The Pursuit

The Practice of the Early Church - Session 3 - Elder-Led Congregational Consensus

Saturday, February 9th, 2008 | Conference, church, deacon, elder, fellowship, ministry, pastor, philosophy, preaching, questions, service, teaching, testimony, tradition, worship | 2 Comments

I was able to attend session 3 of a home church conference put on by NTRF. Here are some not I took from session 3 - Elder-Led Congregational Consensus.

The Practice of the Early Church

Session 3 – Elder-Led Congregational Consensus

(Steve Atkerson)

Everyone agrees that Christ is the head of the Church… opinions digress from that point.

Elder-Led Congregational Consensus is a little different than Elder-Rule form of church government.

Who is in charge here? Luke 22:23-27

We are not to be like the Gentiles.

How much authority should church leaders have? The same authority a child has, the same authority a servant has.

Leaders have authority, but it is a different type of authority (one that is unlike the Gentiles).

Who were the letters to churches written to?

Romans 1:7 – To all, not just the leaders

1 Corinthians 1:2 – To all, not just the leaders

2 Corinthians 1:1 – To all, not just the leaders

Galatians 1:1 – To all…

etc., etc., etc.

Philippians 1:1 – To all… “including the overseers and deacons”

etc., etc., etc.

Hebrews 13:7 – To all… and then asks them to “greet all of your leaders and all the saints.”

etc., etc., etc.

1 Peter 5:1-3 – Written to the elders “among you.”

Elders are important, but there is a decided lack of emphasis on Elders. We should appreciate them for their service (1 Thessalonians 5:12).

It appears that the authority that Elders have is the authority to persuade people to the truth.

Authority resides with the church corporately, not with its leaders.

Matthew 16:18-19

Matthew 18:16-17

Church leaders don’t make decisions for the church, the make decisions with the church. Perhaps like the Senate, a group of people can bring what they think should be done (leaders) and but they with the rest of the church decide together.

Doing it this way, means you will have to love each other enough to put up with one-another. You won’t always agree with one-another.

Acts 1:15,23 – Peter recognized a problem, need to fill Judas’ spot, but the 120 put forward two possible people.

Acts 6:3,5 – Recognized a problem of with feeding the widows, but the church picked the seven.

Acts 15 (22-23) – With the whole church…

1 Corinthians 5 – The whole church decides

1 Corinthians 6 – The whole church judges

Consensus is based on unity – Psalm 133:1; 1 Corinthians 1:10; Ephesians 4:3-6; Phillipians 2:2; Colossians 3:15; John 17:11,20-23; 1 Corinthians 10:17; Ephesians 4:11-13;

Hebrews 13:17 – Obey is 13:17 in the Greek is actually more like “allow yourself to be persuaded or convinced by” your leaders or take their advice. Submit in 13:17 is more like “yield or surrender.” This is a process or battle after which one yields (or surrenders). Submission still occurs, but the picture is one of serious discussion and dialog prior to one party giving way.

The authority of “obey” and “submit” is merely that of the gift of persuading one to the truth.

The point of the verse is not to be a blockhead.

Caveat – 1 Peter 5:5 “You younger men, likewise, be subject (hupotasso) to your elders” and this is the word that really means to submit.

James 3:17 – But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, reasonable, full of mercy and good fruits, unwavering, without hypocrisy.

Conclusion:

There is a surprising lack of emphasis on church leaders in the letters to the churches.

Congregational consensus is the NT norm for church government (not majority rule, not elder rule). Church polity is to be that of consensus, not command. Authority resides in the church as a whole, not its leaders (Mt 18:15-20).

Generally speaking, church leaders have the same authority as children and slaves (Lk 22:24-27). Leaders are to lead by persuasion, example, life-style, influence and teaching (Heb 13:7).

Elders are to be given special consideration in the consensus process (Heb 13:17), especially when dealing with block heads and young Turks!

Churches are to be more elder-led than elder-ruled (1 Pe 5:1-3).

The Practice of the Early Church - Session 2 - Participatory Church Meetings

Saturday, February 9th, 2008 | Conference, church, fellowship, ministry, philosophy, preaching, questions, service, teaching, testimony, tradition, worship | 1 Comment

I was able to attend session 2 of a home church conference put on by NTRF. Here are some not I took from session 2 - Participatory Church Meetings.

The Practice of the Early Church

Session 2 – Participatory Church Meetings

(Steve Atkerson)

1 Corinthians 14:26 – What do we learn about the NT church from this verse? Diversified, Spontaneous, …

Change “each one” to “only one” which option is today’s church more like?

Is the church you meet with like this?

Acts 13:14-15 – Should the church meeting reflect what the synagogue in the NT looked like?

Acts 14:1 – They allowed audience input from the synagogue meetings.

Acts 17:1-2 – Paul’s custom – reasoned with them

Acts 17:10-11

Acts 17:17

Acts 18:4

Acts 19:8

There seems to assume that there was some sort of audience input in the synagogue meetings.

Singing – 1 Corinthians 14:26, Colossians 3:16, Ephesians 5:19

Teaching – 1 Corinthians 14:26, Matthew 28:19-20, Acts 2:42, Romans 12:6-7, 1 Corinthians 12:28, Ephesians 4:11, 1 Timothy 1:3; 2:11-15, James 3:1

Preaching – Acts 20:7 – Paul preached to the disciples (greek is dialegomai – discussed)

Never preached in a church meeting.

Preaching is a evangelist – outside the church meeting.

