JoeWallack

JW:
From: CARM Mark 16:9-20: Authentic or Not?

JoeWallack

JW:

As we move now to the Scribal category of evidence I will first briefly address some of my opponents major concerns regarding my arguments on the Manuscript category:

Regarding the many qualifications I have provided supporting that Eusebius was a textual critic, especially when compared to other early Church Fathers, my opponent goes Apologetic on me and always demands one higher level of evidence that what exists posturing that because his standard has not been met, the meeting of the next lower standard is meaningless. I can’t help being reminded of the famous “What have the Romans ever done for us?” bit from TLOB:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExWfh6sGyso

Especially annoying here is that Eusebius context for the issue at hand is as a textual critic. Since we specifically know that Eusebius is a textual critic for our specific issue, the question of his general description as a textual critic is relatively less important than it would be for other Fathers where there is no specific context of textual criticism. And if my opponent dismisses Eusebius as a textual critic than to be consistent he dismisses all early Fathers as textual critics and the Patristic category, for him, has little weight.

I’ll repeat also, for Jerome, who Mr. Snapp does accept as a textual critic, that Jerome is our missing link which ties the evidence for change from AE to LE together. Jerome, 400, knows that the evidence supports AE, but chooses LE, presumably because he prefers it. This observation coordinates with every category of evidence.

Regarding the Manuscript evidence of translations I’ve already indicated that translated Manuscripts are a level of evidence weaker than manuscripts in the original but if the different translation evidence agrees it packs some weight. My opponent writes:

Gothic? My opponent can also look up the definition of “significant”. My opponent continues:

The Manuscript category here clearly supports a change from AE to LE. Colwell has the definitive study available in the English, which authority generally accepts as demonstrating the change. The study is remarkable as it shows a later change to the LE than other categories of evidence. Szekula has the more recent and comprehensive study, not available in English, which confirms Colwell’s conclusion. Note that my opponent avoids the straight-forward conclusion that the Manuscript evidence here supports AE as original and instead makes a few indirect observations to supposedly dispute that the Armenian manuscripts do not support AE as original. My opponent does not like the populations of these two studies because he does not like the conclusion they give. Until he provides his own population we can assume he knows that the Armenian manuscripts support AE as original.

My opponent writes:
My opponent continues with a discussion of Codex Bobbiensis, it(k), which only has the SE, but fails to mention that at c. 400, it is the oldest Latin manuscript. Similarly, he fails to note that it(a) is the second oldest witness. Science (a mathematical calculation of the space left at the end of it(k) versus the font used before it) indicates that the LE would not fit and this conclusion (so to speak) is accepted by authority. Mr. Snapp’s proposal above is speculation. So we have the two earliest Latin witnesses lacking the LE. Enough to show the same change in the Latin from AE to LE as every other significant translated language shows.

My opponent invokes lectionary evidence into the Manuscript discussion but declines to give any firm dates. Not all that useful without dating, is it?

Regarding an invitation to develop a methodology for his position or at least critique mine until he has his own, my opponent writes:

No problem for me. As long as I have a methodology and my opponent does not, my argument is likely better.



Joseph

JoeWallack

JW:
Now for the scribal evidence. In the big picture, when we get to the category of Internal evidence, we will see that my opponent has almost no arguments supporting LE as written with the rest of “Mark”. His position is almost totally defensive. All he can do is dispute the weight of the arguments against LE. Mathematically than, he still must be left with a position on the Internal which is against LE. All he can do is try to maximize its discount. My opponent’s position on the Scribal category will be similar.

Since it’s been a while, we will start out with the starting point for the Scribal evidence, Metzger = Authority:

http://www.bible-researcher.com/endmark.html

So says Authority. On to Willker for some details:

http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/TC-Mark-Ends.pdf

[Translations from: http://www.textexcavation.com/marcan...s.html#uncials ]

"b) long ending with obeli/intro: f1, 22, pc12, armmss15%
c) some other comment: al59+"

“2. to the long ending:
199 (in the margin): [In some of the copies thi{s} does not stand, but ceases here. (century XII)]"

JW:
Even though 12th century evidence is relatively late it is evidence of change to LE. It witnesses that at 12th century there were some extant AE manuscripts whereas now there are only a few.

"20, 215: [From here until the end does not stand in some of the copies, but in the ancient ones all things stand without remainder. (century XI)]"

JW:
Again, relatively late, but at long last some support for my opponent for change to AE. The scribal assertion is that all older manuscripts have LE but it is some of the current ones that do not.

"f1 (1, 205, 209, 1582): [[After verse 8] In some of the copies the evangelist is fulfilled until here, until which point also Eusebius Pamphili made his canons. But in many these [following] things also are extant. (centuries X-XV)]"

JW:
Again, in centuries 10-15 some manuscripts are still AE so the change to our time is to LE.

