Ending of Mark Papers Published

The papers from the Mark 16 conference around this time last year have now been published in the latest issue of Comparative Oriental Manuscript Studies Bulletin. I haven't had a chance to read them yet myself but look forward to.

---

The Transmission of Mark’s Endings in Different Traditions and Languages

Papers presented at the International Workshop, Lausanne, 2–3 June 2022; ed. by Claire Clivaz, Mina Monier, and Dan Batovici

Introductory Essay

• A Multilingual Turn: Introducing the ‘MARK16’ COMSt Bulletin  (Claire Clivaz) 

Greek and Latin Traditions

• Physical Discontinuities in the Transitions between the Gospels: Reassessing the Ending of Mark in Codex Sinaiticus, Vaticanus and Alexandrinus  (Patrick Andrist) 
• The Text and Paratext of Family 1 in Mark 16 (Tommy Wasserman) 
  
• ʻAccording to the Egyptiansʼ: Mark 16 in GA 72 (Mina Monier) 
  
• Framing Mark: Reading Mark 16 in a Catena Manuscript (Anthony P. Royle and Garrick V. Allen) 
• Was Salome at the Markan Tomb? Another Ending to Mark’s Gospel  (Elizabeth Schrader Polczer)
• ‘The End of the Beginning’: Mark’s Longer Ending (16:9–20) and the Adaptation of the Markan Storyline (James A. Kelhoffer)
• The Ending of Mark in Tatian’s Diatessaron (Nicholas J. Zola) 
• Mark 16 and the Eusebian Apparatus: Greek and Latin Solutions  (W. Andrew Smith) 

Other Languages

• The Shorter Ending of the Gospel of Mark in the Coptic Versions  (Anne Boud’hors and Sofía Torallas Tovar) 
• The Endings of the Gospel of Mark in Syriac Witnesses  (David GK Taylor) 
• Mc 16 dans les manuscrits arabes du Sinaï — Réflexions de méthode pour leur utilization en critique textuelle. Diversity of versions, rubriques, langues sources, variantes fausses et vraies (Jean G. Valentin) 
• The Endings of Mark in Ethiopian Translation and Transmission  (Curt Niccum) 
• Mark 16 in the Persian Harmony of the Gospels (Ali B. Langroudi)
• The Displaced Endings of Mark in Armenian Biblical Manuscripts  (Dan Batovici) 
  
• Mark 16:9–20 in Armenian Medieval Literature: A Commentary by Barseł Maškeworc’i (Armine Melkonyan) 
• Un essai de panorama de Marc 16 dans la tradition georgienne  (Bernard Outtier)
  

History of the Reception

• Cerinthus and the Gospel of Mark: The Priority of the Longer Ending  (Joan E. Taylor)
  
• Trajectories in the History of Textual Scholarship on Mark’s Endings: A Reconsideration (Jan Krans and An-Ting Yi)
• Mark 16 from the Sixteenth to the Nineteenth Century: Why Were the Doubts not Expressed Earlier? (Regis Burnet)

Houghton: GA 239 & 304 Do Not Attest the Short Ending of Mark

In the latest issue of NTS, Hugh Houghton has a brief article looking at two catena manuscripts (GA 239 and 304) that both break off after Mark 16:8. The latter is even cited as evidence for the short ending in the ECM. But Houghton makes the case that neither provide evidence for the short ending since there are good reasons to conclude that both manuscripts originally had the longer ending. The evidence for this comes both from the catena and from the fact that neither manuscript has typical ending marks after 16:8, suggesting the text originally continued. Here’s the conclusion:

In sum, there are no known Greek minuscule manuscripts which only preserve the Short Ending of Mark. While the tenacity of the early textual variation at this point continues to be visible in such documents in the form of marginal asterisks, other scribal annotations, and comments from early Christian authors in catenae, claims that this ancient reading is attested by a Byzantine manuscript cannot be sustained unless they are supported by detailed investigation of the witness’s codicology, scribal practice, and textual tradition. The present study does not challenge the scholarly consensus on the earliest attainable form of the ending of Mark, but it does demonstrate the imperative to take full account of the context and nature of documents in which an unexpected reading appears before adducing them as evidence for an early form of text.

There are other interesting features about both manuscripts, but the case against citing these two minuscules to support the short ending is convincing to my mind. The article is open access and you can read it here. 

