Ben C Smith

I will go you one further on that score. Peter 14.60 has Simon, Andrew, and Levi going fishing. What do Simon, Andrew, and Levi have in common? All of them received personal follow me calls in the gospel of Mark. (John 21 also has the sons of Zebedee, who also receive such a personal call in the gospel of Mark.) Echoing the first calling of the disciples in a postresurrection appearance would be a very Marcan thing to do; all of this makes sense if John 21 and Peter 14 are modelled on a lost Marcan ending. (I hasten to add that this is all too conjectural to prove anything; but this kind of conjecture may yet lead somewhere someday.)

Ben.

Ben C Smith

Joe, how can you say this with a straight face? Versification was not invented for these texts until much later. It is perfectly legitimate to say that 16.19 comes in fine... evangelii. There is no variation here.

Ben.

Loomis

Right. Thanks for clarifying that. Did you read the arguments (in favor of this) at this link?

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/zimriel/Mark/

I’m not sure what you mean. Snapp is claiming to know the original ending of Mark, but Ross’ hypothesis also explains the original ending of Mark. It’s competing with Snapp.

The hypothesis would be useful in the debate because it would shift Snapp’s burden of proof to the point where Snapp would have to defend his position and prove why his explanation is better than Ross’ explanation. It would cast doubt on Snapp's explanation and belittle it.

It introduces a third player. It would get Joe off of the is not/ is too Ferris wheel. Joe doesn’t have to claim to know or prove what happened to the original ending of Mark. All he has to do is show that Snapp's explanation is unconvincing. :bulb:

Solo

Hi Ben,
the trouble is that Levi son of Alpheus was not a fisherman but a tax collector and in Mark not even identified with Matthew of the twelve. So, it is not immediately clear why he should be casting nets with Simon and Andrew. But I think the bigger issue with John 21/Peter 'preserving' the lost ending of Mark is how one views the second gospel. 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).

I think that Mark is evidence that Paul's cross theology in his time was still far from accepted as part of the common creed. I also suspect it was none other than Mark who popularized the Pauline concept (i.e. I doubt a passion 'story', as opposed to elements of it, existed prior to M) and literally broke the back of the Petrine resistance to it.

I beseech you, stop encouraging spin's lectures on historical factuality !

BTW, I guarantee, not the Lord, that, if pursued diligently, all conjectures in biblical exegesis lead to further conjectures.

Jiri

Ben C Smith

That is certainly an issue; yet there it is, in the gospel of Peter.

A similar issue is the presence of the beloved disciple in John 21; what is he doing fishing in Galilee? Every other appearance of his is in conjunction with Jerusalem or Judea.

Every hypothesis (or conjecture) has to grapple with these apparent (or real!) anomalies.

I do not have the time to go into it, but I think this objection is invalid. Mark is neither pro-Petrine nor anti-Petrine in the way a lot of people on this forum seem to think. Have you read Powell? (He goes too far in the other direction, IMO, but is needed tonic for the views of those who think that Mark is purely anti-Petrine.)

Do you have data for this? Or is it speculation? I called my tentative view what it is, namely conjecture.

Spin himself applies differing standards of historical factuality.

Ben.

Ben C Smith

A long time ago, yes; I have it printed out in a folder and occasionally refer back to it.

I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I was just reiterating that you were not using 2 Peter as evidence for the longer ending; using 2 Peter as evidence for the longer ending and using 2 Peter as evidence for the original ending are two different things; that is all I meant.

I doubt anything will get Joe off that ride. (Kidding, Joe!)

Ben.

Solo

By 'evidence' I mean :

1) Jesus' rebuke to Peter at Caesarea Philippi,

2) Peter's protestations of fidelity at the Mount of Olives,

3) Peter's failure to keep 'watch' in Gethsemane and his flight,

4) the fulfilled prophecy of Peter's three-fold denial,

5) The substitution of Peter by another Simon, in carrying the cross and the absence of Peter at Jesus' expiry,

6) to any of the 5 points above - the absence of repentance in Peter.

'I suspect' means just that.

Jiri

Ben C Smith

What about his commendation of Peter at Caesarea Philippi? Does the rebuke completely erase it? Because I do not think it does.

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

I have never bought this one. Simon of Cyrene is pressed into service; he is not substituting for Simon Peter.

You cannot validly use the absence of Petrine repentance in our present Mark to argue against an ending that restores Peter; it is precisely in the postresurrectional ending, if anywhere, that we would expect Petrine repentance.

Ben.

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. He also faithfully preserves the notion that what we are doing is conjecture.

Ben.

JoeWallack

JW:
Now let's compare Irenaeus' witness for Markan ending with the best Patristic evidence, Eusebius:

The endings of the gospel of Mark The External Evidence

Criteria for Eusebius as support for AE:

1) Age = ?

Eusebius wrote c. 300 but our related extant manuscript is much later. Same issue as Irenaeus. In general I'm going to weight age as follows as a starting point:

2nd & 3rd century = 3

4th & 5th century = 2

6th & 7th century = 1

Another consideration is while Eusebius is c. 300, as a textual critic he is familiar with numerous manuscripts some of which may be mid 3rd century or earlier. When in doubt, go "2".

2) Confirmation - quantity = 3

Jerome, Hesychius and Severus.

3) Confirmation - width = 3

Jerome, Hesychius and Severus are sufficiently unrelated

4) Applicability (general vs. specific) = 3

Seems unfair to only give a "3" here and indeed modern textual critics rely heavily on Eusebius here. Eusebius has all the qualities we are looking for:

1 - Asks the same question we are asking, what is the original ending?

2 - Provides the evidence to answer the question. Quantity and quality of extant manuscripts. Note the modern nature of Eusebius' evidence. It's the same criteria we are using.

3 - Makes a logical and definite conclusion based on the evidence.

5) Direction (of change) = 3

Direct testimony of movement away from the AE

6) Variation = 3

Definite statement of ending words for AE with no "and, if or buts".

7) External force = 3

Significant pressure to give "Mark" a happy ending.

8) Credibility of source = 3

Me, giving Eusebius a "3"? I give a rough rating of Fathers as follows:

Origen = Critical commentary = 3

Eusebius = Selective presentation = 2

Irenaeus = Proof-texting = 1

Here though Eusebius form is a private letter so he is probably more honest. He also shows no evidence that he considered the AE any type of problem. Since I see Eusebius here as having little reason to be biased I give him a "3" here based on his textual critic ability rather than his potential for deception.

9) Directness = 3

Again, it seems unfair to only give a "3" here.

10) Common sense = 3

Eusebius is spiritually blind to the likelihood that "Mark" is original and that the Synoptics are highly dependent on it. He's not aware of the evidential problem of no resurrection sighting in the original Gospel and does not see that "Matthew" and "Luke" have flipped "Mark" from being anti-historical ala Paul to supposed historical support. Therefore, he has little motivation to be other than straight-forward in giving the manuscript evidence which was the source of his canons which had the AE.

In summary than:

1) Age = 2

2) Confirmation - quantity = 3

3) Confirmation - width = 3

4) Applicability (general vs. specific) = 3

5) Direction (of change) = 3

6) Variation = 3

7) External force = 3

8) Credibility of source = 3

9) Directness = 3

10) Common sense = 3

So we have 9 "3s" and 1 "2". And so Eusebius is solid evidence for AE.

Everyone is welcome to comment except for Harvey Dubish.



Joseph

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