
.
"And as they went to tell his disciples,"
is omitted, a minority Alexandrian corruption, and it helps with the chronology.
.
=================
.
The woman fleeing question is also used in the James Snapp 7-points of concern. Overall, if there is a problem, it exists in how the Holy Spirit would have pasted together two sections, as there would be an unusual and unnecessary disjointed repetition. (This is especially true if v. 1 and v. 9 are the same event, as would be likely in the 2-document scotch tape theory. ) The claim that there is a failure of Mark as one document is faulty. That claim in the two-document theory is built around the repetition of the time in v. 1 and v. 9.
Lunn does not address this too well, because he does not even mention the major apologetic.
.
Mary Magdalene did not enter the tomb with the other women, she went back, saw Peter and then returned to the tomb and saw Jesus (notice that Jesus had not appeared in v. 1-8, the speaking was by the "young man".)
.
It would be nice to know if the Passover chronology of Leslie McFall (1944-2015) is published.
.
However you can get a picture of this from:
.
The Resurrection of Jesus Christ: With an Examination of the Speculations of Strauss in His 'New Life of Jesus'. An Introductory View of the Present Position of Theological Inquiry in Reference to the Existence of God and the Miraculous Evidence of Christianity (1867)
Robert Macpherson (1806-1867)
https://books.google.com/books?id=29U7AAAAYAAJ&pg=PA186
.
Putting aside his little comment about the 12 verses being "added", influenced by the tenor of the times.
.
And I will seek to find an additional quality reference or two.
.
The Resurrection of Jesus
A harmony of the resurrection accounts
Based upon the outline given in Reason & Faith, R Forster & P Marston, Monarch Publications, 1989, p 79 - 108
http://www.answering-islam.org/.../Resurrection/harmony.html
" the three women set off "very early" and reached the tomb just after sunrise (Mark 16:1-2). Luke, who compiled his account from various sources and eye-witnesses, includes Joanna in his list of women, and gives the time as "very early" (Luke 24:1).... So when did Mary turn back? According to John, when she saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance. And when was that? Mark provides the answer: ‘When they looked up, they saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance’ (Mark 16:4). By reading all the gospel accounts, we have the complete picture:...
Arriving at the edge of the garden, the women look up from a distance and see the stone has been rolled back the tomb.
Mary jumps to the obvious conclusion, and runs back to Peter and John in Jerusalem.
The other women continued to the tomb, and went on inside where they encountered the angels.
It is then that Mary had her now famous encounter with the risen
Jesus (John 20:14-17). John’s account corroborates Mark’s observation that Jesus first appeared to Mary (Mark 16:9)."
.
Thus really explains the jumpstart at v. 9, fully and completely. After discussing the woman who spoke to the angel and left afraid, Mark switches back to the returning Mary Magdalene.
.
I will note that some harmonies might have 3 visits to the tomb (e.. Charles Leaman, 1889).
.
================================
.
Lunn does address additional issues, and he focuses on "literary disjuncture". Here is an extract.
.
Lunn
The women fleeing from the tomb
"That there is not a smooth flow from v. 8 to v. 9 of Mark 16 is obvious. The women, instructed to go and report the angelic message to the disciples, are not recorded to have done so. Rather, as a group they drop from view entirely, though one of them, Mary Magdalene, is the first witness of the resurrection as described in 16:9-11."
.
"In endeavoring to tackle this question, of first importance is the fact that the textual location in question is undoubtedly a literary disjuncture. By this we mean not that the verses following v. 8 were appended by a different hand at a later date, but that this place in the text marks the close of one section and the onset of another. As shown in chapter 6 the author of Mark 16 created a literary parallelism between the two main identifiable units of the chapter, that is, w. 1-8 and w. 9-20. It was there argued that the parallelism consists in both halves exhibiting the same particularly Markan ABCX structure, and in the repetition of
certain key elements in corresponding positions within the
parallel series. ..."
.
================================
.
On one hand, I believe this whole question is easily answered, and more importantly, understood. And does not need the depth of attention and consideration given to Galilee. Although it is very edifying to really understand the resurrection chronology.
.
On the other hand, I think that Lunn's exposition has to be seen as weak. Good on some elements, with an interesting theory, (going my Mark's house and this and that) but bypassing the basics, the chronology question, that really explains the writing.
.
As for the seven points of James Snapp supporting two documents pieced together (and awkwardly trying to maintain authenticity by no distribution of the short text) if I remember right, these were the only two that were significant in consideration.
.

