JoeWallack

JW:
Hi Andrew. Um, you are?

We are having a slight disagreement as to the host. I am willing to debate anywhere while so far Mr. Snapp is only willing to debate at sites that don't want me to post there such as Tweeb and CARB. Was it something I said? I suspect the real reason is they do not allow Counter-missionaries to post.

While I have you on the line Andrew I used to use as a litmus test for Christian objectivity whether they accepted that 7:14 = young woman. Now Christian Bible scholarship has improved to the point that I currently draw the line at Mark 16:8. I'm kurious if you or any of the Christians here accept that 16:8 is the original ending. My guess is that you, Ben and Stephen all doubt that it is.



Joseph

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

andrewcriddle

Hi Joe

I am reasonably sure that Mark 16:9-20 is not original.
As to whether Mark originally ended at 16:8 or had further material, (now lost), I am less sure.

On the whole I think the Gospel did originally end at 16:8, I am influenced here by Austin Farrer's analysis in A Study in St. Mark, which argues in effect that given Mark's oblique but effective presentation of the resurrection in 16:1-8 the narration of an actual post-resurrection appearance by the risen Christ is redundant.

Andrew Criddle

Loomis

What are you going to do? Argue, “Is not/ is too” with him? That will be different. That should be real exciting.
That’s a horrible idea. If you do that you will be on the defensive for the duration of the debate. You’ll lose.

Why don’t you read this? :bulb:

A SECOND GOSPEL - The Evolution of Mark

The article (written by David Ross) argues that the original ending of Mark is preserved in John 21.

Click here to cut to the chase and read his reconstruction of Mark 16->John 21

It’s a great article. The arguments are very persuasive.

If - after reading the article and understanding the issues, you come to agree with Ross’s conclusions, then you will have a strong advantage over “James Snapp, Jr.” because you will be able to offer affirmative arguments that Mark has been hacked. Not only does it fix Mark 16; it also fixes John 21. You will put Snapp on the defensive, and have better control of the outcome.

Loomis

No. Don't do that. That’s all horrible. It’s really boring and no one is going to care. :facepalm:

JoeWallack

JW:
I need to add to categories of External evidence, last and least, Authority. So I now have:

1) Manuscripts

2) Patristic

3) Scribal

4) Authority

I'm going to start my detailed analysis with the category of Patristic because I think it has the most weight. I freely confess that our own token Christian, Ben Smith, has a related site which does an excellent job of identifying the Patristic evidence:

The endings of the gospel of Mark The External Evidence

My main objective again is to try and formalize the evaluation process with quantified criteria in order to give relative weight to conclusions.

The earliest potential claimed witness I see in Ben's summary is Papias. I date Papias c. 125 and as he shows no awareness of Canonical "Matthew" and neither does any other Father to that time, I assume "Matthew" was written later. Since Papias likewise shows no awareness of Canonical "Mark" I wouldn't even bother to address him if it was only my analysis. But since Snapp lists Papias as evidence for The Long Ending (LE) I'll apply my criteria to him:

Early Christian Writings Fragments Of Papias

Criteria:

1) Age

Older = more weight

c. 125. I'm going to start out with a rating scale for criteria of 1-3:

1 = Low

2 = Medium

3 = High

Obviously Papias would be old and receives a 3 here.


2) Confirmation - quantity

Larger = more weight

Here we have to look at the specific claim of what Papias is evidence of:

http://www.textexcavation.com/marcanendings.html#papias

Note that this story appears to be unique to Papias so this criterion receives a 1.


3) Confirmation - width

Wider = more weight

This criterion as opposed to the previous considers independence in sources. Again, since Papias story above is unique, it receives a 1.


4) Applicability (general vs. specific)

General = more weight

Papias is not making any type of textual comment so this criterion is a 1.


5) Direction (of change)

Away from = more weight

Philip of Side comments on Papias here post Eusebius:

http://www.textexcavation.com/marcanendings.html#papias

Note that the later summary moves towards the LE. This criterion is a 1.


6) Variation

Lesser = more weight

As we see above, two witnesses give two different versions. This criterion is a 1.


7) External force

Lesser = more weight

As the LE becomes known and accepted there is pressure to identify Papias above with it. This criterion is a 1.


8) Credibility of source

Greater = more weight

Our main evaluator of Papias, Eusebius, after presumably and unlike us, being able to read all of Papias, has a low opinion of him. This criterion is a 1.


9) Directness

Direct = more weight

Papias makes no direct reference to "Mark" and his story is not directly about Jesus speaking. This criterion is a 1

In summary than:

1) Age = 3

2) Confirmation - quantity = 1

3) Confirmation - width = 1

4) Applicability (general vs. specific) = 1

5) Direction (of change) = 1

6) Variation = 1

7) External force = 1

8) Credibility of source = 1

9) Directness = 1

So we have 8 "1s" and 1 "3". If every criteria besides age has the lowest weight than the weight of the age criterion really doesn't mean much, does it.

Everyone is welcome to comment except for Harvey Dubish.



Joseph

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

Ben C Smith

If this is in reference to Isaiah 7.14, then I agree that this is not a good litmus test.

But this one is even worse. I personally like some version of the Ross hypothesis that Loomis pointed you to (though others have proposed it as well). I could be mistaken, but I do not think Ross himself is a Christian. And, if a Daniel B. Wallace can accept Mark 16.8 is the original ending, why is this your litmus test? The issue simply does not fall very well along party lines. (Either that or there are a lot more objective Christian evangelicals than I suspect you think there are.)

Ben.

