Mark ending positions - true authenticity and various dodges

[Steven Avery]

Pure Bible Forum

ending of Mark authenticity history starting in 1500s
https://www.purebibleforum.com/inde...-authenticity-history-starting-in-1500s.1823/

Mark ending positions - true authenticity and various dodges
https://www.purebibleforum.com/inde...ns-true-authenticity-and-various-dodges.1335/

===========================

Facebook - Textus Receptus Academy
https://www.facebook.com/groups/467...k/640980123414520/?comment_id=642393326606533

NON-AUTHENTICITY.

Bruce Metzger ("ought to be accepted as part of the canonical text of Mark")
James Snapp (convoluted Markus Interruptus theories, see sinking pericope page)
Peter Gurry ("Scripture, something like an ancient appendix.")
David W. Hester

And I strongly encourage you not to let them try to pull this shake and bake game with you.

TRUE AUTHENTICITY

Note: Kelhoffer lists defenders

Miracle and Mission: The Authentication of Missionaries and Their Message in the Longer Ending of Mark (2000)
James A. Kelhoffer
https://books.google.com/books?id=3z9hz6VrD_8C&pg=PA19
https://api.pageplace.de/preview/DT0400.9783161571657_A39292182/preview-9783161571657_A39292182.pdf

John William Burgon
Edward Freer Hills (and AV defenders in general)
Maurice Robinson
Wilbur Pickering
Nicholas P. Lunn
Jeffrey Riddle (and Confessional and Reformation defenders)

Jonathan Borland

George Salmon
Jean Paulin Martin

Paton James Gloag
https://archive.org/details/introductiontoth00gloauoft/page/200/mode/1up?view=theater
The style is not wholly different from that of Mark. The passage is certainly a category of particulars, but still it is not wanting in traces of Mark's graphic style ...
If, then, the Gospel once had a conclusion, actual or intended, we are entitled to ask the objectors to this passage,
What has become of it ? Two answers have been given to
this question. The one, favoured by Norton,3 is that Mark
was prevented finishing his Gospel; either because Peter, to
whom he was indebted for his information, perished at this
time in the persecution by Nero (Michaelis), or because Mark
himself died (Davidson). Both of these are merely gratuitous
suppositions. Mark was not so entirely dependent on Peter...
We therefore feel constrained to come to the conclusion that Mark xvi. 9—20 is a genuine portion of the Gospel.

Joseph Knabenbauer
http://books.google.com/books?id=jXfLBYYamcgC&pg=PA435

A Harmonized Exposition of the Four Gospels, Volume 4 (1908)
Andrew Edward Breen
http://books.google.com/books?id=owE9AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA610
note: see also
http://books.google.com/books?id=4iJHAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA424

p. 610
It must be conceded that the close of Mark’s Gospels is
very condensed, and thus causes some obscurity, but we shall
see in the treatment of his text that there is no contradiction
between him and the other writers. We believe therefore that
these verses were originally in the text of Mark, but that they
were purposely cut off in the two great codices. Comely and Knabenbauer assign as the cause of this excision the fact that
the Alexandrian Church terminated its fast and celebrated the
Resurrection at midnight: the other churches began their
celebration at dawn. The Alexandrian Church erroneously
believed that Matthew favored their usage; and as these verses
of Mark seem to conflict with their usage, they cut off these
verses. This opinion is a mere conjecture, and is unsupported
by any historical evidence. It seems far more probable to
assign the cause which moved Eusebius to state that the
verses were not found in the accurate Greek codices. This
cause was the belief that in the designation of the time of the
Lord’s Resurrection, Mark contradicted St. Matthew. When
Marinus consulted Eusebius, the latter, in perplexity at the
difficulty, appealed to the absence of the verses from the
codices. Hence it is logical to suppose that the same difficulty
moved others before the time of Eusebius to drop these verses
from the codices. Such has happened in other portions of
While therefore it is not absolutely certain that Mark
wrote these verses, it is of faith that they are inspired Scripture.
From the acts of the Council of Trent it is learned that
when the Council declared that the books of the Vulgate
“should be received with all their parts, ” their intention was to
include these verses of Mark in their definition. The Cardinal
of Trent declared “that the decree was made to the end that no
doubt might henceforth exist concerning these portions of
Scripture.”