Chapter 9 (continues)
The question of non-Markan elements (p. 329)
.
"We turn now to those objections against the genuineness of the longer ending which appeal to the presence of contents out of keeping with Markan character. As with the previously considered objections based upon linkage, neither do these rest on solid grounds. It is quite impossible to prescribe categorically what any author, particularly one from a time many centuries distant from our own, may or may not have written. Furthermore, all the post-resurrection narratives in the other canonical Gospels display their own unique features and interests. At the end of Matthew, for example, we encounter the quite unexpected and unparalleled triadic baptismal formula "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (28:19). The last chapter of John presents to us the discussion concerning the future of the beloved disciple (21:20-24),a topic not previously broached upon in this Gospel. Consequently, the mere presence of material or details within Mark 16:9-20 that have no previous mention in in this Gospel. Consequently, the mere presence of material or details within Mark 16:9-20 that have no previous mention in that Gospel cannot be taken as a convincing argument against its Markan origin.. ... (continues) "
.
SA: Amen. Well Said
The Necessity of baptism (p. 330-331)
SA: Solid, short section.
.
Miraculous Signs (p. 331-335)
SA: Very fine section, with an emphasis on the snakes and poison issues.
.
Conclusion
In this chapter we have discussed several factors sometimes brought forward as secondary evidence against the authenticity of the Markan ending. It has been shown that these are in reality quite insubstantial. Regarding the manner of linkage between w. 1-8 and w. 9-20 of Mark 16, certain elements of continuity are in fact to be discerned, and the discontinuities are not different in essence from those presented by the corresponding point of transition in Matthew. With respect to the supposedly non-Markan elements contained in the ending, no convincing reason exists to disallow these from being penned by the same author as the rest of the Gospel. Apocryphal parallels sometimes cited are too remote chronologically to be legitimately considered as relevant to the argument.
.
And I agree, simply noting that the women fleeing the tomb is not up to the level of the rest from Lunn.
.
============
.
Looking at the whole book, earlier I also noted that Lunn missed some important writers, James Morison was one (1816-1893). And, in a similar vein, there really could have been a lot more of the history pre-Griesbach, and Griesbach to Hort. For a 300+ page book on the ending of Mark, I believe that should have had a really solid chapter. Burgon really should have gotten a no-apology analysis, strengths and weaknesses, and responses and handwaves.
.
This is while acknowledging that Lunn's section as to how the nouveau view of Mark actually ending at v. 8 (Wellhausen may have been the first, c. 1900 and then hardly anybody till the 2nd half of the 1900s) became the most scholarly accepted view (showing, I would say, the almost total impoverishment of modern scholarship.)
.
*** Overall, though, I am very pleased, and even a bit surprised, by the strength and value and helpfulness and even excellence of the book. ***
.
On external evidences, our James Snapp must get a credit-share as well, for the yeoman research on the ECW and mss.
.
============
.
And I want to note that the Lunn book has somewhat of a defensive tone, rather than declarative. I discussed this in pointing out how the massive evidence of mss is at times underplayed. (Considering the scholarly milieu today, this is understandable.)
.
Then there are the issues of the gross deficiencies when the text is omitted, as alluded in the Preface, that has not been covered.
.
The inept review of Stephen Carlson focused on an issue that has barely been touched in the first 335 pages. Overall, I think we can nominate Carlson for the WBBR award, the Worst Bible Book Review of 2015 (at least.) Granted, there may be some competition, as we have seen books on the Bible text (and "Textual Criticism") with gross blunders lauded, I am thinking Porter and Pitts. However, you have to nominate a specific review that overlooks the blunders and is weak in many ways.
On the other hand the difficulties of the abrupt text have been largely winked at, by Lunn. To mention another, many modern version texts remove the Mark ending and Luke 24:51, taking the Ascension of the Lord Jesus out of the Gospels. And full Bible believers would often work with the preservational imperative, or the Logic of Faith (Hills), which can not be part of Lunn's presentation (after all, he went to the Critical Text corruption in quoting 1 Timothy 3:16.)
.
However, my main purpose here is chapter-by-chapter review.
.
=========================

