Maurice Robinson in Perspectives
.
"Perspectives on the Ending of Mark - 4 Views" (2008)
http://books.google.com/books?id=KtzXR2s1lAoC&pg=PR1
Amazon has "look inside"
http://www.amazon.com/Perspectives-Ending.../dp/0805447628
Worthwhile book to buy, as well kindle or used or new, if you are doing research on the ending.
==============================================
The section by Maurice Robinson is, overall, excellent.
First two omissions:
1) No discussion of dating of the autograph (e.g. James Keith Elliott uses late dating in saying that Mark came after 1 Corinthians 15, p. 90).
2) no discussion of Latin or Graeco-Latin (or two editions) as the original language of Mark (this flies under the modern scholarship radar.)
These two points we will leave aside for now.
ADDED - very little ECW
==============================================
Three Simple Reasons why scribes may prefer mss with omission:
An interesting summary can be made using p. 53-54. While the original loss could easily be accidental (e.g. lost leaf) there are three, at least, distinct elements of why the longer ending might be preferred in textual transmission:
1) synoptic apologetic issues. Most significantly, this includes Eusebius' Ad Marinum issues, which we know were discussed at the time. David Robert Palmer is an example of a writer who today emphasizes perceived synoptic problems today as a reason to favor excision (the textual proclivities given an apologetic tinge.) This is a wide field of study, "synoptic apologetic issues" gives the sense.
2) Markan harmony issues - Mark 14:28 and Mark 16:7 (especially) glaring out at the reader or scribe.
Mark 14:28 (AV)
But after that I am risen,
I will go before you into Galilee.
Mark 16:7 (AV)
But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter
that he goeth before you into Galilee:
there shall ye see him, as he said unto you.
In the manner of: "Hey, what happened? No Galilee appearance here, maybe this is not what Mark wrote, I'll put it aside, like that other ms."
Delbert Burkett is given note for pointing this out:
Rethinking the Gospel Sources: From Proto-Mark to Mark
http://books.google.com/books?id=izvGDNQY6AoC&pg=PA263
http://www.amazon.com/Rethinking-Gospel.../dp/0567025500
Perspectives
http://books.google.com/books?id=fA65AwAAQBAJ&pg=PA53
"... the scribe may have noticed that Mark looks forward to a Galilean resurrection narrative (Mark 14:28; 16:7), which the longer ending does not provide. From that fact the scribe may have concluded that the longer ending was not the original ending of Mark and so omitted it."
3) Sign-gift concerns - this is especially credited to William Reuben Farmer (1921-2000) ,
Only p. 66-68 are online.
The Last Twelve Verses of Mark (1974)
William Reuben Farmer
http://books.google.com/books?id=yT-13BpsyQ0C&pg=PA66
For the well-written Maurice Robinson summary:
Perspectives
http://books.google.com/books?id=fA65AwAAQBAJ&pg=PA54
Beyond apparent internal contradiction, a more pressing issue involves the specific sign gifts stated to accompany those who believe. After the legitimization of Christianity under Constantine, a possible area of concern involved perceived difficulties if certain "sign gifts" might be claimed in support of some revived form of prophetic leadership, particularly neo-Montanism. It would be no wonder were certain of the orthodox to have an interest in eliminating an appeal to continuing prophetic signs and wonders, lest a claim of advanced prophetic revelation become destructive of orthodoxy. In view of these considerations, removal or replacement may have been viewed as the optimal solution.
==============================================
Other ideas seem less significant. e.g. On p. 95 James Keith Elliott mentions an idea that the appearance to Peter could be a cause of deliberate suppression.
==============================================
Mark's pointing to Galilee
One important omission/weakness in the presentation by Maurice Robinson. Robinson mentions Mark 14:28 and 16:7 on p. 53, as noted above, as a cause of possible inclination to suppress. Robinson does not give his idea as to why Mark put in those two verses and did not have any appearances in Galilee, which is a central question that combines authorship considerations with gospel harmony with textual.
ADDED; With Luke being first, these problems vanish.
=====
Gundry shows interconnections in an amusing backwards fashion, using higher criticism and Markan priority nonsense as a base for his conclusions:
Matthew: A Commentary on His Handbook for a Mixed Church Under Persecution (1994)
Robert Horton Gundry
http://books.google.com/books?id=6b9x0Cgkch8C&pg=PA530
"Since Mark 14:28; 16:7 cannot refer to a still awaited parousia, the failure of Mark's short text to describe a fulfillment of the prediction that Jesus
would precede the disciples to Galilee becomes so serious that we need to suppose a truncation of Mark's original ending. Here higher criticism comes to the aid (sic) of textual criticism. But Matthew knew Mark's original ending ..."
==============================================