Klostermann
says that Jesus appeared first to Mary Magdalene. To answer
this Knabenbauer conjectures that Jesus did not appear to the
women immediately after they left the tomb; but later in the
day, and to this cause he attributes the fact that the two dis-
ciples on the way to Emmaus knew nothing of such appear-
ance. He believes that Matthew in his abridged account
groups events together which were separated by some interval.

p. 611
John Gwynn

Richard Lenski

Frederic Charles Cook
https://books.google.com/books?id=H10_AAAAYAAJ&pg=PA308

Scrivener
Six Questions (1875)
https://books.google.com/books?id=MAE-AAAAYAAJ&pg=PA139#v=onepage&q&f=false
Eusebius
lauds Broadus and Burgon
Plain Introduction (1883)
http://books.google.com/books?id=hZQHAAAAQAAJ&pg=RA1-PA583
This fact has driven those who reject the concluding verses to the strangest fancies ;—namely, that, like Thucydides, the Evangelist was cut off before his work was completed, or even that the last leaf of the original Gospel was torn away. We emphatically deny that such wild surmises 2 are called for by the state of the evidence in this case. All opposition to the authenticity of the paragraph resolves itself into the allegations of Eusebius and the testimony of KB. Let us accord to these the weight which is their due: but against their verdict we can appeal to the reading of Irenaeus and of both the elder Syriac translations in the second century; of nearly all other versions ; and of all extant manuscripts excepting two. So powerfully is it vouched for, that many of those who are reluctant to recognise S. Mark as its author, are content to regard it notwithstanding as an integral portion of the inspired record originally delivered to the Church1.

Bishop Wordsworth
John Brown McClellan
Bleek
Hilgenfeld ?

ECW
Kirchhofer

Flip around ?
John William McGarvey
Broadus
Morison

Unsure
Benjamin W. Bacon
Andrew Cain
McDill
Edwards

Wernle

Kelhoffer

 

[Steven Avery]

