Freethought & Rationalism Archive

JoeWallack · 05-24-2009, 05:11 PM

JW:
I will be debating James Snapp, Jr. regarding the original ending of "Mark". I leave it to the Unfaithful here to guess which side I am on. Debates are like battles in that the battle is won before it is fought. The key is to pick the winning side.

In this debate I will be looking to make the related criteria more formal by trying to identify criteria and weigh evidence qualitatively. The starting point for the debate is Metzger's famous related analysis:

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

Quote:

Bruce Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (Stuttgart, 1971), pages 122-126.

16:9-20 The Ending(s) of Mark. Four endings of the Gospel according to Mark are current in the manuscripts. (1) The last twelve verses of the commonly received text of Mark are absent from the two oldest Greek manuscripts (א and B), from the Old Latin codex Bobiensis (it k), the Sinaitic Syriac manuscript, about one hundred Armenian manuscripts, and the two oldest Georgian manuscripts (written A.D. 897 and A.D. 913). Clement of Alexandria and Origen show no knowledge of the existence of these verses; furthermore Eusebius and Jerome attest that the passage was absent from almost all Greek copies of Mark known to them. The original form of the Eusebian sections (drawn up by Ammonius) makes no provision for numbering sections of the text after 16:8. Not a few manuscripts which contain the passage have scribal notes stating that older Greek copies lack it, and in other witnesses the passage is marked with asterisks or obeli, the conventional signs used by copyists to indicate a spurious addition to a document.

(2) Several witnesses, including four uncial Greek manuscripts of the seventh, eighth, and ninth centuries (L Ψ 099 0112), as well as Old Latin k, the margin of the Harelean Syriac, several Sahidic and Bohairic manuscripts, and not a few Ethiopic manuscripts, continue after verse 8 as follows (with trifling variations): "But they reported briefly to Peter and those with him all that they had been told. And after this Jesus himself sent out by means of them, from east to west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation." All of these witnesses except it k also continue with verses 9-20.

(3) The traditional ending of Mark, so familiar through the AV and other translations of the Textus Receptus, is present in the vast number of witnesses, including A C D K W X Δ Θ Π Ψ 099 0112 f 13 28 33 al. The earliest patristic witnesses to part or all of the long ending are Irenaeus and the Diatessaron. It is not certain whether Justin Martyr was acquainted with the passage; in his Apology (i.45) he includes five words that occur, in a different sequence, in ver. 20. (του λογου του ισχυρου ον απο ιερουσαλημ οι αποστολοι αυτου εξελθοντες πανταχου εκηρυξαν).

(4) In the fourth century the traditional ending also circulated, according to testimony preserved by Jerome, in an expanded form, preserved today in one Greek manuscript. Codex Washingtonianus includes the following after ver. 14: "And they excused themselves, saying, 'This age of lawlessness and unbelief is under Satan, who does not allow the truth and power of God to prevail over the unclean things of the spirits [or, does not allow what lies under the unclean spirits to understand the truth and power of God]. Therefore reveal thy righteousness now — thus they spoke to Christ. And Christ replied to them, 'The term of years of Satan's power has been fulfilled, but other terrible things draw near. And for those who have sinned I was delivered over to death, that they may return to the truth and sin no more, in order that they may inherit the spiritual and incorruptible glory of righteousness which is in heaven.' "

How should the evidence of each of these endings be evaluated? It is obvious that the expanded form of the long ending (4) has no claim to be original. Not only is the external evidence extremely limited, but the expansion contains several non-Markan words and expressions (including ο αιων ουτος, αμαρτανω, απολογεω, αληθινος, υποστρεφω) as well as several that occur nowhere else in the New Testament (δεινος, ορος, προσλεγω). The whole expansion has about it an unmistakable apocryphal flavor. It probably is the work of a second or third century scribe who wished to soften the severe condemnation of the Eleven in 16.14.