"15, 22, 1110, 1192, 1210: [In some of the copies the evangelist is fulfilled until here. But in many these [following] things also are extant. - (centuries X-XV) ]"

JW:
Same as previous comment.

"L, Y, 083, 099, L1602, sa-mss, bo-mss:"

JW:
The short ending followed by the long ending. Note that the short ending is always listed first implying that the scribe considered the short ending older.

"138, 264, 1221, 2346, 2812: inserted obeli to separate the passage”

JW:
Here we have the standard scribal sign used to mark likely additions for centuries 10-12.

A translated language where we have significant scribal evidence is Armenian. Again, evidence in a translated language is a level less than the original language but can have some weight if it has scope. Colwell has done the most detailed related study that I am aware of which is available in English:

Mark 16:9-20 in the Armenian Version Author(s): Ernest Cadman Colwell Source: Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 56, No. 4 (Dec., 1937), pp. 369-386

To give perspective Colwell’s overall numbers are 220 total Manuscripts, 88 with LE without qualification, 33 with LE with qualification and 99 with AE.

Colwell’s list of 33 with qualification:

And a summary of the qualifications:

1)Separated from the rest of “Mark”

2) Follows “Gospel according to “Mark” (placed after 16:8)

3) Written in a different hand

4) Marked “This is an addition”

5) Marked “Another Gospel Mark”

6) Marked “Gospel according to Mark read on ascension day”

Note than that in the Armenian the Scribal evidence against the LE is much more significant than it is in the Greek, qualitatively and quantitatively. While we are on the Armenian the Manuscript evidence here is far more supportive of the AE than the Greek as a majority of Manuscripts from the early centuries are AE. Also note that the Scribal evidence for the Armenian again coordinates with the scribal evidence for the Greek showing that up until the 10th century there are still significant quantities of Manuscripts with AE. By the 12th century this changes and by the 14th century most manuscripts are LE.

Since there is not much scribal evidence here I’ll go straight to weighing the criteria:

Now to analyze the data for External Scribal evidence by criteria. The Scribal sources:

Against LE:

199 (in the margin): [In some of the copies thi{s} does not stand, but ceases here. (century XII)]

f1 (1, 205, 209, 1582): [[After verse 8] In some of the copies the evangelist is fulfilled until here, until which point also Eusebius Pamphili made his canons. But in many these [following] things also are extant. (centuries X-XV)]

15, 22, 1110, 1192, 1210: [In some of the copies the evangelist is fulfilled until here. But in many these [following] things also are extant. - (centuries X-XV) ]

L, Y, 083, 099, L1602, [long ending follows short]

138, 264, 1221, 2346, 2812:” inserted obeli to separate the passage”

33 Armenian Manuscripts

For LE:

20, 215: [From here until the end does not stand in some of the copies, but in the ancient ones all things stand without remainder. (century XI)]

For purposes of comparing evidence for and against LE the weighting will be as follows:

High advantage = 3
Medium advantage = 2
Low advantage = 1

Criteria ranked in order of weight:

1 – Age.
Some of the evidence against is 10th century versus 11th century for the for evidence. 1 to against.

2 - Confirmation – quantity.
For only has two hits. Big advantage to against. 2 to against.

3 - External force. Lesser = more weight. What external force, if any, is affecting the category.
Another big edge to against as all Patristic believe in a resurrection sighting creating an expectation of one in related narrative. 3 against.

4 – Consistency. The summary of the Scribal evidence that in centuries 10-15 all extant manuscripts have LE but all refer to significant quantities of manuscripts in the time of the extant manuscript that lacked LE coordinates perfectly with all other categories of external evidence, Patristic and Manuscript. AE starts out as dominant through the fifth century. The 6th century transitions to the LE. By the 10th century the LE is dominant but there are still many AE manuscripts. By our time the AE is close to extinct. 3 to against.

Summary of Patristic evidence in order of weight:

1 – Age. Against = 1

2 - Confirmation – quantity. Against = 2

3 - External force. Against = 3

4 – Consistency. Against = 3.

Totals:

Against 3 = 2 criteria

Against 2 = 1 criterion

Against 1 = 1 criterion

Conclusion = The Scribal category of evidence is strongly against LE due to:

1 – all 4 criteria favoring Against.

2 - 2 of these 4 criteria being 3

JoeWallack

JW:
From: CARM Mark 16:9-20: Authentic or Not?

JoeWallack

JW:
From: CARM Mark 16:9-20: Authentic or Not?

Rick Van Vliet

For almost all of Mark, there are no John parallels/Cf's, according to The Five Gospels list. Never more than 2 in a row. 26 total.

But the last 10 sayings in a row, all of a sudden, are all in John. At the end, all of a sudden, it's the same Jesus speaking. But not the added on part. Doesn't belong.

