Thank you for the reply.
the style of all the LE is completely different from the rest of GMark. No negatives, chiasms, unorthodox grammar, irony and most importantly, reversal of theme (successful disciples verses failure).
I have argued that the first six and last six verses of the Long Ending are remarkably different from each other. I have no interest in advocating either the originality or the authenticity of 16:15-20. I'm not going to treat verses 16:9-20 as a singly-authored unit of prose, because I don't believe they are.
I don't dispute that low-level feature (word choice, wordplay, etc.) distinctions can be made between the bulk of the gospel and 16:9-14. Then again, so, too, 1:1-6 and the rest of the gospel. The beginnings and endings of performance works often are syntactically different from the rest of the work.
I think there is irony in the six verses. I also think that the treatment of visionary experiences is strictly parallel to how undisputed
Mark treats other visionary experiences. I gave a paper about that handling of visionary experience last March at the SBL GV meeting. The slides are on the blog; the paper is on offer for free among the Unlinks.
As to reversal of theme, 16:14 cannot be construed as promoting "disciples' success," nor does it "reverse" Jesus's opinion of them. He's been complaining about their sluggish uptake all along.
So, we seem to have some material disagreements of fact to resolve before we can compare opinions.
Analysis of paratextual commentary before the LE was added indicates that Patristics was looking for implications in the body of GMark that would support the endings in the other Gospels.
When do you propose that the first six verses of the LE were composed, and which patristic authors do you consider to have been writing before then?
The key that differentiates all the Gospels is the development and difference between the source of support for the belief that Jesus was resurrected, revelation verses evidence. GMark/Paul = Source is revelation (Gospel/personal discovery). Subsequent Gospels = supposed historical witness (evidence).
We seem to agree here. The only "physical" evidence for the resurrection in
Mark through 16:14 is the empty tomb. That's in undisputed
Mark. The three appearances in verses 9-14 are exactly that, appearances. As you say, "GMark/Paul = Source is revelation (Gospel/personal discovery)."
As you have noted GMark presents the structure of supposed historical witness in the Teaching & Healing Ministry and does not use it in The Passion Ministry.
What have I written that you interpret that way? Perhaps we have a misunderstanding.
My position for the entire work without distinction as to type of ministry is that
Mark is narrated by somebody whose knowledge of the events a generation earlier suggests natural rather than supernatural acquisition of information. Mark claims no source, nor is any specific source needed to maintain the conceit of a naturalistically well-informed narrator. This is a work of literature, not a work of academic history. It suffices that the story include
possible naturalistic channels of information.
For most of the gospel, the disciple characters (reputed to have become teachers later on) will serve as a
potential natural source. Once they flee the scene, however, the burden of
possible sources shifts to characters who are young people or parents, through whom information can survive the generation that separates the narrator from the events.
This highlights the difference and illustrates the primary point of the Gospel, belief in Jesus passion is based on Revelation (faith) and not supposed historical witness (evidence). Thus it makes since that Patristics would gradually add the same structure to the forged ending. The structure was what and where they were looking for it.
And? It is not in dispute that somebody wrote verses 16:9-14. Whoever they were, whether Mark himself, a colleague, an early producer, ..., an early patrisitic to be named later, ... and unlike the author of verses 16:15-20, they chose to write something consonant with the undisputed gospel.
We agree on that. Alas, it doesn't distinguish among the seriously possible hypotheses. In the uncertainty management business, we say "interesting, but not useful for deciding among the contending hypotheses."