Original or Not? (My Response/Reaction)

Several people that I know (who attended the conference) have already responded/reacted to it on their blogs.

Alan at “Assembling of the Church” in a post called “Reflections on The Last Twelve Verses of Mark: Original or Not?”
Theron at “Sharing in the Life” in a post called “Last Twelve Verses of Mark Conference”
Steve at “Theological Musings Blog” in a post called “The Last Twelve Verses of Mark: Original or Not?”

First, before I begin discussing this conference, let me say that the speakers were showed a great love for Christ by the way they presented their ideas and also interacted between one-another. They all came from a different background, with a different ideas about the ending of Mark; yet they all had the Holy Spirit working in their lives and they treated each other like true brothers. It is a great encouragement to see men striving to act like Christ.

Second, before I begin, again, let me say that this conference was great. It was very interesting but what made it best was being able to fellowship with other believers before, during, and after each session. I was able to meet and fellowship with Steve Sensenig and his wife Christy. Who I at the time only knew of through the blog-o-sphere. I was also able to spend some personal time with Alan Knox and his family for dinner on Friday night, which is always a blessing.

Third, before I begin, again, again, let me say that I had live-blogged the conference. It was hard to do, and I hope that I did not misrepresent any of the speakers, or their positions. I also hope that the blogs flowed well. I know a lot of what I blogged were just key statements/facts that the speakers were trying to get across. So do not take it as a word-for-word transcript. I know I missed a lot of things said, but I think I captured the main ideas (at least, I hope I did).

Okay, now for the actual reaction to the conference:

These were the speakers and their positions (in order of appearance):

Mark intended to end his gospel at 16:8, to purposely leave his readers hanging, in order to challenge them to consider Christ.

Mark 16:9-20 is original.

Mark did not intend to end his Gospel at 16:8, but 16:9-20 is not original.

Mark 16:9-20 is the original ending based on the external evidence alone.

Mark 16:8 is the ending of this gospel on the basis of external and internal evidence.

[images stolen from SEBTS]

Brief Response:
Each of these speakers used the same “facts” to present their position, just different interpretations of these facts. There was a lot of discussion concerning textual criticism, especially the two manuscripts named Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. Most of the discussion concerning these two manuscripts was simply conjecture, but was interesting none-the-less. Dr. Black focused on external evidence (specifically Patristic Fathers) more than internal evidence, but made sure we understood that he thought internal evidence was important to consider. In my opinion Dr. Black had one of the better arguments for 16:9-20 being the original ending of Mark.

My Position:
Given that the majority of Mark 16:9-20 is found elsewhere, I have no problem keeping the ending of Mark. Whether or not it is “original” is beyond me, we’ll find out when the day comes. If I were forced to chose a position, this is the positions I would chose (from top to bottom).

1. Mark 16:9-20 is original.
2. Mark 16:9-20 is not original, but the ending of Mark was lost.
3. Mark 16:8 is Mark’s intended ending.

You may notice that this is the exact opposite to Dr. Bock’s list, the reason is that I just cannot understanding why anyone would end a Gospel with “for” (gar).