S.C.Carlson

My paper on the Caesarean text for last year's SBL (2004) might have more than you ever want to know about this text.

According to my research (which borrows from cladistics used in systematic biology), it is possible to identify a Caesarean text-type in Mark (or at least in 6:45-8:26, the portion I studied). The upshot is that it represents a distinct, pre-Byzantine branch of the Western text. Contrary to Streeter, however, W and Θ are not its leading representatives. Rather, family 1, Origen, and the Old Latin k are.

Stephen

S.C.Carlson

Looks like I misremembered my own research. :angry: MS 28 and Origen are indeed among the better witnesses to the Caesarean text-type. MSS W and Θ are not.

Stephen

Julian

That's okay, I am printing out your paper right now for more careful reading once I get home to my own resources.

BTW, do you know why the variant reading I mentioned in post #16 is not in the UBS4 apparatus? It is not even hinted at, even in Metzger's commentary.

Julian

S.C.Carlson

The UBS4 Apparatus only presents a selection of "significant" variants. If you want a larger sample try the NA27 edition or, even better, Reuben Swanson's books.

Roger Pearse

Eusebius doesn't actually say this in Ad Marinum. He discusses whether or not the long ending is authentic, and says that nearly all and the best mss. end at 16:8.

Jerome says much the same in letter 120, Ad Hedibiam, ch.3: (PL text, with rough translation):

CAP. III.---Quae causa sit, ut de resurrectione Domini et apparitione Evangelistae diversa narraverint.

In quibus primum quaeris, cur Matthaeus dixerit, Vespere autem sabbati illucescente in una sabbati Dominum surrexisse, et Marcus mane resurrectionem ejus factam esse commemoret, ita scribens: Cum autem resurrexisset, una sabbati, mane apparuit Mariae Magdalenae, de qua ejecerat septem daemonia: et illa abiens nuntiavit his, qui cum eo fuerant lugentibus, et flentibus.

Illique audientes quod viveret, et quod vidisset eum, non crediderunt ei.

Hujus quaestionis duplex solutio est; aut enim non recipimus Marci testimonium, quod in raris fertur Evangeliis, omnibus Graeciae libris pene hoc capitulum in fine non habentibus, praesertim cum diversa atque contraria Evangelistis caeteris narrare videatur; aut hoc respondendum, quod uterque verum dixerit: Matthaeus, quando Dominus surrexerit vespere sabbati, Marcus autem, quando eum viderit Maria Magdalene, id est, mane prima sabbati.

Ita enim distinguendum est: Cum autem resurrexisset, et parumper spiritu coarctato, inferendum, prima sabbati, mane apparuit Mariae Magdalenae, ut qui vespere sabbati (juxta Matthaeum) surrexerat, ipse mane primo sabbati (juxta Marcum) apparuerit Mariae Magdalenae.

Quod quidem et Joannes Evangelista significat, mane eum alterius diei visum esse demonstrans.


CHAP. 3. What is the reason that the Evangelists spoke about the resurrection and appearance of the Lord differently?

In these, you ask first why Matthew said that, “But when the evening of the Sabbath had begun to dawn, on the first day of the following week the Lord rose again�, and Mark relates that his resurrection happened in the morning, thus writing, “However when he rose again, on the first day of the week, in the morning Mary Magdalen arrived, from whom he had expelled seven demons: and she departing announced to those who were mourning and weeping with her. And these hearing that he was alive, and that she had seen him, did not believe in him�.

The solution of this question is two-fold; for either we do not accept the testimony of Mark, that is carried in few gospels, almost all the books of Greece not having this passage at the end, especially and since it seems to speak various and contrary things to the other evangelists; or this must be replied, that both speak truly: Matthew, when the Lord rose again on the evening of the Sabbath, Mark however, when Mary Magdalen saw him, that is, on the morning of the first day of the week.

For so it must be distinguished: for when he had risen again, and being for a short while restricted by the spirit, it must be supposed, on the first day of the week in the morning he appeared to Mary Magdalen, so he had risen again on the evening of the sabbath (according to Matthew), [but] he appeared to Mary Magdalen on the morning of the first day of the week (according to Mark).

Which indeed John the Evangelist also signifies, stating that he was seen on the morning of the second day.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Ben C Smith

FWIW, I have the relevant portions of Eusebius to Marinus on my page about the Marcan endings. That page is woefully incomplete, but serves to get online at least some of the patristic evidence lacking on the web so far.