JoeWallack

JW:
One of the few things my opponent and I agree on is that we are reaching diminishing returns in our analysis of the Patristic evidence. I must comment though on the following related comment of my opponent:
Regarding Patristic testimony credibility is probably the most important criterion. Text-critical skill is probably the second most important quality of credibility next to objectivity. To the extent Patristic testimony has a text-critical skill, it is a qualitative evidence that extends exponentially beyond the evidence of individual manuscripts. A key factor is placement. Was the Patristic placed to be personally aware of a large number of Manuscripts? Was the Patristic placed to have interaction with Patristics over a large geographical range? Was the Patristic placed to have access to previous Patristic commentary on the subject?

As I’ve pointed out Eusebius/Jerome possess all these qualities relative to other Patristics.
They thus give qualitative evidence against LE as opposed to the quantity of Manuscripts with LE that can only give quantitative support for LE. Eusebius/Jerome are completely consistent with all other categories of evidence showing that in their time, the AE dominated, in the middle ages the evidence was mixed and in modern times the LE dominated. My opponent wants to exorcise the qualitative testimony of Eusebius/Jerome here because he does not like the conclusion it leads to and his objection is based on the criterion of directness. However, the indirect text-critical observations of Eusebius and Jerome only have weakness in the directness criterion, but boy do they have strength in the scope criteria. Again, that is the purpose of using criteria here, all criteria are weighed and evidenced is not denied because of weakness in one criterion.
My opponent writes:
Again, the weight of Armenian is limited because it is a translation but Colwell clearly demonstrates that its Manuscript and Scribal categories are against LE and my opponent indirectly confesses that Authority accepts these conclusions. As I also mentioned Szekula has written a more recent and comprehensive similar study with the same conclusion, also accepted as authoritative by authority. There is simply no disputing that a simple analysis of extant Armenian shows clear change from AE to LE. My opponent presents a theory that the explanation is simply two competing textual traditions. Of course there are two traditions, AE and LE. No one denies that. This is a conclusion though and not evidence. You don’t use conclusions to determine evidence. Er, at least you are not supposed to. In the Manuscript category you add up the Manuscript evidence and determine which conclusion it supports. In the Scribal category and Authority category you do the same. What you do not do is use a conclusion to weigh the Manuscript evidence.

The other problem with my opponent’s apology here is that Authority, which is the category he appeals to here to try to undo the Manuscript evidence, has the opposite conclusion. The Armenian textual tradition of AE is clearly the older one based on similarities in texts to older, likely exemplars.

My opponent writes regarding lectionaires:

Thanks for the date. My opponent wants to place lectionaries in the Manuscript category but this is Patristic evidence. The significance is that in the 5th century the AE still dominates the Manuscripts. We have not seen any evidence yet to contradict that observation. What we do see, as evidenced by the lectionaries, is that by the 5th century the Patristics are selecting the LE. Not based on the manuscript evidence or the text-critical evidence of Eusebius/Jerome, but based on what they prefer.

Note that “Mark” as a source for a sermon with the AE would seem to be lacking something, like, I don’t know, maybe a resurrection? Certainly if “Mark’s” turn were up and the place was the Empty Tomb ending, a Patristic would rather use the LE than the AE. This is exactly what we see in the previously discussed Armenian scribal history. The LE is noted as being read on Ascension Day. We have the external force of formal sermons by the 5th century where the Gospels alternate as the source and seeing as the resurrection is the heart of Christianity, the LE is a very good (best) source for “Mark’s” turn and the AE is a very bad (worst) source for “Mark’s” turn. Hence the pressure starts building in the 5th century for LE in the Manuscripts since it’s now in the sermons.

Again, note the coordination (so to speak), between a transition to LE in the Manuscripts and the reason to transition (external pressure) at the same time (5th century).


Joseph

ErrancyWiki

JoeWallack

JW:
Regarding specific scribal notes I think it will be most efficient if I organize this exchange by the same order I used to present the evidence with Mr. Snapp’s objections placed next to the individual evidence:

Against LE:
199 (in the margin): [In some of the copies thi{s} does not stand, but ceases here. (century XII)] = JW

= JS

JW:
This creates doubt as to the LE. Remember that the debate question is the originality of the LE and not the AE. Any evidence of textual variation at the end of “Mark” questions the LE. The related implication is that this scribe concedes that there are quality manuscripts without LE. Why else would a scribe make a note in a Manuscript unless they accepted quality evidence for the alternative? This is not a commentary, this is a Manuscript, which generally only list alternatives if they have quality evidence. The other attribute of note here is the age XII century. Bad for the Age criterion but very good for the Change criterion. Even at the XII century there are still some AE Manuscripts while in our time the extant AE is rare (in Greek).

f1 (1, 205, 209, 1582): [[After verse 8] In some of the copies the evangelist is fulfilled until here, until which point also Eusebius Pamphili made his canons. But in many these [following] things also are extant. (centuries X-XV)]

JW:
No argument that in the Middle Ages, the LE dominated. But all the points above still apply. Plus, the qualitative evidence, invoking Eusebius, indicates the evidence is against LE.If this was the only Patristic reference here I would count it as for LE. But this Manuscript also invokes Eusebius’ Canon which trumps Irenaeus in every suit.

