Freethought & Rationalism Archive

JoeWallack · 06-09-2009, 06:57 AM

JW:
Here is Metzger's summary of analysis and related conclusions for the endings of "Mark":

Bruce Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (Stuttgart, 1971), pages 122-126.

Quote:

How should the evidence of each of these endings be evaluated? It is obvious that the expanded form of the long ending (4) has no claim to be original. Not only is the external evidence extremely limited, but the expansion contains several non-Markan words and expressions (including ο αιων ουτος, αμαρτανω, απολογεω, αληθινος, υποστρεφω) as well as several that occur nowhere else in the New Testament (δεινος, ορος, προσλεγω). The whole expansion has about it an unmistakable apocryphal flavor. It probably is the work of a second or third century scribe who wished to soften the severe condemnation of the Eleven in 16.14.

The longer ending (3), though current in a variety of witnesses, some of them ancient, must also be judged by internal evidence to be secondary. (a) The vocabulary and style of verses 9-20 are non-Markan. (e.g. απιστεω, βλαπτω, βεβαιοω, επακολουθεω, θεαομαι, μετα ταυτα, πορευομαι, συνεργεω, υστερον are found nowhere else in Mark; and θανασιμον and τοις μετ αυτου γενομενοις, as designations of the disciples, occur only here in the New Testament). (b) The connection between ver. 8 and verses 9-20 is so awkward that it is difficult to believe that the evangelist intended the section to be a continuation of the Gospel. Thus, the subject of ver. 8 is the women, whereas Jesus is the presumed subject in ver. 9; in ver. 9 Mary Magdalene is identified even though she has been mentioned only a few lines before (15.47 and 16.1); the other women of verses 1-8 are now forgotten; the use of αναστας δε and the position of πρωτον are appropriate at the beginning of a comprehensive narrative, but they are ill-suited in a continuation of verses 1-8. In short, all these features indicate that the section was added by someone who knew a form of Mark that ended abruptly with ver. 8 and who wished to supply a more appropriate conclusion. In view of the inconcinnities between verses 1-8 and 9-20, it is unlikely that the long ending was composed ad hoc to fill up an obvious gap; it is more likely that the section was excerpted from another document, dating perhaps from the first half of the second century.

The internal evidence for the shorter ending (2) is decidedly against its being genuine. Besides containing a high percentage of non-Markan words, its rhetorical tone differs totally from the simple style of Mark's Gospel.

Finally it should be observed that the external evidence for the shorter ending (2) resolves itself into additional testimony supporting the omission of verses 9-20. No one who had available as the conclusion of the Second Gospel the twelve verses 9-20, so rich in interesting material, would have deliberately replaced them with four lines of a colorless and generalized summary. Therefore, the documentary evidence supporting (2) should be added to that supporting (1). Thus, on the basis of good external evidence and strong internal considerations it appears that the earliest ascertainable form of the Gospel of Mark ended with 16.8. At the same time, however out of deference to the evident antiquity of the longer ending and its importance in the textual tradition of the Gospel, the Committee decided to include verses 9-20 as part of the text, but to enclose them within double square brackets to indicate that they are the work of an author other than the evangelist.

JW:
Note that Metzger selects his conclusion by the process of elimination. Specifically, for the LE, Metzger writes:

Quote:

