James Snapp does not believe the long ending of Mark is original. He believes it was some sort of floating pericope that was tacked on after Mark was arrested, died or something.
The theory is absurd. So while his geek-tech information on the evidences his helpful, he really is a contra-authenticity trojan horse, whose position is torn to shreds quickly in the real discussion land with short corrupt ending proponents.
James Snapp is actually de facto an opponent of Mark ending authenticity
Dear Textus Receptus Academy,
Caveat emptor.
The geek-tech work of James Snapp on the Mark ending evidences is superb, correcting lots of disinformation put out by the Westcott-Hort recension supporters, who support the faux “women afraid” ending of verse 8. James compiles and analyzes the massive support for the section, and his work on this is the most comprehensive single source available, and free. All of that work can be properly used in defense of the authenticity of the traditional ending.
True Mark ending supporters like John William Burgon, Edward Freer Hills and Maurice Robinson do support the full chapter as authentic scripture and Mark’s original Gospel text. The proper understanding.
James Snapp, however, actually does NOT accept the 12 verses as Mark’s original Gospel text.Instead, against logic, sense, Ockham and probability, James Snapp theorizesMarkus Interruptus(arrest or death or something) just as Mark had finished writing verse 8 and was ready for the finale of the resurrection appearances of the Lord Jesus Christ. Halleluyah!
This is followed by Special pleading to the max. After the no-evidence interruption, James theorizes that a “floating pericope” was attached on after verse 8. This FP may have been written by ‘Friends of Mark’,or Mark unrelated to the Gospel, or ... somebody. (James has moved the theory around over the years.) Then James theorizes, again without a scintilla of evidence, that this hybrid Mark was copied into production before the actual shorter Gospel was copied and distributed.
If you buy into this scenario, please.watch out for bridge salesmen!
(btw, this convoluted scenario is totally unnecessary. The reasons that James gives for wanting to combine two texts are essentially a multiplication of nothings.)
Thus, James represents a Trojan Horse, with a position that is contra Mark ending authenticity! And he is easily exposed by the savvier Critical Text short ending supporters. As an example, he lost his debate on CARM to Joe Wallack in 2010 on precisely this point.
