|
Veteran Member
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Nazareth
Posts: 2,357
|
Internal Evidence - Racing Hypotheses (2 of 2) James Snapp Jr.
JW:
From: CARM Mark 16:9-20: Authentic or Not?
Quote:
Internal Evidence - Racing Hypotheses (Part 2)
(Continued from Part 1)
Meanwhile, if we embrace Farmer’s observations about the Marcan features in 16:9-20, and also do not ignore the internal features, previously described, which indicate that 16:9-20 was not composed as the continuation of the account that otherwise would stop at the end of 16:8, then we are led to the view that (a) 16:9-20 was not initially written as a continuation of Mark’s Gospel-account, and (b) as my opponent affirmed, the internal evidence does not come remotely close to showing that Mark did not write 16:9-20 as a freestanding account. And this leads us to the hypothesis that someone other than Mark put the two together during the production-stage of the Gospel of Mark.
My opponent has objected that such a hypothesis is speculation – that is, it is hypothetical, as if those with other hypotheses have video tape. This calls to mind a story in which two campers, at a campsite in the middle of the wilderness, are suddenly awakened to find that an angry grizzly bear is attacking their camp. One of the campers immediately begins to put on his running shoes. The other camper says, “What are you doing? You can’t outrun a grizzly bear!” To which the answer is given, “I don’t have to outrun the bear; I just have to outrun you.”
Likewise, in the case at hand, we have competing hypotheses, and we should ask, “Which hypothesis accounts most elegantly for all the evidence?” If 16:9-20 was not composed and attached before the end of the production-stage of the Gospel of Mark, then it must have been composed and attached at some later stage, in the early 100’s. My opponent has affirmed, at last, that he believes, like Hort did, that 16:9-20 was not composed as the ending for Mk. 1:1-16:8. We may therefore set aside Kelhoffer’s Insane-Scribe theory that 16:9-20 was composed by somebody consciously and methodically borrowing snippets from all four canonical Gospels in order to create a conclusion for the Gospel of Mark which otherwise ended in 16:8. This will make our hypotheses-race less complicated. But before we reach that point, let’s briefly revisit six of my opponent’s recent claims.
(1) He assumed that the theme of Jesus’ disciples’ failure “goes against the LE being original.” On the contrary, we see the disciples’ failure on center stage in 16:13-14!
(2) He mentioned Carrier’s assessment of the vocabulary in 16:9-20: Carrier stated, “In all, of 163 words in the LE, around 20 are un-Markan, which by itself is not unusual.” A frank admission which condemns Metzger’s word-count as a severe oversimplification, no matter how many other commentators borrow it. But then Carrier went further: “What is unusual is how common most of these words normally are.” This is actually yet another point that lowers their weight, for if a once-used word is a common word, then we may safely deduce that the author’s non-use of it elsewhere is mere happenstance.
(3) Following a summary of Dr. Bruce Terry’s analysis of Mark’s use of the Greek words for “immediately” and “again,” in which Dr. Terry explained that one-third of all 12-verse sets of verses in Mark do not contain either of those two words, my opponent wrote, “Neither speed of action or repetition can be found in the LE. How many other stories in “Mark” can you find with neither? Again, not proof that LE is not original, just evidence.” This, after I had just presented Dr. Terry’s data demonstrating that you can make exactly the same statement about one-third of the 12-verse sets in Mark! It’s like saying, “This sort of thing matters” immediately after it has been proven that this sort of thing does not matter.
(4) Regarding Mark 16:19’s description of Jesus as “the Lord,” it is true that the other places in Mark where Jesus is called “”the Lord” are not narration. But that is slicing things awfully thin; one can always find unique features when one goes about considering not only vocabulary, but also whether a word appears in discourse or in narrative, and so forth. Plus, Mark’s Gospel account consisted of his presentation of Peter’s remembrances about Jesus, and thus are liable to reflect Peter’s references to Jesus as “Jesus;” Mark, writing a short composition about Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances, could easily give Jesus the title “Lord” in such a composition.
