CalvinandHodges
Puritan Board Junior
Hi:
A new book entitled, Perspectives on the Ending of Mark: 4 Views was released in 2008 where scholars defend and attack the notion that Mark 16:9-21 was written by Mark. Daniel Wallace of Dallas Theological Seminary takes up the idea that the Gospel of Mark ends at 16:8, and argues against the Long Ending. He does not present any new evidence for his views, however, he does put a new spin on the old arguments against the ending. Below is a humble critique of his position.
He opens his article by pointing out that "everyone has presuppositions." He then goes on to point out the presuppositions of those, like Burgon and Pickering, who have defended the Long Ending of Mark (LE). In writing this section he says something that, to me, is most shocking and disturbing. He quotes Pickering as linking inspiration with preservation (which is consistent with WCF 1:8), and then quotes Burgon as saying something similar, then he writes:
Wallace has not completed his misrepresentation of McDill. Before the citation Wallace quotes a small sentence from McDill, "Could a part of God's Word, inspired by the Holy Spirit be lost?" Then after the citation Wallace continues, "The belief in some sort of doctrine of preservation continues to persist, even when it has been demonstrated to be indefensible exegetically and empirically." Seems to indicate to the reader that McDill is denying the idea of preservation, but note what McDill really says:
The whole article can be found here: Matthew D. McDill,
Wallace then writes:
I have not even probed the "meat" of his argument, and, since it is getting really late, I will have to do so later.
Blessings,
Rob
A new book entitled, Perspectives on the Ending of Mark: 4 Views was released in 2008 where scholars defend and attack the notion that Mark 16:9-21 was written by Mark. Daniel Wallace of Dallas Theological Seminary takes up the idea that the Gospel of Mark ends at 16:8, and argues against the Long Ending. He does not present any new evidence for his views, however, he does put a new spin on the old arguments against the ending. Below is a humble critique of his position.
He opens his article by pointing out that "everyone has presuppositions." He then goes on to point out the presuppositions of those, like Burgon and Pickering, who have defended the Long Ending of Mark (LE). In writing this section he says something that, to me, is most shocking and disturbing. He quotes Pickering as linking inspiration with preservation (which is consistent with WCF 1:8), and then quotes Burgon as saying something similar, then he writes:
What? How does this view affect the doctrines of inerrancy and infallibility? Is it really conceivable that God would inspire the written word only to have it lost? He continues:He [Burgon] articulated two presuppositions in this one sentence that are relevant for the ending of Mark. First, his belief in divine preservation - and of a peculiar kind - prevented him from even entertaining the possibility that the LE was not authentic. Second, he assumed that there actually are explicit promises in the Bible about its preservation - in spite of the likelihood that none of the texts that are so used are speaking about the preservation of the written word, pgs. 6-7, Brackets mine, emphasis his.
In a footnote Wallace incorrectly cites, "Matthew D. McGill" the real author of the article he is referring to is "Matthew D. McDill." This is not the only part of this essay that Wallace misrepresents. McDill's article argues in favor of the Long Ending as both cannonical and written by Mark:If, however, the doctrine of preservation is not part of your credo, you would be more open to all the textual options. I, for one, do not think that the real ending to Mark was lost, but I have no theological agenda in this matter because I don't hold to the doctrine of preservation. That doctrine, first formulated in the Westminster Confession (1646), has a poor biblical base. I do not think that the doctrine is defensible - either exegetically or empirically, pg. 7.
Since the Church, beginning with the early church fathers, accepted the LE as Scripture, the evidence that would cause the present-day church to consider it non-cannonical should be strong and certain. The external and internal evidence does not conclusively prove that the LE was not original or inauthentic; even if it did, this would not prove that it does not belong in the Canon, McDill, pgs. 42-43.
Wallace has not completed his misrepresentation of McDill. Before the citation Wallace quotes a small sentence from McDill, "Could a part of God's Word, inspired by the Holy Spirit be lost?" Then after the citation Wallace continues, "The belief in some sort of doctrine of preservation continues to persist, even when it has been demonstrated to be indefensible exegetically and empirically." Seems to indicate to the reader that McDill is denying the idea of preservation, but note what McDill really says:
When placed in context McDill's question is rhetorical in nature. He is saying the exact opposite of what Wallace is trying to make him out to say. That is, that the inspiration of God's Word has everything to do with the preservation of the text, in this case Mark 16:9-20. McDill states that those who claim that there is a "lost ending" must face the matters of inspiration and canonicity in their theory.The fact that Mark may have originated in Rome, as tradition indicates, could affect one's evaluation of the external data. Cox explains, "If one could prove the origin of Mark in Rome, it would be less than reasonable to suggest any other ending other than the longer ending, based on the geographic dominance of the longer ending in the provinces surrounding Rome." If the LE was in the original MSS, then a scribe may have accidentally or intentionally omitted it. He may have intentionally omitted it due to the extraordinary signs or the focus on the unbelief of the disciples. These modifications to options one and two provide possibilities that can explain both the apparent differences in style and language as well as the existence MSS that omit the LE. These possibilities also remove the need for a "lost ending" as many scholars postulate. The theory of a "lost ending" must face questions of inspiration and canonicity: Could a part of God's word, inspired by the Holy Spirit, be lost?" pgs. 34-35.
The whole article can be found here: Matthew D. McDill,
Wallace then writes:
I wonder if Daniel Wallace takes his own advice.My point in this preliminary treatment is to underscore the fact that we all bring a lot of presuppositions to the table that influence how we hear the evidence being presented; indeed, such presuppositions may even keep us from hearing the evidence, pg. 7
I have not even probed the "meat" of his argument, and, since it is getting really late, I will have to do so later.
Blessings,
Rob
Last edited: