Tuesday, October 05, 2010

Williams on the Long Ending of Mark

Interesting article in the recent Bulletin for Biblical Research: T.B. Williams, ‘Bringing Method to the Madness: Examining the Style of the Longer Ending of Mark’ BBR 20.3 (2010), 397-418.

Basically Williams argues that previous discussions of the style of the Long Ending have been methodologically unsound. So he proposes a sound method and procedure (or methodological procedure), applies this to the evidence (well, half of the evidence), and proposes that the style of the Long Ending is distinctly non-Markan. So no surprises there then.
Interestingly he states: 'due to spatial limitations and the fact that dissimilarity reveals more about authenticity than similarity, our discusson will be confined to strong indications of an un-Markan style plus instances that have wrongly been labelled un-Markan' (p. 404). This looks like dealing with only half the evidence to me.

2 Comments:

James E. Snapp, Jr. said...

I may try to track this article down someday. In the meantime, this might be a good opportunity to mention that I've written a summarized 15-page defense of Mark 16:9-20 as part of the autograph of the Gospel of Mark, boiling down my earlier 160-page paper. It's called "A Brief Defense of Mark 16:9-20" and I'd be glad to share it on request via e-mail, or, if you like, it can be purchased cheap as a Kindle Book at Amazon.

Does Williams ask, "Is Mark 16:9-20 the ending intended by Mark?" or does he merely ask, "Do stylistic considerations allow the possibility that the author of Mark 1:1-16:8 could be the author of 16:9-20 if 16:9-20 is considered a separate document?"

And does he include Kelhoffer's analysis among the previous discussions that have been methodologically unsound?

Yours in Christ,

James Snapp, Jr.

Nazaroo said...

It appears the 2010 issue is not posted on the internet link. Could there be another online source?

regards,
Nazaroo