Mark 16:8 in GA 239

Two Recent Articles from Peter Rodgers

Peter Rodgers sends word that he has two new articles in Filología Neotestamentaria. I can’t seem to link to the specific issues or articles, but here are the titles and abstracts. (Update: I’ve added links to Peter’s Academia page where they’re uploaded.)

Mark’s longer ending

Among the theories as to how the Gospel of Mark ended is the proposal that a final page was lost early in its transmission. This article presents evidence to support that theory. Matthew appears to follow Mark closely until 16:8 when our authentic Mark ends abruptly. We may expect him to do so if he has access to Mark’s longer ending. Utilizing C. H. Turner’s article on Marcan usage, we explore several peculiarities of Mark’s style that appear in Matthew 28:9-20. These indicate that Matthew followed Mark as he reshaped the gospel in his own way, but distinctive traces of Mark survived.

The Origins of the Alexandrian Text of the New Testament

The Alexandrian text is generally regarded as the most reliable text form of the New Testament. However, there is reason to suspect that it did not originate in Alexandria. There is a total absence of references to Christians in the documentary papyri before the beginning of the third century. This article argues that the “Alexandrian” text actually originated in Ephesus, a major Christian center in Apostolic and sub-apostolic times. This proposal sheds further light on the text-critical issue at Eph. 1:1.

Recent Writings on Textual Criticism

Various things have come across my screen in the last few weeks on textual criticism and I haven’t had time to read them all. So I’m collecting them here both to remind myself later and for anyone who might otherwise miss them.

• “The Ways that Parted in the Library: The Gospels according to Matthew and according to the Hebrews in Late Ancient Heresiology” by Jeremiah Coogan
  Coogan argues that Matthew and the Gospel according to the Hebrews are just two versions of Matthew but with differentiated titles. This one I did read and it’s good. Go read it. I did wonder about the comparison between Matthew and GHebrews and Acts in the Alexandrian text and the “Western” text (is there some point at which we can drop the scare quotes?). The fact that the “Western” text never got a distinct title whereas the GHebrews did may be the evidence we need that the latter two were conceived of differently by more than just the heresiologists. (The comparison with Marcion’s Gospel is also helpful.) Either way, it got me thinking afresh about when one text is changed so much that it becomes a different work. And congrats to Jeremiah on the Eusebius Prize!
• “A Note on GA 2311” by David Lincicum
  GA 2311 has moved to Notre Dame from private ownership. That’s as far as I could read.
• “The Construction and Contents of the Beatty-Michigan Pauline Epistles Codex (𝔓⁴⁶)” by Brent Nongbri
  Brent has done further work on the contents of single-quire codices and has concluded that P46 could have contained the Pastorals. I haven’t been able to read the article, but his blog summary says, “The upshot of this is the possibility that there were more missing pages at the end of P46 than we have generally thought, which opens up the possibility that the quire did originally contain all of the fourteen letters of Paul that we find in later Greek manuscripts of Paul’s letters.” I especially like that he says, “I did not at all expect to reach this conclusion, but I suppose that is why we do the research!” Indeed.
• Kelsie Rodenbiker and Garrick Allen have edited a special issue of Religions on paratextual issues. It includes seven essays on “Titles, Paratexts, and Manuscript Communication: Jewish and Christian Literature in Material Context.” The range from Coptic titles to iconography. Especially interesting—from what I was able to read so far—is Mina Monier on the endings of Mark and paratextual features. The articles are all open access.
• Speaking of Markan endings, the Text & Canon Institute posted two new articles this month on the Longer Ending. The first, by James Snapp, gives a condensed version of his argument in favor of authenticity and the second, by our own Peter Head, gives a rejoinder. These are intended for a fairly wide audience, so keep that in mind.
• The CSNTM conference last month was a great time. Thanks to the whole CSNTM crew for their work putting it together. James Snapp has been posting summaries of some of the papers at his blog here, here, here, and here.

That’s all I’ve got. If you know something I missed, drop it in the comments.

Hixson reading Burgon as a youth. Credit

Last Two Videos on NT Textual Criticism and Askeland on GJW

I’ve now uploaded the last two guest lectures from my Fall TC course. The first is from James Snapp on Mark 16 and the second is Richard Brash on whether Cornelius Van Til’s theology leads to KJV-onlyism or its kin.

