Subject: Re: The long ending of Mark

From: [email-masked] (Carlton L. Winbery)
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 1996 21:25:50 +0400

Jim West wrote;
>It seems to me that the long ending of Mark has been virtually abandoned by
>text critics.  Are there any today who still believe it to be authentic?  (I
>ask because I learned today that F.D.E. Schleiermacher accepted it as
>authentic!!!).
>
W.R. Farmer of SMU several years back published an article arguing for the
authenticity of Mark 16:9-20.  It's obviously conflate nature fits well
with the contention that all of Mark is a conflation of Matthew and Luke.
I still consider the ending to have been constructed in the second century
before the time of Tatian.

Carlton L. Winbery
Prof. Religion
LA College, Pineville, La
[email-masked]
[email-masked]

---

From: Don Wilkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 06 Apr 1996 15:51:00 +0000

> with the contention that all of Mark is a conflation of Matthew and Luke.

Carlton, I am very weary of the so-called "assured result" of Marcan 
priority, so it's refreshing to see such a remark as this. Two 
questions: do you agree with this conflation theory (I infer that you 
do), and are there many other textual critics that would agree with 
it? My guess would be no, but I would love to hear otherwise.

Don Wilkins
UC Riverside

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 7 Apr 1996 00:23:23 -0500 (EST)

> it? My guess would be no, but I would love to hear otherwise.

Like the early fathers, I happen to hold to Matthean priority, but this 
does not mean that I consider Mark a mere conflation or abridgment of Matt 
and Lk. 
_________________________________________________________________________
Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D.           Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament
Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary     Wake Forest, North Carolina
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

---

From: Don Wilkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 07 Apr 1996 23:23:45 +0000

> does not mean that I consider Mark a mere conflation or abridgment of Matt

This is very interesting. I would be grateful if you would explain 
your view of Mark, as briefly (or fully) as you like.

Don Wilkins
UC Riverside

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 11:11:37 -0400 (EDT)

> your view of Mark, as briefly (or fully) as you like.

This is not pertinent to textual criticism, but briefly, I accept the
early tradition of Mark as Peter's interpreter, and that we basically find
in Mark a reflection of Petrine preaching, probably written from Rome. 
(Once Matthean priority is granted, the Q hypothesis is generally
abandoned).