Various Charismatic Gifts – 1 Corinthians 14:26

Other gifts to consider:

Acts 2:42 – Prayer

1 Timothy 4:13 – Public reading of scripture

Acts 14:26-27 – Reporting what God is doing through them

How to consider one another (Hebrews)?
Is there a testimony the Lord would have you bring?
- Could you purpose to begin a time of conversational prayer?

Is there a song you like that would edify the church?

- Is there some subject or passage of Scripture to teach on?

What has the Lord shown you this week in your time with Him?

Does your wife spend more time preparing for the meeting (cooking) than you do (considering how to encourage the church)?

A Worship Service – Romans 12:1-2, John 4:21-24

The NT never refers to a church meeting as a worship service.

Tongues – 1 Corinthians 14:26-28

Only a few a week (one at a time), if it is done, it must be with an interpretation.

If there is no interpretation, it must not be done – teaching us that sometimes we can have a legitimate gift from God that he doesn’t want us to use in the meeting.

Prophecy – 1 Corinthians 14:29-33, 1 Thessalonians 5:19-22

Only a few a week (one at a time), if it is done, it has to be tested.

Same teaching about the gifts of God.

1 Thessalonians 5:19-22 – Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.

The Role of Women – 1 Corinthians 14:33b-35

This passage is controversial… you need to study it and decide for yourself.

But this passage does indicate that their meetings were participatory.

Perhaps this verse is showing us more that the men should be leaders. This could be a dynamic silence that sucks the men into leadership.

Two Questions – 1 Corinthians 14:36 – You have no choice but to contact your church meetings anyway than this.

The Lord’s Command – 1 Corinthians 14:37 – Obey the commands of the bible.

Three Imperatives – 1 Corinthians 14:39-40

Desire earnestly to prophecy.

Don’t forbid to speak in tongues.

All things to be done properly and orderly.

Conclusions that can be drawn from 1 Corinthians 14

Participatory

Fitting and Orderly

Edifying

Lord’s Command

Original or Not? (My Response/Reaction)

Monday, April 16th, 2007 | Conference | 2 Comments

Several people that I know (who attended the conference) have already responded/reacted to it on their blogs.

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?“

First, before I begin discussing this conference, let me say that the speakers were showed a great love for Christ by the way they presented their ideas and also interacted between one-another. They all came from a different background, with a different ideas about the ending of Mark; yet they all had the Holy Spirit working in their lives and they treated each other like true brothers. It is a great encouragement to see men striving to act like Christ.

Second, before I begin, again, let me say that this conference was great. It was very interesting but what made it best was being able to fellowship with other believers before, during, and after each session. I was able to meet and fellowship with Steve Sensenig and his wife Christy. Who I at the time only knew of through the blog-o-sphere. I was also able to spend some personal time with Alan Knox and his family for dinner on Friday night, which is always a blessing.

Third, before I begin, again, again, let me say that I had live-blogged the conference. It was hard to do, and I hope that I did not misrepresent any of the speakers, or their positions. I also hope that the blogs flowed well. I know a lot of what I blogged were just key statements/facts that the speakers were trying to get across. So do not take it as a word-for-word transcript. I know I missed a lot of things said, but I think I captured the main ideas (at least, I hope I did).

Okay, now for the actual reaction to the conference:

These were the speakers and their positions (in order of appearance):

Daniel B. Wallace

Mark intended to end his gospel at 16:8, to purposely leave his readers hanging, in order to challenge them to consider Christ.

Maurice Robinson

Mark 16:9-20 is original.

Keith Elliott

Mark did not intend to end his Gospel at 16:8, but 16:9-20 is not original.

David Black

Mark 16:9-20 is the original ending based on the external evidence alone.

Darrell Bock

Mark 16:8 is the ending of this gospel on the basis of external and internal evidence.

[images stolen from SEBTS]

Brief Response:
Each of these speakers used the same “facts” to present their position, just different interpretations of these facts. There was a lot of discussion concerning textual criticism, especially the two manuscripts named Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. Most of the discussion concerning these two manuscripts was simply conjecture, but was interesting none-the-less. Dr. Black focused on external evidence (specifically Patristic Fathers) more than internal evidence, but made sure we understood that he thought internal evidence was important to consider. In my opinion Dr. Black had one of the better arguments for 16:9-20 being the original ending of Mark.

My Position:
Given that the majority of Mark 16:9-20 is found elsewhere, I have no problem keeping the ending of Mark. Whether or not it is “original” is beyond me, we’ll find out when the day comes. If I were forced to chose a position, this is the positions I would chose (from top to bottom).

1. Mark 16:9-20 is original.
2. Mark 16:9-20 is not original, but the ending of Mark was lost.
3. Mark 16:8 is Mark’s intended ending.

You may notice that this is the exact opposite to Dr. Bock’s list, the reason is that I just cannot understanding why anyone would end a Gospel with “for” (gar).

Original or Not? (Panel Discussion)

Saturday, April 14th, 2007 | Conference | 1 Comment

Q: Directed to Robinson - If Peter is the source of Mark’s Gospel, why would Mark record that Peter did not believe if Luke recorded that Peter did believe?
A: That is part of the problem…

Q: Directed to Elliott and Bock - They discussed canonicity applying to what books should be in, but did not discuss the form of the book(s). What do you think of this, applying to whether or not the original ending was lost, but the current ending is part of the cannon.
A: Elliott - Willing to go with that. It is the book, and its contents, rather than its position in the corpus.
Bock - Similar; the ending of the book of Deut. is an example of this. But it might not apply to this particular (Mark) situation.
Elliott - The ending is important to the scribes, which is why they had issues with ending Mark.