By way of commentary, I should note that James and I had a good Q&A after his talk but Zoom was unfortunately a bit out of sync. Personally, I was surprised to hear James say that he does not think Mark 16.9–20 is Mark’s originally intended ending. In other words, both he and I agree that we do not have Mark’s intended ending. Where we differ is that he thinks that vv. 9–20 are still from Mark and were in the first published copy. By his definition, then, they are original. I’m guessing that if that was news to me, it may be news to some of James’s followers too. But James can chime in if he wants to clarify/correct me here.

Finally, apologies to Christian Askeland whose video on Coptic translations I forgot to download in time from Zoom and is now gone forever. As a consolation, you can go read Christian’s new article on lessons from the Gospel of Jesus’ Wife at the TCI website.

Thanks to all my guests this semester!

Postdoc in Lausanne on Mark 16

A 4 year postdoctoral position is being advertised in Lausanne to work on the new project there on Mark 16 led by Claire Clivaz. Further details are here. It is a digital humanities post and is located in the Swiss Institute of Bioinformatics (which obviously interprets its remit broadly!).

The Timing of Burgon’s Last Twelve Verses

Some time ago, I posted Hort’s review of Dean Burgon’s defense of Mark 16.9-20. Along with that, and more interesting than the review, was a letter that Hort sent to Westcott about his review and the importance of its timing. Hort tells Westcott that he hopes the review is out before the committee for the RV meets to discuss this passage. And so it was. The review was published just before that meeting.

What I had not realized then was that Hort, in timing his response, was following in Burgon’s footsteps. Burgon’s own book was timed to precede—and so influence—the committee’s discussion of this passage.

Here is what A. H. Cadwallader says in his article “The Politics of Translation of The Revised Version: Evidence from the Newly Discovered Notebooks of Brooke Foss Westcott,” JTS 58, no. 2 (2007): 415–39. After discussing how careful the committee was to remain tight-lipped about their internal deliberations and disagreements, Cadwallader says (pp. 424-25),

The newspapers were officially provided only with details of the days of meeting, the members present, and the passages examined. This provided at least one antagonist, Dean Burgon, with the opportunity to time a publication on the integrity of the last twelve verses to Mark’s Gospel (the ‘Longer Ending’) before the Company dealt with the passage. Westcott’s close companion on such textual issues, Fenton J. A. Hort, saw the political danger immediately, and bemoaned to Westcott the rapid refutation that was needed if the Company was not to swing behind the moderately conservative Frederick Scrivener. As it was, the implication from the minutes is that the discussions on this passage were lengthy if not heated. Of all the 412 days of meeting, this seven-hour meeting yielded the least number of verses processed.

Having seen the minutes from these meetings, I can say that they are pretty boring. The first few entries detail who voted for what change but after that they quickly become a mere record of who was present and what changes were voted for. But Cadwallader’s observation is probably right to see the less-than-usual progress as a sign of serious debate. At least we know the decision was not made hastily.

Perhaps I should also note that Cadwallader has been at work on a history of the RV and I hear that he is making good progress. It should be a fine study when it comes out.

Hort’s Review of Burgon’s Last Twelve Verses

In 1871, F. J. A. Hort wrote a short review of Dean Burgon’s well-known defense of the longer ending of Mark in The Last Twelve Verses of St. Mark. The review itself isn’t especially noteworthy. Hort found himself unconvinced and unimpressed by Burgon’s case. Burgon was no fan of Hort’s text critical work either, of course.

What is a bit more interesting is that Hort wrote his review just before the committee of the Revised Version was set to meet in Westminster to discuss this very text. So Hort must have gone into the meeting with the issues fresh on his mind. Here is what Hort wrote to Westcott about the review.

To the Rev. Dr. Westcott
St Ippolyts, All Saints’ Eve [Tuesday, October 31], 1871

Mr Burgon, aided by various interruptions, has swallowed up two precious days:—not more, I hope. I send you the result for correction or approval. I want to send it to Cheyne as early as possible, hoping that it may be in the Academy of the 15th, which will appear just when we are discussing Mark xvi.9–20 at Westminster. If you have not seen the book, you will still be able to judge on most points. Even the brief statement of principle may be useful. It was useless to attempt particulars without more space, and I have already transgressed. Is not what little I have said about Mr Burgon’s style necessary? It was difficult not to say much more. The point about + τέλος + is very curious and deserves further working.

