the sinking pericope theories of James Snapp that are contra traditional Markan ending authenticity

Steven Avery

Yes, James talks of a floating pericope, but it is the theories that are sinking. And yes, James pretends that he is defending Markan authenticity. However, his position is easily refuted by the contras and is a faux authenticity.

Also to be added here. Information about the books by Hester and Lunn, and their positions.

What is not included here is the discussions of particular evidences, that is planned for a separate thread. And there is lots of fine material easily available about the massive evidences.


Specifically on the Snapp Sinking Pericope Theories

Here are some of the discussions to date. The plan is to make them into an article here:

Facebook - Pure Bible
ending of Mark - twelve verses with the resurrection appearances of the Lord Jesus - the James Snapp straddle - floating pericopes
Steven Avery - Sept 11, 2015

Facebook - Pure Bible
Steven Avery - December 15, 2015
2 new books on the Ending of Mark, one by David Wayne Hester, one by . Nicholas P. Lunn, both have lots of strengths (e.g. on ECW references) and some weaknesses.

Facebook - King James Bible Debate - May, 2016


Other significant writing related to the Mark ending

[textualcriticism] ending of Mark - celebrating 125 years of an a fortiori fallacy
Steven Avery - Feb 18, 2012



the sinking pericope theories of James Snapp that are contra Markan ending authenticity (this thread) - April, 2016

The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel According to S. Mark Vindicated Against Recent Critical Objectors and Established (1871)
John William Burgon

Perspectives on the Ending of Mark (2008)
Only .99 on kindle, and includes excellent Maurice Robinson material.

The Original Ending of Mark: A New Case for the Authenticity of Mark 16:9-20 (2014)
Nicholas P. Lunn

Does Mark 16:9-20 Belong in the New Testament? -
David W. Hester

The Earliest Evidence for the Longer Ending of Mark (Nov, 2015)
Justin D. Atkins

Apologetics Press - Dave Miller
Is Mark 16:9-20 Inspired? (2005)
The Strongest Argument Against Mark 16:9-20

Mark 16:9-20 - Authentic or Not? - Snapp and Wallack - (2010)
First of many uses of the Snapp confusion concession position working effectively used contra authenticity.

Evangelical Textual Criticism
Lunn on the End of Mark - July, 2015
In part 1 comments, similar to CARM above, except that I could correct the Snapp error.
Others like Stephen Carlson have also caught the Snapp conceptual problem.

Facebook - New Testament Textual Criticism - Oct 20, 2014
Maurice Robinson in Perspectives - Steven Avery Review

James Snapp

The Authenticity of Mark 16:9-20 (2012)
James E. Snapp, Jr.

Authentic: The Case for Mark 16:9-20 - Kindle (2016)
$5 most current

James Snapp - HTML friendly
The Authenticity of Mark 16:9-20

The Authenticity of Mark 16:9-20 - (Part Two)
External Evidence for the Inclusion

The Authenticity of Mark 16:9-20 - (Part Three)

Early Evidence for Mark 16:9-20

Resources to Assist the Study of Mark 16:9-20

Twenty-eight Pictures to Assist the Study of Mark 16:9-20
".. video-lectures about Mark 16:9-20 are available to watch at YouTube"

The NET and the Ending of Mark (Updated!) - April 19, 2013
There are many "correction of textual critics" and popular misinformation articles like this one. Since NETBible is Daniel Wallace, this gives the basic picture.


Lesser interest - Carlson review

Facebook - Steven Avery wall - Nov 16, 2015
... we note a reference to the Stephen Carlson review of the Nicholas Lunn book on the Mark ending.

Carlson review -

Facebook - NT Textual Criticism
James E. Snapp, Jr. - Nov 17, 2015
James Snapp reviews the grossly deficient review of the Nicholas Lunn book by Stephen Carlson


Early History in Reformation era of Ending considerations

[TC-Alternate-list] EoM - Cajetan and Catharinus
Steven Avery - Nov 2, 2008
New Testament Textual Criticism - Steven Avery - June, 2015{tn:R4}

Along with the Jan Krans blog with the comments:

The Turning Point for Mark 16:9-20

Two of the only online posts on the earlier discussions about the section's authenticity.


This occurs if I try to cut-and-past chunks from earlier page.
Can it be related to ... urls?

vBulletin Message
1. The message you have entered is too short. Please lengthen
your message to at least 1 characters.

To Review

Facebook - NT Textual Criticism - Jan, 2015{tn:R3}

Facebook - NT Textual Criticism - July, 2015

Facebook - NT Textual Criticism - Nov, 2015{tn:R0}

early sinking pericopes - to be made into one article

Facebook - NT Textual Criticism - April, 2015 - Jan, 2015

Facebook - King James Bible Debate - May, 2015


Last edited:

Steven Avery

Piling up the absurdities in the James Snapp special pleading ahistorical conjectural fabrication


James Snapp

I theorize that Mark himself was interrupted when writing 16:8, and that an unidentified person finished Mark's otherwise unfinished account by adding verses 9-20, which he did not compose on the spot, but obtained from an earlier, probably Markan, composition, which accounts for the internal disconnect between v. 8 and the contents of v. 9 (which no one would have composed for the purpose of creating a continuation of the narrative from Mark 16:8). The takeaway is that whatever questions may be raised regarding source-materials, authorship, etc., verses 9-20 were included in the text before the first copies were made, and thus constitute part of the original text.


"I theorize that Mark himself was interrupted when writing 16:8"

Why? He was down to the wire and all of a sudden he is arrested or dies?
There is not even an iota of historical evidence behind this conjecture.

And amazingly, Mark simply could not get the resurrection appearances done?

Why not simply say the ending flopped off?
One reason - then there would have been a true earlier ending, and James theory would be out the window.


Oh, this also requires late dating of Mark, to put some fuzz into the claim. The Gospel was actually written in the 40s, making the claim even that much more absurd. Historically, this Mark death or arrest would be well known.


and that an unidentified person finished Mark's otherwise unfinished account by adding verses 9-20,

To be continued.
Last edited: