Subject: tc-list Mk 16:19-20 KURIOS IHSOUS

From: [email-masked] (M A Robinson)
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 21:08:30 EST

>From [email-masked] (Jeff Cate):

>>>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.

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

Then somewhere we are talking past each other. I was NOT at that point
arguing that "Lord Jesus" was "out of character" for Mk.1:1-16:8; only
that (as Lk 24:3 demonstrates) such a phrase is not "_in_ character"
for ANY gospel _before_ the point of the resurrection, so it cannot be
used as a stylistic criterion against Mk. 1:1-16:8 any more than it can
be considered as evidence that Lk 1:1-24:2 is "non-Lukan" merely
because that portion of text similarly does not contain the phrase. But 
in fact someone else _did_ point out that phrase in the long ending as 
evidence for authenticity and not inauthenticity, and that alone is what
I 
was picking up on.

>>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.

Take your choice...(a) If one accepts Lindsay's theory of Lukan 
priority, then the whole gospel of Mark could be subject to the charge 
of borrowing from Luke and probably could find support in a number of 
instances.  (b) If the hypothesis were that the long ending was _not_ 
original and reflected a summary taken from the other three gospels and 
Acts, then that theory _is_ supported by the presence of the phrase.  
But I hold to neither: my contention rather is merely that (c) the 
presence of the phrase "Lord Jesus" in itself does _not_ argue for
_either_ Markan inauthenticity of the long ending nor a dependence upon
either Lk or 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.

The latter qualification is granted; it also is found "nowhere else"
in Luke's gospel besides 24:3. So what is thereby established? 
That Lk 24:3 is not Lukan?

The point in context (as I read it) was that it was found "nowhere
else" _except_ in Lk/Acts, and thus there was _no_ possibility that
such could have occurred _independently_ in Mark, whether 1:1-16:8 or
within whatever its original ending may have been. It was on this basis
that the phrase was being used to demonstrate the inauthenticity of Mk
16:9-20, which was already assumed to be non-authentic etc. -- which
is precisely what I suggested as a  non-sequitur and assuming the
point to be proven.

>>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.

Actually, I was being facetious, and attempting a reductio ad
absurdum. Should have put the smiley in....  :-)

>>>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.

>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?

Why? This again assumes that Mark at every juncture _has_ to provide 
geographical indicators. Even if he did so for 1:1-16:8 at every 
possible opportunity, it still does not force him to do so in the 
remainder. But in fact the writer did not identify geographical 
location at every opportunity: a very cursory examination brings forth 
at least the following changes of venue which have no location named: 
2:23; 3:1, 13, 19b; 4;1, 5:21; 6:1, 6, 32; 8:1; 9:2; 10:17. I simply
remain 
loath to tell Mark exactly how he would have had to have written in order
to 
convince later readers of his authorship.

>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.

Probably everyone is wearied, and I hope to sign off on this angle of
discussion also. See my next post which brings things back to TC and
probably negates the whole line of discussion anyway....

==============================================================
Maurice A. Robinson, Ph. D.
Professor of Greek and New Testament
Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary
Wake Forest, North Carolina, USA

___________________________________________________________________
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]