Original or Not? (Maurice Robinson)

Moving in a totally different direction than the previous speaker.

Amid Perfect Contempt, a Place for the Genuine, the Long Ending for Mark as cont…

Either Mark Priority or co-essential Mark/Matthean Priority.

External Evidence:
(similar to previous speaker)

Internal Evidence:
Primary thrust of this paper.
Patristic Testimony – Most discussion focus on the speculation of the fourth or later centuries. Yet the opinions of later patristic writers should not negate earlier opinion.

Justin Martyr – In his First Apology Three word quoted by Justin only occur in the longer ending (16:15 & 20). Justin uses no other material other ancient material in this work.

Iranaeus – Quotes from beginning and end of Mark.

In this light, the shortest reading might not always be original. In fact, it is not uncommon for an author to intentionally shorten a work.

Short ending – Leaves a puzzling and incomplete conclusion. Accident or intent? Either way the result is problematic.

Vaticanus blank is about four lines short of containing the long ending (perhaps the scribe miscounted?)

The deliberate removal of the long ending could be found in a quote from Eusebius. The longer ending had apparent contradictions, issues involving disbelief (16:11,14), resurrection narrative (looks forward to a Galillean narrative).

Other factors might increase the cumulative case to compel some scribes to remove or replace the long ending – sign gifts (poison/snakes).

For whatever reason the intermediate ending concludes 16:8, was it written to conclude 16:8 because there was no conclusion or to replace the longer ending 16:9-20?

There could have been an intermediate ending created for liturgical reasons, which would explain why all Greek manuscripts that contain the intermediate ending have both the intermediate and long ending.

Markan style and vocabulary – There are many similarities in 16:9-20 when compared to the rest of mark. The words that do not occur anywhere else in Mark (~12 words) are also rare in the other gospels. (NOTE: This information seems to disagree with the previous speaker – but Robinson provided information proving this case).

The long ending has been criticized because of its hard to understand elements, but this is found throughout Mark (esp. 31 word temptation testimony). Short summary abridgment with some elements altered or added is a Markan style.

Beyond Vocabulary and Style?
Thematic – Primary theme is to present Jesus as the son of God… without the longer ending no such fulfillment exists.

Many Chiastic patterns extend into the Longer endings.

Additional Parallels – Linguistic and Thematic Parallels:
Mark 1:32-39 – Mark16:20
Mark 1:33 – Mark 16:9
Not allowed to speak – Sent to speak
Unbelieving Demons – Unbelieving Humans
Many more parallels when comparing chapter 1 with chapter 16.

Mark 6:7-13 – Mark 16
Mark 7:24-8:38 – Mark 16

Summary and Conclusion:
1st – The long ending can be defended and supported as canonical.
2nd – …is as likely written by Mark as anyone else.
3rd – Speculative reconstructions regarding lost endings of mark lack evidence.
4th – A Markan intention to end 16:8, allowing the reader to supply the end, requires a sophisticated and post-modern
5th – Son of God theme.
6th – an Elijah theme permeates Marks gospel and requires the long ending
7th – Verbal and thematic parallels
8th – Mark consistently demonstrates the fulfillment of prophecies and promises.
9th – The greatest bulk of verbal testimony supports the long ending.
10th – Explicit patristic citation outweighs other citation.
11th – Other Alexandrian omissions are rejected.
12th – Arguments of the same type claiming non-authenticity of John have better evidence but are rejected.
13th – Possible reasons for long reason extension can be explained.
14th – Greek manuscripts overwhelmingly support the longer ending (it is in all but two).
15th – The bulk of the evidence (internally and externally) points to the validity of the long ending.

Similar Posts