Q: Directed to Bock (or the whole) - What is taught here is taught elsewhere, does Jesus command us to take up serpents as a sign of faith?
A: What he actually said was “most” of what is taught here is taught elsewhere. The most central things of the Christian faith are not in question.
The idea that I need a sign for the things that God has declared to me, can be of a little offensive to those who hold the Word to a high regard.

Q: Directed to Wallace (perhaps Black) - Do you believe that Matthean priority necessitates the longer ending in Mark?
A: Those who hold to Matthean priority often believe that Mark did go beyond 16:8. He has not seen anyone who holds to Markan priority who think that the long ending is original.

Q: Directed to Wallace - re: Eusebian quote - Use of optative in the quote.
A: No longer dealing with an optative, but a shift to his opinion.

Q: Directed to Elliott - If one were to posit in addition to Mark the individual, if Mark were to have died or for some reason abruptly ended his book at 16:8. Someone knew he intended to write more and included the ending as Mark intended. Would this in one stroke explain the opening verses, the long ending, and several minor agreements, all in one small inclusion.
A: Perhaps.

Q: Directed to Bock - Address DC Parkers views.
A: Claim: You have two kinds of resurrection stories. Empty Tomb and Appearance. Only the Appearance stories affirm a bodily resurrection. Bock’s reply: These stories are not operating in a theological or community vacuum. It is hard to believe that stories intended to deny the resurrection would be incorporated in a body of messages affirming a physical resurrection.

Q: [missed]
A: [ignored]

Q: Directed to Elliott - ha kurios, usage is later theology. Is it not true that this kind of theology is found in the early church and used by Paul?
A: Yes, but why are they so modest in the way they describe Jesus? Why are the gospel writers writing so later, writing modest? Is it because they are being faithful to their sources? Or is it because the Gospel writers are being deliberately anachronistic?

Bock - They are being sensitive to the reader, at the time.
Black - Linguistics could help us and redaction criticism could help us. He would not start with the internal evidence, but the external evidence. Then the internal evidence should form a corroborating understanding of the Gospels.
Robinson - Need to keep with Markan themes.

Q: Directed to Bock - 1) Do you believe that Peter was being Mark’s Gospel? 2) Do you find any parallels with with Acts and Mark.
A: Bock - 1) Yes. 2) No, he doesn’t think so - the audience is an issue there. In Acts you have speeches to people who need to whole answer. Whenever someone reads Mark they are faced with a choice.

Wallace - The longer ending does match Mark’s gospel and Mark’s themes, because whoever wrote it would have wanted to end Mark’s gospel and themes.

Q: Directed to Robinson - Could it not be argued that Mark does end with open-endedness? For example the naked boy running around (what happened to him?)
A: Agreed, but it might not be just open-endedness, but just stating something that happened. Everything else though is prediction or promise, which is different than a boy running away naked.

Original or Not? (Darrell Bock)

Saturday, April 14th, 2007 | Conference | No Comments

Dr. Bock responds to the four speakers:

Where we agree (not necessarily presuppositions):
Both readings are old.
What is taught in this section, for the most part, is taught elsewhere.
What we all want to deal with is hard evidence.
Fact must control theory - not vice versa.

The question becomes - why is it that we can deal with the same data and end up in such different places? We are all connecting the dots differently.

We have to be careful of where the line about fact stops and the dot connecting starts.

Bock notes that most (or all) of the speakers started in one area of belief, but after checking their presuppositions they ended up changing their positions.

The evidence is a mixture of dots and lines that connect the dots.

Bock’s own view, Mark 16:8 is the ending of this gospel on the basis of external and internal evidence.
His next likely option was that the ending went missing.
His third option is that the long ending was original.

He believes this because internal evidence is just as important as external evidence, etc.
He holds to Markan Priority. He believes (probably correctly) that in the Early Church there were not only written traditions circulating among the Church but also verbal traditions circulating among the Church.

The synoptic evidence is a little bit peculiar. When Mark gives accounts in relationship to Matthew and Luke, he does it in a little more detail. But in the longer ending of Mark, he goes through a series of really short summaries, which is opposite to what normally happens to Matthew and Luke. But there are places where Mark gives other shorter summaries to Matthew and Luke.

Warning - we have to work with the text and with the history, and we have to be careful about talking about speculation with one another… when we are talking about connecting the dots, someone else could say that you are speculating.

We must be aware of brittle fundamentalism. Setting up a question in such a way that if it breaks it will shatter.

External Evidence:
This is a key element, not just counting manuscripts, or where they come from.
The external evidence that is really important are not Sinaiticus (Aleph) and Vaticanus (B). It is the versions and the fathers that are important in corroborating this problem.

There is evidence and the people working with the bible were aware of the fact that there were two endings of Mark.

What this evidence actually shows us is that these two readings were in competition with each other from the very beginning.

Gaps in the manuscript shows us that we do not know why the gaps are there.

You have to explain how we ended up with the long ending, and how we ended up with three variations OR you have to explain how we ended up with the shorter ending, and how we ended up with three variations.

What would create and ending at just verse 8 if I had 9-20?

Bock discusses some issues with the other speaker’s “evidence” - such as the denial of the group denial in other Gospel (other than Mark) - but there is another group denial in Luke… the only difference is that it was “women” who told of Jesus, not just Mary.

Bock still finds this longer ending as more than likely non-Markan than Markan… he finds it difficult to view this as something that Mark penned, originally or subsequently.

Other issues - Was Mark written on a roll or codex? Probably a roll. The issue of whether or not the Mark was rolled up or not, we don’t know… “some people rewind tapes, some people don’t.”

Virtually all of Mark is in the other Gospels, so you are going to get him whether you want to or not.

