Textual Criticism of Mark 16

Last Saturday there was a conference at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary on the longer ending of Mark. Alan Knox blogged all the sessions; talk about dedication! Here are the links:
Session 1, but Dan Wallace
Session 2, by Maurice Robinson
Session 3, by Keith Elliott
Session 4, by David Alan Black
Session 5, by Darrell Block
The discussion session
There are some good arguments on both sides, although I think that Robinson’s Byzantine Priority is misplaced, and Black’s ideas are highly speculative. Of late, I have been confirmed in my Markan priority opinion by reading Bauckham’s Jesus and the Eyewitnesses and agree with Mark Goodacre that “Q” doesn’t exist (see Questioning Q for details), so the conference is right in noting that it is not just a text critical issue.

I’m not sure where I come down on the long ending, though. I do think that the “canonical, but not original” idea opens a can of worms in too many areas, and should be used with extreme caution until the ramifications are thoroughly explored. I have wavered between embracing the longer ending, to rejecting it. But, the opinion of Clayton Croy is intriguing: we have lost both the opening and closing of Mark (see The Mutilation of Mark's Gospel). There is no doubt that the long ending is ancient, just as there is no doubt that there is debate on whether or not it is original. I doubt we will ever solve it to everyone’s satisfaction this side of eternity.