Perspectives on the Ending of Mark: Four Views [Paperback]

Maurice Robinson (Author), Darrell Bock (Author), Keith Elliott (Author), Daniel Wallace (Author), David Alan Black (Editor)

Book Description

Publication Date: November 1, 2008 | Series: Perspectives

Because it is conspicuously absent from more than one early Greek manuscript, the final section of the gospel of Mark (16:9-20) that details Christ’s resurrection remains a constant source of debate among serious students of the New Testament.

Perspectives on the Ending of Mark presents in counterpoint form the split opinions about this difficult passage with a goal of determining which is more likely. Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary professors Maurice Robinson and David Alan Black argue for the verses’ authenticity. Keith Elliott (University of Leeds) and Daniel Wallace (Dallas Theological Seminary) contend that they are not original to Mark’s gospel. Darrell Bock (Dallas Theological Seminary) responds to each view and summarizes the state of current research on the entire issue.

Editorial Reviews

About the Author

David Alan Black is professor of New Testament and Greek at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in Wake Forest, North Carolina. He has published more than one hundred scholarly articles, authored or edited twenty books, and lectured abroad in Spain, Romania, and England. Black and his wife live in southern Virginia.

Product Details

• Paperback: 160 pages
• Publisher: B&H Academic (November 1, 2008)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0805447628
• ISBN-13: 978-0805447620
• Product Dimensions: 5.4 x 0.6 x 8.3 inches
• Shipping Weight: 4.8 ounces (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 3.8 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (4 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #442,257 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

7 of 8 people found the following review helpful

5.0 out of 5 stars Getting Current On The Long Ending Of Mark January 30, 2010

By Roderick Graciano

Format:Paperback|Amazon Verified Purchase

If you would like to get current on the state of scholarship on the long ending of Mark, this is the introduction you want. Highly readable, this volume does not bolster your presuppositions, but alerts you to the important arguments on all sides of the debate regarding Mark's long ending (and the intermediate ending). This book is a great introduction for those just jumping into the debate and a good review and update for those who have previously studied the textual issue of Mark's long ending.

3 of 3 people found the following review helpful

3.0 out of 5 stars Some of the "Perspectives" are Weak / Unbalanced October 10, 2012

By Tertius

Format:Paperback|Amazon Verified Purchase

Individually, I would rate the essays as follows. My overall ranking is based on an average of these:
Wallace: Five stars (*****)
Robinson: Three stars (***)
Elliott: Three stars (***)
Black: One star (*)

Wallace made the best case for his position, by far. He is strong not only in his handling of the evidence, but also in his carful identification of the presuppositions inherent in the debate. He raised several important points I had not previously considered and also introduced pieces of evidence that the other contributors seemed unaware of.

Robinson makes a few good points. He draws a number of interesting literary parallels, but most of the ones I actually checked by looking them up in my Bible seem much less convincing than he makes them out to be. The essay is marred heavily by the fact that all the subject headings are taken from Marianne Moore's poem, "Poetry," producing an essay that appears to be organized in an entirely nonsensical manner. His use of this poem as an analogy for different versions of Mark is especially unconvincing.

Elliott makes some interesting points about internal evidence as well, and in some ways he is almost a foil to Robinson's essay. However, he is far too dismissive of external testimony. He also proposes a theory that Mark is "damaged at both ends" which I find to be implausible in light of the dearth of textual evidence for this position. The essay's main redeeming quality is the discussion of canonicity at the end of it.

Black's essay is easily the worst. I have enjoyed reading some of Black's material in the past, and I was hoping to read some actual evidence for 16:9-20 as a Markan addition.... However, what I got instead was an extremely speculative and unhelpful "solution" to the Synoptic problem. He proposes that Mark was actually a collection of sermons preached by Peter in Rome, largely dependent on Matthew and Luke, but excluding a resurrection sermon (which Mark adds later). Black presents almost no evidence for this theory. His argument is essentially, "this is how it could have happened," instead of "this is the most likely scenario based on the evidence."

Bock concludes the book by addressing several points from the essays and asserting his support for Wallace's view. In my judgment, this makes the book somewhat unbalanced. I would have appreciated seeing the contributors actually respond to each other's essays, or at the very least seeing a different person write the final response essay who would make a stronger case for one of the other perspectives instead of giving Wallace's view a second go-around. (In the interests of full disclosure, I actually agree with Wallace, although somewhat cautiously).

I would recommend this book to someone looking to survey the issues surrounding Mark's ending, but with the caveats listed above. This book does not answer all of the pertinent questions, regardless of what view you take. Read more ›

5 of 7 people found the following review helpful

3.0 out of 5 stars A Broad Spectrum of Views June 8, 2011

By James Snapp, Jr.

Format:Paperback|Amazon Verified Purchase

This book, consisting of a preface and five concise chapters, addresses a major text-critical issue, as the title indicates. The diversity of the perspectives of the authors is remarkable: Wallace and Bock propose that Mark intentionally stopped writing at the end of Mk 16:8; Robinson and Black propose that Mk 16:9-20 was present in the autograph of the Gospel of Mark, and Elliott proposes a more complex view that includes the premise that the Gospel of Mark originally had a different ending which is no longer extant.