Solo

Hi Andrew,
is there anyone that you know of who argues for 16:8 as the intended ending on the basis of the "parabolic nature of the gospel" (as per 4:11) ? The closest I have come to is the mention of Ernest E.Best (Gospel as Story) in Gundry's Mark : 'it is like one of Jesus' own parables..the hearer is forced to go on thinking...Jesus returns to Galilee whence he came in 1.9...there is no resting place in the joy and triumph of the resurrection...'. ( I have been searching for the book in local university libraries but no luck).

FWIW, I am inclined to think of the empty tomb annunciation in Mark as a mystery constructed specifically to complement the transfiguration revelation - which Peter and the Zebedees did not get : the women do not tell anything to anyone after fleeing from the tomb just as the disciples kept the transfiguration to themselves (9:10). (The events get into the gospel by the works of the Spirit.) This I don't think is coincidence. The Pauline church had gospel; the Petrines did not, as they were just too 'frightened' by what they have witnessed.

The Pauline and Petrine factions continued to argue after Mark's departure but began to coalesce. Paul's Christ crucified became the common denominator. The expansions of the 16th chapter, I think are explainable as the back-and-forth assertions that followed. They would have originated in the Matthean gospel rewrite (which drew on the kind of anti-Pauline source material posted in 1 Cor 15:3-8), where the person of Jesus was 'seen' first by those who walked with him. This formula looks hugely at odds with the original revelations of Christ in the bodies of Paul and his saints.

As the church progressed to unification, Matthew asserted that Jesus did appear to the disciples in Galilee and commissioned them (i.e. Peter's church). To which the Markan Paulines first tried something - no longer clear what it was; it survives only as a fragment in 16:12-13 - asserting Jesus appeared to some believers - ἐν ἑτέρᾳ μορφῇ. (in another form). But the commissioning of the disciples in Galilee via Matt was an effective propaganda and had to be tackled head on. The apostles' primacy in seeing the Lord in Galilee was dissed by the postmark (couldn't help it, JW !) assertion that the risen Jesus first appeared to the women. And the Matthean school probably said - no big deal - and wrote up Jesus himself intercepting the dashing Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (28:9-10), to confirm the Galilee rendezvous with the leadership, lest they forget or mess up the news. Finally, the Markan scribes gave up and agreed that Jesus did meet the apostles in Galilee, as the only opportunity they would have in the holy writ to give Peter & Co. a piece of Jesus' mind for not believing in Paul's version of resurrection in the first place. (1 Cor 15:12 vs Rev 2:11, Heb 11:35).

Regards,
Jiri

andrewcriddle

Hi Jiri

You might possibly be interested in The Genesis of Secrecy (or via: amazon.co.uk) by Kermode although it deals more with general issues of Markan narrative than with the specific issue of the ending of Mark.

Andrew Criddle

Solo

Thanks, Andrew, I'll take a look (the title is in Carleton U.'s collection).

Best,
Jiri

JoeWallack

JW:
Continuing with my detailed analysis of the category of Patristic:

The endings of the gospel of Mark The External Evidence

The next earliest potential claimed witness I see in Ben's summary is "Matthew". I date "Matthew" c. 135 since I date "Mark" c. 130 as no Father to that time shows any awareness of it. A question arises here as to one's starting assumption of what exactly "Matthew" is evidence of regarding "Mark's" ending. Is it evidence for the abrupt, short, long or evidence against the abrupt, short, long? Well that's what the criteria are for.

Note that in my ebate with Mr. Snapp he has graciously given me the argument that the LE is not original. This is much easier than arguing that the Abrupt Ending (AE - don't leave homilies without it) is original. This reminds me of the great debate of The Shroud where due to the Faith of the Shroudies and with Apologies to David Rohl, they made the fatal error of putting the key piece of evidence in the hands of objective scientists for carbon dating (the opposite of the OJ Trial).

In this Thread though I have expanded my argument to Pro AE so that will be my assumption for testing of "Matthew":

Mark 16

Verses:

Matthew 28

JW:
"Mark" sure looks like "Matthew's" source here. Most of the content and nouns are the same or at least similar and both have the strong emotion of fear/amazement for flavor. The only significant difference is the endings:

"Mark"
Verses:

"Matthew"
Only at the very end does "Matthew" go in the opposite direction (so to speak) from "Mark". Where the little women of "Mark" give no knowledge of Jesus' resurrection to the characters, "Matthew's" corresponding women run to give knowledge of Jesus' resurrection to the characters. "Mark's" ending at 16:8 creates no expectation of resurrection sighting while "Matthew's" corresponding last sentence creates expectation of resurrection sighting. Common sense tells us that "Matthew" used "Mark" as a source through Mark 16:8 but probably not after as the only significant change "Matthew" makes is the significance of Mark 16:8. Whatever "Mark" had after 16:8, if anything, could not be used as a source for what "Matthew" had after 28:8.

Criteria:

1) Age = 3


2) Confirmation - quantity = 3

Not much textual variation for the relevant "Matthew".


3) Confirmation - width = 3

Patristic quotes.


4) Applicability (general vs. specific) = 1


5) Direction (of change) = 3

"Matthew" is clearly moving away from AE.


6) Variation = 3

Not much related textual variation


7) External force = 3

Significant pressure to give "Mark" a happy ending


8) Credibility of source = 1

"Matthew" edits "Mark" without attribution


9) Directness = 1

An indirect argument


10) Common sense = 3


In summary than:

1) Age = 3

2) Confirmation - quantity = 3

3) Confirmation - width = 3

4) Applicability (general vs. specific) = 1

5) Direction (of change) = 3

6) Variation = 3

7) External force = 3

8) Credibility of source = 1

9) Directness = 1

10) Common sense = 3

So we have 7 "3s" and 3 "1s". And so "Matthew" is solidly in the camp as evidence for AE.

Everyone is welcome to comment except for Harvey Dubish.



Joseph

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