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

From: "R. David Large" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 18:33:35 -0400

My comments follow:

-----Original Message-----
From: William L. Petersen <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked] <[email-masked]>
Date: Thursday, October 22, 1998 5:48 PM
Subject: tc-list Mark 16:9-20

>Some observations on the "long" ending of Mark, which have not yet been
>made on the list (although they are certainly in the literature):
>
>(1) The *internal* evidence would seem to suggest that the long ending
>(16:9-20) is a pastiche of material culled from the resurrection
>appearances in extant NT books:

[snip]

This is not so convincing to me as it might sound at the first, especially
when
one considers Mark's often succint and summary style. Witness the begin-
ning of his Gospel, especially 1:9-20, where in the space of 11 verses 4 ma-
jor events (Jesus' Baptism, Temptation, Commencement of Ministry and
Call of the Apostles), spanning about six months' time, are narrated for us.
Compare these 11 verses (200 words in NA-27) to Matthew who uses 26 ver-
ses (454 words in NA-27) or Luke's 73 verses (and whopping 1,169 words in
NA-27) to cover the same ground (albeit with surplus genealogical and other
material).

The pastiche idea is certainly compatible to the evidence, and I see no
problem
with these verses being any kind of post-resurrection summary-- even if
based
on the ample oral material at Mark's disposal. They are not, however,
intrinsical-
ly non-Marcan because of this summary quality.

>Virtually *every* detail of every *appearance* cited in the "long ending"
>has a parallel in some other canonical gospel.  This is odd, for unlike the
>other parallels between Mark and the other gospels (e.g., the Anointing at
>Bethany)--in which the parallelism is extended and often verbatim--here we
>find mere "echoes" of the other appearances:  enough to remind you of the
>story, and let you identify it, but no "full" parallelism.

The key word is *virtually*. There is some quite interesting original
material not,
it would seem, as easily explicable as mere synoptic cribbing. Material
which,
to my mind, savors more of original authorship than an effort to fill in the
blank.
Dr. Robinson's comments (which just arrived in my e-mailbox) address these
passages I have in mind more eloquently than I dare attempt, so I will defer
to
his contribution here. I might add that the ostensibly contradictory details
would,
along with the unique collocation of belief with baptism as prerequisite for
salva-
tion, certainly be the 'harder' type of internal evidence usually given
preference
among competing readings ... though (admittedly) the hardest reading of all
is
the Gospel ending at verse 8-- which methinks impossible rather than hardest
;-)

>If one wished to provide an ending for a gospel which--like Mark, if it
>ended at 16.8--lacked (or had lost) a *satisfactory* ending, would this not
>be precisely the way one would go about supplying an ending?  Would one not
>harmonize the material from the other gospels?

Perhaps and perhaps ... it is a plausible explanation, but not *necessary*
and, on
the basis of other factors, a stronger case for originality prevails (IMHO).

[snip]

>(2) The unique stuff in the long ending, in vv. 17-18 (snakes & poisons,
>etc.), while practiced by certain Christian groups today, does not--to my
>knowledge--seem to have had *any* currency in Christian antiquity.  Justin,
>Origen, etc., etc., etc., don't seem to talk about it or urge it on their
>followers.

No wonder! Never has 'walking by faith' been so dangerous :-)

[snip]

>"Methinks the good pater doeth give his source *too* precisely."

Hmmm ... I thought a Patristic reference was especially solid if it gave the
detailed reference of its source. Methinks "too precisely" perhaps because
"too Byzantine"?? ;-)

R. David Large
[email-masked]

---

From: "Roderic L. Mullen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 24 Oct 1998 12:05:26 -0400

Huh?  Is there some manuscript evidence for this?  --Rod Mullen

At 04:55 PM 10/23/98 -0700, you wrote:
>
>
>This has been an interesting thread and a busy week has prevented me from
>catching all of it.  How do the TC-listers feel about the theory that
>the Yohannine appendix was originally the ending of Mark?
>
>Jack
>
>