68
In addition to J. W. Burgon, those who have argued for, or tacitly assumed, the authenticity of the LE include: J. P. P. Martin, Introduction a la critique textuelle du Nouveau Testament (Vol. 2; Paris: Maisonneuve frdres et C. Leclerc, 1884); George Salmon, A Historical Introduction to the Study of the Books of the New Testament: Being An Expansion of Lectures Delivered in the* Divinity School of the University of Dublin (London: John Murray, 1885) 187—193; Johannes E. Belser, “Integritat des Markusevangeliums,” in idem, Einleitung in das Neue Testament (Freiburg im Brcisgau: Herder, 1901) 93—103; Second Edition, 1905, pp. 98—105; J.-P. van Kasteren, “L’epilogue Canonique du Second Evangile (Mr. 16, 9-20),” RB 11 (1902) 240—255, esp. pp. 246—251; Ivan Panin, The Last Twelve Verses of Mark: Their Genuineness Established (C. F. Lenton: Norfolk, England; Grafton, MA: Panin, 1910); Gerhard Hartmann, Der Aufbau des Markusevangeliums mit einem Anhang: Untersuchungen zur Echtheit des Markusschlusses (NTAbh 17.2—3; ed. M. Meinertz; Munster: Verlag der Aschendorffschen Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1936) 175—276; Samuel M. Zwemer, “The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel of Mark,” EvQ 17 (1945) 13—23; reprinted in Counterfeit or Genuine? Mark 16? John 8? (ed. D. O. Fuller; Grand Rapids, Ml: Grand Rapids International Publications, 1975) 159—174; Marchinus van der Valk, Observations on Mk 16, 9-20 in Relation to Mark’s Gospel (Separata de Humanitas 6—7; Coimbra, Portugal: Faculdade de letras da Universidade de Coimbra Instituto de Estudos Classicos, 1958); Lee Alfred, “The Last Twelve Verses of Mark: A Study of Authenticity,” (M.A. Thesis, Harding College, 1958); Ernest H. Streets, "These Signs”: Mark 16, 17: A Personal Testimony and Bible Study (Open Bible Trust: Cowdenbeath, 1959, reprinted, 1984); William R. Farmer, The Last Twelve Verses of Mark-, idem, “A note on J. Birdsall’s Review of The Last Twelve Verses of Mark in The Journal of Theological Studies, April 1975,” in idem, Occasional Notes on Some Points of Interest in New Testament Studies (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1980) 15—20; Edward F. Hills, “Dean Burgon and the Traditional Text,” in reprinted edition of John W. Burgon, The Last Twelve Verses of Mark (Grand Rapids, MI: Associated Publishers and Authors, 1959) 17—72; idem, “The Magnificent Dean Burgon and the Original Text,” in Counterfeit or Genuine? Mark 16? John 8?, pp. 15—24; David O. Fuller, “The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel according to St. Mark: Condensed by D. O. Fuller,” in Counterfeit or Genuine? Mark 16? John 8?, pp. 25—130; Hans Lubsczyk, “Kyrios Jesus: Beobachtungen und Gedanken zum SchluB des Markusevangeliums,” in Die Kirche des Anfangs: Festschrift fur Heinz Schiirmann zum 65. Geburtstag (ed. R. Schnackenburg et al.; Leipzig: St. Benno, 1977) 133—174; David Eymann, “An Evaluation of the Evidence Bearing upon the Authenticity of Mark 16:9-20,” (M.A. Thesis, Western Conservative Baptist Seminary, 1978); D. A. Thompson, The Controversy Concerning the Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel According to Mark', Bruce A. Nathan, “An Isogogical and Exegetical Study of Mark 16:9-20,” (Ft. Wayne, IN: M.Div. Thesis, Concordia Theological Seminary, 1980); [no author listed] “The Authenticity of the Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel According to Mark: Demonstrated by the Evidence of the Ancient Manuscripts,” (London: Trinitarian Bible Society, 1980, 1995). For a summary of such approaches to the LE, see also S. L. Cox, History and Critique of Scholarship, pp. 53—95.

Scholars who do not subscribe to a particular position on the question of the authenticity of the LE include M. Lach, “Od Koga Potjece Svrsetak (Kanonski) Markova Evandelja (16,9-20),” Bogoslovska Smorta 30 (1942) 232—235; Jose M. Bover, “El final de San Marcos (16, 9-20),” EstBib 3 (1944) 561—562; Francisco R. Colino, “Autenticidad critico-historica de la conclusion canonica (Me. 16/9-20),” Studium Legionense 7 (1966) 177—224; Jana Opocensk£, “Women at the Cross, at Jesus’ Burial, and after the Resurrection: Mk 15.40; 16.10,” Reformed World 47 (1997) 40—48.

 

[Steven Avery]

James Anthony Kelhoffer (b. 1970)
p. 18 note 68
https://books.google.com/books?id=3z9hz6VrD_8C&pg=PA19

68
In addition to
J. W. Burgon, those who have argued for, or tacitly assumed, the authenticity of the LE include:
John William Burgon
The Last Twelve Verses of Mark (1871)
https://archive.org/details/lasttwelveverses00burg/page/n9/mode/2up
https://www.ccel.org/ccel/burgon/mark.html
https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Last_Twelve_Verses_of_the_Gospel_Acc.html?id=2gYQAAAAYAAJ
Hort review
http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2016/10/horts-review-of-burgons-last-twelve.html
Timing
http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2017/06/the-careful-timing-of-burgons-last.html

J. P. P. Martin, Introduction a la critique textuelle du Nouveau Testament (Vol. 2; Paris: Maisonneuve : frères et C. Leclerc, 1884);
https://books.google.com/books?id=RqoGAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA525
Jean Pierre Paulin Martin

George Salmon, A Historical Introduction to the Study of the Books of the New Testament: Being An Expansion of Lectures Delivered in the Divinity School of the University of Dublin (London: John Murray, 1885) 187—193;
1892 edition
https://books.google.com/books?id=j40sAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA142

And, further, there is the possibility that the Evangelist
might have himself published a second edition of his Gospel, so
that two forms of text might both be entitled to claim his autho-
rity. Such a hypothesis may perhaps give the true explanation
of the fact that two forms of St. Mark’s Gospel were in circulation
so early as the second century....

