Maurice Robinson Responds to T.B. Williams pt. 2

This is the second part of Maurice Robinson's response to T. B. Williams concerning the Longer Ending of Mark (first part here):

Robinson Responds to T.B. Williams pt. 2
4. When dealing with the “unexpected shift” between 16:8 and 16:9, Williams (409) notes that “the nominative singular participle in v. 9 seems to have no referent,” and that this “participial function in Mark 16:9 is different from what is found in the rest of the Gospel.” He further notes that “one could hardly argue that Jesus has been the subject up to this point,” even though that “while he has been mentioned [16:6-7], the events have primarily surrounded the women who have come to the tomb. Therefore, this sudden and uninformed shift weighs against authenticity.” However, once more the fallacy in this claim can be demonstrated from a similar shift in a neighboring undoubted segment of Mark, Note the context of 15:44-46 in particular:

44. ὁ δὲ Πιλᾶτος ἐθαύμασεν εἰ ἤδη τέθνηκεν . . . 45. καὶ γνοὺς ἀπὸ τοῦ κεντυρίωνος ἐδωρήσατο τὸ πτῶμα τῷ Ἰωσήφ. 46. καὶ ἀγοράσας σινδόνα καθελὼν αὐτὸν ἐνείλησεν τῇ σινδόνι καὶ ἔθηκεν αὐτὸν ἐν μνημείῳ . . .

44. Now Pilate marveled that he had already died . . . 45. and having known [this] from the centurion, he granted the body to Joseph. 46. And having bought linen cloth and taking him down he wrapped him in the linen and placed him in the tomb . . .

The point in parallel here is that, even though “while [Joseph] has been mentioned, the events have primarily surrounded [Pilate].” In fact, the shift from an obliquely mentioned Joseph of v.45 to him suddenly becoming the subject in v.46 is awkward in the same manner as Jesus becoming subject in 16:9 after having been mentioned obliquely in 16:6-7. The situation is further compounded in view of the fact that the aorist participles ἀγοράσας and καθελών otherwise match the γνούς of v.45, where Pilate is the clear subject. Such an awkward shift of referent forces the reader to do the same sorting out of the intended subject in 15:46 as occurs in 16:9. Thus, in view of this nearneighbor parallel instance, the issue in 16:9 should not be considered “different from what is found in the rest of the Gospel,” contra Williams’ claim to that effect.

5. Williams cites (410-11) as “another oddity” in 16:9 “the combination of ἐκβάλλω and παρά,” and builds an entire case on the awkwardness of this collocation:

In fact, the combination . . . is not found anywhere else in the NT. Thus, its presence in 16:9 is not only awkward for Mark but it would be unusual for any NT author . . . . The conjunction would have to carry a sense that is unknown in the NT — that of separation.

In particular, Williams points out (411) that ἐκ or ἀπό would be more appropriate to the context. Yet this entire claim is seriously flawed, since Williams focuses on the weakly supported minority reading of several aberrant MSS (C* D L W 0112 33 579 892 pc) while totally failing to mention the overwhelming majority reading of this passage found in all other witnesses, which is αφ᾿ ἧς ἐκβεβλήκει and not παρ᾿ ἧς ἐκβεβλήκει. This variant is clearly noted in the Nestle apparatus, even though the editors (peculiarly) chose to follow the aberrancy of παρά rather than the more correct consensus involving the fully appropriate ἀπό. At best, failure to take note of the variant that would obviate this difficulty is an unconscious oversight on Williams’ part; at worst, it is a matter of unfairly stacking the deck by ignoring and not mentioning the known legitimate alternatives even when such are immediately available.

In summary, these five examples represent only a portion of what I see as serious methodological flaws in Williams’ “Method or Madness” article — flaws that taken in concert seriously call into question both the method and its conclusions. In light of these considerations, I see no reason to modify or abandon what I have stated previously in my “Amid Perfect Contempt” article in the Perspectives on the Ending of Mark volume [see reference and link in previous part].

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]