Announcement

Collapse

Message to all users:

https://carm.org/forum-rules

Super Member Subscription
https://carm.org/carm-super-members-banner-ad-signup

As most of you are aware, we had a crash to forums and were down for over two days a while back. We did have to do an upgrade to the vbulletin software to fix the forums and that has created changes, VB no longer provide the hybrid or threaded forums. There are some issues/changes to the forums we are not able to fix or change. Also note the link address change, please let friends and posters know of the changed link to the forums. For now this is the only link available, https://forums.carm.org/vb5/ but if clicking on forum on carm.org homepage it will now send you to this link. (edited to add https: now working.

Again, we are working through some of the posting and viewing issues to learn how to post with the changes, you will have to check and test the different features, icons that have changed. You may also want to go to profile settings,since many of the notifications, information in profile, also to update/edit your avatar by clicking on avatar space, pull down arrow next to login for user settings.

Edit to add "How to read forums, to make it easier."
Pull down arrow next to login name upper right select profile, or user settings when page opens to profile,select link in tab that says Account. Then select/choose options, go down to Conversation Detail Options, Select Display mode Posts, NOT Activity, that selection of Posts will make the pages of discussions go to last post on last page rather than out of order that happens if you choose activity threads. Then be sure to go to bottom and select SAVE Changes in your profile options. You can then follow discussions by going through the pages, to the last page having latest responses. Then click on the other links Privacy, Notifications, to select viewing options,the forums get easier if you open all the tabs or links in your profile, user settings and select options. To join Super Member, pull down arrow next to login name, select User Settings and then click on tab/link at top that says Subscriptions.

Thank you for your patience and God Bless.

Diane S
https://carm.org/forum-rules
See more
See less

Mark 16:9-20 - Internal Evidence

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Mark 16:9-20 - Internal Evidence

    [SIZE="2"]The debate between James Snapp, Jr. and Joe Wallack about the authenticity of Mark 16:9-20 has been underway for over a year: we have covered the manuscript-evidence, patristic evidence, and early versional evidence, as well as other kinds of external evidence. We now turn to the internal evidence, considering aspects of the text such as its style and vocabulary.

    (Earlier parts of the debate can be read in the two threads accompanying this one, with "Mark 16:9-20" in their titles.)

    Yours in Christ,

    James Snapp, Jr.
    [/SIZE]

  • #2
    Internal Evidence: The Elegant Solution (Part 1)

    [SIZE="2"]Hort, in his 1881 Notes on Select Readings, did not spend many words on the internal evidence pertaining to Mark 16:9-20: "We do not think it necessary to examine in detail the Intrinsic evidence supposed to be furnished by comparison of the vocabulary and style of vv. 9-20 with the unquestioned parts of the Gospel. Much of what has been urged on both sides is in our judgment trivial and intangible. There remain a certain number of differences which, taken cumulatively, produce an impression unfavourable to identity of authorship. Had these verses been found in all good documents, or been open to suspicion on no other internal evidence, the differences would reasonably have been neglected."

    Hort’s successors, though, have tended to avoid proposing that these 12 verses are not original mainly because of their absence in the two fourth-century codices which Hort valued so highly. Some of them have, instead, proposed that the internal evidence, rather than the external evidence, is the most important part of the case. The often-parroted statements of Metzger’s are typical; he listed exactly two reasons, drawn from internal evidence, why verses 9-20 “must also be judged by internal evidence to be secondary.” His first reason is that a high number of words in these verses are not used elsewhere by Mark. His second reason is that the connection between v. 8 and v. 9 is excessively awkward; the scene in v. 9 is disconnected from the preceding scene.

    Readers may consult p. 125 of Metzger’s Textual Commentary for the details, but what I just wrote is a fitting summary of all the internal evidence that Metzger presents: (1) there is a high number of once-used words and (2) there is a non-transition from v. 8 to v. 9. Variations upon these two themes pervade the commentaries, sometimes going into detail so as to list the once-used words. Dr. Bruce Terry, in the online essay “The Style of the Longer Ending of Mark,” which our readers can easily consult, has helpfully taken the time to test and answer these claims based on “style and vocabulary.” Objection #1 is easily and efficiently answered by Dr. Terry’s observation that an even higher number of once-used words occurs in another 12-verse section of Mark: in 15:40-16:4, there are 20-22 once-used words (the exact number varies depending on textual variants); therefore the 17 once-used words in Mark 16:9-20 (some of which are common words, such as the Greek word for “eleven,” which would be in Mark’s vocabulary because it was in everyone’s vocabulary) do not necessarily indicate a non-Marcan origin.

    Dr. Terry also answered the objection that two words – the Greek words for “immediately” and “again” – which frequently occur in Mark 1:1-16:8 do not occur in 16:9-20. He simply arranged the entire text in multiple 12-verse sets, so that 1:1-1:12 = set #1, 1:2-1:13 = set #2, and so forth, until 16:9-20 = set #650. (Only undisputed verses in 1:1-16:8 were used for this calculation.) He noticed that 373 12-verse sets do not contain “immediately,” and 399 sets do not contain “again,” and 229 sets do not contain “immediately” or “again.” So his conclusion is quite justified: “It is hardly an objection to say that the last twelve verses are in the same category with more than one-third of the sets of twelve consecutive verses in the rest of the book.”

    However, I think my opponent will agree with me that Dr. Terry’s analysis does not fully account for the non-transition between 16:8 and 16:9. No other transition in the Gospel of Mark is quite like the jump from 16:8 to 16:9. It looks less like a continuation from the preceding scene and more like the beginning of a new, summarized narrative about Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances. I submit that it looks like this because that is what it is. To review the working hypothesis: Mark served as an assistant to Peter in the 50’s and 60’s, recording and compiling Peter’s remembrances about Jesus. In the mid-60’s, after Peter’s martyrdom, Mark endeavored to produce a definitive form of Peter’s remembrances. But as Mark was almost finished, he was forced to suddenly leave the city (and go to Alexandria, where he was later martyred), and his work was left in the hands of his colleagues. They realized that the text was unfinished, and were unwilling to distribute the book in its unfinished state, but at the same time they were uneager to add their own words to it, so they supplemented it by attaching another Marcan composition: a short report of Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances. In this thus-completed form the Gospel of Mark was first transmitted to the church, and in this form it remained, until, in one transmission-stream, the supplemental attachment was removed by someone who considered John 21 to be a better sequel to Mark 1:1-16:8.

    So Metzger was partly right: the internal evidence shows that 16:9-20 was “secondary” – but this should be understood as a secondary stage of the text’s production, and not as if these 12 verses first appeared somewhere down the line in the transmission-stage as a scribal accretion. Metzger affirmed in an interview with Christian History magazine in 1994 (accessible online) that although he believes that Mark 16:9-20 was written by scribes, “Many translators, including myself, consider verses 9 through 20 to be a legitimate part of the New Testament.” And, “Though these verses were not written by Mark, I believe we have here a fifth evangelical witness to the resurrection of Jesus.” That’s very close to the view that I advocate. Metzger’s theory differs from my own in just one respect: he believed that 16:9-20 was written and attached by a scribe, whereas I believe it was written by Mark and attached by an editor when the text was still in production.