The most difficult question for those who holds to Markan Priority is the patristic evidence.

Bock believes there are numerous problems and questions with Black’s belief. Wonders whether or not Matthew, if written for the Jews would have been written in Greek. What actual evidence do we have for Paul using Matthew or Luke, or commissioning Luke’s Gospel?

Discusses Elliott’s view that there is a problem with priority view of Mary being in front of the list, versus Peter being in front of the list. In the ancient culture, women couldn’t be witnesses. A little less formal list would have Peter in front of the list.

Conclusion:
How in the world did we get an ending in Mark that ended with gar. Why wouldn’t Mark finish by writing the fulfillment of the prophecies?

Mark is being subtle, you have the Word of God, you have the promises, you know what happens.

What happened with the elder son from the parable?
This can be found in Acts, what happened with the Jews? What happened with Paul?
But the story is about the expansion of the Word of God, not about Paul.
(he eludes to Lazarus - perhaps the fact that he was about to be stoned after being raised from the dead, but we do not find out what happens).

Everything about Mark is screaming that he is raised, so it was an intentional choice. All of Mark’s readers are faced with the same choice - there was no guarantee that Mark’s readers were going to wait until Jesus appeared to them.

We haven’t settled yet on this question - if the longer ending is not Markan, does that mean it is non-Canonical? Not necessarily. If we equate canonicity with an original level of writing, then it goes. But that is not necessarily a given.

What Bock does not think is going on is (David Parker’s solution) what happened with the ending of Mark is that radical theological interpretations that came to be stifled by later ecclesiastical interpretations.

It is a difficult problem to sort out and there are numerous forks in the road. Depending on what you do at the forks, takes you down certain roads.

Regardless of all those forks in the word. We agree on these things - Both readings are old, what is taught here is taught elsewhere. Where does this leave us? In a pretty good place, whether it is long or short, the content does not make that much of a difference.

Do not get too tied up in knots about whether or not 16:9-20 is there. Go and share the gospel.

Original or Not? (David Black)

Saturday, April 14th, 2007 | Conference | No Comments

Mark’s Conclusion to Peter’s Discourses
[much of what is written here has been directly copied from this paper]

His Position (upfront):
Absolutely convinced that the long ending is original based on the external evidence alone, and that it deserves the canonical status it has enjoyed through church history.

The internal evidence, while controversial indeed, holds no satisfactory solution to the problem. (This greatly depends on your position on how the text was transmitted.)

How can one best account for this bifurcation? That, to him, is the rub, and it is perhaps here that he can make a helpful contribution to the discussion. He believes the best answer to this question is provided by taking the Synoptic Problem into account. Specifically, he believes that Mark’s Gospel is comprised of the actual words of Peter, that it originally ended at 16:8, and that Mark himself supplied the last twelve verses as a suitable conclusion. Of course, this view is based on a certain solution to the Synoptic Problem, a topic that will occupy the majority of this paper.

What about the earliest and best manuscripts? These manuscripts must be considered, but they must not be considered pure - at least not any more pure than the other texts.

The Fourfold Gospel Hypothesis:
The fourfold Gospel Hypothesis is Black’s solution to the synoptic problem.

The Holy Spirit guided Matthew, then Paul and his companion Luke, then peter and his companion mark, and afterwards John the apostle, to hand on to the church during their own lifetime the Gospel given them by Jesus.

Iraenaeus saw the fourfold canon of the Gospels representing a profoundly significant fact, foreseen and willed by God. He therefore spoke to the tetramorphoni Gospel (Adv. Haer. 3.2.8)–the “Tetramorphic” or “Fourfold” Gospel. By this he meant that each of the four Gospel accounts, and all of them together, have a common message as documents of faith in the service of faith. The differences between them, significant though they are, do not obscure their basic message of salvation through Christ.

The main evidence for the Fourfold Gospel Hypothesis consists of the chief recorded witnesses of the first four centuries, which may be presented in chronological sequence according to the date of the documents in which they first appear.

[Black gives quotes from each of these people...]
1. Justin
2. Irenaeus
3. Clement of Alexandria
4. Tertullian
5. Origen
6. The Muratorian Fragment
7. The Anti-Marcionite Progologue
8. The Old Latin Prologue to Mark
9. Eusebius
10. Eusebius quoting Papias
11. Eusebius quoting Clement of Alexandria
12. Eusebius quoting Origen
13. Jerome
14. Augustine

Evaluation of the Patristic Witnesses:
Striking things about these testimonies:
1. Whenever the four Gospels are mentioned, Matthew always heads the list.
2. As for “the sayings” of Papias, Eusebius assumes that Papias is referring to the Gospel of Matthew that we all know, and not to a “proto-Matthew” or a collection of sayings such as “Q” is reputed to be.
3. All authorities attribute the Gospel of Luke to the disciple of Paul by that name.
4. Our sources clearly reveal some problem with regard to the origin of Mark When all four Gospels are mentioned Mark as a rule is given teh second place, but the important tradition recorded b Clement of Alexandria relates that both Matthew and Luke came into existence before Mark.
5. Peter is in all cases describes as the person responsible for creating the text of Mark, which is nothing other than Peter’s “memoirs.”
6. Peter did not write down his Gospel stories; he spoke them aloud to an audience.
7. mark his disciple retrieved what Peter had spoken and did so at the request of Peter’s enthusiastic audience.
8. The “Elder” of EH 3.39, if not the apostle John himself then a figure at least contemporary with and of the same stature as John, authoritatively stated that Mark as Peter’s hermeneutes was able to reproduce exactly what Peter had said….
9. The content of what Peter had spoken consisted of testimonies regarding what the Lord had “said and done” in the form of short stories, the very kind of literary form that makes up the bulk of Mark.
10. Clement of Alexandria gives us some idea of the occasion of these talks of Peter when he says that they took place in Rome itself before an audience of “Caesar’s knights” — members of the Roman Praetorium — and therefore an audience containing a number of high government officials.
11. Clement also connects this Gospel of Mark with the other two Synoptic Gospels when he states that it was subsequent to those “containing the genealogies.”
12. There is, however, a parallel tradition in Irenaeus, seemingly supported by the Muratorian Canon and most other authorities, to the effect that mark was second after Matthew, and Luke third. There need be no contradiction between these two traditions, for it is quite possible that while one strand of tradition made Mark second to Matthew, and before Luke, for any other reason.
13. Jerome, as we have seen, understood the above evidence as proving the Gospel of mark to be “Peter’s narration and Mark’s writing.”
14. The order Matthew-Luke-Mark, as the chronological order of composition, is in fact the order one would naturally expect seeing that Christianity spread from Jerusalem up into Asia Minor and Greece, and thence westwards to Rome and the West.

