Subject: tc-list Mark 16:9-20 Style

From: Bruce Terry <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 13:54:39 -0500

On Oct. 23, 1998, William L. Petersen wrote: 

>(C) Vincent Taylor remarks on the non-Marcan style of the long ending--a
>point which I find very convincing.  Taylor:  (p. 610):  "The vocabulary
>and style of this section show clearly that it was not written by Mark,
>but is based on a knowledge of traditions found in Lk and Jn."  He then
>proceeds to list a whole catalogue of non-Marcan features (vocabulary,
>grammar, etc., etc.).  (Taylor also provides an excellent summary of the
>Patristic [non-]evidence for the long ending...)

May I suggest that the case for non-Marcan style has been overstated.
Since discourse is my interest, I have done some study in this area and a
prelimary write-up is available for inspection at:

ftp://bible.acu.edu/greek/papers/markend_style.txt

In my studies I have have found that most of the stylistic features of the
ending which are non-Marcan do in fact occur in Mark.  I note especially
that the case for non-Marcan vocabulary is overstated (no baseline study
was done to determine how many new words to expect).  There are 13 words
used once in the long ending which occur nowhere else in Mark; however, if
one looks at short sections 2-5 verses in length (of which the long ending
contains four) in the last 5 chapters of Mark, the ratio of words used
only once to verses is 1.1, meaning that in 12 verses one would expect 13
new words to be used once which have not been used elsewhere.  This is
exactly what is found in the long ending.  The "high" number of vocabulary
words not found elsewhere in Mark are an argument _for_ Marcan authorship,
not an argument against.  It is easy to read a passage and make up
stylistic rules for ancient authors.  It is much more time consuming to do
the spade work to find out what their styles (or rather their range of
styles) actually were.

More details on this can be found in the posting to B-Greek in the summer
of 1996 when we discussed this previously on that forum.

For those curious about the above essay, I append a summary below:

--Bruce

**************************************************************************
Bruce Terry                                  Prof. of Bible and Humanities
Ohio Valley College                          phone: 304/485-7384 ext. 153
4501 College Parkway                         fax:   304/485-3106
Parkersburg, WV 26101                        e-mail: [email-masked]
**************************************************************************

	          		 A SUMMARY OF
		      THE STYLE OF THE LONG ENDING OF MARK

     Textual critics usually object to Mark's authorship of these verses on
the basis of supposed differences of style between them and the rest of the
Gospel of Mark.  However, an in depth study of the stylistic features in
question reveals that almost all of them can be found elsewhere in Mark.  For
convenience of discussion, these features may be categorized under four
headings: juncture, vocabulary, phraseology, and miscellaneous.

Objections Based on Juncture

Five objections have been raised concerning the juncture of verses 8 and 9:
1) the subject of verse 8 is the women, whereas Jesus is the presumed subject
   of verse 9;
2) the other women of verses 1-8 are forgotten in verses 9-20;
     Mark 2:13; 6:45; 7:31; 8:1; and 14:3 all meet the following conditions:
     a) the verse begins a new section;
     b) Jesus is the presumed subject (referred to only as "he");
     c) the previous verse does not refer to Jesus;
     d) the previous verse has a subject other than Jesus; and
     e) the subject of the previous verse is not mentioned in the new section.
3) in verse 9 Mary Magdalene is identified even though she has been mentioned
   only a few lines before;
     flashbacks that give additional information are also found in Mark 3:16,
     17; 6:16; and 7:26.
4) while the use of anastas de ("Now rising") and the position of proton
   ("first") are appropriate at  the beginning  of a comprehensive narrative,
   they are ill-suited in a continuation of verses 1-8; and
     verse 9 is the start of a new section on resurrection appearances.
5) the use of the conjunction gar ("for") at the end of verse 8 is very abrupt.
     short clauses of three words (Mark 1:16; 11:18) and four words (Mark 1:38;
     3:21; 5:42; 9:49; 14:70; 15:14; 16:4) that contain gar are found in Mark.