    Several commentators, repeating sentiments expressed by Hort (and, later, by Streeter), have noticed that Mark 16:9-20 does not appear to have been written by an individual who was consciously attempting to supply an ending for the Gospel of Mark. A person attempting to finish the account would continue the scene from where it left off; there would be no thought of restating the time and day; Mary Magdalene’s companions would not be inexplicably absent; Mary Magdalene would not be re-introduced as the woman from whom Jesus cast out seven demons. A person composing a conclusion to Mark’s account would be strongly motivated to specify that the disciples went to Galilee, and to mention, if not narrate, that Peter was specially forgiven and restored by Jesus.

    Also, an ending-composer in the 100’s would not create tension with his respected source-materials. Yet Mk. 16:10-11 – in which Mary Magdalene’s report about seeing the risen Jesus is not believed – appears to disagree with Mt. 28:7-10 and 28:11 – where the disciples obediently go to Galilee. Mark 16:12-14 – which states that Jesus appeared to two traveling disciples, and appeared to the main group of disciples later after they had disbelieved those two – appears to disagree with Lk. 24:33-39, where the two travelers describe their meeting with Jesus, and Jesus appears to the entire group before their report is finished. Although these discrepancies are resolvable, it is difficult to perceive why they would be created by an author who could have just as easily written a less problematic, easily harmonized account. Similarly, in 16:14 the disciples are rebuked by Jesus because of their unbelief; this is not an unusual thing in the Gospel of Mark, but it would be remarkable for a writer in the second century to picture all eleven disciples being rebuked for their lack of faith.

    In recent years, there has been an increase in the number of commentators who have proposed that Mark 16:9-20 is an amalgamation of materials from the other Gospels and Acts – a “pastiche” of snippets. This theory was advocated by James Kelhoffer in his 1999 dissertation (which was published as “Miracle and Mission”); he proposed that Mark 16:9-20 was written by a scribe in the first half of the second century who had access to all four Gospels and Acts. Kelhoffer proposed that this scribe paged through his source-materials 63 times (more than once every three words, on average), selected favorite words and phrases, and pieced them together to form what we know as 16:9-20. That is, this scribe, consciously writing an ending for the Gospel of Mark, sometimes mimicked Mark, and sometimes Matthew, and sometimes Luke, and sometimes John. But this individual also managed to write that the disciples did not believe Mary Magdalene, and that the main group of disciples didn’t believe the two travelers, and that Jesus rebuked all eleven disciples because of their unbelief, and that Jesus predicted some unusual signs not mentioned in the parallel-passages. In other words, although he slavishly relied upon the canonical Gospels, he also created discrepancies against them, inserted lines with no canonical parallels, and despite reading in Matthew and in John that the disciples went to Galilee, he declined to mention that they left Jerusalem. A better name for the “pastiche” theory is the “insane scribe” theory.

    There are other weaknesses in the “pastiche” theory, but I decline to address them until it is clear if my opponent intends to advocate that approach or not. In the meantime, we may consider the opinion of Hort: the contents of these verses "are not such as could have been invented by any scribe or editor of the Gospel in his desire to supply the observed defect by a substantial and dignified ending," and if they were not written by Mark as the ending of his account, and were not written by someone with the intent of providing an ending, then "a third alternative remains" – "that they were adopted by a scribe or editor from some other source." As Hort summed up his case, he noted that there is no difficulty in supposing two things:

    (1) “the true continuation of vv. 1-8 either was very early lost by the detachment of a leaf or was never written down,” and
    (2) “a scribe or editor, unwilling to change the words of the text before him or to add words of his own, was willing to furnish the Gospel with what seemed a worthy conclusion by incorporating with it unchanged a narrative of Christ’s appearances after the Resurrection which he found in some secondary record then surviving from a preceding generation. If these suppositions are made, the whole tenour of the evidence becomes clear and harmonious. Every other view is, we believe, untenable.”

    If we distill Hort’s ideas so as to follow a single track instead of this-or-that, we obtain a simple picture of the production-history of this passage:
    (1) Mark intended to continue to write more after vv. 1-8, but did not do so.
    (2) A colleague of Mark, receiving the unfinished Gospel, furnished it with an already existing Marcan narrative of Christ’s appearances after the resurrection.

    As Hort said, when these two mechanisms are in place, the character of the evidence becomes clear and harmonious. This scenario provides an explanation of the summarized style of Mark 16:9-20, of its apparent discrepancies with parallel-passages, and of its unique statements; it also explains why a copyist in the second century, inheriting a tradition about how the Gospel of Mark was initially finished and disseminated, could and would decide to excise it, judging it as a superfluous patch, in favor of John 21 as a better (and more easily harmonized) and more authoritative sequel to Mark’s unfinished account.

    Now, although I have opined that the short composition about Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances was Marcan, Marcan authorship of 16:9-20 is not essential to my case. It seems reasonable to reckon that a colleague of Mark who would decline to compose an ending would also decline to attach material altogether novel to the Roman church. It also seems reasonable to reckon that Marcan material would be an editor’s first choice to use as the material by which to finish Mark’s Gospel-account, even if it was not an exact fit. But, again, although these points are more reasonable than their alternatives, there is no way to prove that that a freestanding Marcan composition was available for the editor to attach. All that can be shown is that Mark 16:9-20 is not non-Markan. And all that needs to be shown, in order to maintain that Mark 16:9-20 is an original and canonical part of the Gospel of Mark, is that it was present in the autograph when the text was initially disseminated for church-use.

    William Farmer, in his book The Last Twelve Verses of Mark(not to be confused with John Burgon’s similarly named 1871 book), presented plenty of evidence showing that Mark could be the author of Mark 16:9-20. All too often, those who reject the Marcan authorship of 16:9-20 have done so because they have worked from the premise that Mark wrote it as the ending of the Gospel of Mark, without even considering the possibility that it was, when first written, composed by Mark as a freestanding text. Metzger acknowledged that it is more likely that Mark 16:9-20 “was excerpted from another document” than that it was “composed ad hoc to fill up an obvious gap.” He speculated that this document dated “perhaps from the first half of the second century” but offered no reasons why it cannot be as early as the production-date of the Gospel of Mark.

    Revisiting Metzger’s objections (on p. 125 of his Textual Commentary), we have already seen that his point about vocabulary was dissolved by Dr. Terry’s observations. His remaining objection centers on the awkward non-transition between 16:8 and 16:9, and thus does not really address the possibility that Mark wrote the contents of 16:9-20 as a freestanding text; they only address the question of whether or not Mark wrote 16:9-20 as a continuation of Mark 16:1-8.

    Continued in Part 2.

    Yours in Christ,

    James Snapp, Jr.
    [/SIZE]

    Comment


    • #3
      Internal Evidence - The Elegant Solution (Part 2)

      [SIZE="2"](Continued from Part 1.)

      In this short time we have already covered almost all of the internal evidence that commentators typically use in their arguments against the authenticity of Mk. 16:9-20. Two other points may be covered in a summary fashion:

      (1) Forms of the word EKEINOS are used absolutely, that is, as pronouns, in verses 10, 11, 13, and 20. It is unique to have this occur so often in such closely related passages, so this poses a problem for those who claim that Mark wrote 16:9-20 as the ending to his Gospel. It does not post a problem for my view, though, since the same author who wrote Mark 12:4-5 (where the same word is used the same way, twice) would be capable of the same usage in a short summary of Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances.

      (2) Jesus is referred to as “the Lord” by the narrator nowhere in 1:1-16:8, but He is called “the Lord” or “the Lord Jesus” in 16:19. This objection is extremely feathery from the start, since Jesus is identified as Lord in 1:3 (in a quotation from Isaiah), in 2:28 (where Jesus refers to Himself as “the Lord of the Sabbath”), in 7:28 (where the Syro-Phoenician woman addresses him), and in 12:36-37 (in a quotation from Psalm 110:1). It practically floats away when we simply ask if an author who declined to refer to Jesus as “the Lord” in one lengthy narrative could refer to Jesus as “the Lord” in another more summarized and more formally worded narrative.

      In conclusion, the internal evidence indicates that Mark 16:9-20 was initially written as a short freestanding text. The internal evidence does not come remotely close to showing that Mark could not have written that freestanding text, and Farmer has shown that it has several qualities consistent with Marcan authorship. And the internal evidence is more consistent with the hypothesis that a short freestanding Marcan text about Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances was attached to the rest of the book during the production-stage, than with any other hypothesis. Not only is this hypothesis consistent with the evidence, but compared to other attempts to explain all facets of the internal evidence, it is relatively simple; it is much more elegant, and it interlocks with the external evidence.

      Yours in Christ,

      James Snapp, Jr.
      [/SIZE]

      Comment


      • #4
        Internal Evidence - Quid Pro Quote (1 of 2)

        JW:
        Regarding the Internal Evidence phase of the debate let’s go back to the original debate question. My opponent wrote:

        forums.carm.org/vbb/showthread.php?4700-Mark-16-9-20-Authentic-or-Not-Snapp-and-Wallack&p=99698&viewfull=1#post99698

        I am defending the view that Mark 16:9-20 was part of the Gospel of Mark when the Gospel of Mark was initially disseminated for church-use.
        On the other hand, I am arguing that Mark 16:9-20 (LE) is not original to “Mark”. I have never seen or heard of anyone else using my opponent’s related question (was the LE part of "Mark" when distributed for Church use) as a substitute for the issue of what was the original ending of “Mark”. My opponent qualifies his question that he accepts that the LE was not an original part of “Mark”. Well in the words of my ancestor Joseph (Caiphais), “What more evidence do we need?”. As the question to the ending of “Mark” is presented everywhere except in my opponent’s mind, he confesses agreement at the beginning that my conclusion that the LE is not original is correct. I feel like the sex expert who is invited to give a talk on sex and goes to the microphone and says, “It gives me great pleasure.” And than sits down.

        I gave Mr. Snapp Jr. the choice of going first on the Internal Evidence category and was surprised that he decided to go first since I foresaw that in this category he would be totally or almost totally on the defensive and therefore logically I should go first, on the offensive, and he would try to defend. Looking through his opening posts here it is difficult to find any positive argument that the Internal evidence favors the LE as original, either inside or outside of my opponent’s mind:

        I find two such arguments, first, the specific one:

        [SIZE=3](1) Forms of the word EKEINOS are used absolutely, that is, as pronouns, in verses 10, 11, 13, and 20. It is unique to have this occur so often [/SIZE][SIZE=3]in such closely related passages, so this poses a problem for those who claim that Mark wrote 16:9-20 as the ending to his Gospel. It does not [/SIZE][SIZE=3]post a problem for my view, though, since the same author who wrote Mark 12:4-5 (where the same word is used the same way, twice) would be [/SIZE][SIZE=3]capable of the same usage in a short summary of Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances.”[/SIZE]
        And the offending verses:

        errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Mark_16

        16:10 ἐκείνη πορευθεῖσα ἀπήγγειλεν τοῖς μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ γενομένοις πενθοῦσιν καὶ κλαίουσιν

        She went and told those who had been with him, as they mourned and wept.


        16:11 κἀκεῖνοι ἀκούσαντες ὅτι ζῇ καὶ ἐθεάθη ὑπ᾽ αὐτῆς ἠπίστησαν

        But when they heard that he was alive and had been seen by her, they would not believe it.


        16:13 κἀκεῖνοι ἀπελθόντες ἀπήγγειλαν τοῖς λοιποῖς οὐδὲ ἐκείνοις ἐπίστευσαν

        And they went back and told the rest, but they did not believe them.


        16:20 ἐκεῖνοι δὲ ἐξελθόντες ἐκήρυξαν πανταχοῦ τοῦ κυρίου συνεργοῦντος καὶ τὸν λόγον βεβαιοῦντος διὰ τῶν ἐπακολουθούντων σημείων Ἀμήν

        And they went forth and preached everywhere, while the Lord worked with them and confirmed the message by the signs that attended it. Amen.


        12:4 καὶ πάλιν ἀπέστειλεν πρὸς αὐτοὺς ἄλλον δοῦλον κἀκεῖνον λιθοβολήσαντες ἐκεφαλαίωσαν καὶ ἀπέστειλαν ἠτίμωμένον

        Again he sent to them another servant, and they wounded him in the head, and treated him shamefully.


        12:5 καὶ πάλιν ἄλλον ἀπέστειλεν κἀκεῖνον ἀπέκτειναν καὶ πολλοὺς ἄλλους τοὓς μὲν δέροντες τοὺς δὲ ἀποκτείνοντες

        And he sent another, and him they killed; and so with many others, some they beat and some they killed.