Ecclesiastical tradition never claimed that the Evangelists were creative “authors” in the strict sense; it simply claimed that their writings belonged to the category of personal recollection…

Some ciritics argue that if both matthew and Luke were in existence it would be absurd for an eyewitness like Peter to submit himself to theese document. Adherents of Markan priority often pose the question, “Why should anyone have wanted to write a new Gospel that omitted so much from his sources?” The fundamental flaw in this argument is precisely the assumption that Mark (or Peter) intended to write a Gospel like the other two. This assumption is completely baseless. Mark is quite a different kind of document. The Fourfold Gospel Hypothesis in fact asserts that Mark’s account of the life of Jesus was never intended to be a rival Gospel. Mark is not a book in the sense in which the ancient Greeks and Romans understood the term, for it is just the spoken word directly captured and set down on paper exactly as it was originally uttered. It consists of a long chain of chreiai (short stores) about a heroic personage, recorded in a non-literary style and without any formal beginning or ending. The above question concerning Markan omissions is therefore totally irrelevant, because Mark is not to be reckoned a Gospel in the sense that Matthew and Luke truly are.

The Four Phases in the Development of the Gospels:
In the Spirit-directed process of inscripturating the Good News about Jesus Christ there were four main phases — four turning points at each of which a suitable Gospel statement was found to be necessary for its proper growth.

These phases are discussed in chronological order.

The Jerusalem Phase, AD 30-42 (Acts 1-12)
The need to demonstrate to the Jewish authorities that Jesus had literally fulfilled all the prophecies about the Messiah was the original motivation for the composition of the Gospel of Matthew, which met all the apologetic needs of the Jerusalem church.

Matthew arranged the selected material in three main sections:
1. The origin of Jesus down to the opening of his public ministry in Galilee (1:1-4:17).
2. Jesus’ Galilean ministry (4:18-18:35)–containing the build of his teaching–to which is attached a brief interlude in Transjordan (chs. 19-20).
3. All the Jerusalem events of Jesus’ public mission, including the passion, death, and resurrection narratives (chs. 21-28).

The Gospel of Matthew was the manifesto of the Mother church of Jerusalem, and thus became the fundamental document of the Christian faith.

The Gentile Mission Phase, AD 42-62 (Acts 13-28)
If we compare the Gospels of Luke and Matthew and note Luke’s deviations, we see that Luke carefully followed the main structure of Matthew throughout and generally adhered to the order of its various sections and anecdotes, though he also made highly interesting changes. For example, his story of the birth of Jesus is totally different from Matthew’s, which (as we have noted) was almost entirely apologetic in tone and content. Luke, however, provided a straightforward narrative that stems either directly or indirectly form Mary herself. When he came to the Galilean ministry he added certain details to each of those stories from Matthew’s Gospel that he decided to adopt. indeed, in one way or another he absorbed nearly everything that Matthew had written, and yet managed to add a good deal of extra material. This Luke did by omitting a number of stories that he regarded as duplicates (e.g., the famous Lukan omission of Matthew 14:22-16:12) and by inserting into the hear of the Matthean text at the end of the Galilean ministry (cf. Matthew 19:1-2) a section of no less than nine long chapters, his Central Section (9:51-18:14), comprising (1) the excerpts that he had extracted from Matthew’s five great discourses (ch. 10, 13, 18, and 24-25) in order to lighten the context of his own version of htem, and (2) additional sayings and parables that he had collected.

The Roman Phase, AD 62-67
Peter, aided by Mark, decided to divide for his own immediate purpose the Gospels of Matthew and Luke lying before him into five parts, that is, into five discourses of 25-40 minutes each, in the following manner:

1. Beginning of Ministry: Mark 1:2-3:19 = Matt 3:1ff; Luke 3:1ff
2. Early Galilean Ministry: Mark 3:20-6:13 = Matt 5.2ff; Luke 6:20ff
3. Later Galilean Ministry: Mark 6:14-10:1 = Matt 14:1ff; Luke 9:7ff
4. Post Galilean Ministry: Mark 10:2-13:37 = Matt 19:1ff; Luke 9:51ff
5. Passion Narrative: Mark 14:1-16:8 = matt 26:1ff; Luke 22:1ff

Peter tended to follow th Gospel of Matthew closely, adding Luke’s extra details wherever he could. He also adopted Luke’s rearrangement of the early part of Matthew’s Galilean ministry. His treatment is also noteworthy for the introduction of so many vivid little details that reveal him to be an eyewitness, such as Jesus’ being asleep on the cushion in the stern of the boat (Mark 4:38) and the figure of two thousand swine who drowned themselves in the lake (Mark 5:13).