============================

Mark 16:11 (KJV)
And they, when they had heard that he was alive,
and had been seen of her, believed not.

Mark 16:13-14 (KJV)
And they went and told it unto the residue: neither believed they them.
Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat,
and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart,
because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen.

Mark 3:5 (KJV)
And when he had looked round about on them with anger,
being grieved for the hardness of their hearts,
he saith unto the man, Stretch forth thine hand.
And he stretched it out: and his hand was restored whole as the other.

Mark 6:6 (KJV)
And he marvelled because of their unbelief.
And he went round about the villages, teaching.

Mark 6:52 (KJV)
For they considered not the miracle of the loaves:
for their heart was hardened.

It seems to me also that the hand of the writer of the concluding verses is to be found elsewhere in the Gospel. Three times in these concluding verses attention is called to the surprising slowness of the disciples to believe the evidence offered them (vv. 11, 13, 14). Now, you will find that the thought is constantly present to the mind of the second Evangelist, how slow of heart were the beholders of our Lord's miracles; how stubborn the unbelief which the evidence of these miracles was obliged to conquer. Thus, in the account of the healing of the man with the withered hand (common to the three Synoptics), Mark alone relates (iii. 5) that before commanding the man to stretch forth his hand our Lord looked round on the bystanders 'with anger, being grieved for the hardness of their hearts.’ Again, in Mark vi. 6 there is a note special to this Evangelist: ‘Jesus marvelled because of their unbelief.’ And in the history of the tempest on the lake of Gennesaret, told both by Matthew and Mark, there is a noticeable difference between the two accounts. Where Matthew (xiv. 33) tells of the conviction effected by the miracle in those who beheld it, Mark (vi. 52) has instead an expression of surprise at the stupidity and hardness of heart of those who had not sooner recognized our Lord’s true character.

Believing, then, the existing conclusion to have been part of the Second Gospel, ever since it was a Gospel ...

============================


Menzies .. not a translation of an Aramaic source ... designed for Western readers, perhaps even composed in Rome itself p. 36-38
Preuschen on Aramaic source

============================

Gerhard Hartmann, Der Aufbau des Markusevangeliums mit einem Anhang: Untersuchungen zur Echtheit des Markusschlusses (NTAbh 17.2—3; ed. M. Meinertz; Munster: Verlag der Aschendorffschen Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1936) 175—276;
https://archive.org/details/deraufbaudesmark0000hart/page/n3/mode/2up
Review by Karl Prümm - 1939 (German) - note: Zwemer says excellent
https://www.jstor.org/stable/42631520

Samuel M. Zwemer, “The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel of Mark,” EvQ 17 (1945) 13—23; reprinted in Counterfeit or Genuine? Mark 16? John 8? (ed. D. O. Fuller; Grand Rapids, Ml: Grand Rapids International Publications, 1975) 159—174;
“The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel of Mark,”
https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/eq/1945-1_013.pdf

Adds (not really pro)
Albert C. Clark,
The Primitive Text of the Gospels and Acts (1914) p. 76-77

The Acts of the Apostles

books.google.com

The primitive text of the Gospels and Acts : Clark, Albert Curtis, 1859-1937 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

The metadata below describe the original scanning. Follow the All Files: HTTP link in the View the book box to the left to find XML files that contain more...

archive.org

"there seems to be a lacuna between v. 8 and v. 9. It seems to me that vv. 9-20 contain an amplificatio of the ‘Shorter Conclusion’. First comes a summary and then the events are narrated in detail, viz. :

Hastings Dictionary
https://books.google.com/books?id=dnySMdsX-rYC&pg=PA253

Marchinus van der Valk, Observations on Mk 16, 9-20 in Relation to Mark’s Gospel (Separata de Humanitas 6—7; Coimbra, Portugal: Faculdade de letras da Universidade de Coimbra Instituto de Estudos Classicos, 1958); - Portuguese