The longer ending (3), though current in a variety of witnesses, some of them ancient, must also be judged by internal evidence to be secondary. (a) The vocabulary and style of verses 9-20 are non-Markan. (e.g. απιστεω, βλαπτω, βεβαιοω, επακολουθεω, θεαομαι, μετα ταυτα, πορευομαι, συνεργεω, υστερον are found nowhere else in Mark; and θανασιμον and τοις μετ αυτου γενομενοις, as designations of the disciples, occur only here in the New Testament). (b) The connection between ver. 8 and verses 9-20 is so awkward that it is difficult to believe that the evangelist intended the section to be a continuation of the Gospel. Thus, the subject of ver. 8 is the women, whereas Jesus is the presumed subject in ver. 9; in ver. 9 Mary Magdalene is identified even though she has been mentioned only a few lines before (15.47 and 16.1); the other women of verses 1-8 are now forgotten; the use of αναστας δε and the position of πρωτον are appropriate at the beginning of a comprehensive narrative, but they are ill-suited in a continuation of verses 1-8. In short, all these features indicate that the section was added by someone who knew a form of Mark that ended abruptly with ver. 8 and who wished to supply a more appropriate conclusion. In view of the inconcinnities between verses 1-8 and 9-20, it is unlikely that the long ending was composed ad hoc to fill up an obvious gap; it is more likely that the section was excerpted from another document, dating perhaps from the first half of the second century.

JW:
Metzger's key points for the LE:

1) External evidence does not eliminate it as a candidate for original.

2) Internal evidence eliminates it as a candidate for original.

1 - Non-Markan vocabulary

2 - Non-Markan style

3 - Disconnect between AE and LE

Bart Ehrman, successor heavy-weight textual criticism champion of the world to Metzger, writes in Misquoting Jesus, page 67 (regarding the LE):

Quote:

The reasons for taking them to be an addition are solid, almost indisputable.
...
In short, the evidence is sufficient to convince nearly all textual scholars that these verses are an addition to Mark.

Note that Ehrman comes on stronger than Metzger here (perhaps too strong).

Thus we have it on good authority that the LE is not original to "Mark". By an act of Providence though for Mr. Snapp this author considers "Authority" the weakest category of evidence.

Everyone is welcome to comment except for Harvey Dubish.

Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

Amaleq13 · 06-09-2009, 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

I am surely going to deny that Jesus promises (in 14:28) to meet the disciples in Galilee.

He says he will go to Galilee before them. That clearly implies that they will be going there as well and clearly implies they will all meet. Denying this is simply foolish and your position suffers a terminal loss of credibility as a result.

You seem to me to have too great a personal attachment to your conclusion and it is clouding your judgment. It looks the same as faith from the outside with your interpretation being driven by your conclusion rather than the opposite.

Quote:

To you perhaps...

No, to anyone reading the passage without preconceptions.

Quote:

...but would that be a given to Pauline church at the time of Mark?

See? Your conclusion guides your interpretation. That is circular reasoning, amigo, no two ways about it.

And I've already explained that it only acknowledges that they had resurrection experiences while not conceding the theme of general misunderstanding on their part. Try to pretend like you are paying attention while you strain your eyes with the silly rolling.

Quote:

Jesus clearly thought ? Or the 'intelligent reader' Doug thinks Jesus clearly thought ?

It is apparent to anyone reading the passage without your preconceptions. It conflicts with your preferred conclusion and must be interpreted against the plain meaning. Sounds like a faith-based reading to me.

Quote:

Ben saying to Doug he would be going before him to New Jersey does not clearly imply a promise of Ben meeting Doug there.

Of course it does!! What other point would such a statement have? We're in a race and he is predicting himself the winner?

In the context of the story, the meaning of the passage is as clear as the circular reasoning involved in your misreading of it..

Quote:

Yes, we have no bananas,... but no they will not see da Lord until they have faith, take up their their cross and follow da man.

Yes, this is the conclusion that is driving your interpretation but it does not follow from the text.

Quote:

I haven't made the case with you, so it seems. But you are right, one cannot cure blindness by increasing the size of the font.

I can see well enough to recognize the logical fallacy involved in your conclusion. Unfortunately, those who engage in circular reasoning often have difficulty recognizing it from within the construction.

Quote:

...acknowledging their resurrected Christ experiences without conceding any authority to them'...... Would that be like 'putting their hand into a cookie jar without permission, and getting away with it ' ?

No. It is like acknowledging what cannot be denied while refusing to grant any more than that.