Those who had listened to peter were delighted with everything they had heard and requested from Mark copies of what he had said. The tradition relates that when Peter was shown the transcript of his discourses he “exerted no pressure either to forbid it or to promote it” (Eusebius, EH 6.14.5-7). This indicates that Peter saw no particular advantage in promoting his own lectures, since in Matthew there was already a complete Gospel available to his listeners. In the light of his public approbation, Paul was able to publish the text of Luke’s Gospel in the churches of Achaia and Asia Minor without further delay or question.

Conclusion:
The most plausible explanation [of why Mark 16:9-20 was added to the Gospel] is that after Mark had satisfied the immediate demand of those who wanted copies of the five discourses, which ended at Mark 1:8, the matter rested there until after the martyrdom of Peter and Mark’s decision to go ff to establish the church of Alexandria (AD 9. As an act of piety to the memory of Peter, Mark then decided to publish an edition of the text that would include the necessary sequel to the passion and death of the master. But as the private edition of Mark, which lacked these verses, had already been in circulation for some years, the textual tradition has remained divided to this day.

Black’s Post-Script - The long ending of Mark, if original, reminds us that his message is highly evangelistic. *Go into all the world and preach the gospel*

Original or Not? (Keith Elliott)

Friday, April 13th, 2007 | Conference | No Comments

Think Mark did not intend to end his gospel at Mark 16:8, but that his original ending was lost.

Introductory Remarks - Missing beginning and ends of ancient manuscripts did occur and was common in many manuscripts both biblical and non-biblical.

How did Mark lose its ending?

If 16:9-20 were secondary, when were they added?

A.
1. External witnesses in favor of Mark ending at 16:8

Many patristic did not quote from the ending, might not have known it.

2nd century evidence shows that the longer ending was known.
4th century evidence shows that the longer ending was know and questioned.
6th century evidence shows that the longer ending and shorter ending were supported.

2. Internal evidence against Markan authorship of 16:9-20 - Only three total Greek manuscripts end Mark at 16:8 (two are the oldest). Some would say we must go with the majority (that include the longer ending), but these are not just any two that are missing the longer ending.

The gaps in Vaticanus - One after Nehemiah, but Psalms started a two column writing, which would require the long blank. One after Daniel, but that is the end of the Old Testament. The other is after Tobit, which is the only one similar to Mark.

Aleph - Three scribes of Aleph (named A, B, and D). D writes smaller than A. D copied Mark and Luke. The majority of Mark is small, but the last part of Mark seems stretched out. Luke is also cramped. Seems to suggest scribes were hesitant to include the longer ending.

Language and Style -
[A handout provided by Elliott, representing difference stylistically of words in 16:9-20.]

ending in gar really does not make sense. There is not a (direct object) reason for the “fear” as there are in other verses in Mark.

Theology and Contents - Signs following believers looks more Johannine than Markan. Drinking poison without harm is no where else found in the NT. Picking up of snakes differs than walking on snakes in Luke.

3. Eusebian canon numbers - Eusebius does not include the longer ending in his canon.

B. Investigations into theories claiming that Mark included the Longer Ending in his Gospel - Is it possible that Mark found 9-16 and included it into his gospel? It may be possible that he did this with 1:1-4, perhaps this is a similar case.

Elliott is disinclined to to accept this, especially since it appears to disagree with his own stance (i.e. no sign given to this generation).

The Western Order of the Gospels - In some manuscripts, Mark is found in at the end of the Gospels. If you do this, Mark 16:9-20 forms the climax of the whole collection (my own thought, is this true of John as it is the last of the four now?). Once added, this ending was kept, even when Mark was placed in a different order in the Gospels.

C. Did Mark intend his Gospel to end at 16:8? Morna Hooker (Beginnings: Keys that Open the Gospel, Endings: Invitations that Open Discipleship). How they open and closed their gospels. If Mark wanted to leave a cliffhanger with a gar this was lost on his contemporaries. A sophisticated author could end his work in such a way, if he knew his audience would know what happen next, but all appearances suggest that Mark is not this sophisticated author.

D. The shortening the original form of Mark’s Gospel
I) Deliberate suppression of an ending composed by Mark but now lost - Why might this have happened? Perhaps some did not like the ending? Perhaps it included something that some did not think was appropriate. Perhaps it was because Christ appeared to Peter? (Speculation of course) - rival claims, who saw Christ first?

If the original ending contained an appearance to Peter, was that the reason for its possible suppression?

II) Accidental omission of 16:9-20
[Skipped in Lecture]

E. The opening of Mark’s Gospel - An article he wrote: Mark 1:1-3, A later addition to the Gospel? - Elliott provides an article with some problems with the first three versions of Mark, asking if it was an original Markan writing or an addition to Mark. Among other things, it is the only Old Testament citation in Mark from the narrator.

F. The freestanding existence of 16:9-20. James Kelhoffer.
Kelhoffer tried to investigate where Mark 16:9-20 could have come from. Assuming that it was not original to Mark. He argues that it was added in the 2nd century to Mark. It would have been floating material, similar to other apocryphal material of that time. The difference is that this fragment has been attached to the canonical book. It never survived independently of Mark. Entirely compatible to 2nd century Christianity, which is seen in other apocryphal texts. It would have been inappropriate tacked onto Mark.

G. Canonical Mark. Concluding remarks.
Authority and Canonicity - When the fathers promoted certain texts as authoritative, they told you, you should read a specific gospel, or book (i.e. Mark, Romans, etc.). It would have been whatever the local group would have possessed. The word canonical does not necessarily imply ‘original.’ Does not necessarily mean inspired, etc.