Lee Alfred, “The Last Twelve Verses of Mark: A Study of Authenticity,” (M.A. Thesis, Harding College, 1958);

Ernest H. Streets, "These Signs”: Mark 16, 17: A Personal Testimony and Bible Study (Open Bible Trust: Cowdenbeath, 1959, reprinted, 1984); - 24 pages
https://secure.paperbackswap.com/SignsMark-16/book/0947778012/
https://search.worldcat.org/title/12507812

William R. Farmer, The Last Twelve Verses of Mark-, idem, “A note on J. Birdsall’s Review of The Last Twelve Verses of Mark in The Journal of Theological Studies, April 1975,” in idem, Occasional Notes on Some Points of Interest in New Testament Studies (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1980) 15—20;
http://books.google.com/books?id=yT-13BpsyQ0C&pg=PA3
William Reuben Farmer (1921-2000)

Edward F. Hills, “Dean Burgon and the Traditional Text,” in reprinted edition of John W. Burgon, The Last Twelve Verses of Mark (Grand Rapids, MI: Associated Publishers and Authors, 1959) 17—72; idem,
“The Magnificent Dean Burgon and the Original Text,” in Counterfeit or Genuine? Mark 16? John 8?, pp. 15—24;

David O. Fuller,
“The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel according to St. Mark: Condensed by D. O. Fuller,”
in Counterfeit or Genuine? Mark 16? John 8?, pp. 25—130;

Hans Lubsczyk, “Kyrios Jesus: Beobachtungen und Gedanken zum SchluB des Markusevangeliums,” in Die Kirche des Anfangs: Festschrift fur Heinz Schiirmann zum 65. Geburtstag (ed. R. Schnackenburg et al.; Leipzig: St. Benno, 1977) 133—174;

David Eymann, “An Evaluation of the Evidence Bearing upon the Authenticity of Mark 16:9-20,” (M.A. Thesis, Western Conservative Baptist Seminary, 1978);

D. A. Thompson, The Controversy Concerning the Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel According to Mark',

Bruce A. Nathan, “An Isogogical and Exegetical Study of Mark 16:9-20,” (Ft. Wayne, IN: M.Div. Thesis, Concordia Theological Seminary, 1980);

[no author listed] “The Authenticity of the Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel According to Mark: Demonstrated by the Evidence of the Ancient Manuscripts,” (London: Trinitarian Bible Society, 1980, 1995).

 

[Steven Avery]

Now much detail added



Johannes E. Belser, “Integritat des Markusevangeliums,” in idem, Einleitung in das Neue Testament (Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1901) 93—103; Second Edition, 1905, pp. 98—105;
https://archive.org/details/einleitungindasn00bels/page/98/mode/1up

J.-P. van Kasteren, “L’epilogue Canonique du Second Evangile (Mr. 16, 9-20),” RB 11 (1902) 240—255, esp. pp. 246—251;

J. P. VAN KASTEREN, L'epilogue canonique du second evangile.
— A study of the authenticity of Mark xvi. 9-20, in the light of N.T. introductions Zahn and Belser. Author inclines to opinion of Belser that the verses question were added later, but by St Mark himself, after appearance third gospel.
https://archive.org/details/hibbertjournal01londuoft/page/204/mode/2up?q=kasteren
Alan Menzies Review by James Moffatt
A favourable verdict is passed on the conjecture that xvi. 9-20 is the work of the presbyter Aristion (pp. 48-49, 292), a position certainly preferable to that occupied afresh by Belser and J. P. van Kasteren, who have ascribed it to Mark himself, writing at a late period, possibly after the appearance of the third gospel. Upon the other hand, like Wernle and Professor Bacon recently, Dr Menzies believes in the Marcan authorship. He rightly assigns considerable authority to the evidence of Papias, although admitting that, as "the Paulinism of Mark does not amount to very much " (p. 39), neither is it a gospel of Peter (see pp. 47-51).
https://archive.org/details/hibbertjournal01londuoft/page/387/mode/1up?q=kasteren


