Like Father, like son (of man). F(ing)Lie Too. Be Afraid. Be Very Afraid
Apologists who have Faith that 16:8 is not the original ending of "Mark" usually make the claim that because 16:8 ends with the Greek word "for" this is either proof that it was not the original ending or at least makes it extremely unlikely. I'm Am afraid that there is currently no shortage (think JM) of Internet Apologists arguing that a Lost version of the ending of "Mark" should have its own series. Each different argument is not outstanding in its own Way.
Recently, on this unholy Forum, our own Bernard has gone the other way (not that there is anything wrong with that), arguing that 15:39 is the original ending:
Empty Tomb in Mark's gospel not written by original author
and boldly proclaims:
JWIn view of the aforementioned points (foremost the first one), I think there is more than enough for claiming "Mark" did not write the 'empty tomb' passage.
So as Vincent Price said in the classic SNL Liberace sketch "Now I'm getting it from both sides":
Liberace/JFK (in unison): Been there, done that.
So, on to the defense that 16:8 is the original ending. Bernard presents supposed "clues" that 16:8 is not the original ending. As near as I can tell all he has done is present an Inventory of supposed evidence against 16:8 as original and ignore the evidence "for" (so to speak). There is a word to describe this behaviour. It's called "proof-texting". In fact, there is so much evidence that Bernard has ignored that 16:8 is original, compared to the supposed evidence he has presented that it is not, that I would even describe such behaviour with spin's favorite word, "naughty".
Starting with an orthodox (so to speak) presentation of Textual Criticism here we rightly divide between the External and Internal. External is considered more objective so that is normally the start. Common sub-division of the External is:
- Manuscript = No Manuscript evidence that 15:39 is the original ending.
Scribal = No Scribal evidence that 15:39 is the original ending.
Patristic = No Patristic evidence that 15:39 is the original ending.
Authority = Consensus that 15:39 is not the original ending. Note that Bernard tries to invoke Crossan as authority for 15:39 being the original ending. Does not help the conclusion as Authority as a category of evidence is clearly against 15:39 as original.
Actually what really gets me here is Bernard has also ignored all the usual major categories of Internal evidence as well and his specific supposed examples of non-Markan usage after 15:39 not only are consistent with Markan usage in toto but generally fit Markan style even better than the average verse in "Mark". But enough for now.