Freethought & Rationalism Archive

andrewcriddle · 07-04-2009, 08:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

One interesting point here, is that it might be evidence that Celsus knew the LE. The reference to Mary Magdalene as A half-frantic woman, as ye state probably alludes to Mary's status as an ex-demoniac. This may be derived from Celsus having read Luke 8:2 but Mark 16:9 is more likely.

Andrew Criddle

JW:
There you go again. spin? spin! Where the hell are you (probably off obfusacating on Pearse's garden)?

TextExcavation - The endings of the gospel of Mark - Celsus

<SNIP>Interesting Material from Ben's Site</SNIP>

JW:
Nota Ben E. I'll add to the above (so that Snapp can not count me and Ben as just one source) that I think Ben misses the main reason why Celsus refers to Mary M. as "half-frantic":

John 20

Quote:

1 Now on the first [day] of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, while it was yet dark, unto the tomb, and seeth the stone taken away from the tomb.

2 She runneth therefore, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we know not where they have laid him.

For a woman to be running qualifies as "half-frantic" I think. Note that "Mark's" Mary M. also runs, but not in the LE.

Since you force me to come back to this, I'm going to add to my previous summary of evidence that Origen did not think the LE original based on Against Celsus that where Origen presents text shared by the LE and "John":

<SNIP>

Conclusion = Origen did not think the LE was original.

Joseph

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

Hi Joe

Just to clarify:

I entirely agree with you that Origen did not think the LE was original. However, I don't see any inconsistency in claiming that Origen rejected the LE while Celsus accepted it (not as true but as part of the original Gospel text). The evidence that Celsus accepted the LE may well be weak, (as Ben suggests), but the claim is perfectly compatible with Origen rejecting the LE. Origen and Celsus are probably not witnesses to the same textual tradition of the Gospels.

Andrew Criddle

JoeWallack · 07-04-2009, 11:27 AM

JW:
Regarding External evidence the third star witness against LE after "Matthew"/"Luke" and Origen/Clement is Eusebius/Jerome who are aware of the LE but do not think it original:

TextExcavation - The endings of the gospel of Mark - Eusebius

Quote:

The solution of this might be twofold. For the one who sets aside the passage itself, the pericope that says this, might say that it is not extant in all the copies of the gospel according to Mark. The accurate ones of the copies, at least, circumscribe the end of the history according to Mark in the words of the young man seen by the women, who said to them: Do not fear. You seek Jesus the Nazarene, and those that follow, to which it further says: And having heard they fled, and said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.

For in this [manner] the ending of the gospel according to Mark is circumscribed almost in all the copies. The things that seldom follow, which are extant in some but not in all, may be superfluous, and especially if indeed it holds a contradiction to the testimony of the rest of the evangelists. These things therefore someone might say in avoiding and in all ways doing away with a superfluous question.

JW:
Eusebius is clear that the evidence is for AE:

1) Manuscript quality favors AE.

1) Manuscript quantity favors AE.

Jerome later echoes Eusebius. The potential criterion weakness here for Origen/Clement/Eusebius/Jerome is confirmation - width. Ben astutely points out that there is a geographical schism as to LE. Early on West supports and East does not. It's commonly thought that "Mark" was written in Rome (West). Origen/Eusebius/Jerome are on top of each other at Caesarea and Clement is in relatively close Alexandria, all East Coast. The question is how broad was the Manuscript evidence that Eusebius had? Did it extend beyond the East and if so, how much? We have reasons to think that Eusebius was not limited to Eastern manuscripts:

1) There is no general evidence that Eusebius intentionally limited himself to Eastern manuscripts.

2) Eusebius was an internationally recognized manuscript expert.

3) Eusebius was in close contact with Constantine during his Rome years.

4)

Origen presumably accumulated many texts at Caesarea and was the first great textual critic of the Church specializing in the Jewish Bible and creating the

Hexapla. He must have had many manuscripts available for this task (but probably not a whole lot from the West).

5)

Pamphilus of Caesarea was explicitly a collector of manuscripts:

Quote:

The library at Caesarea

St Pamphilus, not unlike the humanists of the Renaissance, devoted his life to searching out and obtaining ancient texts which he collected in the famous library that Jerome was later to use, and established a school for theological study.[3] In the scriptorium, a necessary adjunct to all libraries of antiquity, he oversaw the production of accurate edited copies of Scripture. Testimonies to his zeal and care in this work are to be found in the colophons of biblical manuscripts. Jerome's "De Viris Illustribus" (75) says that Pamphilus "transcribed the greater part of the works of Origen of Alexandria with his own hand," and that "these are still preserved in the library of Cæsarea." He himself was a possessor of "twenty-five volumes of commentaries of Origen," copied out by Pamphilus, which he looked upon as a most precious relic of the martyr.