        My opponent cites the common problem noted with the LE, the use of ἐκεῖνοι (EKEINOS). In laymen’s terms words with a root of ἐκεῖνοι are used as a pronoun five times in the LE and twice in the rest of “Mark”. My opponent takes the two uses next to each other and outside of the LE as a parallel to the LE usage. What he fails to note though is that the usage is different in chapter 12. In laymen’s terms the usage of chapter 12 is in the context of a parable and the use refers to a predecessor noun:

        “Again he sent to them another servant, and they wounded him

        “And he sent another, and him

        Dr. Carrier explains the difference in non-Laymen’s terms:

        (1.) In the LE (a mere 12 verses), the demonstrative pronoun ekeinos is used five times
        as a simple substantive (“she,” “they,” “them”). But Mark never uses ekeinos that way
        (not once in 666 verses), he always uses it adjectively, or with a definite article, or as a
        simple demonstrative (altogether 22 times), always using autos as his simple substantive
        pronoun instead (hundreds of times).[19]

        [19] The kakeinon used twice in Mark 12:4-5 is still a demonstrative, i.e. it references preceding nouns in each case: “he sent another slave, and that one they bashed in the head...he sent another [slave], and that one they killed” (contrast Mark 14:2-3, where “he sent a servant...and him they beat up,” using auton instead of ekeinon). The author of the LE uses ekeinos (by itself) as a synonym of autos. Mark never does.
        My opponent’s second positive argument for the LE is a general one:

        Farmer has shown that it [LE] has several qualities consistent with Marcan authorship.
        Mr. Snapp, you really need to explain to us what these are. Amazingly my opponent’s conclusion here is:

        [SIZE=3]And the internal evidence is more consistent with the hypothesis that a short freestanding Marcan text about Jesus’ post-resurrection [/SIZE][SIZE=3]appearances was attached to the rest of the book during the production-stage, than with any other hypothesis. Not only is this [/SIZE][SIZE=3]hypothesis consistent with the evidence, but compared to other attempts to explain all facets of the internal evidence, it is relatively [/SIZE][SIZE=3]simple; it is much more elegant, and it interlocks with the external evidence.[/SIZE]
        My opponent has not presented any Internal evidence, none what-so-ever, that the LE was a freestanding text attached during the “production stage”. His related argument is:

        To review the working hypothesis: Mark served as an assistant to Peter in the 50’s and 60’s, recording and compiling Peter’s remembrances about Jesus. In the mid-60’s, after Peter’s martyrdom, Mark endeavored to produce a definitive form of Peter’s remembrances. But as Mark was almost finished, he was forced to suddenly leave the city (and go to Alexandria, where he was later martyred), and his work was left in the hands of his colleagues. They realized that the text was unfinished, and were unwilling to distribute the book in its unfinished state, but at the same time they were uneager to add their own words to it, so they supplemented it by attaching another Marcan composition: a short report of Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances. In this thus-completed form the Gospel of Mark was first transmitted to the church, and in this form it remained, until, in one transmission-stream, the supplemental attachment was removed by someone who considered John 21 to be a better sequel to Mark 1:1-16:8.
        All speculation. Speculation based on the External, and not the Internal. So this “argument” does not even belong in the Internal evidence category and the sole purpose for (mis)including it here looks like filling a vacuum. I already addressed this speculation in the External portion of this debate and noted that in the presented Categories of evidence:
        1) Patristic

        2) Manuscript

        3) Scribal

        4) Authority
        It has no evidence to support it. -0-.



        Joseph

        Comment


        • #5
          Internal Evidence - Quid Pro Quote (2 of 2)



          [SIZE=2]JW:[/SIZE]
          [SIZE=3]In my previous post I noted that my opponent has not presented any positive Internal evidence that the LE is original to “Mark”. In order to demonstrate than for purposes of this debate that the Internal evidence is against the LE I only need to present more than no evidence. For now, I will only use as evidence against the LE, what my opponent identified in his last post to make a point of just how easy it is to show that the Internal evidence is against LE. Later on I will present the complete evidence so that this debate may be used as a reference guide for the issue. My opponent does not mention the best Internal evidence against LE, which most commentators do not mention also, that “Mark’s” major, if not primary theme, of Jesus’ Disciple ‘s failure, goes against the LE being original.[/SIZE] [SIZE=3]

          [/SIZE] [SIZE=3]Looking to my opponent’s post than for evidence against LE he rightly divides three main categories:[/SIZE]

          [SIZE=3]1) Continuity [/SIZE]
          [SIZE=3]Mr. Snapp confesses to us that there is a lack of continuity between 16:8 and the LE. He than goes on to explain why:[/SIZE]
          Several commentators, repeating sentiments expressed by Hort (and, later, by Streeter), have noticed that Mark 16:9-20 does not appear to have been written by an individual who was consciously attempting to supply an ending for the Gospel of Mark. A person attempting to finish the account would continue the scene from where it left off; there would be no thought of restating the time and day; Mary Magdalene’s companions would not be inexplicably absent; Mary Magdalene would not be re-introduced as the woman from whom Jesus cast out seven demons. A person composing a conclusion to Mark’s account would be strongly motivated to specify that the disciples went to Galilee, and to mention, if not narrate, that Peter was specially forgiven and restored by Jesus.
          [SIZE=3]This is great. How often do you not only have your opponent agree with you but even write your argument for you.[/SIZE]

          [SIZE=3]2) Language [/SIZE]
          [SIZE=3]A) Vocabulary[/SIZE]
          [SIZE=3] My opponent observes a “high number of once-used words” in the LE. He defends by noting:[/SIZE]

          an even higher number of once-used words occurs in another 12-verse section of Mark: in 15:40-16:4, there are 20-22 once-used words (the exact number varies depending on textual variants); therefore the 17 once-used words in Mark 16:9-20 (some of which are common words, such as the Greek word for “eleven,” which would be in Mark’s vocabulary because it was in everyone’s vocabulary) do not necessarily indicate a non-Marcan origin.
          [SIZE=3]So per my opponent, the LE has the second largest one time use of words, for any 12 verse section in “Mark”. My opponent is correct that by itself it does not prove that the LE is not original, but it is evidence against LE. Dr. Carrier adds what my opponent left out:[/SIZE][SIZE=3]
          [/SIZE]
          In all, of 163 words in the LE, around 20 are un-Markan, which by itself is not unusual. What is unusual is how common most of these words normally are, or how distinctive they are of later NT writers or narratives, hence the concentration of so many of these words in the LE is already suspicious. But more damning are all the ways words are used contrary to Markan style, using different words than Mark uses or using Markan words in a way Mark never does. We also find 9 whole expressions in the LE that are un-Markan, which in just 12 verses is something of a record.
          [SIZE=3]My opponent also points out words peculiar to “Mark” and not the LE:[/SIZE]
          Dr. Terry also answered the objection that two words – the Greek words for “immediately” and “again” – which frequently occur in Mark 1:1-16:8 do not occur in 16:9-20. He simply arranged the entire text in multiple 12-verse sets, so that 1:1-1:12 = set #1, 1:2-1:13 = set #2, and so forth, until 16:9-20 = set #650. (Only undisputed verses in 1:1-16:8 were used for this calculation.) He noticed that 373 12-verse sets do not contain “immediately,” and 399 sets do not contain “again,” and 229 sets do not contain “immediately” or “again.” So his conclusion is quite justified: “It is hardly an objection to say that the last twelve verses are in the same category with more than one-third of the sets of twelve consecutive verses in the rest of the book.