=================================================

Steven Avery

.
Chapter 10 - The Cause of the Problem (p. 336-355)
.
"... there can of course be only two basic alternatives. Perhaps the last twelve verses were inadvertently lost or some person or persons intentionally removed them. Either accidental or deliberate—those are the options. In this final chapter we shall investigate historical and documentary evidence that touches upon these two distinct potential manners of causation. If the absence of the ending was owing to some accidental happenstance, then what occurrence best fits the data presently in our possession? If, on the other hand, the omission of Mark 16:9-20 was due to deliberate human intervention, then who was the most likely culprit for having done such a thing? Although from extant sources no immediately obvious candidate emerges, there are several lines of investigation worth pursuing. In this instance, some evidence may be adduced which offers a plausible account of what might have happened to the end of Mark at some relatively early stage in its transmission."
.
SA:
Note that this is not a comparison of authenticity theories with contra. This is how the text got mangled in some mss. A little later Lunn has a rather confusing section.
.
==============
.
Accidental Causation
.
"The theory of accidental loss, as generally held, virtually requires that the first published Gospel of Mark lost its ending before any copies could be made. be made. Once a complete copy had been made it would be highly improbable that the ending could simultaneously disappear from what would then be two separate streams of transmission. That the loss could occur so early is, of course, theoretically not impossible. The problem, however, lies in the fact that if this happened so soon after the Gospel was written Mark would still have been available to correct it or failing this the ending must have been read by many who would have been able to restore the missing portion." ....
.
There are plenty of vectors of transmission that would allow for the textual evidence even if the first short ending was mid-2nd century. One simple accidental loss could easily be maintained because there are so many possible apologetic and doctrinal reasons why scribes would prefer the shorter ending. In fact, this is often covered by Lunn!
.
Ok, to be fair, Lunn sidetracks:
.
"These objections, however, relate to the total loss of an unknown original ending. They do not apply to the possibility being discussed here. In arguing that the first copy of Mark's Gospel concluded with what we refer to as 16:9-20, we are not dealing with a complete loss, since the passage remains to this day. The accident that occurred, it is here proposed, was merely the disappearance of these verses from a part of the manuscript
tradition. The passage never wholly disappeared. ..."
.
He quotes Aland. In a sense, Lunn is mixing two scenarios. Yes, it is hard for an original unknown ending, with any distribution, to be completely lost.
.
Lunn should better have framed this directly as an attack against the unknown ending scenario. That he did not is part of the "defensive" approach that does hurt the book at times. Then it gets better and Lunn successfully shows:
.
"Missing endings are not uncommon". - p. 338
.
"To some it may seem too coincidental that in this hypothetical reconstruction the final page of the manuscript in question contained precisely the section w. 9-20, that is, the break appears not only between two verses, but right between two sections of text. Such an occurrence does appear rather too neat. Yet in actual fact this exact thing is what transpired in the case of two extant Greek copies of Mark. It is here recalled that in our chapter dealing with manuscript evidence attention was drawn to the detachment of leaves immediately after the end of 16:8 in two minuscule codices, 1420 and 2386. Seeing that such an eventuality is known to have occurred at least twice, then here is a possible explanation for the loss of the Markan ending from part of the manuscript tradition. If such a thing transpired, then it was most probably in Egypt or its environs some time in the second or early third century. This would allow time for the faulty text to be reproduced in multiple copies as were known to Eusebius in the fourth century." p. 340