The longer ending (3), though current in a variety of witnesses, some of them ancient, must also be judged by internal evidence to be secondary. (a) The vocabulary and style of verses 9-20 are non-Markan. (e.g. απιστεω, βλαπτω, βεβαιοω, επακολουθεω, θεαομαι, μετα ταυτα, πορευομαι, συνεργεω, υστερον are found nowhere else in Mark; and θανασιμον and τοις μετ αυτου γενομενοις, as designations of the disciples, occur only here in the New Testament). (b) The connection between ver. 8 and verses 9-20 is so awkward that it is difficult to believe that the evangelist intended the section to be a continuation of the Gospel. Thus, the subject of ver. 8 is the women, whereas Jesus is the presumed subject in ver. 9; in ver. 9 Mary Magdalene is identified even though she has been mentioned only a few lines before (15.47 and 16.1); the other women of verses 1-8 are now forgotten; the use of αναστας δε and the position of πρωτον are appropriate at the beginning of a comprehensive narrative, but they are ill-suited in a continuation of verses 1-8. In short, all these features indicate that the section was added by someone who knew a form of Mark that ended abruptly with ver. 8 and who wished to supply a more appropriate conclusion. In view of the inconcinnities between verses 1-8 and 9-20, it is unlikely that the long ending was composed ad hoc to fill up an obvious gap; it is more likely that the section was excerpted from another document, dating perhaps from the first half of the second century.

The internal evidence for the shorter ending (2) is decidedly against its being genuine. Besides containing a high percentage of non-Markan words, its rhetorical tone differs totally from the simple style of Mark's Gospel.

Finally it should be observed that the external evidence for the shorter ending (2) resolves itself into additional testimony supporting the omission of verses 9-20. No one who had available as the conclusion of the Second Gospel the twelve verses 9-20, so rich in interesting material, would have deliberately replaced them with four lines of a colorless and generalized summary. Therefore, the documentary evidence supporting (2) should be added to that supporting (1). Thus, on the basis of good external evidence and strong internal considerations it appears that the earliest ascertainable form of the Gospel of Mark ended with 16.8. At the same time, however out of deference to the evident antiquity of the longer ending and its importance in the textual tradition of the Gospel, the Committee decided to include verses 9-20 as part of the text, but to enclose them within double square brackets to indicate that they are the work of an author other than the evangelist.

JW:
This is the consensus of modern Bible scholarship. In the debate I will be looking to formalize Metzger's criteria above, weigh different categories of evidence based on the criteria and than compare the categories for relative strength.

I'll next be identifying criteria. Everyone is welcome to comment except for Harvey Dubish.

Oh yeah, the debate will take place at CARM and I will try to get a mirror of the debate here at II.

Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

JoeWallack · 05-25-2009, 06:29 AM

JW:
Regarding Metzger's summary of evidence for the original ending of "Mark":

OP

I see the following criteria which will be used to weigh categories of External evidence:

1) Age

Older = more weight

2) Confirmation - quantity

Larger = more weight

3) Confirmation - width

Wider = more weight

4) Applicability (general vs. specific)

General = more weight

5) Direction (of change)

Away from = more weight

6) Variation

Lesser = more weight

7) External force

Lesser = more weight

A very important criteria that Metzger does not explicitly identify is

8) Credibility of source

Greater = more weight

I'll next be identifying categories of evidence. Everyone is welcome to comment except for Harvey Dubish.

Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

JoeWallack · 05-26-2009, 07:04 AM

JW:
Regarding Metzger's summary of evidence for the original ending of "Mark":

OP

I see the following categories of External evidence:

1) Manuscripts

2) Patristic

3) Scribal

4) Common sense - Metzger writes:

Quote:

Finally it should be observed that the external evidence for the shorter ending (2) resolves itself into additional testimony supporting the omission of verses 9-20. No one who had available as the conclusion of the Second Gospel the twelve verses 9-20, so rich in interesting material, would have deliberately replaced them with four lines of a colorless and generalized summary.

Metzger is saying that the exemplars for the short ending more likely had the abrupt ending rather than the long ending. The logic is there but variation is normally an Internal category. To me, common sense is normally the most important category of evidence so I like it here as a separate category.

Everyone is welcome to comment except for Harvey Dubish.

Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

spin · 05-26-2009, 07:37 AM

Quote:

A very important criteria that Metzger does not explicitly identify...

I'm sure this was a casual slip, but a message out there to all you casual readers, "criteria" is plural and "criterion" is singular. You talk about a very important criterion.

