tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post8032336962564879190..comments2024-03-21T14:59:20.729-04:00Comments on NT Blog: Report on SEBTS Conference on Mark 16.9-20Mark Goodacrehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05115370166754797529noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-82877996077753158292007-05-17T14:16:00.000-04:002007-05-17T14:16:00.000-04:00Markiavelli, I believe the issue is that some beli...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.Josh McManawayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03503876183620206761noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-62355183068947764282007-05-17T12:31:00.000-04:002007-05-17T12:31:00.000-04:00You might say both sides miss the point, in that b...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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com