          [SIZE=3]The Greek word for “immediately” communicates speed of action and the word for “again” indicates repetition. Neither speed of action or repetition can be found in the LE. How many other stories in “Mark” can you find with neither? Again, not proof that LE is not original, just evidence.
          [/SIZE]
          [SIZE=3] B) Grammar[/SIZE]
          [SIZE=3]
          [/SIZE] [SIZE=3]Again my opponent writes an argument (an abbreviated one) for me:[/SIZE][SIZE=3]
          [/SIZE]
          Forms of the word EKEINOS are used absolutely, that is, as pronouns, in verses 10, 11, 13, and 20. It is unique to have this occur so often in such closely related passages, so this poses a problem for those who claim that Mark wrote 16:9-20 as the ending to his Gospel. It does not post a problem for my view, though, since the same author who wrote Mark 12:4-5 (where the same word is used the same way, twice) would be capable of the same usage in a short summary of Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances.
          [SIZE=3]I demonstrated in my previous post though that the second sentence is incorrect. Mark 12:4-5 uses the word differently.[/SIZE][SIZE=3]

          [/SIZE]
          [SIZE=3]C) Style[/SIZE]
          [SIZE=3]Yet again, I’ll just let my opponent speak:[/SIZE][SIZE=3]
          [/SIZE]
          Jesus is referred to as “the Lord” by the narrator nowhere in 1:1-16:8, but He is called “the Lord” or “the Lord Jesus” in 16:19.
          [SIZE=3]Thank you. Mr. Snapp adds:[/SIZE]

          This objection is extremely feathery from the start, since Jesus is identified as Lord in 1:3 (in a quotation from Isaiah), in 2:28 (where Jesus refers to Himself as “the Lord of the Sabbath”), in 7:28 (where the Syro-Phoenician woman addresses him), and in 12:36-37 (in a quotation from Psalm 110:1). It practically floats away when we simply ask if an author who declined to refer to Jesus as “the Lord” in one lengthy narrative could refer to Jesus as “the Lord” in another more summarized and more formally worded narrative.
          [SIZE=3]The point here is not if “Mark” uses “Lord” to refer to Jesus but how “Mark” uses “Lord” to refer to Jesus. In 16:19:[/SIZE]

          [SIZE=3]“So then the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken unto them, was received up into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of God.” (ASV)[/SIZE][SIZE=3]

          [/SIZE] [SIZE=3]“the Lord” Jesus is an editorial reference to Jesus within narrative. The same type reference is probably in 16:20:[/SIZE][SIZE=3]

          [/SIZE] [SIZE=3]“And they went forth, and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word by the signs that followed. Amen.” (ASV)[/SIZE][SIZE=3]

          [/SIZE] [SIZE=3]“Lord” here may refer to God but “Lord Jesus” and “God” were in the previous verse so “Lord” here probably refers to Jesus. Note that none of the uses of “Lord” referring to Jesus in the rest of “Mark” are editorial:[/SIZE]
          [SIZE=3]1:3 = quote from Isaiah[/SIZE][SIZE=3]

          [/SIZE] [SIZE=3]2:28 = Jesus’ words[/SIZE][SIZE=3]

          [/SIZE] [SIZE=3]7:28 = character’s words[/SIZE][SIZE=3]

          [/SIZE] [SIZE=3]12:36-37 = quote from Psalms[/SIZE][SIZE=3]
          [/SIZE]
          [SIZE=3]3) Parallels to other parts of the Christian Bible

          [/SIZE] [SIZE=3]My opponent notes that the LE has good parallels with other parts of the Christian Bible. Per Dr. Carrier these parallels are as follows:[/SIZE][SIZE=3]

          [/SIZE] [SIZE=3]16:9b [/SIZE][SIZE=3](John 20:1, 14-18) [/SIZE][SIZE=3]

          [/SIZE] [SIZE=3]16:9c (Luke 8:2)[/SIZE][SIZE=3]

          [/SIZE] [SIZE=3]16:10a (Luke 24:9-10; John 20:18)[/SIZE][SIZE=3]

          [/SIZE] [SIZE=3]16:10b (John 16:20; Matthew 9:15)[/SIZE][SIZE=3]

          [/SIZE] [SIZE=3]16:11 (Luke 24:11)[/SIZE][SIZE=3]

          [/SIZE] [SIZE=3]16:12 [/SIZE][SIZE=3](Luke 24:13–32)[/SIZE][SIZE=3]

          [/SIZE] [SIZE=3]16:13a (Luke 24:34-35)[/SIZE][SIZE=3]

          [/SIZE] [SIZE=3]16:13b (fr. John 20:24-25; Luke 24:36-41)[/SIZE][SIZE=3]

          [/SIZE] [SIZE=3]16:14a [/SIZE][SIZE=3](Luke 24:33-43; and combining John 20:19-29 and 21:5-14)[/SIZE][SIZE=3]

          [/SIZE] [SIZE=3]16:14b (Luke 24:38-39; John 20:26-29)[/SIZE][SIZE=3]

          [/SIZE] [SIZE=3]16:15 (Matthew 28:19; Acts 1:8; Mark 6:12;[/SIZE][SIZE=3]with direct verbal similarities in Mark 14:9; Matthew 24:14, 26:13)[/SIZE][SIZE=3]

          [/SIZE] [SIZE=3]16:16 (Acts 2:38, 16:31-33; John 3:18-21)[/SIZE][SIZE=3]

          [/SIZE] [SIZE=3]16:16 (Acts 2:38-43; Matthew 28:19; John 3:5)[/SIZE][SIZE=3]

          [/SIZE] [SIZE=3]16:17a (Acts 2:43, 4:30, 5:12, 14:13)[/SIZE][SIZE=3]

          [/SIZE] [SIZE=3]16:17a (Mark 6:7, 6:13, 9:38-40; Luke 9:1,[/SIZE][SIZE=3] 10:17; Acts 5:16, 8:7, 16:18, 19:12-17; Matthew 7:22)[/SIZE][SIZE=3]

          [/SIZE] [SIZE=3]16:17b (Acts 2:4, 10:45-46, 19:6; 1 Cor. 14)[/SIZE][SIZE=3]

          [/SIZE] [SIZE=3]16:18a (Luke 10:19; Acts 28:2-6)[/SIZE][SIZE=3]

          [/SIZE] [SIZE=3]16:18c (Mark 5:23, 6:5; Luke 9:1-2; Acts 5:16, 6:6,[/SIZE][SIZE=3]
          [/SIZE] [SIZE=3]8:7, 9:17, 14:13, 19:11-12, 28:8; James 5:14-15)[/SIZE][SIZE=3]

          [/SIZE] [SIZE=3]16:19a (Luke 24:51; John 20:17; Acts 1:2, 1:9-11)[/SIZE][SIZE=3]

          [/SIZE] [SIZE=3]16:19b (Acts 7:55-56, 5:31, 2:33; Rom. 8:34;[/SIZE][SIZE=3]
          [/SIZE] [SIZE=3]Eph. 1:20; Heb. 1:1; Col. 3:1; Mark 12:35-37, 14:62)[/SIZE][SIZE=3]

          [/SIZE] [SIZE=3]16:20a (Mark 6:12; Luke 9:6,[/SIZE][SIZE=3]
          [/SIZE] [SIZE=3]24:47; Acts 1:4, 1:8, 2ff.)[/SIZE][SIZE=3]