.
This is good, but a few points may be missed that allow for the accidental even easier. (e.g. Once the text is mangled, it could be trimmed to the happy spot.)
.
================
.
Deliberate causation
"for the other hypothesis the intentional removal.. three factors which may possibly have contributed to the removal of these verse "
.
(1) the influence of Alexandrian Hellenistic philosophy;
(2) the existence of a variant form of the Gospel, perhaps a more
spiritual or secret Gospel of Mark;
(3) the influence of second-century Egyptian Gnostic-Christian teaching."
.
================
.
**** Problem: where is the major consideration of doctrinal and apologetic reasons? ****
Missing in the chapter where it belongs. This would include original omission, and/or later decisions to omit, based on a number of possible issues including:
.
apologetics and harmony
baptism- not wanting the connection with salvation
universalism- no damnation
signs- tongues, poison, snake, etc.
.
contra-ascension is covered a bit above,
.
================
.
Hellenistic Dualism (p. 341)
Alternate Versions of Mark
.
Egyptian Christian Gnostics
.
"... Owing to their Christian leanings the Gospel was retained in its basic canonical form, its content for the most part fitting or being capable of some manner of interpretation within their own dogmatic framework. The exception to this, however, was the bodily resurrection of Jesus and his bodily ascension, events related in the last twelve verses of the Gospel. These then were duly excised. ..."
.
SA:
The Gnostic area is the most interesting. The above quote, simply an example, has Basilides more Christian than the neighboring Gnostics.
.
======
.
Lunn
"All of this is, of course, only conjectural, but considering all the relevant data, it may not fairly be dismissed out of hand. The Markan connection with Alexandria, the high probability of the early circulation of his Gospel in that city, the prevalence of Gnostic sects in Egypt during the following decades sometimes in a distinctly Christian guise, their common belief in a rising up of the soul rather than of the body, the reference to a Gospel book named after Basilides and his known interest in canonical Gospel material, the connection between Basilides and the Petrine tradition, the analogous revision of Luke's Gospel by Marcion, and the potentially objectionable contents of the disputed verses, all allow the construction of an argument that is cohesive as a whole and in which several of the specific details fit surprisingly well. Certainly, an explanation for the dislocation of Mark 16:9-20 along these lines cannot be entirely ruled out."
.
"... the truth of the matter may indeed reside in the deliberate suppression of verses which deal with bodily resurrection. This seems preferable to the accidental loss of the last page of a codex precisely at this juncture. In view of the connection between Mark and Alexandria, where both Platonism and Gnosticism were prevalent, intentional excision would appear to be the most probable cause."
.
======
.
My view. Looking at accidental and deliberate as total opposites is a type of false dilemma, in that both could easily contribute. And the accidental does not have to be on verse 8, and there are somewhat interesting issues of retrograde or post-facto probability involved as well. (e.g. If the cut had been at verse 9 or 10, we might be having the same discussion with a v. 10 ending. There are many awkward places where the chapter could end.)
.
================
.
Also the common problem of looking at accidental and deliberate as opposites, rather than often complementary elements to viability.