Here is the review that was published in The Academy the same year (vol 2, pp. 518-519):

Mark 16 on a Roll

Many New Testament scholars consider Mark 16.8 to be the original ending of the Gospel. Others regard the original ending as now lost. For those who think it’s lost, the most frequent explanation is that it was lost at some point given that the beginning and ends of books are particularly liable to damage and loss. Those who think that Mark 16.8 is the original ending sometimes argue against this by pointing out that, because Mark was most likely written on a roll, a loss at the end is actually very unlikely.

Dan Wallace makes this argument in Perspectives on the Ending of Mark (2008). After saying that it is very unlikely that Mark wrote his gospel as a codex, he says

However, if Mark’s Gospel is earlier than this [end of the first century]—as virtually all scholars acknowledge, regardless of their view of the synoptic problem—then he would have written his Gospel on a roll, and the first generation of copies would also have been on rolls. And if the Gospel was written on a roll, then the most protected section would be the end, because when someone rolled the book back up, the end would be on the inside. To be sure, some lazy readers might not rewind the book when finished—of course, they would get fined a denarius at their local Blockbuster for such an infraction! But the reality is that this sort of thing was the rare exception, not the rule. Consequently, if Mark was originally written on a roll, it is hard to imagine how the ending could have gotten lost before any copies were made. (pp. 35–36)

Appeal has also been made to the placement of the title in a scroll in this debate. F. G. Kenyon actually changed his mind on whether the end was liable to loss. He felt that the position of the title at the end of the roll would mean that “the reader of a roll would not want to wait till he had read to the end in order to know the name of the author and the title of the work; and an intending reader would not want to unroll the entire roll in order to ascertain these facts.” Because of that, Kenyon takes the opposite view of Wallace on whether a scroll might account for the loss of Mark’s original ending.

Is the Longer Ending of Mark Inspired? (with Poll)

Not a picture of the ending of Mark.

For some, the question of whether Mark 16.9–20 belongs to the original text of Mark’s Gospel settles the matter of whether it should be read, preached, and taught as Scripture. For others it’s not so simple. These 12 verses may have been added, but this does not mean they aren’t inspired by God.

I count myself among that small group that thinks Mark 16.9–20 is not Mark’s original ending but is still Scripture. These verses are attested early and widely and there is nothing in them that I can see that would discredit them theologically. The fact that they have been received by so many Christians as Scripture seems to me to weigh heavily in their favor.

But I admit I am probably in a minority in holding this position. So I was glad to find an ally this week in Samuel P. Tregelles who held the same view. I might still be wrong, but at least I’m in good company!

Here is how Tregelles explained his view:

As, then, the facts of the case, and the early reception and transmission of this section, uphold its authenticity, and as it has been placed from the second century, at least, at the close of our second canonical Gospel;­—and as, likewise, its transmission has been accompanied by a continuous testimony that it was not a part of the book as originally written by St. Mark;—and as both these points are confirmed by internal considerations—

The following corollaries flow from the propositions already established:—

I. That the book of Mark himself extends no farther than ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ, xvi. 8.

II. That the remaining twelve verses, by whomsoever written, have a full claim to be received as an authentic part of the second Gospel, and that the full reception of early testimony on this question does not in the least involve their rejection as not being a part of Canonical Scripture.

Lunn on the End of Mark. Part 3

For the introduction to this book and review series, see my previous posts: Part 1, Part 2.
 
N.P. Lunn, The Original Ending of Mark: A New Case for the Authenticity of Mark 16:9-20 (Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2014).

Ch. 2 External Evidence (1): Biblical Manuscripts

Broadly speaking, in this chapter, Lunn argues that the absence of 16.9-20 is ‘a fairly localized textual variant which had no earlier explicit witness before the fourth century’. Of course, the latter is true, but the question of localisation is rather more complicated and not adequately addressed. The impression throughout the whole chapter is that Lunn’s knowledge of the actual manuscripts is mediated almost totally through other secondary literature. On a couple of points this becomes very problematic. I am not going to be able to address every point in this chapter, but I will try to touch on the main points.