          [/SIZE] [SIZE=3]16:20b (Acts 14:3; Heb.[/SIZE][SIZE=3]
          [/SIZE] [SIZE=3]2:2-4)[/SIZE][SIZE=3]

          [/SIZE] [SIZE=3]The bulk of “Mark” can be found in very similar stories in “Matthew” and “Luke”. In the LE though the parallels change by verse and within verse.[/SIZE][SIZE=3] Where the hell is Bruce Terry when you really need him to find for us another 12 verse section of “Mark” that switches parallels so much?[/SIZE][SIZE=3]

          [/SIZE] [SIZE=3]In summary, my opponent has not presented any positive Internal evidence that the LE is original, in any way, to “Mark”, and has himself presented more than enough Internal evidence against LE, to conclude that the LE is not original. I especially look forward to my opponent’s response here since these posts are only based on evidence that he brought into the discussion so in order to dispute them he will have to argue with himself.[/SIZE][SIZE=3]

          [/SIZE] [SIZE=3]The pattern is the same here regarding my opponents' attempted defenses here. First, it is pointed out that there is some Internal feature of the LE that is unusual compared to the rest of "Mark". My opponent than postures that because this usage is either comparable to some excerpt of "Mark" or too small to be significant it has no evidential value. Take for example the observation that the LE contains a high number of words not used in the rest of "Mark" but there is one other 12 verse section with even more unique words. To the extent a disputed section has a relatively large number of words not otherwise used by the author, this is evidence of unoriginality. By itself, this relationship is a statistical fact. The greater the number of unique words, the better the evidence of unoriginality. The relationship can than of course be explained by factors specific to a section, especially subject matter, but my opponent never offers any, probably because he can not find any. Note that in the LE, the unique words are mostly alternatives to the same words found in the rest of "Mark" and not required new words because of a unique subject. The LE does not have to have the most unique words in a 12 verse section of "Mark" just to be evidence of unoriginality. The more 12 verse sections there are in "Mark" (and there are a lot) and the closer the LE is to the highest section of unique words, the better the evidence. This type of evidence against LE is than multiplied as we find more types of usage in the LE that is unusual compared to the rest of "Mark". None of these uses are proof, but they are evidence and can not be thrown out as evidence because they are not proof.
          [/SIZE]
          [SIZE=3]
          [/SIZE] [SIZE=3]As indicated above the issue I have with my opponent is not what the Internal evidence [/SIZE][SIZE=3]is since I can make a satisfactory argument against LE only using evidence from my opponent. [/SIZE][SIZE=3]I also do not have much difference with my opponent's related conclusions, short of his final conclusion:[/SIZE][SIZE=3]

          [/SIZE] [SIZE=3]1) He accepts that the LE was not written to be the conclusion of "Mark".[/SIZE][SIZE=3]

          [/SIZE] [SIZE=3]2) He accepts that "Mark" may not have been the author of the LE:[/SIZE][SIZE=3]
          [/SIZE]
          [SIZE=3]Marcan authorship of 16:9-20 is not essential to my case[/SIZE]
          [SIZE=3]The only significant dispute here is my opponent's conclusion that the LE was original to the version of "Mark" presented to "Mark's" original audience for Church use. My problem with this conclusion is that at this point it is all speculation and no evidence has been presented for it.[/SIZE][SIZE=3]
          [/SIZE]
          [SIZE=3]My opponent's dismissal of the Internal evidence against LE is as follows:[/SIZE][SIZE=3]
          [/SIZE]
          [SIZE=3]The internal evidence does not come remotely close to showing that Mark could not have written that freestanding text[/SIZE]
          [SIZE=3]Hey, no argument there. Is it possible that "Mark" wrote the LE? [/SIZE][SIZE=3]Of course. The proper question though is which conclusion does the evidence support?[/SIZE][SIZE=3]That the LE is probably original or probably unoriginal? Is Mr. Snapp going to answer that question or not?[/SIZE][SIZE=3]
          [/SIZE]



          [SIZE=3]Joseph
          [/SIZE]










          Comment


          • #6
            Internal Evidence - Racing Hypotheses (1 of 2)

            [SIZE="2"]My opponent’s statement near the end of his latest reply is worth repeating: when I stated that the internal evidence “does not come remotely close” to showing that Mark could not have written 16:9-20 as a freestanding text, he replied, “Hey, no argument there. Is it possible that ‘Mark’ wrote the LE? Of course. The proper question though is which conclusion does the evidence support?”

            Obviously if the internal evidence does not come remotely close to showing that Mark could not have composed 16:9-20 as a freestanding text, then “the proper question” is answered: the evidence does not support the premise that Mark could not have written 16:9-20 as a freestanding text. This frank admission by my opponent cannot be lightly set aside. It completely undermines the objections he has attempted to draw from internal evidence.

            My opponent has spent many words – somewhat more than the 3,000-word limit, complete with a coarse jest and profanity – targeting a hypothesis that is not the hypothesis that I am advocating: his objections hit hard against the idea that Mark wrote 16:9-20 as the ending to his account, writing 16:1-20 without any sort of interruption. But it should be very clear (since I have stated this again and again) that such is not my hypothesis.

            He has also misrepresented my position, claiming that I accept “that the LE was not an original part of “Mark”.” On the contrary, I affirm that 16:9-20 was in the original text of Mark, using the ordinary definition of what constitutes the “original text” of any Biblical book: the state of the text when it was initially disseminated for church-use. This does not mean that John Mark necessarily wrote 16:9-20; a book may have one, two, or multiple authors, and a lengthy production-stage; none of that precludes the existence of an “original” form of the text, when creative production ceased and the transmission-stage began.

            Now we turn to his specific arguments against the possibility of Marcan authorship of 16:9-20. I note, again, that Marcan authorship of 16:9-20 is not an integral part of my hypothesis; it is, however, a reasonable view in and of itself. My opponent, depending on Richard Carrier’s claims, first examined the use of EKEINOS in 16:10, 11, 13, and 20, after I had mentioned that this feature does not pose a problem for Marcan authorship, since Mark used this term the same way in 12:4-5.

            He wrote: “In laymen’s terms the usage of chapter 12 is in the context of a parable and the use refers to a predecessor noun.” Yes, in 12:4-5 the term is used in a parable, but that is a non sequitur. As for noticing that it refers to a predecessor noun, well, look at how it is used in 16:9-20 the same way: the identification of Mary Magdalene precedes the use of EKEINH to refer to her; those who were with Jesus are mentioned prior to the use of KAKEINOI to refer to them; the two travelers are described previous to the use of KAKEINOI to refer to them; the others are mentioned before the use of EKEINOIS to refer to them. And the eleven are named in v. 14 prior to the use of EKEINOI in v. 20 to refer to them.

            Dr. Carrier observed that “the KAKEINON used twice in Mark 12:4-5 is still a demonstrative, i.e., it references preceding nouns in each case.” Which is what we see in 16:9-20 also: every use of some form of EKEINOS is preceded by an identification. Apparently Carrier simply overlooked the text.