===================================================

Steven Avery

.
BURGON & PAPIAS - Lunn is duped by Heuer, Snapp is cogent
.
Burgon - "waive the testimony of Papias as precarious"
.
The Last Twelve Verses of Mark (1871)
John William Burgon
https://books.google.com/books?id=LtpJAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA36
.
"We may here, in fact, conveniently review the progress which has been hitherto made in this investigation. And in order to bar the door against dispute and cavil, let us be content to waive the testimony of Papias as precarious, and that of Justin Martyr as too fragmentary to be decisive... " John William Burgon
.
Papias is of course a valid evidence, however, simply mild, as an allusion. It gains by the combined force of the many Ante-Nicene, and even pre-200 AD, references.
.
Now, Michael H. Heuer, PhD from Bob Jones University, in criticizing Burgon, used Papias as his #1 example. And in an incompetent or charlatan manner left out the waiving of the evidence by Burgon! Only using an earlier comment in the Preface that has "inference" and "allusion" (not "proof"!) and omitting the waiver above:
.
============
.
An Evaluation Of John W Burgons Use Of Patristic Evidence (1995)
Michael H. Heuer
https://docs.google.com/viewer...
.
"It is incredible that Burgon cites such a vague patristic reference as proof for the early existence of the "traditional" text. Papias (in Eusebius) quotes no words at all from the Majority Text of Mark 16:18. Even the word for "deadly thing" is different (pharmakon in Eusebius, as opposed to thanasimon in the Byzantine text). There is nothing whatever in the account of Papias to prove that he had Mark 16 in mind at all. It is just as likely that Papias recalls the account of Paul's miraculous deliverance from a deadly snake bite in Acts 28:3-6 or that he alludes to no NT passage at all. Patristic evidence such as this is not evidence but merely speculation."
.
============
.
Thus, Lunn, who was somewhat weak in his paper in the 1800s and earlier evidences, was duped by Heuer, missing the Burgon waiver.
.
============
.
Lunn
"Before the better known references to the longer ending in the works of Irenaeus and others are treated, we investigate the question as to whether any trace of acquaintance with the disputed passage is in evidence amongst even earlier writings." - Lunn p. 65 * 272
* 272. Some, such as Burgon, have looked to Papias for the earliest testimony (Burgon, Last Twelve Verses, 23). This, however, is extremely doubtful. See Heuer, " Evaluation," 525-26.
.
============
.
Ironically, Lunn does go into Papias in some depth in the section on drinking poison p. 333-335
.
============
.
Overall, the best on Papias is James Snapp, and from his 2012 paper here are two extracts:
.
"In this recollection , Eusebius does not say that Papias was using Mark 16:18, and the Greek vocabulary involved does not match the words of Mark 16:18. Nevertheless, the incident about Justus (the same individual who is mentioned in the New Testament in Acts 1:23) bears a resemblance to that passage, as if Papias was illustrating the fulfillment of the prophetic statement that if believers drink anything deadly, it will in no way hurt them. ... Possibly Papias mentioned the story of Justus as an example of the fulfillment of Mark 16:18’s prediction, to show that it pertained to an individual who had seen Jesus (rather than to later generations) and that the individual involved was not testing God by putting his life at risk, but instead had acted under compulsion. On the other hand, this reference can be considered, at most, only a possible allusion to Mark 16:18."
.
============
.

===============================================

Steven Avery

.
MINOR FOOTNOTE QUESTION
.
Footnote 434 (Kindle) looks questionable, this is from p. 103 in the book. The footnote on the kindle says p. 116
.
434- The translation offered here is a modification of that given by Snapp ("Authentic," 1.3.5). The Latin text can be found in Huck, Synopse der drei ersten Evangelien, 282.
.
This is supposed to be Jerome's usage of 16:14 against the Pelagians, but the book Synopse does not line up with pages or Latin.
.
Synopse der drei ersten Evangelien (1922)
Albert Huck

Synopse der drei ersten Evangelien : Huck, Albert, 1867- : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Text in Greek; introduction and notes in German

archive.org

.
The citation from James looks better:
.
(Latin text given according to Albert Huck's citation on p. 213, Synopsis of the First Three Gospels. © 1963 Basil
Blackwell, Oxford. Plummers commentary, p. 378, was also consulted.)
.
The 1963 edition is inexpensive, but not online, so I will leave this question open.
.
=======================
.
RECENT SCHOLARSHIP OMISSION
.
Camille Focant
The Gospel according to Mark: A Commentary (2012)
.
Un Silence Qui Fait Parler (2002)

New Testament Textual Criticism and Exegesis

For many years, Professor Joel Delobel has served as a member of the Department of Biblical Studies of the Faculty of Theology, K.U. Leuven (1969-2001). His research has tended to focus on Luke-Acts, Pauline Literature and especially Textual Criticism (he is a member of Das Institut fur...

books.google.com

.
========================
.
ANOTHER RECENT BOOK
.
One that was too late for the book:
.
Does Mark 16: 9-20 Belong in the New Testament? (2015)
David H Hester

Does Mark 16:9–20 Belong in the New Testament?