An initial problem is that although Lunn notes and lists five alternative ending forms for Mark (p. 22), he declines to address three of these (the Freer interpolation, the shorter ending on its own, the shorter ending with the longer ending) on the grounds that they are obviously not the original ending of Mark (p. 23). This is true, but they all are of value in illustrating the history of the textual tradition. Just to take one example, L 019 (image here from VMR), it is clear that no one could read this manuscript without thinking there were some problems here with the ending of Mark. And the manuscripts which preserve both the short ending and the long ending may plausibly be regarded as a witness to the shorter form of the text in the prior transmission history of these texts. But none of this is even mentioned - attempts to simplify a complex situation are not always reasonable. It is interesting that in the conclusion to the chapter Lunn writes ‘the textual issue relating to the end of Mark does not have the complexity which it is often claimed to have’ (p. 60), but this is because he has imposed a simplicity by not really listening to all the relevant data.

In relation to the external witnesses supporting the inclusion of 16.9-20 Lunn rightly notes, what everyone knows, that the numerical advantage is overwhelmingly with Greek manuscripts, versions, and Fathers attesting these verses (p. 24f).

In relation to Codex Vaticanus, Lunn barely notices the actual ending of Mark, urging that ‘the phenomenon most relevant regarding the ending of Mark in Vaticanus is the presence of a blank column following the close of this Gospel’ (p. 28). This is clearly wrong. The phenomenon most relevant regarding the ending of Mark in Vaticanus is the absolutely clear ending of the text at 16.8. Of course the blank column is interesting and unusual and intriguing, but the confidence with which a blank space is interpreted in the direction of the overall thesis, is unwarranted.We shall see throughout the book that ambiguities and absences are always interpreted, without sufficient rigour, in support of the overall thesis.

In relation to Codex Sinaiticus, Lunn suggests (following Williams) that the particular form of the wavy coronis at the end of Mark suggests that the since the scribe so definitely wanted to indicate that the gospel of Mark was finished that he must have known about the long ending. Here is a hermeneutic of suspicion indeed. It makes no sense to over-interpret blank spaces and scribal doodles.

So both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus should be taken as witnesses for ‘the prior existence of the longer ending’ (p. 33) - although why it should be 16.9-20 is not made clear. 

In relation to the numerous minuscule manuscripts which include either a marginal note, or a heading, or in some other way indicates that 16.9-20 are disputed or doubtful, Lunn takes the view that while these notes acknowledge the existence of earlier witnesses lacking 16.9-20, by and large they affirm the text, and so copy it. There is a place for a detailed study of these, but this isn’t it, and Lunn hasn’t done any first hand work on the manuscripts (Snapp is far better on this). I limit myself to two comments. Firstly, that Lunn does not, in my opinion, give a balanced presentation of the whole of the evidence, e.g. re ms 1: it is hardly fair to call its introduction to 16.9-20 ‘a marginal note’; nor can it be true that ‘nothing suggests spuriousness’, since it explicitly appeals to the support of Eusebius and to other manuscripts for the gospel as having ended at v8. For an image try here. Secondly, Lunn lacks nuance in interpreting the notes and signs that do exist (it is interesting to see him dispute the clarity of interpreting an obelus on the grounds of lack of explicit indication of what the sign meant - something that hadn’t hindered his interpretation of the end of Mark in Sinaiticus!). The larger point is that these manuscripts (and as well L PSI 099 0112 etc. which have the short and long ending) resist the conclusion that Lunn is aiming for - that the absence of 16.9-20 is an isolated and idiosyncratic textual tradition. They also show that simply to say that 16.9-20 is attested in a manuscript, is not the same thing as saying that 16.9-20 is presented as unambiguously the ending of Mark in continuity with 16.8.

In relation to the Versions Lunn obviously has to cope with the problem that the oldest Old Latin manuscript, the oldest Syriac manuscript, the oldest Sahidic manuscript, alongside the oldest Armenian and Georgian manuscripts all lack 16.9-20. His general view is simply to contrast in each case the one earliest witness with the many others, admit that there is a problem, and move on.

In general, throughout the chapter, the argument is basically a discussion of the way other secondary sources discuss the primary evidence. The conclusion, that Vaticanus and Sinaiticus stand isolated, is not sustained by the argument.