Ben.

JoeWallack

JW:
I think it would be beneficial here to quote Metzger in Toto as sort of a starting point even though there are a number of inaccuracies in what Metzger wrote: (The related Logos CD with Metzger commentary costs about 30 pieces of Silver)

"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 (×? and B),1 from the Old Latin codex Bobiensis (itk), the Sinaitic Syriac manuscript, about one hundred Armenian manuscripts,2 and the two oldest Georgian manuscripts (written a.d. 897 and a.d. 913).3 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 that 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 al), as well as Old Latin k, the margin of the Harclean Syriac, several Sahidic and Bohairic manuscripts,4 and not a few Ethiopic manuscripts,5 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 these things Jesus himself sent out through them, from east to west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation.� All of these witnesses except itk 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 Ϊ Ψ 099 0112 fª13 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 (τοῦ λόγου τοῦ ἰσχυÏ?οῦ ὃν ἀπὸ ἸεÏ?ουσαλὴμ οἱ ἀπόστολοι αá½?τοῦ á¼?ξελθόντες πανταχοῦ á¼?κήÏ?υξαν).
(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 your 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 handed 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 that 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 á½? αἰὼν οὗτος, á¼?μαÏ?τάνω, ἀπολογΪω, ἀληθινός, ὑποστÏ?Ϊφω) as well as several that occur nowhere else in the New Testament (δεινός, á½…Ï?ος, Ï€Ï?οσλΪγω). 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. ἀπιστΪω, βλάπτω, βεβαιόω, á¼?πακολουθΪω, θεάομαι, μετὰ ταῦτα, ποÏ?εÏ?ομαι, συνεÏ?γΪω, ὕστεÏ?ον are found nowhere else in Mark; and θανάσιμον and τοῖς μετ᾽ αá½?τοῦ γενομΪνοις, 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 ἀναστὰς δΪ and the position of Ï€Ï?ῶτον 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.6 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 a few 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 16.8.7 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 in order to indicate that they are the work of an author other than the evangelist.8"
Metzger, B. M., & United Bible Societies. 1994. A textual commentary on the Greek New Testament, second edition; a companion volume to the United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament (4th rev. ed.) . United Bible Societies: London; New York



Joseph

Roger Pearse

Feel free to use the Hedibia stuff I did here: I release it into the public domain. Is the Ad Marinum by Kellhoffer? I want to get Ad Stephanum and Ad Marinum translated, and have a translator lined up (whom I will have to pay). The delay is because a critical edition is in progress at the moment. This is being done by Claudio Zamagni, who did a first version with French translation as a PhD thesis in Switzerland. Unfortunately I have no easy way to get a copy of this, although a copy is in the Swiss National Library.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Ben C Smith

IIRC, the Greek text of Marinus I got from Kelhoffer, checked at spots against the facsimile version in W. Farmer. The translation is my own (though of course with an eye on Kelhoffer); hence its heavy reliance on cognates and other literalistic word choices.

I already have some of Jerome to Hedibia on my page, but may well add your more extensive quotation and translation.

Ben.

JoeWallack

JW:
I think it would be beneficial to present Eusebius' relevant testimony in Toto here:

http://www.degruyter.de/journals/znw...pdf/92_078.pdf

[I beseech the Almighty to grant me forgiveness for all errors here due to Conversion]