For almost fifty years, much has been written concerning Mark 16:9-20. During the same time period, evidence once counted against Mark 16:9-20 was shown to be otherwise. In this study, David W. Hester surveys modern scholarship (1965-2011) surrounding the passage. He examines the passage...

books.google.com

.
(have we discussed this book? It is more evangelical, I noticed a weakness in the Preface by David H. Warren, also of Faulkner University, referring to the Irenaeus ms as being early, but it also seems robust at points.)
.
Lunn does include:
.
Hester, J. David. "Dramatic Inconclusion: Irony and the Narrative
Rhetoric of the Ending of Mark." JSNT 57 (1995) 61-86.
.
And should be complimented for including the Apologetics Press article (quite good)
.
Is Mark 16:19-20 Inspired?
James David Miller

https://docs.google.com/viewer

...
.
========================
.
MISSING LINKS
.
Generally, the last decades are exhaustively covered, at least in the sense of a bibliography reference, this question of Camille Focant was an exception.
.
My major concern, though is the earlier referencing, before 1900, which is thin. The writings were generally more insightful before the recent negative paradigm shifts.
.
Only Burgon, Westcott-Hort and Broadus receive some significant mention, when the writers like Morison, Lange, Scrivener, were far more insightful than the mnoderns, and dozens of other writers could be studied from Griesbach on.
.
Also important was the seminal time of consideration of the issues before Griesbach from Catejan and Catherinus to Grotius, Osiander, Birch and some others.
.
========================
.
Steven Avery
.