It may seem unfair that Dr. Bock was allowed, as he was at the 2007 conference that led to this book, to advocate the same view as Dr. Wallace (his fellow professor at Dallas Theological Seminary). Their view thus receives extra coverage. However, since Bock really brings nothing new to the table, as far as evidence and analysis is concerned (except a misconception of the lectionary-evidence), this is a benign flaw.

This book has some shortcomings: Wallace got some facts mixed up. Robinson is insightful but seems preoccupied with some modern poetry. Black uses the book as an opportunity to promote an unlikely solution to the Synoptic Problem. Elliott seems to contradict himself on several points. And Bock is clearly not well-acquainted with the pertinent evidence. Nevertheless this book, taken as a whole, is an adequate introduction for non-specialists to this specific text-critical controversy.

4.0 out of 5 stars Good explanation October 22, 2012

By Reviewer

Format:Paperback

I am preaching through the gospel of Mark. From the outset, I knew I had to decide how I was going to approach the last 12 verses. In the past, the question of when does Mark's Gospel end would not have been a problem. Preaching from the King James to people reading the King James doesn't necessitate an explanation. Other than that part about handling snakes I mean. And drinking poison (Mark 16:18). Besides, I could just camp on Mark 16:15 and be done with it. That was then. This is now. I preach from the NASB. My folks carry a variety of translations. The NIV makes a clear distinction separating vs. 8 from vss. 9-20. Most of the others simply use brackets with a footnote. In preparation I read this book edited by David Alan Black, who also served as one of the contributors.

Let's start with the issue at hand. "Since the two most reliable early manuscripts do not have Mark 16:9-20" (as per the NIV) are the last 12 verses of the gospel of Mark authentic? Does Mark end his gospel at verse 8, as all the modern translations seem to suggest or did he end at verse 20, the so-called long ending (LE), as the majority of manuscripts do? I assumed it was an either or question, who knew there were four possible views! The book did a very good job of differentiating between them.

2 views that say Yes, the long ending is the right ending

Maurice Robinson is Senior Professor of New Testament at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary and the author of The New Testament in the Original Greek. He argues that Mark 16:9-20 is original. His is the traditional view that there is not enough evidence to the contrary to doubt the authenticity of the LE. You would think that his presentation would be the most easy to defend, given that his is the position with the most history behind it.... Yet, he muddies the water by weaving his points around some century old poem. His defense made some very strong points, but ultimately left me unconvinced. (I'm not saying I am unconvinced the LE is authentic, just that he didn't convince me.)

David Alan Black is Professor of New Testament and Greek at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary and the author of Learn to Read New Testament Greek and New Testament Textual Criticism. By the way, all these chapters were originally from a conference held at the aforementioned seminary. Black takes the view that the LE was written by Mark, but at a later date. "I am absolutely convinced that the Longer Ending is original based on the external evidence, and that it deserves the canonical status it has enjoyed throughout church history" (p. 103). He believes that the reason for the omissions in some of the manuscripts is because Mark's original writing was composed as a record of Peter's teachings (which validated the existing gospels of Matthew and Luke). After Peter's martyrdom "(a)s 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" (p. 120). Black argues a very interesting, but highly speculative theory to arrive at this conclusion.

2 views that say No, the long ending is not the right ending

Daniel B. Wallace argues for Mark 16:8 as being the conclusion to the Second Gospel. Wallace is Professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary and the author of Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics. The question "(w)hich is more likely- that scribes would intentionally omit vv. 9-20 or that they would add these verses?" (p. 10) forms the basis for his examination of the external evidence. As do the others, he also deals with the witness of the church fathers. "The patristic testimony thus reveals a very interesting trend: from the earliest discussion on the authenticity of this passage, the fathers indicate that most of the copies of Mark ended at 16:8" (p. 24). As far as internal evidence, Wallace argues that Mark may have intentionally ended with the women being afraid because of the place fear (or amazement) played in the second gospel.

For me, J. Keith Elliott's position was the most problematic (or should I say disturbing?).
Elliott is Professor of New Testament Textual Criticism at the University of Leeds. He is the author of Manuscripts and the Text of the New Testament. He believes that the original ending was lost. Mark didn't mean to end at verse 8, but we don't have the ending. That idea doesn't cause him any consternation, but inerrancy certainly does. "The textual problems at the end of Mark and indeed the fluid text in much of the New Testament as a whole make talk of inerrancy, as narrowly defined by some, indefensible" (p. 99). "The sooner that the language of inerrancy is dropped in the context of textual criticism the better it will be for scholarship" (p. 101).

Another Dallas Seminary professor, Darrell L. Bock provides a concluding response to the four essays. He is upfront that he believes that Mark ended his gospel at verse 8. "Mark's ending matches the circumstances of his readers: the Resurrection is proclaimed and the only remaining issue is what will the one who hears about the Resurrection do with a risen Jesus. Mark's ending assumes that the women did emerge from their silence and fear to believe and proclaim" (p. 140). He acknowledges all of the authors look at the external and internal evidence and come to vastly different conclusions. "The problem of Mark's ending is complex. All the elements of textual criticism are in play: external evidence, internal evidence, the views of the versions and father, and what Mark himself was trying to do" (p. 140).

I wouldn't recommend this book to my average church member. But as a pastor (and not a scholar), I did find it helpful as I prepare my final sermon on Mark's gospel. Read more ›