Objections Based on Vocabulary

Three  objections are raised on the grounds of vocabulary:
1) sixteen words used in this section are not used elsewhere in the Gospel of
   Mark;
     a) eight of these sixteen do have their word root used elsewhere in Mark;
     b) three of these sixteen words are found only in the post-resurrection
	accounts in the story of Jesus' life; and
     c) other twelve verse sections in Mark match or exceed this:
        1) the first 12 verses of chapter 1 contain 16 words used only 
           once in Mark
        2) the first 12 verses of chapter 14 contain 20 such words
        3) the 12 verses of Mark 15:40-16:4, contain 20 to 22 such words,
           depending on textual variants that are not used elsewhere in
           Mark.
     d) thirteen of these words are used only once in Mark.
        1) in the 661 undisputed verses in Mark, there are 555 words used
           only once.
        2) for chapters, the ratio of words used only once to verses varies
           between .37 in chapter 3 and 1.15 in chapter 15 with 1.08 for 
           the long ending of Mark; chapter 7, 13, and 15 exceed this.
        3) for short (2-5 verse) sections (like the four in the long ending
           of Mark), the ratio of words used only once to verses varies 
           between .00 and 2.4 with an average for chapters 12-16 of 1.1; 
           this means twelve verses of short sections in the latter part of 
           Mark should contain thirteen words used only once, which is 
           exactly what the long ending of Mark contains. 
2) three of these words are used more than once in this section; 
     a) there are 77 such words within 12 verse spans in Mark.
     b) the long ending of Mark has a unique-words-used-more-than-once to 
        verse ratio of .25
     c) for chapters, this ratio varies between 0 to .25 (chapter 2 has 7 
        such words in 28 verses)
     d) for sections, this ratio varies from 0 to 1 (Mark 2:18-22)
     e) Mark 2:18-22 contains 5 words used 3 to 6 times only in this 
        section in Mark plus 7 words used only once in Mark!
     f) other examples include:
        1) sporos ("seed," Mark 4:26, 27),
        2) sunthlibo ("throng, press," Mark 5:24, 31),
        3) telones ("tax-collector, publican," Mark 8:9, 20), and
        4) huperetes ("servant, officer, guard, attendant," Mark 14:54, 65).
3) this section does not contain some of Mark's favorite words: eutheos or
   euthus (both  meaning "immediately") and palin ("again").
     a) the last fifty-three verses do not contain them; and
     b) of the 650 sets of twelve consecutive verses in Mark, not considering
	the last twelve verses, 229 sets (35%+) do not contain euthus, eutheos,
	or palin;
     c) nine words that are used more often in the rest of Mark than in the
	other gospels are also found in the last twelve verses.

Objections Based on Phraseology

Three objections are raised on the grounds of phraseology:
1) eight phrases used in this section are not used elsewhere in Mark;
     in the twelve verses of Mark 15:42-16:6 there are nine phrases used which
     are not found elsewhere in Mark.
2) similar but different phrases (prote sabbatou "first of the week" and mia
   ton sabbaton ("one of the week") are used elsewhere in Mark; and
     a) in Mark 2:23, 24 the sabbath is referred to in the plural form in
	Greek (ta sabbata) while three verses later in verses 27-28 Mark
	switches to the singular form (to sabbaton), both with a singular
	meaning;
     b) in Mark 5:2 the word that Mark uses for "tomb" is mnemeion while
	in verses 3 and 5 he switches to the similar word mnema; and
     c) the same variation is found in Mark 15:56-16:8.
3) the phrase oi met' autou genomenoi ("those having been with him") is used
   to designate the disciples only here.
     a) the past flavor given to the phrase by the use of the aorist
	participle genomenoi ("having been") would hardly have been appropriate
	previous to the crucifixion; and
     b) the shorter expression oi met' autou ("those with him") is found three
	times elsewhere in Mark (1:36; 2:25; and 5:40).

Miscellaneous Objections

Five miscellaneous objections have also been raised to Mark's authorship:
1) It is claimed that Mark's usual style is to expand the accounts of incidents
   in Christ's life as compared with the other Gospels while this section
   condenses the accounts;
     a) Mark gives only seven verses to John the Baptist's preaching,
     b) Mark gives only three verses to Jesus' baptism, and
     c) Mark gives only two verses to His temptation
2) It is noted that Mark has a fondness for the word kai ("and") which is
   lacking in this section;
     a) the scant usage of kai in this section is paralleled in the twelve
	verse sections of Mark 7:15-26 (only eight uses of kai, six joining
	clauses) and 13:26-37 (only nine uses of kai, four joining clauses);
     b) the first four verses of the Gospel do not contain a single coordinating
	conjunction.
3) It is claimed that ekeinos ("that one") and the contraction kakeinos ("and
   that one") are used in a weakened sense of simply "he," "she," or "they" in
   this section as opposed to the rest of the Gospel;
     a) the contracted form kakeinos is used absolutely in Mark 12:4, 5
4) It is noted that Jesus is referred to as "the Lord" or "the Lord Jesus" only
   in this section of Mark;
     a) term "Lord" is also used in reference to Christ in Mark 1:3; 2:28; 7:28;
	11:3; and 12:36-37; and
     b) Luke also uses the heightened term "the Lord Jesus" only in Luke 24:3,
	after His resurrection.
5) And it is noted that the only appearances recorded in this ending of Mark
   are also recorded in the other Gospels, implying that the writer relied on
   the other Gospels for his information.
     this section contains new information about the appearances not revealed
     elsewhere.  For example, this section alone tells us
     a) that the disciples were "mourning and weeping" (v. 10),
     b) that Christ appeared to the two on the road in a "different form"
	(v. 12),
     c) and that one of the signs to follow the disciples would be the drinking
	of deadly things without harmful results (v.18).