Lunn on the End of Mark. Part 2

For the introduction to this book and review series, see my previous post.
 
N.P. Lunn, The Original Ending of Mark: A New Case for the Authenticity of Mark 16:9-20 (Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2014).

Ch. 1: Introduction
The introductory chapter opens up the issue of the authenticity of Mark 16.9-20. The general consensus against the authenticity of these verses has two forms, one in which 16.8 is the proper original ending of Mark (particularly depending on strands of reader-response, but with no consensus interpretation of why Mark ends so abruptly), and one in which it is thought that the original ending is lost. Lunn suggests that doubts about the ending at 16.8 are reasonable, since one might expect a clear affirmation of the resurrection of Jesus in view of the early kerygma, creedal formulations, the other gospels, the resurrection predictions in Mark (8.31; 9.9f; 9.31; 10.34), the implausibility of ending a work with GAR, and various other considerations, siding with a quite large number of English-language commentators to the effect that there was probably more of Mark (Witherington, Evans, France, Edwards, Wright, and Stein).

So the introduction sets the scene for the presentation, but also something of the style and academic level of the book. Positively, it is very clear and well organised. Relevant material is collected from a wide variety of sources and presented in ways that support the case the author is making. Occasionally the style grated, with too many introductions like "famed professor of biblical exegesis F. F. Bruce ...". And there were a couple of minor related points of concern (referring to "Morner Hooker" rather than "Morna Hooker", introducing Philip Comfort alongside Bruce Metzger as "leading textual critics" - both of which may be slips, or may indicate a lack of broader scholarly perspective). Although reasonably full in making his nine points against Mark ending at 16.8, he dismisses the view that the author of Mark intended to end at 16.8 very briefly in view of a secondary summary of such arguments. Finally the discussion only concerns English language scholarship - Westcott and Hort are in view, not Tischendorf or Weiss or Nestle or anyone else (Griesbach and Lachmann get a mention via a secondary source - Croy on the Mutilation of Mark). A quick look at the author index confirms this (Mark commentaries by Cranfield, Edwards, France, Lane, Marcus are frequently cited, but not a single German or French commentator); Amphoux is absent even from the bibliography. Judging by the index the other main dialogue partners are Burgon, J.K. Elliott, W.R. Farmer, J.A. Kelhoffer, Metzger, J.E. Snapp, Jr., and Westcott & Hort.

The aim of the book is to argue that Mark 16.9-20 is precisely the ending that makes sense of Mark. So the following chapters address arguments against this and mount arguments in its favour.

Ch. 2 External Evidence (1): Biblical Manuscripts
Lunn will argue that the absence of 16.9-20 is 'a fairly localized textual variant which had no earlier explicit witness before the fourth century'.

Ch. 3 External Evidence (2): Patristic Citations
Lunn will argue that evidence of the knowledge of 16.9-20 reaches back into the second century, including 'some significant previously overlooked allusions to the Markan Ending in the Apostolic Fathers'.

Ch. 4 Linguistic Evidence (1): Vocabulary and Style
Lunn will argue against the wide-spread view that the style of 16.9-20 is distinctive and non-Markan, that the language of 16.9-20 'falls within the observable parameters of Markan usage'.

Ch. 5 Linguistic Evidence (2): Other Features
Lunn will argue that a range of 'deeper-level linguistic features' can be 'shown to actually provide evidence that supports Markan authorship'.

Ch. 6 Literary Evidence
Lunn will argue from various literary devices that 'the longer ending forms an integral element in the overall design of the Gospel'.


Ch. 7 Thematic Evidence
Lunn will argue that various Markan themes, including the new exodus motif, are 'strongly present in both the body of the Gospel and its ending'.

Ch. 8 The Longer Ending and the Gospels: The Question of Dependence
Lunn will argue that Luke 24 and the speeches in Acts demonstrate 'through unmistakable verbal resonances, acquaintance with a Gospel of Mark that included 16:9-20'.

Ch. 9 Miscellaneous Issues
Lunn will discuss remaining problems with the content of 16.9-20: its connection with 16.1-8, and the issues of baptism, snake handling, and poison drinking.

Ch. 10 The Cause of the Problem
Lunn will discuss whether 16.9-20 was accidentally or deliberately omitted.