[FROM HANDOUT GIVEN]
Further work is needed on the following pieces of ‘unfinished business:’
a) The occurrence of telos in early manuscripts. The use of the Longer Ending in Greek, Georgian, and Amernian lectionaries
b) Listing of manuscripts with Eusebian canon numbers after Mark 16:8
c) List of manuscripts that have the Gospels in the Western order
d) Trials to fit the Longer Ending into Codex Sinaiticus in the style of scribe ‘D.’

Original or Not? (Maurice Robinson)

Friday, April 13th, 2007 | Conference | No Comments

Moving in a totally different direction than the previous speaker.

Amid Perfect Contempt, a Place for the Genuine, the Long Ending for Mark as cont…

Presupposition:
Either Mark Priority or co-essential Mark/Matthean Priority.

External Evidence:
(similar to previous speaker)

Internal Evidence:
Primary thrust of this paper.
Patristic Testimony - Most discussion focus on the speculation of the fourth or later centuries. Yet the opinions of later patristic writers should not negate earlier opinion.

Justin Martyr - In his First Apology Three word quoted by Justin only occur in the longer ending (16:15 & 20). Justin uses no other material other ancient material in this work.

Iranaeus - Quotes from beginning and end of Mark.

In this light, the shortest reading might not always be original. In fact, it is not uncommon for an author to intentionally shorten a work.

Short ending - Leaves a puzzling and incomplete conclusion. Accident or intent? Either way the result is problematic.

Vaticanus blank is about four lines short of containing the long ending (perhaps the scribe miscounted?)

The deliberate removal of the long ending could be found in a quote from Eusebius. The longer ending had apparent contradictions, issues involving disbelief (16:11,14), resurrection narrative (looks forward to a Galillean narrative).

Other factors might increase the cumulative case to compel some scribes to remove or replace the long ending - sign gifts (poison/snakes).

For whatever reason the intermediate ending concludes 16:8, was it written to conclude 16:8 because there was no conclusion or to replace the longer ending 16:9-20?

There could have been an intermediate ending created for liturgical reasons, which would explain why all Greek manuscripts that contain the intermediate ending have both the intermediate and long ending.

Markan style and vocabulary - There are many similarities in 16:9-20 when compared to the rest of mark. The words that do not occur anywhere else in Mark (~12 words) are also rare in the other gospels. (NOTE: This information seems to disagree with the previous speaker - but Robinson provided information proving this case).

The long ending has been criticized because of its hard to understand elements, but this is found throughout Mark (esp. 31 word temptation testimony). Short summary abridgment with some elements altered or added is a Markan style.

Beyond Vocabulary and Style?
Thematic - Primary theme is to present Jesus as the son of God… without the longer ending no such fulfillment exists.

Many Chiastic patterns extend into the Longer endings.

Additional Parallels - Linguistic and Thematic Parallels:
Mark 1:32-39 - Mark16:20
Mark 1:33 - Mark 16:9
Not allowed to speak - Sent to speak
Unbelieving Demons - Unbelieving Humans
Many more parallels when comparing chapter 1 with chapter 16.

Mark 6:7-13 - Mark 16
Mark 7:24-8:38 - Mark 16

Summary and Conclusion:
1st - The long ending can be defended and supported as canonical.
2nd - …is as likely written by Mark as anyone else.
3rd - Speculative reconstructions regarding lost endings of mark lack evidence.
4th - A Markan intention to end 16:8, allowing the reader to supply the end, requires a sophisticated and post-modern
5th - Son of God theme.
6th - an Elijah theme permeates Marks gospel and requires the long ending
7th - Verbal and thematic parallels
8th - Mark consistently demonstrates the fulfillment of prophecies and promises.
9th - The greatest bulk of verbal testimony supports the long ending.
10th - Explicit patristic citation outweighs other citation.
11th - Other Alexandrian omissions are rejected.
12th - Arguments of the same type claiming non-authenticity of John have better evidence but are rejected.
13th - Possible reasons for long reason extension can be explained.
14th - Greek manuscripts overwhelmingly support the longer ending (it is in all but two).
15th - The bulk of the evidence (internally and externally) points to the validity of the long ending.

Original or Not? (Daniel B. Wallace)

Friday, April 13th, 2007 | Conference | No Comments

From this point forward (for this blog series) I will be making brief notes of the argument that each speaker puts forth.

“From the End Spring New Beginnings”: Mark 16:8 as the Conclusion of the Second Gospel.

Question: When does Mark’s Gospel end?

Introduction: Presuppositions
Mark wrote first and John wrote last.
John was not dependent on the other three gospels.
Both Mark and John were writing in a new genre called “gospel” yet they were radically different from each other.

Mark is borrowed from very little, but John much.

Mark leaves his readers hanging, wanting more. John ends his gospel twice…

1. Source Criticism - Your view plays a large role in deciding this issue. A prior commitment to Matthean priority in the synoptic problem could cause you to not accept the shorter ending of Mark.

2. Textual Criticism - Even though you may be uncertain about your Source Criticism view, you may already hold to a Textual Criticism which will drive your source criticism.

3. Bibliology - Ones understanding of how the Bible was “maintained” (such as divine preservation) will drive your view of whether or not Mark ends early.

Challenge: Question your presuppositions, be aware of them, allow them to change…

I. External Evidence

Which is more likely that Scribes would intentionally omit the last verses or add the last verses?

