The Last Twelve Verses of Mark: Original or Not?
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):
- 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.
- Dr. Maurice Robinson of SEBTS, defending the position that Mark wrote all the way to Mark 16:20 in his original writing.
- 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.
- 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.)
- 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 
April 15th, 2007 20:28
I’m in the process of reading Alan’s posts first, but I wanted to throw out a couple of questions that popped up in my mind.
1.) More and more I am finding my faith strengthened and more easily lived out by studying the cultural context of Jesus and of the Jewish faith in general instead of trying to come up with various defenses for what I believe. Why do we (Christians in general) seem so much more concerned with coming up with defensible positions about a snippet of text instead of wanting to fully understand our heritage in the Jewish faith?
2.) Do you think our blogs will one day be recovered by future Christians and then debates will rage about which ones are correct? You know, after centuries of oppression by ‘learned’ church leaders? And then one day, a modern Luther will arise and make our blogs assesible to all? Only to find that a corrupted hard drive cuts off your last three posts and so a debate begins about what you really meant. And so your hope of actually finding common ground for Christians turns into a point of contention and a whole new set of denominations spring up…
Wait, didn’t Paul talk about ‘those claiming to follow Apollo or himself or Jesus’?
Mike
April 16th, 2007 08:04
Agreed with your #2, Mike. I find the debates over scripture to be interesting but often of limited use in living out my life. However, clearly someone else may find something of significant meaning from the discussion which leads to real fruit in his or her life. So do the debates matter or not? Perhaps the question is not about the debate themselves, but about how we handle them.
Regarding your first point, how is understanding our Jewish heritage not simply a defense of why you do what you do? I was involved briefly with a group that emphasized our Jewish heritage. It offered much insight into the meaning of scripture indeed. On the one hand, it was good spiritual meat. However, the group quickly became law oriented and symbol fascinated. Among other discussions, there was a debate over whether or not Christians needed to keep the Sabbath beginning at sundown on Friday or not. The debate, of course, had two positions that were defended vigorously. I for one cannot live my life–nor do I feel called to do so–on the meanings of the types and shadows. Faith is about being freed and resurrected to new life in the Spirit. I don’t need something to point me in the direction of God. The accomplished work of Jesus on the cross and His Resurrection have sufficed to restore communion between God and this lowly human. The search for meaning is over. Living in the Spirit has begun.
April 16th, 2007 10:16
Mike, I’m not sure I understand at all your reference to the Jewish faith. Would you mind to elaborate on that?
With regard to your second point, I think you’ve missed the point that I tried to make in the post. I wrote:
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.
I tried to illustrate that this wasn’t anything of major significance. But does that mean we can’t discuss it?
April 16th, 2007 10:18
ded, you wrote: I for one cannot live my life–nor do I feel called to do so–on the meanings of the types and shadows.
Agreed completely!
April 16th, 2007 15:44
Steve,
Great summary and review! I’ll add one quote (one that I did not put in my reflection post either) that Mael keeps reminding me about…
Keith Elliott said that these texts were read, used, and lived by the early Christians (paraphrase).
I think it is okay for us to read and study these texts. It is okay for us to discuss them and to investigate them. However, the most important question that we need to ask ourselves is: “Are we using and living these texts?”
As another friend reminded me recently: “We are so intent on finding the hidden meanings behind the mandates in the New Testament that we forget to look at the mandates themselves.” — K.P. Yohannan
I pray that God finds me faithful to living the texts, not just studying the texts.
-Alan
April 16th, 2007 21:35
Alan, thank you (and Mael!) for reminding me of that quote. I overlooked that one, and am glad to be reminded of it.
I, too, desire to live the principles of Scripture, and not just read and analyze them.
To be honest, this is one of the reasons why I like the idea of the shorter ending of Mark, if Wallace’s hypothesis is correct that Mark wanted the reader to have to answer the question “What will you do with Jesus” after the cliffhanger. (It’s purely speculation, of course.) It takes us off the page and to the true Living Word, Jesus Himself.
Quite frankly, I’m getting a little weary of hearing the Bible referred to as “the living word of God”. According to John 1, the living word of God is Jesus.