Ch. 11 Summary and Conclusion

Lunn on the End of Mark

The other day I received in the mail the following book: N.P. Lunn, The Original Ending of Mark: A New Case for the Authenticity of Mark 16:9-20 (Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2014).

When it came out I got a copy on my Kindle, but I liked it so much I thought I should get a proper book for my library (who knows how long my Kindle will last and whether I’ll be able to find it). So the publishers have sent me a review copy, and I’ll tackle that in sections over the next couple of weeks. To begin with I would say it makes a good initial impression for four reasons:

1. The title is straightforward. It tells you exactly what the book is about. I like that. It is an advocacy book - everything is slanted to persuade you that 16.9-20 is the original ending of Mark.
2. The book is big enough. Sometimes you get books and you can tell in an instant that even the author hasn’t taken the subject sufficiently seriously - the book is too small. But here we get a large size book (i.e. large pages) and with 378 pages. Big enough to mount the necessary argument (without being an NT Wright sized over-production). 
3. The layout is pleasing. Obviously Wipf and Stock must be doing something right at the moment. The paper, font, page layout etc. is just simple, clear and the sort of book an author could be proud of.
4. The price is right. Obviously I got my print copy for free (although I did pay for my Kindle copy). In exchange for a critical review. But the price for this book is listed as US $34.40. If Wipf and Stock are going to be doing textual criticism then we are going to have a very marketable outlet for good scholarship and affordable prices. 

But one shouldn’t only judge a book by its cover. 

Article on "Scribal Hermeneutics in the Longer Ending of Mark"

In the current issue of Journal of Theological Studies there is an article of interest,

"Discipleship after the Resurrection: Scribal Hermeneutics in the Longer Ending of Mark" by Suzanne Watts Henderson, Queens University of Charlotte, NC.

Abstract
Scholars typically maintain that the Longer Ending (LE) of Mark subverts Mark’s somber message about Jesus’ sacrificial death with a triumphant, concluding vision of the risen Lord seated at the right hand of God (Mark 16:19). This study takes a different tack, promoting a more nuanced understanding of the relationship between Mark and the LE by detecting important thematic elements—especially concerning discipleship—that the later passage both adopts and adapts from its host gospel. For the writer(s) of the LE, the resurrection serves less as a dividing-line between Jesus’ disciples and Mark’s community and more as the bridge that confirms emphatically the new age of God’s reign, evident both before and after the passion through those who trust the message of that good news.

Maurice Robinson Responds to T.B. Williams pt. 1

About two weeks ago Peter Head drew attention to an interesting article in the recent Bulletin for Biblical Research: Travis B. Williams, "Bringing Method to the Madness: Examining the Style of the Longer Ending of Mark" BBR 20.3 (2010), 397-418. Peter summarized:

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.

In his article Travis Williams addresses co-blogger Maurice Robinson's own study of the Longer Ending of Mark (LE) in Perspectives on the Ending of Mark: Four Views (ed. D.A. Black; Nashwille: B&H Academic, 2008), 40-79. (The other three views are those of D. A. Black, Keith Elliott and Daniel Wallace). Look inside the book here (Amazon). I selected this book for the Eisenbrauns/ETC sales which is still up.

Robinson has now written a response to Williams which will be published in two parts (the full response will eventually be published under TC-Files).

Robinson's Response to Travis Williams on the Long Ending of Mark
Since my own study of the Longer Ending of Mark (LE) is addressed in Travis Williams’ article (“Bringing Method to the Madness: Examining the Style of the Longer Ending of Mark,” BBR 20.3 [2010] 397-418), I consider it valid to offer a brief comment.

I suggest that this study, like most others claiming to deal definitively with matters of style and syntax, remains flawed, and serves only to further muddle the discussion. Among the many fallacies that could be noted, I select five that occur in close sequence in the middle of the article (Williams, 406-411), in the order they occur.