(5) Even after admitting that there is a 12-verse section of Mark that has more once-used words than 16:9-20 has, my opponent still tries to use Metzger’s oversimplified appeal to vocabulary as evidence of a non-Marcan origin. He wrote, “To the extent a disputed section has a relatively large number of words not otherwise used by the author, this is evidence of unoriginality. By itself, this relationship is a statistical fact. The greater the number of unique words, the better the evidence of unoriginality.” How he can still say this, apparently seriously, after it has been shown that a greater number of unique words is present in a passage that is not unoriginal simply boggles the mind. The simple fact that 15:40-16:4 has more unique vocabulary than 16:9-20 has should permanently silence such hollow assertions and specious assumptions.
(6) When I noted the lack of continuity between 16:8 and 16:9, he stated, “How often do you not only have your opponent agree with you but even write your argument for you?” Apparently he still does not see the implication of that lack of continuity: the attachment of an already-existing composition explains such a lack of continuity. But the lack of continuity between 16:8 and 16:9 is a substantial problem for the theory that someone in the 100’s wrote 16:9-20 as a continuation of the narrative, since it is more correct to say that the narrative is re-started, rather than that it is continued: Mary Magdalene’s companions disappear; the time of day is re-stated; Mary Magdalene is re-introduced. An author intentionally composing an ending for Mark 1:1-16:8 would have no reason to do that. Metzger correctly discerned that these internal features point away from the theory that Mark attached 16:9-20; what should also be realized is that these features with equal force also point away from the theory that 16:9-20 was initially composed as a continuation of the Gospel of Mark.
And now for the hypothesis-race, the loser of which will be eaten by the grizzly bear of complexity. The internal evidence gives my hypothesis a sizable lead, and puts obstacles in the path of its competitor.
First, the freestanding composition has to be written. If it was written by Mark, or by a colleague of his in Rome, then it is no surprise that such a composition would summarily relate several of the same episodes described in Matthew, Luke, and John. Nor is it surprising that the author would make no attempt to harmonize his composition with Matthew, Luke, and John, since he never read them. Nor is it surprising that the author did not mention the triune baptismal formula that is used in Mt. 28:19. Nor is it surprising that the author did not explicitly mention that Jesus eventually met with the disciples in Galilee as predicted. But all these points put obstacles in the path of the theory that it was written in the 100’s: why would an author writing at that point compose a composition that contains details which would never be suggested by the accounts in Matthew, Luke, and John, but which instead create tension with them? And why would an author writing at that point include details which he would have created ex nihilo, and for no apparent reason, such as the disciples’ disbelief of Mary’s report that she had seen Jesus, and the list of signs in 16:17-18? And why would an author writing at that point fail to use the extremely appropriate material in John 21 as source-material?
Second, the freestanding composition has to be attached. If it was attached during the production-stage, then the internal evidence is accounted for: out of respect for both the large and small source-materials, the redactor declined to alter either one. But can we reasonably picture a redactor who reveres the Gospel of Mark attaching to it a short account about Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances which he knows as the work of a contemporary? Somehow, there must have been a high level of respect for the freestanding composition when it was attached; this is easy to maintain in my hypothesis – in which it was known to have been either written by, or used with approval, by Peter and/or Mark – but less easy in the alternative hypothesis.
Third, once attached, the new ending has to be accepted. Again, if it was attached during the production-stage, its widespread acceptance is virtually assured, as the external evidence shows that it was. But if it was attached in the 100’s, after copies of Mark had circulated far and wide without it, then its widespread acceptance is not easy to explain. Such an addition would not be congruent to a mere harmonizing alteration, or to the interpolation of an agraphon, or even to the insertion of a benign pericope such as John 7:53-8:11. The addition of a new passage in which a woman appears more faithful than men; a new passage in which the apostles are depicted as unbelieving; a new passage in which Jesus promises special signs such as immunity from poison to believers; a new passage in which Jesus is said to appear to the two travelers “in another form;” a new passage not so easily harmonized with Mt., Lk., and Jn.; a new passage which shows, by its non-transition from 16:8, that it is in some sense secondary – this would need an impeccable pedigree in order to avoid immediate rejection by vigilant bishops and copyists. And yet there it is, embedded in Justin’s Synoptics-Harmony, incorporated into in Tatian’s Diatessaron, and in the copy of Mark used by the vigilant Irenaeus.
So, with the probabilities consistently pointing to a very early attachment, in the production-stage, rather than at some later point, I ask: what is the internal evidence upon which my opponent bases his hypothesis that Mark 16:9-20 was not attached in the production-stage?
Yours in Christ,
James Snapp, Jr.
|
|
11-20-2010, 10:03 AM