====================================================

Steven Avery

.
Stephen Carlson - "the fundamental problem"
.
>
James E Snapp Jr
>More could be said about Carlson’s spin ...
.
One of the most important is here:
.
> Stephen Carlson
> . The fundamental problem is that Lunn does not accept the presence of the resurrection within the body of Mark. In particular, he does not view the proclamation at the empty tomb in Mark 16:6 that Jesus rose (egêrthe) as a textual fulfilment of the resurrection predictions in 8:31, 9:31 and 10:34 because v. 6 did not use the same lexeme anasthênai (‘to rise up’) of the predictions, even though he allowed for two other elements of these predictions to be fulfilled by synonyms (247). Nor does he view “the angelic announcement” as a sufficient narrative fulfilment of a bodily resurrection because such an “extraordinary” claim requires a “mention of a tangible appearance” (246). Lunn cites no primary or secondary source for this requirement and he does not address the fact that the long ending’s appearances lack the tangibility of Luke’s and John’s (neither of which were censored by Alexandrian heretics).
.
All Carlson is talking about (faking that is "the fundamental problem") is an interpretative issue where Lunn is on solid ground. Seeing a consistency in the longer text, and doctrinal lacuna in the short, is clearly understandable. (Has it been emphasized before? Is it new?) And Lunn lays out his position well, as a unit within Thematic Evidence, is on p. 246-247. It begins:
.
Lunn
"What has greatest relevance to our particular concern, of
course, is the fact that Mark records Jesus as having predicted his resurrection. ... strong evidence for arguing that Mark's original composition contained an account of Jesus' rising from the dead. Is it sustainable to argue that Mark 16:1-8 satisfies that requirement? "
.
SA
Lunn's point is that the post-resurrection appearances are an integral part of the fulfillment of the "third day" verses.
.
Mark 8:31
And he began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders, and of the chief priests, and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again.
.
Mark 9:31
For he taught his disciples, and said unto them, The Son of man is delivered into the hands of men, and they shall kill him; and after that he is killed, he shall rise the third day.
.
Mark 10:34
And they shall mock him, and shall scourge him, and shall spit upon him, and shall kill him: and the third day he shall rise again.
.
Keep in mind that the only tepid fulfillment without the full ending would have to be spoken words, unverified:
.
Mark 16:5-6
And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted. And he saith unto them, Be not affrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him.
.
Lunn, echoed by Carlson, speaks of an "angelic announcement", but Mark does not speak of an angelic announcement. We only know that through synoptics, later Lunn mentions the young man in the tomb.
.
Lunn makes a side-journey that the young man's announcement "he is risen" relates best linguistically to:
.
Mark 14:28
But after that I am risen, I will go before you into Galilee.
.
Especially since there is confluence on the Galilee aspect as well. Carlson tries to pounce on that side-point, but it is getting all a bit arcane and unnecessary at that point, especially since Carlson craftily omits the Galilee aspect in his "critique"!
.
Lunn's interpretative/apologetic point can be summarized : the full ending is a far better fit than the short ending to the three predictive passages. He is right to make the point, and within the limited sphere of claiming evidence it is 100% valid, even if YMMV.
.
And it looks to be a bit original from Lunn (no direct references to earlier writers) and it is only designed to add to the cumulative force of many complementary arguments. Carlson has clearly learned a lot from the Metzger School of Word-parsing and Evidence Selection, and applied it to the limited sphere of Rearguard Reviews (Gatekeepers Anonymous.)
.
===
.
Plus Carlson's "lacks the tangibility" is not really tangible. What is tangibly lacking in speaking to Mary Magdalene, and appearing to the two (on the road to Emmaus), and then speaking instructions to the eleven?
.
Then Carlson throws in an orange herring, "Alexandrian heretics" which by a stretch extrapolates from Lunn's questionable yet very equivocal conclusion when discussing theories of loss of text:
.
Lunn
" the truth of the matter may indeed reside in the deliberate suppression of verses which deal with bodily resurrection. This seems preferable to the accidental." - p. 352
.
Stephen Carlson takes a couple of conjectural points from Lunn and morphs them into something "fundamental" to his position. Wrong.
.
The whole review is a disaster, which is why it was lauded on the censored forum. That is the "fundamental problem", the lack of scholastic integrity when a writer is engulfed in the hortian fog. If there is a good critique to be made against Lunn's book, it is not to be found in Carlson's review.

.
Steven Avery

 

[Steven Avery]

Actual ETC accepted and placed here

A Master Thesis on the Ending(s) of Mark by Bonar Lumban Raja

An academic forum to discuss the Bible's manuscripts and textual history from the perspective of historic evangelical theology.

evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com

Add references and thoughts here to the ETC post

See if this is addressed in another way other than Mark dependency on Luke and Matthew by Burgon, Maurice Robinson and others.

==========================================

Hi Eric,

Eric
"This suggests that the author of 1:1-16:8 intended to complete his Gospel with an account of a post-resurrection appearance in Galilee."

Mark 14:28 (AV)
But after that I am risen,
I will go before you into Galilee.

Mark 16:7 (AV)
But go your way,
tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth
before you into Galilee:
there shall ye see him,
as he said unto you.

This analysis bypasses the strong evidence that Mark is generally dependent on the existence of earlier Gospels, with the emphasis on Luke and Matthew. We had a discussion of this on ETC on this Bellarmine topic:
https://evangelicaltextualcriticism...howComment=1615846472614#c2844052329315323145

And I would be very interested in responses by our Bible experts as to that strongly shown dependency of the Gospel of Mark on Luke!

Delbert Burkett of LSU even theorizes that the apparent internal Markan inconsistency about the Galilee appearances may have contributed to scribes dropping the ending (along with other elements like the perceived harmony problem referenced by Eusebius.)