Anyway, that’s a tangent, and perhaps another post someday!
April 16th, 2007 23:56
ded,
After I posted, I talked to a friend about the same thing you mention; do the debates matter? For me at least, I don’t really try to defend my ‘positions’ any longer. My convictions are just that, mine. I find that a lot of debating is about trying to prove who has the ‘righter’ convictions. If it is for edification or the earnest seeking out of Chirst, then I’m all for it.
Steve,
About the Jewish roots bit, I find trying to fit Jesus’ words into our culture ends up creating a mess, but when looked at in context, it makes sense. I’m not an adherent to Jewish customs nor do I support or oppose those customs. I just meant it seems that finding out why Jesus said what he said or did what he did seems more conducive to our faith that trying to argue who is right about a certain idea.
ded,
Trust me, I’m not looking for something to defend my action or something to become legalistic.
Steve,
Sorry if it seemed like my questions were accusational, they weren’t meant to be. They were off the cuff questions I jotted down while reading Alan’s and Lew’s blogs. I was referring to Alan and Lew’s blogs since you linked to them.
My tounge-in-cheek question about our blogs may have been taken too seriously. I was trying out a hyperbole.
You said,
“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 is it? The issue calls into question canonization, and if everything we believe is based on the inerrant word of God, but maybe some scribe decided to add something, what does that mean? Is that scribe now the breath of God? If he is, then why didn’t God breathe right the first time he told Mark? So is the text wrong? If it is, then how can it be inerrant? Or is the idea of canonization now called into question?
This is my concern with debating stuff like this. If it gets out of hand, what does it lead to, how far do you debate? Where does faith take over? Is faith replaced by the need to ‘prove’ what we believe?
Questions like this are meant to be retorical, and are example of what could happen in a debate like this. In the process we lose sight of what is important. Jesus, grace, love, forgiveness, redeemed.
Your last comments to Alan about the ‘living word of God’ are good. The Bible becomes dangerously close to some sort of oppressive text used by scholars to show the average joe how much he needs a professionally trained pastor to explain it to him.
Markan? Matthian? Exigesis? Other words I don’t want to even look up how to spell? Its no wonder the average church-goer doesn’t know how to live out their faith or even what to believe.
Alan,
Amen brotha! Losing sight of the mandate is exactly what I’m getting at! Thanks!
Mike
April 17th, 2007 05:34
Mike, thanks for responding to my post. Your heart is clear beyond points or positions, which fills your words with life.
April 17th, 2007 16:27
Steve,
I would enjoy reading more of your thoughts on canonicity. I would be interested in the theory that the canon was fixed at some point (I’m not sure if that is your view or simply that of Dr. Elliott).
On another note, perhaps a tangent, I’m a little uncomfortable with the anti scholar remarks in some of the threads above. I appreciate the spirit of these remarks and certainly agree that our faith should be in Jesus and in him we find our unity. When we see sections of the church locked in combat over doctrinal or academic disputes, it’s clear that something has gone radically wrong. In my view, it’s not always clear exactly what has gone wrong. In some contexts, blaming the scholars is on the same plane as shooting messengers.
Our doctrines about the scriptures need to be interpreted in the light of what we actually have. It is ironic, I think, that we sometimes distort the scriptures in order to make them fit into our high doctrine of scripture. The problem, I suspect, is not the high doctrine, but the failure to hold that high doctrine with our eyes wide open to what’s actually there. With respect to scripture, what we have are thousands of manuscripts and bits of manuscripts, of varying ages, that are written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek plus an even larger number of translations both ancient and modern. Since most of us don’t read Greek and don’t have the expertise or the time to critically examine thousands of manuscripts. We need scholars to do that work for us if we want a readable translation of the New Testament. The goal, it seems to me, is that the scholars do their work well so that scholarship doesn’t become a burden or a barrier to faith. Ideally, then, no one should be required to do this work in order to read the scriptures. Everyone should have a readable copy of the Bible in their own language. To achieve that, somebody has to do the work.