REMOVED

Ivan Panin, The Last Twelve Verses of Mark: Their Genuineness Established (C. F. Lenton: Norfolk, England; Grafton, MA: Panin, 1910);

 

[Steven Avery]

For a summary of such approaches to the LE, see also
S. L. Cox, History and Critique of Scholarship Concerning the Markan Endings
, pp. 53—95.
Stephen Lynn Cox
Access at University
https://brill.com/view/journals/nt/37/2/article-p205_17.xml
The question that guided this book was whether ephobounto gar is a legitimate ending of a work.
(There is a review by James Keith Elliott)

https://www.jstor.org/stable/1561289

Camille Focant 2000 list of authentic

New Testament Textual Criticism and Exegesis

For many years, Professor Joel Delobel has served as a member of the Department of Biblical Studies of the Faculty of Theology, K.U. Leuven (1969-2001). His research has tended to focus on Luke-Acts, Pauline Literature and especially Textual Criticism (he is a member of Das Institut fur...

books.google.com

12. La plus importante est celle de

W.R. Farmf.r. The Last Twelve Verses of Mark (SNTS MS. 25), Cambridge, 1974.

Pour une sévère revue critique, voir
J.N. Birdsall. in JTS 26 (1975) 151-160.

Quant à H. Lubsczyk, Kyrios Jésus. Beobachtungen und Gedanken zum Schluss des Markusevangeliums, in R. Schnackenburg - J. Ernst -J. Wankf. (eds.).

Die Kirche des Anfangs. FS H. Schürmann (ErfTS. 38), Leipzig, 1977, pp. 133-173, surtout 147-155,
il estime que les arguments contre l’authenticité marcienne des vv. 9-20 ne sont pas convaincants.

Pour une histoire de l’exégèse sur la question de l'authenticité de la finale longue, voir J. Hug, La finale (n. 2), pp. 11-32.
La finale de l'évangile de Marc : (Mc 16, 9-20)

Kelhoffer p. 35

L'étude récente de J.A. Kelhoffer, Miracle and Mission. The Authentification of Missionaries and Their Message in the Longer Ending of Mark (WUNT, 11/112), Tübingen, 2000. traite la question en détail et confirme la non-authenticité marcienne de la finale
longue.

Joseph Hug
https://archive.org/details/lafinaledelvangi0000hugj/page/12/mode/1up

​

Page 12
J. L. Hug5, exégète catholique, considère les versets 16,9-20 comme un appendice ajouté par Marc lui-même à l’évangile.

5. Einleitung in die Schriften des NT, Stuttgart 1808, Bd. 2, $ 75, 247s. C'était déjà la position de J. D. Micuaeus, Einleitung in die gôttlichen Schriften des Neuen Bundes, Bd. ?, 1059-60, Gôttingen 41788. Il soutenait qu’une 1re édition de l’évangile était sortie à Rome sans fMc qui fut ajoutée par Marc lui-même dans la seconde édition parue à Alexandrie. L'ouvrage de J. D. MicHAELIS a été traduit en français par

Page 13
M. L. de Wette1 estime les argument internes et externes contre l’authenticité non déterminants et se rallie aux défenseurs de l’authenticité.

A. Hilgenfeld2, d’une manière plus nuancée, tient aussi à l’authenticité, tout en n’excluant pas des corrections rédactionnelles tardives. Il exclut une dépendance de Le.

Le plus ardent défenseur de l’authenticité vient d’outre-Manche.

J. W. Burgon publie en 1871 à Londres une monographie intitulée : «The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel according to St. Mark vindicated against recent critical objectors ». L'ouvrage de plus de 300 pages représente la défense la plus minutieuse de l’authenticité de fMc. Burgon apporte surtout ses soins à l’étude des problèmes de critique textuelle. Toutefois il consacre aussi un chapitre entier à démontrer la convenance du vocabulaire et du style de fMc avec le reste de l’évangile.3

Il faut ajouter l’étude monumentale de critique textuelle de J.-P. Paulin Martin également défenseur acharné de l’authenticites.

