Theological Musings

s I have already mentioned here, the past two days, Christy and I had the opportunity to drive down to Wake Forest, NC (the town, not the University) to attend a conference at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. The conference was entitled “The Last Twelve Verses of Mark: Original or Not?” and presented a fascinating look from five different scholars at the question of whether or not Mark 16:9-20 were part of the original Gospel According to Mark.

I already mentioned last night that you can see reviews of each of the sessions on Alan’s blog and on Lew’s blog. (The links will take you to search results for “original or not” on those two blogs, since there are multiple posts on each blog.) It is in no way my desire to duplicate the efforts of these two fine live-bloggers. However, I would like to give my overall reaction to the conference and my opinions on the topic.

First of all, I must say that the conference itself was quite wonderful. SEBTS, and especially Dr. Black, did a terrific job of organizing and coordinating the conference. The seminary has a beautiful campus, and the weather was perfect for our time there.

As I mentioned last night, we also had a terrific time fellowshipping with some friends that we previously had never met in person. Alan and his wife Margaret (apparently, second only to my wife as the most wonderful wife in the world), Lew, Maël and Cindy, Theron and Cheryl, Rob and Brandi, are all people I have gotten to know a little bit through blogging. It was a pleasure to meet with them, and spend time together both Friday night after the first part of the conference and Saturday for lunch.

I also would like to give an especially big “thank you” to Ed and Leah for so graciously allowing us to spend the night in their home. Unfortunately, we did not get to meet Ed because of our schedule, but we enjoyed spending time with Leah Friday evening as part of the fellowship time with the people mentioned in the previous paragraph.

Now, on to the topic of the conference.

Presenters, with the position defended, were (in order of appearance):

1. Dr. Dan Wallace of Dallas Theological Seminary, defending the position that the Gospel According to Mark ends intentionally at the end of Mark 16:8.
2. Dr. Maurice Robinson of SEBTS, defending the position that Mark wrote all the way to Mark 16:20 in his original writing.
3. Dr. Keith Elliott of University of Leeds (in the UK), defending the position that Mark originally did write past 16:8, but that it was lost, and what we now know as 16:9-20 was added later (by someone else) to replace the lost portion.
4. Dr. David Black of SEBTS, defending the position that Mark wrote 16:9-20 himself as a conclusion to the remainder of the book, which was a record (by Mark) of what Peter was publicly preaching. (This idea of Mark recording Peter’s teaching, and then adding his own conclusion is to account for the different style and syntax of 16:9-20 from the rest of the book.)
5. Dr. Darrell Bock of Dallas Theological Seminary, summarizing the four positions presented, and giving his thoughts and reactions (while also supporting Dr. Wallace’s position of ending the book at 16:8)

Overall, I came into the conference without even knowing the issues at hand, so not having formed any opinion one way or the other. I came away leaning toward Wallace’s position that Mark intentionally ended the book at 16:8 and that the later verses were added by scribes.

Each of the presentations had their strengths and weaknesses, and again I would refer you to Alan or Lew to see the points that were made in each. As a whole, though, I was impressed with the graciousness of each speaker as they presented their views.

The issue of the ending of Mark has little significance theologically, as several speakers pointed out. There are no earth-shattering doctrines revealed in Mark 16:9-20. So, in one sense, the issue is largely academic. But it still allows us to gain insight into the method of textual criticism, and the presuppositions that we bring to any problem of this nature.

Throughout the weekend, there were some really good quotes and one-liners that I would like to mention here. They are in no particular order, and I have mixed in the humorous with the insightful. Also, please bear in mind that some of these quotes are not completely word-for-word. They went by fast, and I don’t write that fast!

• Wallace: “Evangelical scholars must be willing to pursue truth regardless of where it takes us.” (Regular readers of my blog will understand quickly why this quote resonated with me!)
• Wallace, giving an example about presuppositions: (loosely paraphrased) If you hold to the doctrine of preservation, it will not allow you to say that the original ending of Mark is lost.
• Wallace, describing how a book written on a scroll (such as Mark likely was) would not likely get its ending damaged because the scroll would be “rewound”, putting the end in the middle of the scroll: “Of course, there would be some who would not rewind when finished, and they would be fined a denarius at their local Blockbuster.”
• Robinson, talking about issues of truncation, described a situation (and gave us visual example of the same) wherein the seminary library affixed barcodes to books. There was limited space on the label, and so a collection of books from the “Center for Hermeneutical Studies in Hellenistic Literature” got truncated to “Center for Hermeneutical Studies in Hell”!
• Robinson: “And then there’s the ‘intermediate ending’, which apparently nobody believes is original.”
• Robinson, referencing the topic of picking up serpents and drinking poison: “I wish that the Byzantine family of texts [to which Robinson gives priority as part of his position here] did not include the longer ending, because it would do away with most of the theology of Kentucky and Tennessee.”
• Elliott, on speaking third in the conference: “At least I can assume by now that you’re somewhat familiar with the topic at hand!”
• Elliott: “For the next few moments, I’ll be speculating. Lest some of you think that is what I’ve been doing all along.”
• Black (later echoed by Bock): (loosely paraphrased) Regardless of our position on the ending of Mark, the important thing is to proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ to all nations. (I say a hearty “Amen” to that!)
• Bock: (loosely paraphrased) Beware of “brittle fundamentalism”. (This is the idea that we hold to a position so tightly that changing one aspect of it causes the whole thing to crumble.)
• Bock, talking about accusing others of “speculation”: Whenever we’re connecting the dots, someone else can easily say, “Oh, that’s speculation.” So, be cautious when talking about others’ views as “speculation”.
• Bock: “The reason this [question about the ending of Mark] is a problem and is difficult to sort out is because it’s a problem. (long pause…) and it’s difficult to sort out.”

There were some ancillary issues that were briefly mentioned in the conference that I wish had been given more attention. For one, Dr. Black passionately argued for the inclusion of the Synoptic Problem as a main element in this discussion. Others on the panel disagreed, however. I think I might agree with Dr. Black on this point, and wish more time had been given by each person to this issue.

Another issue that was briefly touched on by Dr. Elliott which seemed very important to me was with regards to canonicity. Because Dr. Elliott was arguing for the position that Mark’s original ending is lost, he was forced to reckon, then, with the question of whether or not the ending we do have is to be considered canonical. (He argued that it is, in fact, still to be considered canonical because it was part of Mark when the canon was fixed.) I get the impression that, although I was not convinced of his position that the original ending of Mark is lost, I would probably find many areas of agreement with him on questions of canonicity.

I think that the issue of canonicity, definition of canon, etc. is very pertinent to this discussion, and I wish it had been addressed more in-depth. As my regular readers know, this is an area of interest to me, and I think it definitely follows from any discussion of textual criticism.

Well, this is a scattered overview of the events of the weekend, and the discussions that took place. Again, I thought it was a terrific conference, and it caused me to want to delve further into the area of textual criticism, etc.

Until next time,

steve