15, 22, 1110, 1192, 1210: [In some of the copies the evangelist is fulfilled until here. But in many these [following] things also are extant. - (centuries X-XV)]

JW:
No argument that in the Middle Ages, the LE dominated. But all the points above still apply. Plus, the qualitative evidence, invoking Eusebius, indicates the evidence is against LE.

JW:
If this was the only Patristic reference here I would count it as for LE. But this Manuscript also invokes Eusebius’ Canon which trumps Irenaeus in every suit.

15, 22, 1110, 1192, 1210: [In some of the copies the evangelist is fulfilled until here. But in many these [following] things also are extant. - (centuries X-XV) ]

JW:
See 199 comment.

L, Y, 083, 099, L1602, [long ending follows short]

JW:
My opponent states as fact that two different endings placed after 16:8 have nothing to do with textual criticism (and accuses me of having telepathy here). Consider that this would be standard procedure for textual criticism (listing two alternatives) combined with the location that is not only known to have a significant textual criticism issue but this issue is in fact the source of this debate. Aland takes the secondary position here as a major argument against LE. Again, we have standard Scribal use that the first listed is considered the first option and the second listed is considered the second option. Manuscripts are for the text and not commentary. Alternatives are only listed if significant and in standard form to minimize distraction from the text.

138, 264, 1221, 2346, 2812:” inserted obeli to separate the passage”

JW:
So my opponent has discovered skepticism. Excellent. Since authority accepts these Marks “[I][COLOR=black]asterisks or obeli” it is up to my opponent to provide evidence that authority is wrong. Burgon said 138 did not have an asterisk and not that it did not have anything. Understand dear Reader? 2346 does not have an obelus, it has a lozenge. Again we have the amazing coincidence of a mark at the exact spot of textual variation and we know in general that marks were a standard scribal sign to indicate a later/questionable tradition. We know specifically that in the Armenian such marks definitely indicated a secondary tradition.

33 Armenian Manuscripts

JW:
Hallelujah, amen.

JW:
Previously my opponent painted a picture of Eusebius’ textual influence being under house arrest in Caesarea. Now his influence extends all the way to Constantinople (at least for purposes of this point). No argument that the early Armenian resembles the Caesarean. But my opponent misses the middleman here, the Byzantine text of Constantinople. The comparison works the other way too. The Armenian evidences an early Byzantine text (certainly earlier than most extant Byzantine texts) that lacked the LE. Note that again the Scribal evidence undercuts the main advantage of the LE, quantity. Most of the quantity of the LE is Byzantine and here we have evidence that even the original Byzantine was against LE.

For LE:
20, 215: [From here until the end does not stand in some of the copies, but in the ancient ones all things stand without remainder. (century XI)]

JW:
Source for “300” please. None of the main sources identified in this Thread mention it.

JW:
I accept the wording with “ancient” to be support for LE.

JW:
My opponent is correct that there is no Greek scribal evidence rejecting LE but there is evidence against it. Note that the only evidence here accepted by Authority that my opponent does not likewise accept is also the best evidence against LE, the marks separating the LE from the rest of “Mark”. Just a coincidence? There’s quite a distance between Ephraim and Eusebius in many ways so saying that Ephraim’s exemplar was “probably” produced in Caesarea mid-400 is quite speculative. It would not support my opponent though anyway. Presumably a scribe like Ephraim had numerous references he could choose. What’s important here is what Ephraim chose. The only related clear why is because Ephraim thought it supported a textual variant.

JW:
99% is correct but misleading. Scribes are primarily interested in the Manuscript and not commenting in the margins. Most scribes don’t make any comment on a particular verse so we don’t know what they thought about it. That’s why the few comments we do have are so important. When my opponent wrote “over 500” for the Armenian he must have just read Paul as he knows Colwell’s study only included 220 manuscripts total.

JW:
I’ve already indicated that my opponent’s argument that all the scribal doubt here to LE is dependent, is just speculation, but the related contradiction is that Eusebius’ manuscripts would not have even had LE, unlike the Manuscripts with the Scribal comments here, so the dependency theory is contradicted by the very subject of this debate.

JoeWallack

JW:
From: CARM Mark 16:9-20: Authentic or Not?

JoeWallack

JW:
From: CARM Mark 16:9-20: Authentic or Not?