Fair enough; Edwards’ commentary is pretty good, although in his treatment of Mark 16:9-20 I don’t think he ever considered the possibility that the passage was added while the text was still in production, roughly the way that Jeremiah 52 was added to the text of the book of Jeremiah.

A few things to be aware of in Edwards’ commentary:

(1) Edwards says that the Old Latin version omits Mk. 16:9-20, but no extant Old Latin MS ends at the end of 16:9-20, and only one OL MS ends with the “Shorter Ending,” namely Codex Bobbiensis, which has a quirky interpolation between 16:3 and 16:4.

(2) Edwards does not mention the 100′s of Armenian MSS that contain 16:9-20.

(3) On p. 497, Edwards is essentially parroting Metzger’s Textual Commentary. What he says about Clement of Alexandria and Origen can be said about many 12-verse passages of Mark.

(4) Edwards does not seem to have realized that the “Ammonian Sections” were developed by Eusebius, not Ammonius; as Eusebius states in his introductory letter to Carpian, he only got the idea from Ammonius’ Matthew-centered cross-reference system, not the Sections themselves.

(5) Edwards’ description of the Gospel of Peter concluding with the fear of the women is incorrect; the text continues after that point with a scene resembling Jn. 21.

(6) Edwards’ claim that “Many of the ancient manuscripts that do contain the longer ending do, however, indicate by scribal notes or various markings that the ending is regarded as a spurious addition” is incorrect. Here he is not only echoing Metzger but distorting Metzger’s (vaguely worded) statements. The actual number of MSS known to have annotations or special marks attached to Mk. 16:9-20 is about 20 (out of 1,200); several of these MSS are textually related, and the notes (which are probably mostly summaries of a comment that appeared in the commentary/catena of Victor of Antioch) tend to defend the passage, usually stating that though not found in every single MS, it is found in the old MSS, or in most of the MSS.

(7) Rather than indicate that 16:9-20 is a mosaic derived from Mt., Lk., and Jn., internal evidence in Mk. 16:9-20 strongly indicates that it was composed by someone unaware of the contents of Matthew, Luke, and John. Subject-matter is similar but several events are different and are differently presented. For example, in Matthew 28 the disciples seem to believe the women, but not in Mk. 16:11; in Lk. 24 there is no indication that the main group of disciples doubted the two travelers; contrast this with Mk. 16:13.

Notice that Edwards cites four patristic witnesses from the 100′s — Epistula Apostolorum, “perhaps Justin Martyr,” Tatian, and Irenaeus — on p. 499 as support for the LE, whereas the earliest MS for the abrupt ending at the end of 16:8 is from the 300′s. That MS – Codex Vaticanus – follows Mk. 16:8 with a prolonged blank space, including the only blank column in the entire NT portion of the MS.

Yours in Christ,

James Snapp, Jr.

I haven’t gotten to Mark 16 yet, the outline (including the “Early Christian Resurrection Mosaic” heading) is from James R. Edwards commentary.

When I get to Mark 16 (in about fifteen days), I’ll be sure to read your paper! I’m not intending to delve too deeply into things this time around (in a one-month survey), but plan a more in-depth study of Mark (more into the Greek and consulting more than one commentary) after I’m done working through my current in-depth study of 1st and 2nd Peter.

Just a couple of comments on Mark 16:9-20 —
(1) This is 12 verses, not 11.
(2) Mark 16:9-20 is not a mosaic of the other accounts; there are not five words in a row from the other resurrection-accounts in Mark 16:9-20. And the reference to the disciples not believing Mary Magdalene’s claim that she had seen the Lord (in 16:9-11), and the reference to Jesus appearing to the disciples later (16:14), rather than at the same time that the two travelers reported to them (as in Lk. 24), and the statement that Jesus rebuked the eleven because they had not believed those who had seen Him (16:14), cannot be dependent upon the other accounts.

I’ve made available a summary of a research paper on this subject, if you would like to read more about it, at
http://www.curtisvillechristian.org/MarkOne.html

Yours in Christ,

James Snapp, Jr.