tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post115565963649169884..comments2024-03-29T00:57:56.876+00:00Comments on Evangelical Textual Criticism: Plato and Mark 16:8P.J. Williamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04388225485348300613noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-1156304888216473902006-08-23T04:48:00.000+01:002006-08-23T04:48:00.000+01:00Actually James Snapp has the most incredible web s...Actually James Snapp has the most incredible web site dedicated to the ending of Mark, with all sorts of textual and historical and internal information, and Jim is a stickler for accuracy.<BR/><BR/>http://www.curtisvillechristian.org/MarkOne.html<BR/>The Authenticity of Mark 16:9-20<BR/><BR/>When Jim's anonymous opposition, as here, wakes up and puts together a scholarship aid at that level, then their harumphs might not sound quite as shallow.<BR/><BR/>Shalom,<BR/>Steven AveryAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-1156150170195644392006-08-21T09:49:00.000+01:002006-08-21T09:49:00.000+01:00There is no end to your rhetoric and still blinded...There is no end to your rhetoric and still blinded by your own conceit. You lend yourself to no circumspection and your meaningless characterations still have no weight. "Gimmick ending?" Give me a break. Never mind I'll take leave from this pseudo-mimick of scientific endeavor.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-1156115405545583172006-08-21T00:10:00.000+01:002006-08-21T00:10:00.000+01:00The preceding post brims with assertions (about th...The preceding post brims with assertions (about things other than my comments about how the use of GAR in Protagoras' speech is not realistically comparable to the abrupt ending), but not with arguments. The theory that the abrupt ending was meant by the author "to send its readers back to the content of the narrative in 1:1-16:8" (where have I read that?) is, imho, the product of desperate squinting, and it is beset with several problems, including<BR/><BR/>(A) Mark’s Gospel is Peter’s gospel. With the abrupt ending, the book does not summarize Peter’s presentation of the gospel (cf. Peter’s sermons in Acts), which is contrary to the earliest description (Papias’) of the book.<BR/>(B) The abrupt ending leaves the important question of the fate of the apostles unresolved.<BR/>(C) The abrupt ending explicitly foreshadows not only a meeting, but a meeting in Galilee. This is unexplained by the "intentional ending" theory (except when combined with implausible theories such as Marxsen’s idea that the author meant “Galilee” in some non-physical sense, or the notion that readers would interpret the angel’s instructions in 16:7 as instructions to readers to re-read the portions of the book set in Galilee).<BR/>(D) The claim that the abrupt ending "sufficiently and necessarily" sends its readers back to the contents of 1:1-16:8 is simply false. It simply leaves the reader puzzled and wondering what happened next. The abrupt ending is no less abrupt the second time through, or the thirtieth. <BR/>(E) The abrupt ending historically misrepresents the women. The "intentional ending" theory offers no impetus for the author to opt to write the last sentence of 16:8 instead of something else (or nothing). <BR/>(F) It’s not as if readers of Mark 1:1-16:20 said to themselves, "Hmm; this ending does not baffle me; therefore I don’t think I will read this book again." As the Memoirs of Peter, the book needed no gimmick-ending to encourage readers to study it. <BR/><BR/>Regarding the claim that scholars, lay persons, pastors, and teachers have failed to understand the author’s intent: similarly, children may fail to see the emperor’s new clothes.<BR/><BR/>Finally, I can appreciate that in some parts of the world, the word "various" is used as a synonym for "two," and to the extent that "two" and "various" are synonymous, my earlier objection (unrelated to my comment about the comparison to Plato's text) falls. But here in the USA, "various" is an imprecise term which does not mean "two." Also, I don’t think it can be denied that the word "two" is more numerically precise than the word "several," everywhere. So I don’t think my objection falls very far; nor do I consider it silly to recommend re-phrasing a statement to make it more precise. It shouldn’t take a lot of effort to persuade objective, precision-loving writers, when choosing between two terms by which to describe something, to use the more precise term. <BR/><BR/>Meanwhile, I still contend that Protagoras 328c-d supplies no evidence that increases the probability that Mark would intentionally end his narrative in "gar," with so many loose ends remaining in the narrative, except by showing that sentences ending with "gar" are not impossible. <BR/><BR/>Yours in Christ,<BR/><BR/>James Snapp, Jr.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-1155904129802376652006-08-18T13:28:00.000+01:002006-08-18T13:28:00.000+01:00JP wrote:"...Protogoras 328c constitutes the endin...JP wrote:<BR/>"...Protogoras 328c constitutes the ending of a speech; it is not the end of a book. The conclusion of the speech is essentially a comment made by the speaker to anticipate an objection to the speaker's main idea..."<BR/><BR/>What is the main idea of St Mark's Gospel? Whatever and however one conceives it, it has been objected to for two thousand or so odd years. I'm talking now about its motifs and subject matter. The ending of St. Mark's Gospel at vs 8 sufficiently and necessarily sends its readers back to the content of the narrative in 1:1-16:8 and causes one to seriously consider the meaning of it all and its ramifications. This is the whole purpose and effect of such a conclusion to his narrative.<BR/><BR/>It is vain to belittle St. Mark's attempt simply because others early on in church history and even to this day did not or can not grasp the author's intent here at vs 8.<BR/><BR/>No positing of hypothetical compostion histories will circumvent the failure on the part of modern scholars or lay persons, pastors or teachers to understand the authorial intent intended by St. Mark in his historical narrative ending as it does and was intended to end - at verse 8.<BR/><BR/>Finally to disdain the use and for that matter the proper use of the word *various* in reference to the two *various* and occasionally later redacted endings is silly. The authors of these ending neither grasped the intend of St. Mark originally nor do those who defend either *various* ending today.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com