            Moving along: when I mentioned that William Farmer has shown that 16:9-20 has several qualities consistent with Marcan authorship, my opponent invited me to explain what these are. Of course I recommend the reading of Farmer’s 1974 book “The Last Twelve Verses of Mark” to get the details. But to satisfy my opponent’s curiosity, here, summarized, are 24 features which Farmer identified as favorable to Marcan authorship:

            (1) Mark characteristically uses LOGOS absolutely, and it is used that way in 16:9-20.
            (2) Mark characteristically uses EUANGELION absolutely, and it is used that way in 16:9-20.
            (3) AUTOS is “used in 16:9-20 with a frequency reasonably compatible with the rest of that Gospel.”
            (4) It is consistent with Marcan style to not re-introduce Jesus’ name unnecessarily. (Notice that Jesus’ name is not provided anywhere in 16:9-20, unless we adopt the variant with “Lord Jesus” in 16:19. Would a patchwork-maker in the mid-100’s decline to identify Jesus explicitly in the opening scenes?)
            (5) Mark uses forms of ANASTAS to refer to resurrection seven times.
            (6) Mark favors the word PRWI (using it in 1:35, 11:20, 13:35, 15:1, and 16:2).
            (7) Mark uses PARA with a genitive (as in 16:9) repeatedly.
            (8) Mark uses EKBALLW to refer to exorcisms, as opposed to Luke’s EXELHLUTHEI; the more Marcan term in used in 16:9.
            (9) APHNGEILEN is “in accord with Marcan usage,” being used in 5:14, 5:19, and 6:30.
            (10) The phrase “TOIS MET’ AUTOU” is found in 1:36, 2:25, and 5:40. Matthew used it four times and Luke used it twice. Pound for pound, it is more natural to Mark than to the other NT writers.
            (11) In 12:4-5 and in 16:11, KAKEINON is distinctly used “in a combination of the subordinate half of each sentence,” yielding the conclusion that “this is a syntactical peculiarity of Mark,” not found elsewhere in the New Testament.
            (12) The use of ZAW in 16: 11 is “altogether commensurate” with the uses in 5:23 and 12:27.
            (13) Mark’s emphasis on the unbelief of the apostles is displayed in 16:14.
            (14) MORFH is a common word, unique to 16:9-20 merely because Mark did not have an occasion for using it in 1:1-16:8.
            (15) The phrase POREUOMENOIS EIS AGRON has a stronger affinity to Mark 15:21 than to any other passage; this favors a linguistic kinship.
            (16) APELTHONTES appears in 6:36-37 and 4:12; it is consistent with Marcan authorship.
            (17) APANTA is used in 16:15 in a way typical of Mark.
            (18) The call to “preach the gospel to all creation” is more consistent with Mark than with any other Evangelist. It does not seem dependent upon Luke 24:47.
            (19) PARAKOLOUTHESEI occurs only in 16:17, but likewise it appears only once in Luke (Lk. 1:3).
            (20) A later patchwork-maker would have no impetus to refer to “new” tongues, rather than simply to speaking in tongues.
            (21) The construction in 16:18 with OU MH, resembling that in 13:2, 13:19, and 13:30, supports common authorship.
            (22) The emphasis on the laying on of healing hands in 16:18 is a typical Marcan motif.
            (23) ARRWSTOUS in 16:18 is a typically Marcan term; 6:5 indicates a connection.
            (24) The use of EKEINOI DE in 16:20 is matched in 12:7, but not by the parallels in Mt. and Lk.

            Now, I do not set crucial weight upon those features, for two reasons: first, because it is not integral to my case that the author of Mark 1:1-16:8 is the same person who composed 16:9-20. And, second, because some objectors have a convenient answer to Farmer’s analysis: they assert that the author of 16:9-20 was consciously imitating Mark, and that is why there are these Marcan-looking features in 16:9-20! (My opponent apparently does not subscribe to such a view, but it is worth mentioning it nonetheless.) This sort of approach puts 16:9-20 in a no-win situation: if something looks non-Marcan, it must mean that Mark didn’t write the passage, but if something looks Marcan, that, too, is twisted and spun to mean that Mark didn’t write the passage. Such tactics demonstrate cleverness, but they don’t demonstrate the non-Marcanness of 16:9-20 – indeed, as my opponent affirms, they do not come remotely close to doing so.

            (Continued in Part 2)

            Yours in Christ,

            James Snapp, Jr.
            [/SIZE]

            Comment


            • #7
              Internal Evidence - Racing Hypotheses (Part 2)

              [SIZE="2"](Continued from Part 1)

              Meanwhile, if we embrace Farmer’s observations about the Marcan features in 16:9-20, and also do not ignore the internal features, previously described, which indicate that 16:9-20 was not composed as the continuation of the account that otherwise would stop at the end of 16:8, then we are led to the view that (a) 16:9-20 was not initially written as a continuation of Mark’s Gospel-account, and (b) as my opponent affirmed, the internal evidence does not come remotely close to showing that Mark did not write 16:9-20 as a freestanding account. And this leads us to the hypothesis that someone other than Mark put the two together during the production-stage of the Gospel of Mark.

              My opponent has objected that such a hypothesis is speculation – that is, it is hypothetical, as if those with other hypotheses have video tape. This calls to mind a story in which two campers, at a campsite in the middle of the wilderness, are suddenly awakened to find that an angry grizzly bear is attacking their camp. One of the campers immediately begins to put on his running shoes. The other camper says, “What are you doing? You can’t outrun a grizzly bear!” To which the answer is given, “I don’t have to outrun the bear; I just have to outrun you.”

              Likewise, in the case at hand, we have competing hypotheses, and we should ask, “Which hypothesis accounts most elegantly for all the evidence?” If 16:9-20 was not composed and attached before the end of the production-stage of the Gospel of Mark, then it must have been composed and attached at some later stage, in the early 100’s. My opponent has affirmed, at last, that he believes, like Hort did, that 16:9-20 was not composed as the ending for Mk. 1:1-16:8. We may therefore set aside Kelhoffer’s Insane-Scribe theory that 16:9-20 was composed by somebody consciously and methodically borrowing snippets from all four canonical Gospels in order to create a conclusion for the Gospel of Mark which otherwise ended in 16:8. This will make our hypotheses-race less complicated. But before we reach that point, let’s briefly revisit six of my opponent’s recent claims.

              (1) He assumed that the theme of Jesus’ disciples’ failure “goes against the LE being original.” On the contrary, we see the disciples’ failure on center stage in 16:13-14!

              (2) He mentioned Carrier’s assessment of the vocabulary in 16:9-20: Carrier stated, “In all, of 163 words in the LE, around 20 are un-Markan, which by itself is not unusual.” A frank admission which condemns Metzger’s word-count as a severe oversimplification, no matter how many other commentators borrow it. But then Carrier went further: “What is unusual is how common most of these words normally are.” This is actually yet another point that lowers their weight, for if a once-used word is a common word, then we may safely deduce that the author’s non-use of it elsewhere is mere happenstance.

