Tuesday, October 06, 2020

Debate Follow Up: Why didn't James White respond to the "grammatical objection" that Mark's Gospel would not end with γαρ?


Another follow-up to my debate with James White on Mark 16:9-20:

Evangelicals who reject the authenticity of Mark 16:9-20 are left with a dilemma.

One option is to argue that the original ending was lost or that the Gospel was unfinished for some unknown reason. This view would not only challenge the integrity of Mark but also deny the doctrine of preservation.

Another option would be to argue that Mark was originally meant to end at Mark 16:8. James White embraces this view, following the reasoning of Dan Wallace [see Dan Wallace, “Mark 16:8 as the Conclusion to the Second Gospel” in David Alan Black, Ed., Perspectives on the Ending of Mark: Four Views (B&H Academic, 2008): 1-39].

One of the major problems with the idea that Mark might have ended at Mark 16:8 is what might be called the “grammatical objection.”

Namely, this would mean that the entire Gospel would end with the post-positive particle gar [γάρ]. This would be the equivalent of ending a Gospel with “for….” Or “therefore….”

N. Clayton Croy’s The Mutilation of Mark’s Gospel (Abingdon, 2003) provides what I believe is a devastating critique of the idea that Mark might have originally ended at Mark 16:8 (though Croy does not affirm the authenticity of the TE).

In the debate I shared several quotes gleaned from Croy on the grammatical problem inherent in the idea that Mark might have ended at Mark 16:8, including Norman Perrin’s assessment that such an ending would be “grammatically barbarous” (see Croy, 31, n. 18).

Another quote I did not get the chance to work in is this one from J. K. Elliott, another notorious TR advocate (smiles): “I conclude that no author would have chosen to end a piece of writing, sentence, paragraph and even less a book, with a postpositional particle….” (Perspectives, 89).

How did James White respond to this argument? He ignored it altogether and never responded to it.

This, however, is a foundational objection to the idea that Mark might have been meant to end at Mark 16:8. Anyone who takes this view must respond to this objection. Surely, James White gave this serious consideration and study before embracing his position, right?

Maybe James White will take a future DL and respond to this challenge in detail…..



Stephen Hackett said...

Did he correctly represent you when he held up the TBS Textus Receptus saying that that was your standard. Is your position that the TR that Scrivener produced to reflect the textual choices of the KJV is the standard? Isn’t your position that the TR tradition more broadly reflects the autograph? In other words the TRs produced by Beza and Stephanus are also part of that tradition?

Jeffrey T. Riddle said...

What I said was that I am in agreement with the TBS statement of the doctrine of Holy Scripture, which suggests a "group" or "family" of printed TRs from the Reformation era as authoritative. Listen to my podcasts: WM 140 and 141. I don't find anything in Scrivener to which I object. I use it just about every day. Sad to see JW constantly and wrongly criticize it as a "back translated" from the English to Greek. All you have to do is read the intro to see Scrivener tell the reader it is largely taken from Beza. Scrivener was an erudite and accomplished scholar. Sad to see JW ignorantly attack his work.