6)

Eusebius of Caesarea inherits the above and like Origen, is the leading textual critic of his day.

7) Eusebius is hand picked by Constantine to interact with all Bishops due to the Arian controversy. This controversy revolves around what Manuscripts say and don't say. Presumably than, Eusebius needs to be familiar with all textual traditions.

8) Constantine, originally from the West, commissions Eusebius to produce 50 authoritative Bibles. Presumably Eusebius was recognized as a international textual expert by the highest level of authority. Note that Eusebius has a Scriptorium so he has not just been collecting manuscripts but producing them as well.

9) Jerome later inherits the Library at Caesarea.

10) Cumulatively Origen/Eusebius/Jerome are the three outstanding scholars and textual critics of the early Church. Their technical prominence is further evidence that they were likely familiar with manuscripts from the West as well as the East.

Joseph

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

JoeWallack · 07-05-2009, 11:37 AM

JW:
The star witness for External Patristic support for LE is Irenaeus/Tatian due to their quality of age. Irenaeus is dated as follows:

Quote:

3709 Epiphanius, in his De Mensuris, gives an account of these two men. The former published his version of the Old Testament in the year 181. The latter put forth his translation half a century earlier, about 129 a.d. This reference to the version of Theodotion furnishes a note of date as to the time when Irenæus published his work: it must have been subsequently to a.d. 181.

Irenaeus' witness:

Against Heresies 3.10.5

Quote:

Also, towards the conclusion of his Gospel, Mark says: “So then, after the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God;”

Verses:

Mark 16:9

Quote:

Also, towards the conclusion of his Gospel, Mark says: “So then, after the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God;”

The question here is not simply what exactly Irenaeus' source was but the broader question of what exactly Irenaeus' evidence was. We have the following reasons to think that Irenaeus simply preferred the LE over the AE and that his selection was conclusion driven and not evidence driven:

1) Irenaeus in general is conclusion driven rather than evidence driven. He is simply an advocate for what he considers OCD and does not grant any supporting evidence to other conclusions.

The friendly Christian commentator has this to say about Irenaeus:

Quote:

2702 Luke xiv. 27. It will be observed that the quotations of Scripture made by Irenæus often vary somewhat from the received text. This may be due to various reasons—his quoting from memory; his giving the texts in the form in which they were quoted by the heretics; or, as Harvey conjectures, from his having been more familiar with a Syriac version of the New Testament than with the Greek original.

Going through the commentary for Against Heresies I find the following choice observations which I will place here with my reasons 1-4 to give less weight to Irenaeus' witness for LE.

2) Relative to other Fathers he often gives quotes/references found nowhere in extant Greek text.

Quote:

2708 Gal. vi. 14. The words ἐν μηδενί do not occur in the Greek text.

Quote:

2753 1 Cor. xi. 10. Irenæus here reads κάλυμμα, veil, instead of ἐξουσίαν, power, as in the received text. [An interesting fact, as it betokens an old gloss, which may have slipped into the text of some ancient mss.]

Quote:

2923 Luke xii. 50. The text was probably thus corrupted by the heretics.

Quote:

2997 Eph. iv. 6, differing somewhat from Text. Rec. of New Testament.

Quote:

3225 Mark xiii. 32. The words, “neither the angels which are in heaven,” are here omitted, probably because, as usual, the writer quotes from memory.

Quote:

3294 Luke xvi. 11, quoted loosely from memory. Grabe, however, thinks they are cited from the apocryphal Gospel according to the Egyptians.

Quote:

3359 This is according to the reading of the old Italic version, for it is not so read in any of our existing manuscripts of the Greek New Testament.

Quote:

3416 Thus found also in the Vulgate. Harvey supposes that the original of Irenæus read according to our textus receptus, and that the Vulgate rendering was adopted in this passage by the transcribers of the Latin version of our author. [No doubt a just remark.] There can be no doubt, however, that the reading εὐδοκίας is supported by many and weighty ancient authorities. [But on this point see the facts as given by Burgon, in his refutation of the rendering adopted by late revisers, Revision Revised, p. 41. London, Murray, 1883.]

Quote:

3472 The word δῶρον or δώρημα is supposed by some to have existed in the earliest Greek texts, although not found in any extant now. It is thus quoted by others besides Irenæus.

Quote:

3486 These words, though not in textus receptus, are found in some ancient mss. and versions; but not the words “our father,” which follow.

Quote:

3506 It will be observed that Scripture is here very loosely quoted.

Quote:

3604 2 John 7, 8. Irenæus seems to have read αὐτούς instead of ἑαυτούς, as in the received text.

Quote:

3707 This quotation from Habakkuk, here commented on by Irenæus, differs both from the Hebrew and the LXX., and comes nearest to the old Italic version of the passage

Quote:

3858 Not now to be found in Mark’s Gospel.

Quote:

4015 This passage is not now found in holy Scripture. Harvey conjectures that it may have been taken from the apocryphal Gospel according to the Egyptians. It is remarkable that we find the same words quoted also by Clement of Alexandria. [But he (possibly with this place in view) merely quotes it as a saying, in close connection with Ps. li. 19, which is here partially cited. See Clement, Pædagogue, b. iii. cap. xii.]

Quote:

4366 No other of the Greek Fathers quotes this text as above; from which fact Grabe infers that old Latin translator, or his transcribers, altered the words of Irenæus [N.B.—From one example infer the rest] to suit the Latin versions.

3) Relative to other Fathers his scholarship is poor.

Quote:

3128 John v. 1, etc. It is well known that, to fix what is meant by the ἑορτή, referred to in this passage of St. John, is one of the most difficult points in New Testament criticism. Some modern scholars think that the feast of Purim is intended by the Evangelist; but, upon the whole, the current of opinion that has always prevailed in the Church has been in favour of the statement here made by Irenæus. Christ would therefore be present at four passovers after His baptism: (1) John ii. 13; (2) John v. 1; (3) John vi. 4; (4) John xiii. 1.

Quote:

3141 With respect to this extraordinary assertion of Irenæus, Harvey remarks: “The reader may here perceive the unsatisfactory character of tradition, where a mere fact is concerned. From reasonings founded upon the evangelical history, as well as from a preponderance of external testimony, it is most certain that our Lord’s ministry extended but little over three years; yet here Irenæus states that it included more than ten years, and appeals to a tradition derived, as he says, from those who had conversed with an apostle”

Quote:

3164 Only six branches are mentioned in Ex. xxv. 32.

Quote:

3282 It is a mistake of Irenæus to say that the doctrine of metempsychosis originated with Plato: it was first publicly taught by Pythagoras, who learned it from the Egyptians. Comp. Clem. Alex., Strom., i. 15: Herodot., ii. 123.

Quote:

3302 The author is here utterly mistaken, and, notwithstanding Harvey’s earnest claim for him of a knowledge of Hebrew, seems clearly to betray his ignorance of that language. The term Sabaoth is never written with an Omicron, either in the LXX. or by the Greek Fathers, but always with an Omega (Σαβαώθ). Although Harvey remarks in his preface, that “It is hoped the Hebrew attainments of Irenæus will no longer be denied,” there appears enough, in the etymologies and explanations of Hebrew terms given in this chapter by the venerable Father, to prevent such a conclusion; and Massuet’s observation on the passage seems not improbable, when he says, “Sciolus quispiam Irenæo nostro, in Hebraicis haud satis perito, hic fucum ecisse videtur.”

Quote:

3367 A word of which many explanations have been proposed, but none are quite satisfactory. Harvey seems inclined to suspect the reading to be corrupt, through the ignorance and carelessness of the copyist. [Irenæus undoubtedly relied for Hebrew criticisms on some incompetent retailer of rabbinical refinements.]

Quote:

3702 Irenæus quotes this as from Isaiah on the present occasion; but in book iv. 22, 1, we find him referring the same passage to Jeremiah. It is somewhat remarkable that it is to be found in neither prophet, although Justin Martyr, in his dialogue with Trypho, [chap. lxxii. and notes, Dial. with Trypho, in this volume,] brings it forward as an argument against him, and directly accuses the Jews of having fraudulently removed it from the sacred text. It is, however, to be found in no ancient version of Jewish Targum, which fact may be regarded as a decisive proof of its spuriousness.

Quote:

4112 Irenæus seems here to have written “three” for “two” from a lapse of memory.

Quote:

4543 Mark v. 22. Irenæus confounds the ruler of the synagogue with the high priest. [Let not those who possess printed Bibles and concordances and commentaries, and all manner of helps to memory, blame the Fathers for such mistakes, until they at least equal them in their marvellous and minute familiarity with the inspired writers.

Quote:

4770 The long quotation following is not found in Jeremiah, but in the apocryphal book of Baruch iv. 36, etc., and the whole of Baruch v.

4) His quotes tend to agree with

Codex Bezae

Quote:

Some of the outstanding features: Matthew 16:2b-3 is present and not marked as doubtful or spurious. One of the longer endings of Mark is given. Luke 22:43f and Pericope de adultera are present and not marked as spurious or doubtful. John 5:4 is omitted, and the text of Acts is nearly one-tenth longer than the generally received text.

Codex Bezae has the most unique material of any early manuscript and is considered somewhat unreliable compared to other early manuscripts. Note especially that it has the Pericope de adultera and no indication that it is doubtful. Its type is Western which fits Irenaeus and its later known provenance is Lyons (yes "Lyons") which fits even better. So it would seem that its ancestor may have been what Irenaeus used.

Quote:

3519 Irenæus manifestly read οὕτως for τούτῳ, and in this he agrees with Codex Bezæ. We may remark, once for all, that in the variations from the received text of the New Testament which occur in our author, his quotations are very often in accordance with the readings of the Cambridge ms.

Note especially that Codex Bezae has the Western order of "Matthew", "John", "Luke" and "Mark". Irenaeus is the first known champion of the four-fold tradition. Having "Mark" at the end would give added incentive to have a resurrection sighting for the final Gospel. as opposed to no resurrection sighting. Also, Irenaeus tells us that the specific issue of his time with "Mark" was Separationism. The LE contradicts the Separationists by showing the same Jesus Christ before and after the resurrection.

Also note that while Origen/Eusebius/Jerome have respect for the others scholarship, this is Irenaeus' opinion of Tatian:

Quote:

8. All therefore speak falsely who disallow his (Adam’s) salvation, shutting themselves out from life for ever, in that they do not believe that the sheep which had perished has been found For if it has not been found, the whole human race is still held in a state of perdition. False, therefore, is that, man who first started this idea, or rather, this ignorance and blindness—Tatian. As I have already indicated, this man entangled himself with all the heretics
This dogma, however, has been invented by himself, in order that, by introducing something new, independently of the rest, and by speaking vanity, he might acquire for himself hearers void of faith, affecting to be esteemed a teacher, and endeavouring from time to time to employ sayings of this kind often [made use of] by Paul: “In Adam we all die;”

JW:
Thus Irenaeus is evidence for second century LE but relatively weak evidence for its originality.

Joseph

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

JoeWallack · 07-10-2009, 07:22 AM

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

Quote:

Introduction, Part Two - Related Points (1 of 2)
[Note: each entry at this point of the debate was to consist of up to 3,000 words, but the CARM Forums apparently have an automatic limit of 16,000 characters. In Microsoft Word, my entry has only 15,022 characters, but the character-counter here must operate differently, because it says that my post had 19,715 characters. For this reason, I divided my entry into two parts. Combined, and with this explanatory note subtracted, they contain less than 3,000 words. - James Snapp, Jr.]

Now that I have summarized my view, I offer some related points, especially certain premises about the background of the Gospel of Mark, the Synoptic Problem, and the distinction between a text’s production-stage and its transmission-stage. I hope that the benefit this provides to those who are new to these subjects will be much greater than any inconvenience given to those already acquainted with them.

The Background of the Gospel of Mark

The Gospel of Mark was written in Rome in the mid-60’s, by Mark, who is also known as John Mark, a relative of Barnabas (cf. Acts 4:36, Colossians 4:10). Though fairly well-known, John Mark often took the role of sidekick, assisting at various times Paul, Barnabas, and Peter. Mark’s primary source-material consisted of his own notes based on the teachings of Simon Peter, whom Mark accompanied and assisted at Rome. Mark seems to have been more concerned to preserve Peter’s remembrances about Jesus than to produce a polished literary work; sudden transitions in Mark’s Gospel-account echo the ends and beginnings of Petrine anecdotes.

In the early 300’s, Eusebius of Caesarea, in Ecclesiastical History 3:39, preserved a statement by Papias, who served as a bishop in Asia Minor in the early 100’s (Robert Gundry has skillfully supported a date no later than 110), in which Papias mentioned Mark: “The Elder used to say this: “Mark, indeed, having become Peter’s interpreter, wrote accurately everything that he remembered, though not in order, of the things which were either said or done by Christ [or, by the Lord]. For he neither heard the Lord, nor followed Him, but afterwards, as I said, followed Peter, who adapted his instructions as needed, but had no intention of putting together an ordered account of the Lord’s sayings. So Mark did nothing wrong in writing some things as he remembered them, for he was focused on the goal of not omitting anything which he heard, and not stating anything therein falsely.””

In the same work (5:8) Eusebius preserves a statement from Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons, from the third book of Against Heresies, which Irenaeus composed in about 184. Irenaeus wrote, “Matthew published a Gospel in writing also, among the Hebrews in their own language, while Peter and Paul were preaching the gospel and founding the church in Rome. After their departure/decease (Greek exodon) Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, also transmitted to us in writing the things which Peter had preached.”

Eusebius also supplies (in 6:14) a statement from Clement of Alexandria (early 200’s): “When Peter had publicly preached the word at Rome, and by the Spirit had proclaimed the gospel, those present, who were many, exhorted Mark, as one who had followed him for a long time and remembered what had been spoken, to make a record of what was said; and he did this, and distributed the gospel among those that asked him. And when the matter came to Peter’s knowledge he neither strongly forbade it nor urged it forward.” Clement also claimed that according to an ancient tradition, the Gospels with genealogies (that is, Matthew and Luke) were the first Gospels to be disseminated.

Another statement from Clement appears in the Latin version of one of his major works: “Mark, the follower of Peter, while Peter was still publicly preaching the gospel at Rome in the presence of certain of Caesar’s knights, and was submitting many testimonies concerning Christ, being requested by them that they might be able to memorize the things which were being spoken, wrote, from the things which were spoken by Peter, the Gospel which is called ‘According to Mark.’”

Eusebius also preserved a different tradition (in Ecclesiastical History 2:15), which stated that Peter’s hearers “were not content to be satisfied with hearing him once and no more, nor with the unwritten teaching of the divine message; but besought with all kinds of entreaties Mark, whose Gospel is extant, a follower of Peter, that he would leave them in writing also a memoir of the teaching they had received by word of mouth; nor did they relax their efforts until they had prevailed upon the man, and thus they became the originators of the book of the Gospel according to Mark, as it is now called. Now it is said that when the apostle learned, by revelation of the Spirit, what was done, he was pleased with the men’s zeal, and authorized the book to be read in the churches.”

Eusebius (in Ecclesiastical History 6:25) also preserved a comment by Origen, who died in 254, briefly affirming that Mark wrote in accordance with Peter’s instructions.

Jerome, writing the eighth chapter of Lives of Illustrious Men (in 392), described Mark’s career: “Mark the disciple and interpreter of Peter wrote a short gospel at the request of the brethren at Rome embodying what he had heard Peter tell. When Peter had heard this, he approved it and published it to the churches to be read by his authority.”

Also, the Anti-Marcionite Prologue to Mark (mid-300’s?) states that Mark, “who was called Colobodactylus (that is, Stubby-fingered), because he had fingers that were too small for the height of the rest of his body, was himself the interpreter of Peter, and after the death of Peter himself, the same man wrote this gospel in the parts of Italy.”

The early traditions are pretty consistent concerning a few basic points: Mark wrote in Rome; Mark based his Gospel on the remembrances of Simon Peter; Mark wrote because people asked him to write. But the accounts are inconsistent about whether Mark wrote before, or after, the death of Peter. On one hand, the versions of events which augment the apostolic authority of the Gospel of Mark seem more likely to be inventions, because it is unlikely that Christians would weaken the apostolic authority of their own texts. So, in terms of simple intrinsic probability, the most likely scenario is that Mark wrote after Peter’s death. On the other hand, Clement’s statement that Peter neither approved nor disapproved of Mark’s work does not look like an authority-enhancing invention.

The statements from Papias, Irenaeus, and Clement all seem credible, and can all be accounted for if we consider the details of Mark’s career in the 60’s: after accompanying Peter for some time, Mark went to Alexandria, and after establishing a congregation there, he continued to preach in the surrounding area. But he then returned to Rome, and resumed his duties as Peter’s assistant. Throughout his career as Peter’s assistant, Mark had written down Peter’s stories about Jesus. As Mark continued to work alongside Peter, he expanded his collection of Peter’s stories. So the components of the Gospel of Mark were written while Peter was alive, and Mark shared them with those who asked for them. But after the death of Peter in A.D. 67, the Christians at Rome wanted a definitive collection of Peter’s remembrances. To meet that need, Mark began to write the Gospel of Mark.

I have already related my theory about what happened next: due to heavy persecution, Mark suddenly left Rome, and went to Alexandria, where he was martyred in A.D. 68. His definitive collection of Peter’s remembrances was left unfinished in the hands of his colleagues at Rome. The Roman Christians finished the Gospel of Mark by attaching a brief Markan composition about Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances, and then they began to copy the text for use in the churches.

The similarities of the events involved, and the rapidity of their occurrence, account for some of the similarities, and some of the differences, among the early traditions about how the Gospel of Mark was written: Mark wrote down components of the Gospel of Mark (consisting of Peter’s remembrances) during Peter’s lifetime, and shared them on request, but he also responded to a request for a complete collection of those components after Peter’s death.

The early traditions thus point to a composition of the Gospel of Mark in Rome, in Greek, by Mark, based mainly on Petrine material, in the mid-60’s. This picture of the background of the Gospel of Mark is supported by some features in the text. Mark’s narrative involves mainly events which Peter witnessed, or which he would have been capable of learning about. Episodes frequently end with a catchy saying; this would be natural if they pre-existed as oral traditions. Mark’s use of the historic present also suggests direct descent from oral tradition. Mark 10:12 points to a locale where a woman could divorce her husband. The interpretations of Hebrew and Aramaic words – even stating that “Bartimaeus” means “son of Timaeus” in 10:46 – indicate a non-Jewish readership. Mark does not assume that his readers are familiar with Jewish customs such as the special hand-washing method mentioned in 7:3. Mark employs some Latin terms, such as “quadrans” in 12:42. Mark describes Simon of Cyrene as the father of Alexander and Rufus; Rufus is among the people at Rome in Romans 16:13. All these things are consistent with an author who was writing for readers in the city of Rome.