-the editor

spin · 05-26-2009, 07:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

4) Common sense

This fourth category as argued really seems like a species of lectio difficilior. It requires more explanation; it causes more trouble. so it is more likely that one would correct it, rather than correct to it.

spin

JoeWallack · 05-28-2009, 06:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

A very important criteria that Metzger does not explicitly identify...

I'm sure this was a casual slip, but a message out there to all you casual readers, "criteria" is plural and "criterion" is singular. You talk about a very important criterion.

-the editor

JW:
As in Criterion of Embarrassment

Josephs

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

andrewcriddle · 05-28-2009, 12:46 PM

Hi Joe

I'm looking forward to this debate.
When does it properly start ?

Andrew Criddle

Ben C Smith · 05-28-2009, 01:06 PM

Jim Snapp II has written several essays on the ending of Mark, and they are available on my site.

He is extremely knowledgeable on the historical witnesses to the longer ending of Mark; and I do not hesitate to add that I think he is mostly wrong in his conclusions about it. But he is a gentleman, and I hope the debate fully showcases the evidence on both sides. His essays are well worth reading for the sheer volume of data that he presents, and may give the observer an idea on what he intends to present as his case, and how.

Ben.

JoeWallack · 05-29-2009, 07:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

4) Common sense

This fourth category as argued really seems like a species of lectio difficilior. It requires more explanation; it causes more trouble. so it is more likely that one would correct it, rather than correct to it.

spin

JW:
I think you are right spin. I know that as a professional you see "common sense" as subjective but from a practical standpoint I think it is significantly under utilized in Bible studies. I agree though that it is better placed as a criterion rather than a category. My motivation to promote it to its own separate category is probably a reflection of my own bias.

Specifically here the mainstream position for the abrupt ending is based primarily on the combination of common sense (difficult reading principle) and Internal evidence (non-Markan style).

My specific main objectives here are to try and formalize the External analysis quantitatively and qualitatively and evaluate the Theme quality of Internal evidence. My general objective is simply to publicize the issue of what was the original ending of the original Gospel. Even if one concludes that the abrupt ending is not original you are still forced to concede significant doubt on the issue. Significant doubt as to whether the original resurrection narrative had any resurrection sighting. When you accept that "Mark" had no resurrection sighting, from a historical evidence standpoint, you are thrown back a century to Paul, who is primarily a Revelation witness, not a historical witness. Exactly what we would expect for a non-historical event.

Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

Ben C Smith · 05-29-2009, 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

I'll next be identifying criteria. Everyone is welcome to comment except for Harvey Dubish.

I have been meaning to ask you: Who is Harvey Dubish?

Ben.

05-25-2009, 06:29 AM	#2
JoeWallack Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Nazareth Posts: 2,357	JW: Regarding Metzger's summary of evidence for the original ending of "Mark": OP I see the following criteria which will be used to weigh categories of External evidence: 1) Age Older = more weight 2) Confirmation - quantity Larger = more weight 3) Confirmation - width Wider = more weight 4) Applicability (general vs. specific) General = more weight 5) Direction (of change) Away from = more weight 6) Variation Lesser = more weight 7) External force Lesser = more weight A very important criteria that Metzger does not explicitly identify is 8) Credibility of source Greater = more weight I'll next be identifying categories of evidence. Everyone is welcome to comment except for Harvey Dubish. Joseph http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-28-2009, 12:46 PM	#7
andrewcriddle Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Birmingham UK Posts: 4,876	Hi Joe I'm looking forward to this debate. When does it properly start ? Andrew Criddle

05-28-2009, 01:06 PM	#8
Ben C Smith Veteran Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: Midwest Posts: 4,787	Jim Snapp II has written several essays on the ending of Mark, and they are available on my site. He is extremely knowledgeable on the historical witnesses to the longer ending of Mark; and I do not hesitate to add that I think he is mostly wrong in his conclusions about it. But he is a gentleman, and I hope the debate fully showcases the evidence on both sides. His essays are well worth reading for the sheer volume of data that he presents, and may give the observer an idea on what he intends to present as his case, and how. Ben.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.