1. Williams claims (406) that the unique use of ἕτερος in 16:12 is out of step with the exclusive Markan use of ἄλλος. This is supported by a footnote (406n23) that points out a supposed Markan failure to differentiate between different types of seed in the parable of the sower, claiming on this basis that “Mark uses the term [ἄλλος] to denote both ‘another of the same kind’ as well as ‘another of a different kind.’” This is supported by mention that the Lukan parallel uses ἕτερος in place of the Markan ἄλλος, concluding that “this reveals that Mark prefers ἄλλος even in situations in which another term may have been more specific.” But such a line of reasoning simply is incorrect on two major grounds: first, one cannot make Lukan word preference a touchstone for Markan style and usage (this particularly if one holds to Markan priority!); second, the seeds in the Markan version of the parable in fact are not different — rather, the same type of seed is merely sown in different soils. Within a proper Markan context, ἄλλος then remains the only appropriate term for the Sower, whereas in 16:12, ἕτερος is clearly required. This then becomes a non-issue.

2. Williams claims (407) that the absence in the LE of such a “distinctive Markan stylistic feature” as the term εὐθύς is “glaring,” and that “it is striking to find it absent from the Long Ending.” Yet there are many long stretches of Mark in which εὐθύς does not occur that extend far beyond the 12 verses of the LE. Examples include 2:13-3:5 (20vv); 3:7-4:4 (33vv); 6:55-7:34 (37vv); 8:11-9:14 (43vv); 9:25-10:51 (78vv); 11:4-14:42 (154vv), etc. In fact, even in the portion up to 16:8, the last appearance of εὐθύς was in 15:1 — some 55 verses earlier! Obviously Williams’ claim on this point is seriously flawed.

3. Similarly, Williams also claims (407) that the absence of πάλιν in the LE is “glaring,” since such is “another favorite of Mark.” Leaving aside the fact that πάλιν is far more characteristic of John, indeed Mark does hold second place among the four gospels in the use of this word. However, the same facts apply as in the case of εὐθύς: numerous long stretches exist in Mark in which παλιν simply does not appear. Examples include 1:1-2:1 (45vv); 4:1-5:20 (60vv); 5:22-7:31 (109vv), etc. And once more, even in the portion up to 16:8, the last occurrence of πάλιν was at 15:13 — some 42 verses earlier. Once more, Williams’ claim is flawed.

[TW: More to follow in part 2]

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.

Bob Stein on the ending of Mark

In the latest issue of BBR (18.1 [2008]: 79-98) Robert H. Stein argues that Mark's Gospel did not originally end at Mk. 16.8. He argues this based on: (1) Mark has two prophetic statements about Jesus meeting his disciples in Galilee in 14.28 and 16.7. (2) The focus on the nature of faith or discipleship in some analyses of 16.1-8 loses focus on the christological purpose of Mark in his Gospel which is about Jesus Christ, the Son of God. (3) This view is enjoying a resurgence of support of late from Gundry, Evans, Witherington, Edwards, France, and Wright.

Theodore Letis

Jim Leonard has drawn my attention to the page Theodore P. Letis in Memorium [sic], a tribute to an ecclesiastical historian who wrote controversially on matters relating to textual criticism. He died last year in a car accident returning from a gig. There seem to be varied interpretations of what his position was. He could be seen as KJVO, Majority Text, anti-inerrancy, Childsean—categories that do not usually appear alongside each other. He was highly idiosyncratic and it seems that during the last decade of his life he espoused views that he would not have held earlier. I met him in Tyndale House, Cambridge, a few years ago, and had been previously convinced that he was basically an up-market KJVO advocate. However, if I understood our conversation correctly—and he seemed to enjoy mystifying—he basically accepted a fairly standard history of the text during the first four centuries, but believed that what the text that the church had come to receive was the locus of authority. For instance, he thought that Mark 16:9-20 was secondary and inspired. He was aware that some of his conservative constituency did not realize that his position involved this.

The tribute is followed by comments from someone who knew him exclusively as a blues musician. It seems that he kept is identities somewhat separate. (“... we knew him as a swaggering front man who liked Muddy Waters and The Stones above all else in life.”)

Further links on Letis can be found on:
http://www.holywordcafe.com/bible/Letis.html

and

http://www.kuyper.org/thetext/

The second link in particular, which gives no indication of Letis’ death, suggests that there may be some work to do bringing Letis’ intellectual legacy into order.

I discovered the authoritative pronunciation of his name as Lee-tiss when I experienced his strong reaction as I tried to order a taxi for him using the pronunciation Lettuce.

I have not read widely in the Letis corpus; I tended to be disappointed by what I read. I should therefore be interested to know if anyone formed a more favourable opinion of what he had to say.

Update (3/13/18)

Here is video of Letis