In the 100’s, we find material from the Gospel of Mark being used by Justin Martyr, by Tatian, and by Irenaeus, among others: Justin mentions that Jesus named James and John “Boanerges,” a detail recorded in Mark 3:17. Tatian incorporated the Gospel of Mark into the Diatessaron. Irenaeus listed the Gospel of Mark among the four Gospels recognized as authoritative by the church, and quoted from it repeatedly. Our earliest extant copy of Mark is part of the heavily damaged Papyrus 45 (c. 225), which contains parts of Mark 4:36-12:28 in a form of text with affinities to the text found in Codex W.

The Synoptic Problem

Some of the background information that I have just shared contributes to some solutions to the Synoptic Problem. The Synoptic Problem could be better-named the Synoptic Puzzle: the puzzle of the literary relationship among the Gospel of Matthew, the Gospel of Mark, and the Gospel of Luke. Many competent researchers have offered some different answers to this puzzle, such as the Griesbach Hypothesis in which Mark combined and condensed Matthew and Luke, the Farrer Hypothesis in which Luke used Matthew and Mark, and the Two Source Hypothesis in which Matthew and Luke each had some material exclusively his own, and Matthew and Luke shared two sources: the Gospel of Mark, and a Sayings-document, referred to as Q.

My favorite solution to the Synoptic Problem resembles the Two Source Hypothesis, but it involves, instead of a single Q, an Aramaic Sayings-source compiled by Matthew, in addition to a Greek translation of this Matthean Sayings-source. It also posits that Luke used, instead of the Gospel of Mark, an earlier and smaller collection of Petrine material (which Mark later incorporated into the Gospel of Mark), referred to as “Proto-Mark.” This explains why Luke did not use the material now known as Mark 6:17-29 and 6:45-8:26; those passages were not available to him. This explains many of the “Minor Agreements” where Matthew and Luke use the same verbiage but the Gospel of Mark uses different verbiage: the “Minor Agreements” appear where Mark, as he wrote the Gospel of Mark, made small deviations from the text in Proto-Mark. It also explains why Luke often uses material that is found in the Gospel of Mark but frames it very differently; figuratively speaking, Mark and Luke were like jewelers placing the loose gemstones of their source-materials into settings – but not always the same setting.

It also explains some features of Luke which the alternative theory – that Luke used the Gospel of Mark – renders rather puzzling. Two examples: Luke does not include the detail (recorded in Matthew 19:15 and Mark 10:16) that Jesus blessed the little children. Why not? Because Luke stopped the anecdote where it stopped in his Markan source. And Luke seems oblivious to the statement in Mark 10:46 that Jesus was leaving Jericho when he encountered Bartimaeus. How is that possible? Because that statement was not in Luke’s Markan source-material.

This has an impact on the question at hand when we ask, “If Matthew and Luke used the Gospel of Mark, why didn’t they use Mark 16:9-20?” As far as Luke is concerned, the answer is clear: Luke did not use the 12 verses that constitute Mark 16:9-20 for the same reason that Luke did not use the 74 verses that constitute Mark 6:45-8:26; Luke’s Markan source was not the Gospel of Mark; it was Proto-Mark, an incomplete collection of components of the Gospel of Mark. Also, if you still think that Luke used the Gospel of Mark instead of Proto-Mark, an alternative explanation of his non-use of 16:9-20 is at hand: Mark 16:9-14 portrays the disciples in a very harsh light; Luke (and Matthew) consistently softens the focus when depicting such episodes, or else declines to present them.

(Continued . . .)

JoeWallack · 07-11-2009, 07:11 AM

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

Quote:

Introduction, Part Two - Related Points (2 of 2)
Regarding Matthew, the answer is more elusive. This is just one of several elusive facets of the Synoptic Problem. Matthew usually appears to follow the Gospel of Mark, but sometimes he diverges from it. For example, it does not look like the author of Matthew 14:5 (where Herod wanted to put John the Baptist to death) was dependent upon Mark 6:20 (where Herod protected John and heard him gladly).

Out of 661 verses in Mark 1:1-16:8, Matthew does not use about 74 (Mark 1:23-28, 1:35-38, 2:2, 2:4, 2:13, 2:27, 3:19b-21, 4:26-29, 5:3-5, 5:8-10, 5:15b-16, 5:18-20, 5:26, 5:29-33, 5:35-37, 5:42b-43, 6:12-13, 6:15, 7:2-4, 7:32-36, 8:22-26, 9:15, 9:20-24, 10:12, 10:50, 11:16, 12:32-34, 14:13b, 14:51-52, 15:44-45a, and 16:2-3). If we were to conclude that these verses were not in Matthew’s source, then we could not consider Matthew’s source to be the Gospel of Mark. Matthew’s testimony would thus become superfluous, inasmuch as it would pertain to something that was not the Gospel of Mark. If we conclude that these 74 verses were in Matthew’s source, then obviously Matthew skipped significant portions of his source-materials, and Matthew’s non-use of most of Mark 16:9-20 cannot be considered strong evidence that he was unfamiliar with these 12 verses, inasmuch as his non-use of some smaller but substantial chunks – Mark 4:26-29, 5:18-20, 5:29-33, and 8:22-26 – is not strong evidence that he was unfamiliar with those 17 verses.