              (3) Following a summary of Dr. Bruce Terry’s analysis of Mark’s use of the Greek words for “immediately” and “again,” in which Dr. Terry explained that one-third of all 12-verse sets of verses in Mark do not contain either of those two words, my opponent wrote, “Neither speed of action or repetition can be found in the LE. How many other stories in “Mark” can you find with neither? Again, not proof that LE is not original, just evidence.” This, after I had just presented Dr. Terry’s data demonstrating that you can make exactly the same statement about one-third of the 12-verse sets in Mark! It’s like saying, “This sort of thing matters” immediately after it has been proven that this sort of thing does not matter.

              (4) Regarding Mark 16:19’s description of Jesus as “the Lord,” it is true that the other places in Mark where Jesus is called “”the Lord” are not narration. But that is slicing things awfully thin; one can always find unique features when one goes about considering not only vocabulary, but also whether a word appears in discourse or in narrative, and so forth. Plus, Mark’s Gospel account consisted of his presentation of Peter’s remembrances about Jesus, and thus are liable to reflect Peter’s references to Jesus as “Jesus;” Mark, writing a short composition about Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances, could easily give Jesus the title “Lord” in such a composition.

              (5) Even after admitting that there is a 12-verse section of Mark that has more once-used words than 16:9-20 has, my opponent still tries to use Metzger’s oversimplified appeal to vocabulary as evidence of a non-Marcan origin. He wrote, “To the extent a disputed section has a relatively large number of words not otherwise used by the author, this is evidence of unoriginality. By itself, this relationship is a statistical fact. The greater the number of unique words, the better the evidence of unoriginality.” How he can still say this, apparently seriously, after it has been shown that a greater number of unique words is present in a passage that is not unoriginal simply boggles the mind. The simple fact that 15:40-16:4 has more unique vocabulary than 16:9-20 has should permanently silence such hollow assertions and specious assumptions.

              (6) When I noted the lack of continuity between 16:8 and 16:9, he stated, “How often do you not only have your opponent agree with you but even write your argument for you?” Apparently he still does not see the implication of that lack of continuity: the attachment of an already-existing composition explains such a lack of continuity. But the lack of continuity between 16:8 and 16:9 is a substantial problem for the theory that someone in the 100’s wrote 16:9-20 as a continuation of the narrative, since it is more correct to say that the narrative is re-started, rather than that it is continued: Mary Magdalene’s companions disappear; the time of day is re-stated; Mary Magdalene is re-introduced. An author intentionally composing an ending for Mark 1:1-16:8 would have no reason to do that. Metzger correctly discerned that these internal features point away from the theory that Mark attached 16:9-20; what should also be realized is that these features with equal force also point away from the theory that 16:9-20 was initially composed as a continuation of the Gospel of Mark.

              And now for the hypothesis-race, the loser of which will be eaten by the grizzly bear of complexity. The internal evidence gives my hypothesis a sizable lead, and puts obstacles in the path of its competitor.

              First, the freestanding composition has to be written. If it was written by Mark, or by a colleague of his in Rome, then it is no surprise that such a composition would summarily relate several of the same episodes described in Matthew, Luke, and John. Nor is it surprising that the author would make no attempt to harmonize his composition with Matthew, Luke, and John, since he never read them. Nor is it surprising that the author did not mention the triune baptismal formula that is used in Mt. 28:19. Nor is it surprising that the author did not explicitly mention that Jesus eventually met with the disciples in Galilee as predicted. But all these points put obstacles in the path of the theory that it was written in the 100’s: why would an author writing at that point compose a composition that contains details which would never be suggested by the accounts in Matthew, Luke, and John, but which instead create tension with them? And why would an author writing at that point include details which he would have created ex nihilo, and for no apparent reason, such as the disciples’ disbelief of Mary’s report that she had seen Jesus, and the list of signs in 16:17-18? And why would an author writing at that point fail to use the extremely appropriate material in John 21 as source-material?

              Second, the freestanding composition has to be attached. If it was attached during the production-stage, then the internal evidence is accounted for: out of respect for both the large and small source-materials, the redactor declined to alter either one. But can we reasonably picture a redactor who reveres the Gospel of Mark attaching to it a short account about Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances which he knows as the work of a contemporary? Somehow, there must have been a high level of respect for the freestanding composition when it was attached; this is easy to maintain in my hypothesis – in which it was known to have been either written by, or used with approval, by Peter and/or Mark – but less easy in the alternative hypothesis.

              Third, once attached, the new ending has to be accepted. Again, if it was attached during the production-stage, its widespread acceptance is virtually assured, as the external evidence shows that it was. But if it was attached in the 100’s, after copies of Mark had circulated far and wide without it, then its widespread acceptance is not easy to explain. Such an addition would not be congruent to a mere harmonizing alteration, or to the interpolation of an agraphon, or even to the insertion of a benign pericope such as John 7:53-8:11. The addition of a new passage in which a woman appears more faithful than men; a new passage in which the apostles are depicted as unbelieving; a new passage in which Jesus promises special signs such as immunity from poison to believers; a new passage in which Jesus is said to appear to the two travelers “in another form;” a new passage not so easily harmonized with Mt., Lk., and Jn.; a new passage which shows, by its non-transition from 16:8, that it is in some sense secondary – this would need an impeccable pedigree in order to avoid immediate rejection by vigilant bishops and copyists. And yet there it is, embedded in Justin’s Synoptics-Harmony, incorporated into in Tatian’s Diatessaron, and in the copy of Mark used by the vigilant Irenaeus.

              So, with the probabilities consistently pointing to a very early attachment, in the production-stage, rather than at some later point, I ask: what is the internal evidence upon which my opponent bases his hypothesis that Mark 16:9-20 was not attached in the production-stage?

              Yours in Christ,

              James Snapp, Jr.
              [/SIZE]

              Comment


              • #8
                The End of This Debate

                [SIZE="2"]Although closing statements were planned, this debate is now over. My opponent has missed the deadline for posting a reply -- and not just by a day or two; an entire month has gone by and Mr. Wallack has not replied. Therefore a sort of victory may be claimed by default -- but I think that more could be claimed, considering the merits of the case I have presented, and I expect that those who have followed the debate will conclude that I have conducted a successful defense of Mark 16:9-20, against an exceptionally protracted seige.

                Thank you for reading. I hope this has been a blessing for participants and readers alike. Thanks are extended to CARM for graciously hosting the debate. And thanks are given to God for the time and resources used in this debate; I pray that the investment will somehow bear fruit for His kingdom.

                Yours in Christ,

                James Snapp, Jr.
                [/SIZE]

                Comment


                • #9
                  I found this story at about Mitt Romney using the Mormon prophet Thomas S. Monson to raise the dead and give sight to the blind? Is this true can the Mormons really do this? they call the story miracles-lds. You can see the story on my signature below it is very interesting

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X