Ending of Mark

I like the perspectives series and similar works that give you four (it's usually four) views on a subject. They are set up in different ways and I think there must be a number of such series. This one (arising out of a conference and written by Southern Baptists) first gives four straight views - Daniel B Wallace argues for the short ending (ie end at 16:8), Maurice A Robsinson for the longer one (include 9-20), J Keith Elliot for the shorter ending as the longer was lost early on and David Alan Black (who also writes the preface and is the editor) for 16:9-20 as an early Markan supplement. Darrell L Bock then gives a summary essay to conclude. By the way, no-one argues for the ending that closes with verse 9 (one or two other options are mentioned in passing).

Anyone who preaches through Mark must come to some sort of conclusion about this matter and this book contains enough material to make some sort of intelligent decision. The world of textual criticism is a whole world in itself and here we get to consider lengths of scrolls and how they were unrolled, codices and gaps in them, the witness of versions (such as Armenian and Georgian) and the fathers, etc - subjects that most of us are not thinking about on a day to day basis. As is pointed out no great doctrine hangs on what we conclude on this matter, which is not one that can be solved simply by an appeal to the texts themselves. Some sort of decision has to be made, however, and one is thankful to the writers and to the publisher for making this material available for our consideration.

As for my decision, I have tended to the shorter ending view but I really liked David Black's flight of fancy that has Mark as a series of lectures by Peter in Rome using the prior works of Matthew and Luke. If only ....