Cumulative Style and Peak

     In conclusion, we see that all the objections to Mark's authorship of this
section based on style fall into one of two classes: (1) either the stylistic
feature in question is found elsewhere in Mark, or (2) there is a reasonable
explanation for its presence.  By far the largest number of objections fall in
the first category.  This indicates that it is not correct to state that this
long ending is not in Mark's style.
     It is possible that someone might object that it is not that these
stylistic features are not found elsewhere in Mark, but that they are rare in
Mark, being used infrequently by him.  Thus it is the cumulative factor of
using so many rare stylistic features in one place that makes this section
non-Marcan.  This objection is well-taken and must be given consideration.
     With the recent discovery of the concept of peak, however, this frequent
use of rare features in an important part of the story is exactly what should
be expected.  Peak is a area of grammatical turbulence.  Little used features
become prominent in peak sections and often used features are abandoned.
Background devices become foregrounded and vice versa.  In languages around
the world, peak has been shown to occur in sections of climax and denouement,
and sometimes inciting incident, in narratives told by good storytellers.  If
the crucifixion is the climax, the resurrection is the denouement.  One would
expect this to be a peak area in which the use of expected stylistic features
is abandoned in favor of less frequently used ones.  Rather than revealing that
Mark is not the author of these last twelve verses, this different cumulative
style may show that he was a good storyteller.

---

From: [email-masked] (Jeff Cate)
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 21:47:34 -0800

Bruce,

I don't have time to respond to every single item you compiled to argue
for the Markan style of 16:9-20. The immediate weaknesses of a few of
them leaped off the screen:

>4) It is noted that Jesus is referred to as "the Lord" or "the Lord 
>Jesus" only in this section of Mark;
>     a) term "Lord" is also used in reference to Christ in Mark 1:3; 
>2:28; 7:28; 11:3; and 12:36-37; and

Your collection of the references to Jesus as KURIOS in Mark is
misleading. Independently, Mark does *not* use KURIOS in a Christological
or messianic fashion in 1:1-16:8.

In Mk 1:3, KURIOS is not Mark's personal choice of words, instead; KURIOS
is nested in a scriptural quotation.

In Mk 2:28, KURIOS is used in a description of Jesus' authority over the
Sabbath.

In Mk 7:28, the *vocative* KURIOS is used by the Syrophenecian woman and
should best be translated "sir" (as in the NRSV), unless you think the
householder in Mt 13:27, the father in Mt 21:30, the bridegroom in Mt
25:11, the "master of the slaves" in Mt 25:20, 22, 24, Pilate in Mt 27:63
(among others) should be translated "Lord" and be considered equal in
status to Jesus as KURIOS in Mk 7:28.

In Mark 11:3 KURIOS is found in a quotation that Jesus wants the two
disciples to make if they are questioned about "borrowing" the donkey.
KURIOS is not a Christological or messianic title in 11:3 as in 16:19-20.
Instead, based on Jesus' quotation, the two disciples would end up
looking like servants sent out on business for their earthly master. 

In Mk 12:36-37, Jesus is discussing the use of KURIOS in Psalm 110.
Again, the use of KURIOS is not Mark's personal choice of words, but is
based on scriptural citation and related discussion.

>     b) Luke also uses the heightened term "the Lord Jesus" only in 
>Luke 24:3, after His resurrection.

You didn't mention that Luke uses the phrase "Lord Jesus" not just in Lk
24:3, but in Acts 1:21; 4:33; 7:59; 8:16; 11:20; 15:11; 16:31; 19:5, 13,
17; 20:24, 35; 21:13. This does not even include the references to the
"Lord Jesus Christ" in Acts 11:17; 28:31. BTW, the phrase (whether
including "Christ" or not) is found *nowhere* else in any of the
canonical Gospels. This points to the *Lucan* nature of the phrase, not
the Markan nature of the phrase.

Oh, BTW, you still didn't address my previous post. If Mk 16:9-20 is
original to Mark, why no mention of Galilee in Mk 16:9-20 when it's
emphasized in 14:28 and 16:7. This is especially intriguing since 16:7 is
a mere two verses away from the supposedly original longer ending? Did
Mark forget two verses later to mention it? Matthew solved the problem by
mentioning an appearance in Galilee (Mt 28:16). Luke solved the problem
by not mentioning that Jesus would be seen in Galilee (i.e., there are no
parallels to Mk 14:28; 16:7 in Luke) -- of course, Luke needs to keep the
disciples and the appearances in the Jerusalem vicinity for the beginning
of the sequel (Acts). Why no Galilee in Mk 16:9-20?

Jeff Cate, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Christian Studies
California Baptist University
Riverside, California 92508

___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

---

From: Ken Litwak <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 22:38:05 -0800

Style, I think, is nearly useless as a criteria for TC decisions. 
The reasons is that evidence can be used to prove just about anyting. 
Dawsey has made a case that based on style, Luke and Acts have different
authors.  If that can be deonstrated for Acts, there's no telling what
you could demonstrate with a mere 10 verses of Mark.  IMHO, you would
need an enormous sample size to even begin to show what someone's style
cuold be because style differs based on genre.  So you need lots of
genres, ots of material and eventhen, no firm decisins can be made.  As
noted by Maurice, someone showed that the beginning of mark was unMarkan
as much as theend.  That just goes to prove how useless an analysis of
"style" can be.  Style should not be used as a criterion for texual
decisions because our decisions about style refelct ONLY what we think
an author would or could have done and say nothing about the actual
possiblities.  If you think that Luke and Acts have the same author,
then you shouldn't be using style to ague about the enidngof Mark,
because there is clear stylistic evidence that Luke and Acts had
different authors -- if you accept that kind of data as valid.  

Ken Litwak

---

From: [email-masked] (Maurice A. Robinson)
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 16:23:31 EST

>Style, I think, is nearly useless as a criteria for TC decisions. 

I would be cautious here, because (taken strictly) this could imply that
internal evidence itself is not useful or valuable for determining the
text, whether under rigorous eclecticism (e.g. Elliott) or reasoned
eclecticism, or even within what is erroneously thought to be a primarily
external-based Byzantine-priority hypothesis. I for one am not ready to
throw out the baby with the bathwater....

>IMHO, you would need an enormous sample size to even begin to show what
>someone's style could be because style differs based on genre.  So you
need lots >of genres, lots of material and even then, no firm decisions
can be made.  

I don't know about that; maybe I'm more skeptical about sweeping
assertions....But I do think Nigel Turner seemed to do fairly well in
describing "style" in his section of Moulton's grammar, and this without
a massive sample size.

>As noted by Maurice, someone showed that the beginning of mark was 
>unMarkan as much as the end.  That just goes to prove how useless an
analysis of
>"style" can be.  

Burgon. But on the contrary, Burgon was not trying to demolish the
argument from style, but only to show that the extreme claims made
against Markan style in the last 12 verses could be shown to apply within
the first 12 verses, which latter in theory no one should consider
inauthentic (but see R. Way-Rider, "The Lost Beginning [sic!] of St.
Mark's Gospel, _Studia Evangelica_ VII: 553-556). 

Burgon further went on to note, however, not only evidences of Markan
style in both the first 12 and last 12 verses, but also syntactical and
structural parallels in a chiastic manner which link the opening and
closing of the gospel thematically. So neither I nor Burgon are rejecting
the style criteria or arguing that it is wholly subjective and useless.

==============================================
Maurice A. Robinson
Professor of NT and Greek
Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary
Wake Forest, North Carolina

---

From: [email-masked] (Maurice A. Robinson)
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 16:23:31 EST

On Wed, 28 Oct 1998 21:47:34 -0800 [email-masked] (Jeff Cate) writes:

>You didn't mention that Luke uses the phrase "Lord Jesus" not just in 
>Lk 24:3, but in Acts 1:21; 4:33; 7:59; 8:16; 11:20; 15:11; 16:31; 
>19:5, 13, 17; 20:24, 35; 21:13. 

I fail to see how Lukan use of this phrase *beyond* his gospel
establishes anything in regard to the gospels themselves, particularly
when (as pointed out) Luke himself refrains from using the term until a
post-resurrection context exists. 

>BTW, the 
>phrase (whether including "Christ" or not) is found *nowhere* else in 
>any of the canonical Gospels. This points to the *Lucan* nature of the 
>phrase, not the Markan nature of the phrase.

Seems that this assumes the point to be proven, making the Markan long
ending _a priori_ inauthentic when in fact the existence of the phrase
within that long ending is being adduced as one evidence of authenticity.
Markan borrowing ("cribbing") from Luke of course cannot be ruled out as
a hypothesis, but one similarly should not say the phrase occurs "nowhere
else" when in the present context it indeed is there.  By the same
analogy, the *shorter* ending of Mark must be the product of Mark himself
since it uses "Jesus" alone to describe the risen Lord, with none of the
"Lukan" trappings.

>emphasized in 14:28 and 16:7. 

Bruce may not have addressed that point, but I certainly dealt with it in
what should be considered an adequate and sufficient manner (not repeated
here). Why belabor this point as if it had never been answered?

>Why no Galilee in Mk 16:9-20?

As I asked previously, why no place names whatsoever in Mk 16:9-20, even
though various changes of venue obviously occur? Answer: because the
author of that section did not choose to mention any place names. Little
more can be determined beyond that.

---

From: [email-masked] (Jeff Cate)
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 23:55:28 -0800

>when (as pointed out) Luke himself refrains from using the term until 
>a post-resurrection context exists. 

Assuming a two-source hypothesis, it would be odd to find Luke using
"Lord Jesus" within his Gospel since the phrase is used by neither Mark
nor Q, unless some pecular Lukan source had used it. The use of "Lord
Jesus" in 16:19-20 is similar to the repeated use of "Lord Jesus" in
Acts. On a previous post, I already argued for Mk 16:17-20 as being a
pastiche based on *Acts*. "Lord Jesus" in 16:19-20 is further evidence
for 16:17-20 being dependent not just on episodes, but even on phrasing,
from Acts.

>>BTW, the phrase (whether including "Christ" or not) is found *nowhere*
else in 

>within that long ending is being adduced as one evidence of 

You are arguing my point precisely. The use of "Lord Jesus" is out of
character for Mark 1:1-16:8.

>Markan borrowing ("cribbing") from Luke of course cannot 
>be ruled out as a hypothesis, 

Mark as in the entire Gospel or Mark as in 16:9-20? If the latter, that
is precisely my point. Mk 16:9-20 is dependent upon Luke and Acts.

>but one similarly should not say the phrase occurs
>"nowhere else" when in the present context it indeed is there.

I don't follow your logic here. It is nowhere *else.* How do you define
"nowhere else"? I define that to be found in no place other than the
designated location. "Lord Jesus" is only found in Mk 16:19-20,
irregardless of whether you think Mk 16:9-20 was original or not. It is
found *nowhere else* in Mark.

>By the same analogy, the *shorter* ending of Mark must be the 
>product of Mark himself since it uses "Jesus" alone to describe the 
>risen Lord, with none of the "Lukan" trappings.

No, you've jumped ahead to conclusions. The shorter ending's use of
"Jesus" instead of "Lord" or "Lord Jesus" does not necessitate that it be
the product of Mark himself. It doesn't rule out the possibility, but it
does not mean the shorter came from Mark. There are plenty of other
reasons to rule out Markan authorship of the shorter ending.

>As I asked previously, why no place names whatsoever in Mk 16:9-20, 
>even though various changes of venue obviously occur? Answer: because 
>the author of that section did not choose to mention any place names. 
>Little more can be determined beyond that.

Sorry that I missed your previous explanation. You've made my point
exactly. Why the lack of geographical designations if Mk 16:9-20 came
from the same author as Mk 1:1-16:8? Based on Occam's razor, isn't it
just more plausible that Mk 16:9-20 is from a different author at a later
time that didn't pick up on the need to mention Galilee? 

I'm not arrogant enough to think that my responses are the final word to
this matter, but I'm going to sign off on this one for another day
because I don't want to weary the good people on this list. My apologies
for too many posts on a stylistic issue of TC. Maurice, I welcome your
responses to my personal e-mail address.

Jeff Cate, Ph.D.