Matthew may have possessed a copy of Proto-Mark as well as a copy of Mark 1:1-16:20. And his copy of Proto-Mark may have contained an ending which resembled the ending which Mark had intended to use to conclude the Gospel of Mark – a two-scene ending. In the first scene, Jesus appears to the silently fleeing women and restores their courage and tells them to take the good news to the disciples. In the second scene, Jesus appears to the eleven disciples in Galilee and commissions them to share the good news throughout the world. It would be natural for Matthew, if he had the option of using such a cohesive and complementary ending in Proto-Mark, or using 16:9-20, to choose the ending in Proto-Mark.

Also, if Matthew possessed a copy of Mark 1:1-16:20, he may have been informed by Roman Christians that they, rather than Mark himself, had attached 16:9-20 to Mark’s otherwise unfinished account. If so, he might naturally decide that it would be most helpful if he wrote an ending based on his own recollections. (Or, if it is not granted that Matthew the Apostle wrote the Gospel of Matthew, the author could discern that his work would carry more authority if he utilized other source-materials – such as the anecdote about the guards, found in Matthew 28:11-15 – which better suited the needs of his congregation and which reflected apostolic tradition.)

These theories are unverifiable, but the theory that Matthew’s copy of Mark (if Matthew had a copy of Mark) ended at 16:8 cannot be verified either. The evidence is complicated, and the strength of any solution to the Synoptic Problem must be measured not by its simplicity but by how well it accounts for all the evidence. Nothing conclusive about the ending of Mark can be demonstrated by Matthew’s non-use of most of Mark 16:9-20, or by Luke’s non-use of most of Mark 16:9-20.

Production-stage vs. Transmission-stage

Finally, I offer a concrete example of the distinction between the production-stage and the transmission-stage of ancient literary works. It is important to establish this distinction, because I grant that Mark did not add Mark 16:9-20 to Mark 1:1-16:8, and some readers might be tempted to consider the issue settled right there, presuming that if Mark did not add the passage, it cannot be original. But consider the case of Jeremiah chapter 52. At the end of Jeremiah 51, we find the explicit declaration, “Thus far are the words of Jeremiah.” But the book of Jeremiah does not end there. It continues with chapter 52:1-34. Jeremiah chapter 52 is clearly not from the hand of Jeremiah; it closely resembles Second Kings 24:18-25:30. Yet the discovery of the contents of Jeremiah 51:64 and the realization that chapter 52 was not added by Jeremiah himself have not provoked calls by scholars or theologians to bracket, excise, or ignore Jeremiah 52.

Once it is recognized that a co-author/redactor other than Jeremiah was involved in the production of the book of Jeremiah, authorship ceases to be a decisive measure of genuineness, and genuineness is defined instead by the contents of the text when it took a definitive form and began its transmission-history. If we wished to peer closely into the production-history and transmission-history of the book of Jeremiah, we could open up a can of worms, because the book is extant in divergent forms. But today’s illustration involves only chapter 52: chapter 52 is a genuine part of the book of Jeremiah, not because chapter 52 is regarded as something written by Jeremiah, but because chapter 52 was added during the production-stage of the text. Similarly, Mark 16:9-20 is a genuine part of the Gospel of Mark.

We now turn to the external evidence pertaining to Mark 16:9-20.

Yours in Christ,

James Snapp, Jr.

JoeWallack · 07-11-2009, 07:31 AM

Opening Position – Mark 16:9-20 Not Original - Part 1 of 2

Outline of Methodology

An outline of my methodology is as follows:

1. Identification of Categories

I will first identify the categories of evidence to use in order to create a position on the originality of Mark 16:9-20 (LE) and the sources used to identify the categories.

2. Identification of Criteria

Next I will identify the criteria to use in order to analyze the data for categories. Existing efforts are informal and incomplete so I will spend some words justifying criteria.

3. Identification of Data for Categories

Next I will identify the data applicable to categories and the sources used to identify the data.

4. Analysis of External Categories

Next I will analyze the data for External categories and summarize the evidence by category.

5. Analysis of Internal Categories

Next I will analyze the data for Internal categories and summarize the evidence by category.

6. Comparison and summary of Categories evidence

Next I will weigh specific categories against each other as to evidential value and determine a cumulative weight for External and Internal evidence for and against the LE

7. Conclusion

Finally, I will conclude as to whether LE is original to “Mark” and relative difference in the weight of the for/against conclusions for originality.