Scholars, however, do make mistakes (and sometimes worse) so that we also don’t want them to do their work behind closed doors. If their work is to be accountable to the church, then it must be open enough so that the church can examine it. Mike may not want to even look up words like Markan, Matthian and exegesis (and there’s nothing wrong with that) but that doesn’t mean that there’s no value to the church in understanding these words and the work they represent. With all of our faults as God’s church today, it seems to me that one thing that testifies to our commitment to truth is the openness of our scholarship.
April 17th, 2007 21:21
Craig, thanks for your thoughts. You’ve written a bunch there that mostly just stands on its own, so I won’t try to respond to everything, except to say that I appreciate your input, and agree with most, if not all, of what you said.
With regard to canonicity and my thoughts, I may very well explore them here on this blog soon.
Dr. Elliott actually had a very interesting take on canonicity. He said that the church recognized certain books as canonical (therefore encouraging Christians to read them), but did not canonize particular versions of those books.
In short, I’ll just tell you that my views on canonicity are kinda outside the box, and would likely be viewed by many as “unorthodox” (a term I’m rapidly getting used to being called!), but I’ll be happy to share them at some point.
April 17th, 2007 21:49
Steve,
Dr. Elliott’s distinction sounds interesting and might fit what we actually see in the New Testament (where both the LXX and the Masoretic versions of Old Testament books are quoted).
I look forward to seeing your thoughts. I think canonicity is a topic in need of some fresh perspectives. I know I have more questions than answers.
April 18th, 2007 00:48
Everyone,
Hopefully this will tie together my last few posts. Sorry it has taken this long to formulate my thoughts.
Craig,
I can see how my last comments could be taken as anti-scholar. Sorry about that. I think in retrospect, the word ’scholars’ should be replaced with the phrase ‘various church leaders’. I wouldn’t want to leave anyone out. LOL! And I should have used ‘potentially’ when speaking about the Bible.
You interchange scholarly work in relation to doctrine and translation a couple times in your comment. I understand it is a fine line. Translators want to make sure they have created the purest version in order to preserve truth and not inject their own presuppositions; which is maybe why we do need people (read pastors/clergy) to explain it to us because the text is so pure. (Boy, I never thought I’d hear those words come out of my mouth.) Even though the scriptures have been translated into our native tongue, it is essentially a raw manuscript. The average person has no idea about the context in which things were written or said. It’s no wonder we have so many doctrines and denominations! Really, that sheds a lot of light on church history for me. It also shows me how imperative it is for us to live out our faith and not merely use words.
Craig, thank you so much for commenting, I just may look those words up after all.
Everyone,
I still think there is much that has been made overly complicated, and if anything shows the need to train up more teachers in the body of Christ. Seminary is fine, but should it cost so much? Passing this information on should not put one into financial debt or have human doctrines attached.
Steve,
Sorry for the long posts. Thanks for having such an open forum and letting me air out my thoughts.
Mike
April 18th, 2007 08:52
Mike, you’re welcome here anytime, brother!
As for seminary, I personally think that if we all (the disciples of Jesus) were doing our job, seminaries would not be necessary.
April 18th, 2007 10:57
Mike,
Thank you for your gracious response, it shows a heart for the Lord. Though the complexity of what we have causes some of the divisions we see in the church, I firmly and sadly believe the real cause is arrogance and pride. How many divisions would go away if we could only admit what we don’t know and cling to Christ?
Mike and Steve,
We have a model for seminaries in South America where the scholars, rather than the students do the traveling. The students get most of their training from their home church and that training is supplemented by the traveling scholars (like the old circuit preachers). We do this for financial reasons (the very poor students can’t afford to leave their homes and live at a seminary) but I’ve long thought it might not be such a bad model here.
April 18th, 2007 21:23
[...] « The Last Twelve Verses of Mark: Original or Not? [...]
February 11th, 2009 10:18
[...] Alan at “Assembling of the Church” in a post called “Reflections on The Last Twelve Verses of Mark: Original or Not?” Theron at “Sharing in the Life” in a post called “Last Twelve Verses of Mark Conference” Steve at “Theological Musings Blog” in a post called “The Last Twelve Verses of Mark: Original or Not?” [...]