"I am now, skipping over the middle parts, proceeding next to the questions that are always being raised by everyone at the end of the same texts. [I do so] without much delay since the will of God spurs us on to this through your commands, Marinus, my most honored and most industrious son. You asked first,
I. How is it that in Matthew the Savior, after having been raised, appears “late on the Sabbath�17 but in Mark “early on the first day
of the week�?18
1. The solution to this might be twofold. For, on the one hand, the one who rejects the passage itself, [namely] the pericope which says this, might say that it does not appear in all the copies of the Gospel according to Mark. At any rate, the accurate ones of the copies define the end of the history according to Mark with the words of the young man who appeared to the women and said to them, “Do not fear. You are seeking Jesus the Nazarene�19 and the [words] that follow. In addition to these, it
says,20 “And having heard [this] they fled, and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.�21
For in this way the ending of the Gospel according to Mark is defined in nearly all the copies. The things that appear next, seldom [and] in some but not in all [of the copies], may be spurious, especially since25 it implies26 a contradiction to the testimony of the rest of the evangelists. This then [is what] someone might say to avoid and completely do away with27 a superfluous question.
On the other hand, someone else, who dares to set aside nothing whatsoever of the things which appear, by whatever means,28 in the text of the Gospels,29 says that the reading is double,30 as also in many other
[cases], and [that] each of the two [readings] pistoi&v kai+ eu$labe*sin e$gkri*nesqai. must be accepted in that [they both] are approved in the opinion of the faithful and pious, not this [reading] rather than that, or that [reading] rather than this.
2. And what is more, since it is granted that this part is true, it is appropriate to interpret the sense of the passage. If then we should determine the meaning of the expression, we would not find it35 [to be] contrary to the things spoken by Matthew, [that] “late on the Sabbath� the Savior was raised. For the [passage], “and having risen early on the first day of the week� according to Mark we will read with a pause: after the “and having risen� we will insert a comma. And we will separate the meaning of the [words] that are read afterward. Thus, on the one hand, we may read36 the [expression] “having risen� with reference to the [meaning37 found] in Matthew, “late on the Sabbath.� For that is when he was raised. On the other hand, we could [also] join38 what follows, which gives rise to39 a different meaning, with the [words] that are read afterward: for “early on the first day of the week he appeared to Mary Magdalene.�
tou&to gou&n e$dh*lwse kai+ o< $Iwa*nnhv prwi¸ At any rate, John has also made this clear, kai+ au$to+v t|& mi{& tou& sabba*tou w# fqai au$- and has himself testified that “early on the to+n t|& Magdalhn|& marturh*sav‚ ou=twv first day of the week� [Christ] appeared to ou#n kai+ para+ t}& Ma*rk} prwi¸ e$fa*nh au$t|&‚ the Magdalene. In this manner, therefore, ou$ prwi¸ a$nasta+v, a$lla+ polu+ pro*teron also in Mark he appeared “early� to her. It is not [that] he “rose early� but much earlier, according to Matthew, “late on the Sabbath.� For, “having risen� at that time, he appeared to Mary, not at that time,41 but “early.� The consequence is that42 two points in time are presented in these [pericopes], for the one43 [is the time] of the resurrection, which was “late on the Sabbath.� The other [is the time] of the manifestation of the Savior, which was “early.� Mark wrote [about the later time] when he said that which must be read with a pause, “and having risen.� Then, after having inserted a comma, one must read what follows, “early on the first day of the week he appeared to Mary Magdalene, from whom he had cast out seven demons.�


JW:
Ben Smith, I think your related site

http://www.textexcavation.com/marcanendings.html

is excellent but I wonder why you wrote:

"I regard the external evidence, on its own merits, as split. It is true that the longer ending eventually came to dominate both east and west. However, I see a certain drive to remedy the abrupt ending of Mark at 16.8 in the history of the text. If we somehow knew that Mark originally ended at 16.8, but did not know anything about subsequent church and manuscript history, I think that we could probably have predicted that an ad hoc ending of some kind would eventually take over. The shorter ending, if nothing else, testifies to a desire to fill in the obvious gap at the end of Mark."

I assume that you would acknowledge that the external manuscript witness favors 16:8 as likely original but what I would like to specifically ask you about is the Patristic evidence.

I'm guessing you would agree that Origen, Eusebius and Jerome were the three outstanding textual critics of the Early Church. With Apologies to Mr. Pearse, if they don't actually confirm 16:8 as Origenal they do something close to it. And if I may be permitted to simply repeat the words of my Father of blessed memory, the Great first century Statesman, Joseph, "What more evidence do we need".

Church Father testimony does need to be discounted when it supports Christian assertion, but when it contradicts it needs to receive a Premium. Confessedly, Church Father testimony was biased in General and specifically the argument process was backwards with respect to textual criticism. We use textual criticism as evidence in order to determine a conclusion as to what was likely original. The Fathers started with a belief conclusion and then looked for textual evidence to support it which is illustrated here by Eusebius.

Presumably the Church choose to Save Eusebius' testimony here because it viewed it as harmonizing Apology rather than evidence of Forgery.

Ben, why exactly do you give this Patristic evidence ("The Three") such a big Discount so as to say the External evidence is Split?



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

Church Tradition - A process of oral transmission designed to remember what originally happened which continues until nobody remembers what originally happened.