Rethinking the Gospel Sources: From Proto-Mark to Mark (2004)
by Delbert Burkett
https://books.google.com/books?id=izvGDNQY6AoC&pg=PA263

As noted by Prof. Maurice Robinson in Perspectives
https://books.google.com/books?id=fA65AwAAQBAJ&pg=PA53

This is a really fascinating topic. Nicholas Lunn, The Original Ending of Mark, p. 318-325 weighs in, albeit not that forcefully. While James Snapp has tried to use the Galilee argument in favor of the traditional Mark ending being an add-on floating pericope. After a Markus Interruptus experience.

Lunn references Elliott, Witherington, Lane and Edwards using this Galilee question as an argument for the short ending being original.

The Original Ending of Mark: A New Case for the Authenticity of Mark 16:9-20 (2014)
Nicholas P. Lunn
https://books.google.com/books?id=D1UNBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA319

The absence of any Galilean resurrection appearance in the ending is included with some frequency among the objections regarding its authenticity.4 Both in Mark 14:28 and 16:7 mention has been made of the fact that Jesus would go ahead of his disciples into Galilee subsequent to his resurrection. This appears to create the expectation that the record of this would be included in the closing sections of the Gospel. Mark 16:9-20, however, makes no mention of Galilee. Here we investigate the question as to whether this objection is valid as an argument against Markan authorship of the ending.

4 E.g.,
Elliott, New Testament Textual Criticism, 266;
Witherington, Gospel of Mark, 46;
Edwards, Gospel according to Mark, 504;
Lane, Gospel of Mark, 604.

And I would add that Burnett Hillman Streeter, Heinrich Meyer and Henry Martyn Harman also see this issue as contra the traditional ending being original.

Introduction to the Study of the Holy Scriptures: Vol 1 (1879)
Henry Martyn Harman
https://books.google.com/books?id=b_8UAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA500

No one would have thought of mutilating the Gospel, and the absence in it of the appearances of Christ led some one to add some of them from reliable sources.

Critical and exegetical commentary on the New Testament, by H.A.W. Meyer. From the Germ., the tr. ed. by W.P. Dickson and F. Crombie (W. Stewart). [20 vols. Without the Apocalypse]. (1880)
Heinrich Meyer
https://books.google.com/books?id=8aouAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA246

The circumstance that here preparation is made for a narrative of a meeting together in Galilee, but no such account subsequently follows, is an argument justly brought to bear against the genuineness of ver. 9 ff

The Four Gospels: A Study of Origins, Treating of the Manuscript Tradition, Sources, Authorship, & Dates (1924)
Burnett Hillman Streeter
https://books.google.com/books?id=v_M2AAAAMAAJ&pg=P343

(1) The message of the Angel, “ Go tell his disciples and Peter he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him as he said unto you ” (Mk. xvi. 7), is clearly intended to refer back to the previously recorded prophecy of Christ, “ Howbeit after I am raised up I will go before you into Galilee ” (Mk. xiv. 28). Thus we are bound to infer that the lost conclusion of Mark contained an account of an Appearance to the Apostles in Galilee. ... p. 343 .. also p. 355

https://books.google.com/books?id=v_M2AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA337

Account Suspended

At any rate the author of the Gospel cannot have originally meant to end it without the account of the Appearance to the Apostles in Galilee, which is twice prophesied in the text (Mk. xiv. 28, xvi. 7)

btw, I am bypassing the theory that there is a Galilee appearance in Mark 16:15-18 (or 14-18).

Overall, the Galilee references are evidences for Mark dependency on Luke and Matthew, as in the Ben C. Smith superb posting. His readers could easily see the specifics of the Galilee events. More than the Galilee references being any argument for the short text authenticity.

My simplest expression on this question has been that Mark was telescoping. And that Matthew was previous to Mark and had included the fuller Galilee data. And that the full harmony is by all the Gospels in one unit by the Holy Spirit.

Thanks!

Steven Avery
Dutchess County, NY

 

[Steven Avery]

The scholars have tried to make a case that are two verses are not resurrection appearances.

A Short Note On Mark XIV. 28 And XVI. 7 (1973)
Robert H. Stein

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/new-testament-studies/article/abs/short-note-on-mark-xiv-28-and-xvi-7/