C. Fr. Keïl 5, examinant arguments pour ou contre, estime que les difficultés soulevées par ces versets sont moins mal résolues en tenant Marc pour leur auteur qu’en faisant appel à un auteur anonyme postérieur.

Le catholique P. Schanz, se prononce aussi prudemment pour l’authenticités.

Hartmann?​

Page 17
Mentionnons le commentaire de J. Knabenbauer et l’étude fouillée d’'E. Mangenot‘. L'ouvrage de Burgon est relayé en 1936 par la longue et minutieuse étude de G. Hartmann : « Der Aufbau des Markusevangeliums mit einem Anhang Untersuchungen zur Echtheit des Markusschlusses »5. L'auteur, après avoir analysé la composition de Mc, reprend de fond en comble l’étude de fMc et se prononce hardiment pour l’authenticité. Véritable mine de renseignements, notamment pour l’analyse lexicographique, nou
aurons quelquefois recours à lui.

And many more Hartmann

 

[Steven Avery]

Gloag list
https://archive.org/details/introductiontoth00gloauoft/page/201/mode/1up

Hastings
https://books.google.com/books?id=dnySMdsX-rYC&pg=PA253

Breen

 

[Steven Avery]

this is the thread where James Snapp dances around Burgon
https://www.facebook.com/groups/151...id=807665809252907&offset=0&total_comments=20

Expanding the references to Mark ending defenders who rejected the Hortian delusion. Up to the 1800s the unity and cohesion of the single Markan gospel was simply accepted
Not buffeted by the era and error of Hortian apostasy, here are single gospel defenders. These seven are referenced because each one brought a lot to the table.
==========
John William Burgon
George Salmon - "an integral part of the second Gospel"
James Morison - "Mark's own conclusion of the gospel" but did he flip?
Richard Charles Henry Lenski
"We are willing to conceive what we can, but we are forced to draw the line at unsatisfactory hypotheses"
Edward Freer Hills
Bruce Terry
Maurice Robinson.
==========
The most significant potential addition is Jean Pierre Paulin Martin, however his French needs some review.
Hilgenfeld is in German, Scrivener is lightly in this group. Maybe some from Ebrard, Lange and others, see e.g. the Breen list. However, largely before the real onset of the Hortian delusion.
==========
The group that tries to claim "authenticity" without Markan authorship is a strange group, starting with Henry Alford and Tregelles "authentic anonymous addition" , maybe Gordon Fee, on to James Snapp, Farmer I'm not sure.
Oh, yes Metzger and Snapp are quite similar, except that Snapp allows that it might be, or might not be, a floating pericope of Mark from a different time and pen, albeit the same fingerprints. And Snapp has a "production-stage" aspect based on wrong dating and no evidence.
Metzger
"though external and internal evidence is conclusive against the authenticity of the last twelve verses as coming from the same pen as the rest of the Gospel, the passage ought to be accepted as part of the canonical text of Mark."
Each one is weaker than the next on the authorship (and dating) issue, so at this time I am not putting in the same review effort as to the defenders above.
The contra Kelhoffer put it simply:
authenticity, that is, whether "Mark the evangelist wrote the passage"
The protestation from James that ** maybe ** Mark wrote the passage for another unknown pericope, or maybe not. And another differing proto-Mark was lost, is clearly worthless.
Steven Avery

 

[Steven Avery]

Post #1

John William Burgon
Scrivener
Frederic Charles Cook
George Salmon
Jean Paulin Martin
Edward Freer Hills (and AV defenders in general)
Maurice Robinson
Wilbur Pickering
Nicholas P. Lunn
Jeffrey Riddle (and Confessional and Reformation defenders)
Jonathan Borland

Broadus
Paton James Gloag
Joseph Knabenbauer

Andrew Edward Breen - not absolutely certain that Mark wrote these verses

? Comely Cornely
? John Gwynn
? Richard Lenski
Bishop Wordsworth
John Brown McClellan
Bleek
Hilgenfeld ?
Kirchhofer

Flip around ?
John William McGarvey
Broadus
Morison

Unsure
Benjamin W. Bacon
Andrew Cain
McDill
Edwards

Wernle



================================================

More on 3,4,5,6