A. The Long Ending (95% of all Greek manuscripts have the long ending.)

1. Manuscripts - The ending is not in the oldest manuscripts but is in the majority of manuscripts

2. Patristic Citations -
Matthew and Mark disagree with the timing of Jesus’ Resurrection.
v.17-18 caused embarrassment to certain question.
Scribes may have been prone to omit the ending because of these two reasons.

However, Matthew is the odd man out concerning the resurrection.
If the locust of embarrassment is only from the second half of these verses, why would they omit so much more?
At least 10 fathers quote from 17-20, while no fathers elude to the first half until the 4th century.

So why would the scribes do what they did with the text? Perhaps if then other scribes added them.

Mark discusses the resurrection but there would be no post-resurrection material - would this be a reason why scribes would have added to Mark? To include the resurrection?

B The Short Ending

1. Greek Manuscripts - Codex Aleph and Codex Vaticanus omit these verses. There is a large gap in at the end of Mark in Vaticanus. There are three columns per page and Mark ends in the second column. The third column is completely blank. It is custom to being a book at the top of the next column, but this particular codex breaks that custom four other times, each leaving larger blanks than Mark. There are also marks for variants, but there are none at Mark 16:8.

Thus, the non-unique gap and the lack of the variant marking suggests that Mark ended at 16:8.

2. Ancient Versions - Few ancient versions lack Mark 16:8, almost all of the early Arminian Manuscripts lack the early ending.

3. Patristic Citations

Clement and Origen - Origen is silent of the long ending, even though he had opportunity to talk about these verses. Clement was also silent, but he was also silent about Matthew 28. However, there is no way to know if Clement or Origen knew of the longer ending.

Eusebius - Indicated that most of the manuscripts ended in v.8 in his period.

Jerome - Beginning of 5th century, Jerome notes that the longer ending is scarcely found in other Greek manuscript. However, he did include the longer ending in the Vulgate (Latin version he translated into). He was well aware of the variety of endings because he had access to many manuscripts.

4. The Intermediate Ending

Codex Bobiensis - Has the “intermediate ending” or “shorter ending.”

Other Witnesses - In all of these other manuscripts, none of them end with the intermediate ending after the long ending, they all end without the long ending.

Implications - Three: 1st, they did not have the longer ending. 2nd, once a reading made its way into the text, it was hard to dislodge it. 3rd, the presence of the intermediate ending suggests that scribes were not happy with Mark ending at 8 and added material.

5. MSS that Indicate Doubt about the Long Ending - 5 manuscripts contain a mark indicating doubt of the longer ending. “If in doubt, don’t throw it out.”

C. Summary of External Evidence (and Scribal Motivation) - Why are there so many differences in the manuscripts here? It not as simple as the long ending versus the short ending. Instead some end at 16:8, some add intermediate ending, others add doubt to the long ending. Why is it that this Gospel and only this Gospel has major upheaval at the end?

It cannot be because of the handling of snakes and drinking poison, because it is the most secure.

Which is more likely? Because scribes cut out the long ending? or because scribes thought Mark closed to abruptly?

II. Internal Evidence (Given in Brief and Broad Strokes)

Many syntactical issues can be raised about the ending of Mark, but they need to be studied further.

A. Cumulative Argument - The most important argument. There is not a single passage in Mark 1:1 - 16:8 comparable to the anomalies that we find clustered in 16:9-20.

Syntax, Style, and Context flow must be considered.

B. Markanisms in the Long Ending? Some have pointed out a few “markanisms” in the long ending, but that would be found in someone who would have added to Mark.

C. Markanisms in the Other Endings? No scholar considers these passages to be authentic. These do passages do have “markanisms” which clearly suggests that they do not imply authenticitie.

Refereing to Prof. Elliott for further discussion of these details.

III. Irony in the End

A. (Response to) Arguments against mark Intentionally Ending the Gospel at 16:8

1. Open-ended Conclusion a Modern Literary Technique - Suspended endings can be found in Grecko Roman literature, the Old Testament and the New Testament. This is rooted in Ancient literature, rare, but they did exist.

2. Final Leaf Lost (or Destroyed) - Rolls or Scrolls would have been used… there is a slight chance that he would have used the new “book/leaf” medium if he wrote in the later first century. If the gospel was written on a roll, the most protected section would have been at the end of the book.

3. Books Don’t End in Gar - The last sentence cannot end with a Gar (for). In 1992 a book ending in Gar was actually found. If a sentence can, a book can. What kinds of sentences end in Gar? Numerous examples are found in narrative. Mark leaves us hanging in 9:32 similarly to 16:8 - he even uses the same verb ephobounto.

B. Creation of a New Literary Genre - Of all the gospels, Mark leaves it to the reader to form an opinion of Jesus, he was creating a new form of genre we call Gospel.

IV. Conclusion
Mark intended to end his gospel with “for they were afraid.”

The Last Twelve Verses of Mark: Original or Not?

Friday, April 13th, 2007 | Conference | No Comments

I am sitting here, waiting for a conference to start. This is my first conference at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. This particular conference is about whether or not the last 12 verses of Mark are original. I will be attempting to “live blog” tonight. I plan on a post per “session” or speaker. There will be five speakers total with a panel discussion at the end.

Tonight there will be three speakers. The first speaker is Daniel B. Wallace. The second speaker is Maurice Robinson, the third speaker is Keith Elliott. Tomorrow there will be two speakers and it will end with a panel discussion. The first speaker (tomorrow) will be David Black. The second will be Darrell Bock. Third as I have already stated there will be a panel discussion. I am looking forward to this discussion and hope I am able to keep up with the “live blogging.” Anyways, it is about to start, so I have to get prepared.

More to come…