Back in April, there was a conference down the road at the Southeast Baptist Theological Seminary on Mark 16.9-20 (SEBTS Conference on Mark 16.9-20). The Baptist Press now has a report:
Scholars tussle over end of Mark's Gospel
Posted on May 16, 2007 | by Jason Hall
2 comments:
You might say both sides miss the point, in that both are right in what they deny (Mark did not write the Longer Ending; Mark 16.9-20 is not uncanonical) but wrong in what they conclude from what they affirm (Mark 16.9-20 can be set aside as "secondary"; the Longer Ending is "original"). Canonicity and originality are two separate issues. That's equally hard for old-school historical critics as for "original autograph" inerrantists to get their head around.
Markiavelli, I believe the issue is that some believe that 9-20 is original, not because of beliefs about inerrancy, but because of a historical transmission of the text. This is Robinson's big point: the Byzantine texttype(not only in this matter, but for the entirety of the NT) provides a historical transmission of the the NT documents. So, he's not starting with an a priori assumption that "the text is inerrant, thus Mark 16:9-20 must be original." I don't even think inerrancy plays a part in it (I don't remember him mentioning it at the conference). I think, rather, he's more focused on what he sees as textual evidence.
Post a Comment