Review of The Original Ending of Mark by Nicholas P. Lunn

[Maestroh]

Am I reading this correctly that Steve Avery is advocating a 45AD date for GMark?

Yes.

He is a Lukan prioritist. He has ZERO REASON to believe this other than he wants to do so. He has zero training in source, form, or redaction criticism, cannot even read Greek and is a KJV Onlyist who (get this) actually denies the Trinity (speaking of bifurcation and apologists). He tries to not let those little facts out of the bag because the militant KJVO demands toeing the doctrinal line.

Besides - he himself abandons those same 99% of the manuscripts when defending 1 John 5:7, meaning his argument derives from intellectual dishonesty as a starting point. Keep in mind that I don't think either the 'earliest' or the 'most predominant numerically' is any substantial argument at all.

But HE introduced it here - I'm just pointing out to you he doesn't actually follow it in reality. No, he has Luke written first and Mark later.

[rakovsky]

My opinion is that Mark actually had no original ending after the women left the tomb, only that it implies an ending similar to Matthews.
The reason is
1. I think Mark is not really the first gospel, but a later one based in large part on matthew and luke.

2. Whenever Matthew and Luke strongly disagree, like they do after the empty tomb discovery, Mark is silent. The virgin birth event and Marks silence there is another example.

I do think Mark effectively indicates that the disciples met Jesus after the discovery of the empty tomb.

[rakovsky]

Prevously I thought John 21 was marks original ending.

[rakovsky]

IMO Matthew wrote first
Then Luke
Then Mark based a lot on those two
John came sometime after matthew and had Matthew and was a rewrite that was composed very much on added or missing stories but following the same plot. Maybe in a way Johns gospel is the "secret" synoptic. It reveals hidden ideas like Jesus being the Logos and nicodemus' friendship with Jesus. This is the real reason it doesn't repeat a lot of the synoptic stories. It is meant to fill in the gaps. John Meer was wrong when he thought it was because John didn't endorse the synoptic stories.