Quote:

So if I was mistaken in thinking you might want a cookie, i.e. if you do not think of yourself as an intelligent reader, I apologize.

Wow, you really didn't get it. It should have been obvious that I was deliberately avoiding referring to myself as "intelligent" (italics were a big hint). You usually exhibit better comprehension. I'll drop this tangent since it only seems to be causing you confusion and embarrassment.

Solo · 06-09-2009, 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

I am surely going to deny that Jesus promises (in 14:28) to meet the disciples in Galilee.

He says he will go to Galilee before them. That clearly implies that they will be going there as well and clearly implies they will all meet. Denying this is simply foolish and your position suffers a terminal loss of credibility as a result.

..a terminal loss of credibility...what's that ? A clearly thinking Jesus in a propositional last-judgement rage ?

I am done here, Doug.

Jiri

Amaleq13 · 06-09-2009, 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

..a terminal loss of credibility...what's that ?

That's what happens when one's argument depends upon denying the plain meaning of words.

Quote:

I am done here, Doug.

You never really started, Jiri. You've just been trying to force the evidence to conform to your beliefs. :wave:

Loomis · 06-09-2009, 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

Thus we have it on good authority that the LE is not original to "Mark".

Joe, I think it’s obvious to everyone here that Mark 16:9-20 is not the original ending. You are preaching to the choir. Don’t you ever get bored? :frown:

Loomis · 06-09-2009, 09:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

I should add that the page in question is not my original or primary reason for liking the conjecture that John 21 preserves the original Marcan ending (though I do like the essay, of course). I recommend Streeter for all interested in the topic; his analysis is outdated at several points, but reading him was my first introduction to this idea.

Thanks for the link. Why does Streeter think that the lost end of Mark contained an appearance to Mary Magdalene?

Have you ever noticed that 1 Corinthians 15:5 says Jesus first appeared to Cephas? (And not to Mary Magdalene?)

I think that 1 Corinthians 15:5 is a late addition; nevertheless it makes me wonder what the author was thinking.

Loomis · 06-09-2009, 09:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

What about the predictions of a resurrection sighting? (Joe has to argue that they are not original to the text.)

Imho these arguments …

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

2) Peter's response of 14:29 is completely non-responsive to 14:28.

3) It's unlikely that any prophecy would be given by "Mark's" Jesus whose significance would be so reduced in the next line.

4) 14:28 breaks an otherwise Balanced Chiastic structure for the surrounding Verses.

5) 14:28 uses a Passive Form of "raised up" while the 3 Passion predictions use an Active form.

6) 14:28 completely Reverses the point of 14:27 with no apparent Motivation or Explanation for doing so which doesn't fit the Style of "Mark".

... are extremely convincing.

Joe needs more arguments like those. But instead he’s wasting his time arguing about how the various pieces of information should be weighed. (And that’s stupid. It’s like telling a Judge how to think: It just offends the Judge.)

Loomis · 06-09-2009, 09:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Neil Godfrey put it well in asking : Is it possible to hold both to Mark being a Pauline gospel (with its anti-Petrine position) and to John 21 being the original ending (with its pro-Petrine conclusion)? (on Vridar).

It looks to me like Neil Godfrey is begging the question.

His conclusion (that John 21 is not the original ending) is based on the premise that Mark is anti-Petrine. But that position is based on Mark without the proposed ending.

Loomis · 06-09-2009, 09:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

JW:
Loomis' real name is Harvey Dubish.

If Mr. James Snapp, Jr. says something in the debate that you don’t like, how will you respond?

Ignore him
Call him Harvey Dubish

Either way you are going to look like an ass.

Right?

Loomis · 06-09-2009, 10:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

He says he will go to Galilee before them. That clearly implies that they will be going there as well and clearly implies they will all meet.

But if Mark 14:28 was not original then that might help explain why the disciples didn’t recognize him in John 21:4.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.