1. Identification of Categories

My sources for identification of categories are:

1) Bruce Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament

2) Perspectives On The Ending Of Mark

3) Myself

Due to word limitation for this post I will only address External Categories in what follows here.

External

1 – Patristic. Manuscript is normally the first category of External evidence. I list Patristic first because, for reasons I will give in Section 6, I think it is the category with the most weight here.

2 – Manuscript. It is arguable whether this is the next most important category but I list it next due to word limitations.

3 – Scribal. Scribal is normally considered a part of the Manuscript category. I present it separately because as will be seen in Section 6, it emphasizes different criteria than manuscripts and may actually be a more important category.

4 – Authority. The importance of authority as a category depends on the degree of specialized science involved in the subject. Since the science here is dominated by language special technical skills are not required and the evidence is subjective compared to hard sciences. I’ll explain in Section 6 why I give this category the least weight.

2. Identification of Criteria

Ranked in order of weight:

1 - Credibility of source. Greater = more weight. Potentially the most important criterion and one that authority largely ignores.

2- Common sense. Potentially one of the most important criteria if there is a common sense issue. Here there is. Was it more likely that LE would be added or deleted.

3 - Applicability (general vs. specific). General = more weight. Does the source refer to the issue or just a reference to a text? One of the most important criteria due to its comprehensive and direct nature. Generally under-estimated by authority.

4 – Age. Older = more weight. The most commonly identified criterion and an important one. As we will see later though, it will have limited value by itself in this discussion.

5 - Confirmation – width. Wider = more weight. The context is geographical. Confirmation is an important quality as it helps reduce sampling bias.

6 - Confirmation – quantity. Larger = more weight.

7 - Direction (of change). Away from = more weight. What is the direction of change over time for the category.

8 – Variation. Lesser = more weight. What is the quantity of variation in the category?

9 - External force. Lesser = more weight. What external force, if any, is affecting the category.

10 – Consistency. Greater = more weight. Does the evidence for the category coordinate with the evidence for other categories?

11 – Directness. Direct = more weight. Reduces opportunity for bias.

12 – Simplicity. Simpler = more weight. Reduces opportunity for bias.

3. Identification of Data for Categories - External

My sources here are the same as for Identification of Categories.

Patristic

Against LE:

“Matthew”, “Luke”, “John”, Clement, Origen, Eusebius, Jerome, Hesychius, Severus

For LE:

Irenaeus, Tatian, Tertullian, Porphyry (referred to), Epiphanius, Aphraates, Gospel of Nicodemus, Constitutions of the Holy Apostles, Ambrose, Nestorius, Cyril, Gregory, Chrysostom, Augustine, Victor

Manuscript

Against LE:

Sinaiticus (Oldest)

Vaticanus (Second oldest)

Sinaitic Syriac

Most of one hundred Armenian

Two oldest Georgian

Sahidic

L Ψ 099 0112

Several Bohairic

Some Ethiopic

Bobbiensis

It(a)

Codex Washingtonianus

For LE:

A C D K W X Δ Θ Π Ψ 099 0112 f 13 28 33 al

Scribal

Against LE:

Notes that older Greek lacked it

Codes for spurious addition

Harelean Syriac margin

Authority

Against LE:

Broad consensus

JoeWallack · 07-11-2009, 08:01 AM

Opening Position – Mark 16:9-20 Not Original - Part 2 of 2

4. Analysis of External Categories

Due to word limitation I will only give what I consider highlights of the evidence in this post. First, the Patristic. The star witnesses against LE are “Matthew”/“Luke”, Clement/Origen, and Eusebius/Jerome.

“Matthew”/“Luke”

I assume, as does authority, that “Mark” was written first and that “Matthew” and “Luke” used “Mark” as a primary source and that “John” was aware of “Mark”. “Matthew” often follows “Mark” closely, “Luke” follows somewhat less closely and “John” does not follow much at all except for the Passion. Metzger does not mention “Matthew” and “Luke” as evidence against LE as he generally avoids arguments from silence. Modern arguments against LE generally do. The potential strength of “Matthew”/”Luke” as evidence here is the quality of age. This would not only be the earliest known Patristic evidence but the earliest External evidence. This is especially applicable to arguments for LE as their primary claimed evidential quality is age, specifically, early Patristic references.

The weakness of “Matthew”/”Luke” here as evidence is it is indirect but this is offset by the width (scope) of the evidence,especially “Matthew”:

1) Generally follows “Mark” closely.

2) Specifically follows what comes before LE (16:1-8) closely.

3) Does not follow 16:9-20.

This is evidence that “Matthew” did not follow the LE because it was not there at the time “Matthew” copied from “Mark”. I’ll use up some of my word limit here to demonstrate 2) because without considering “Matthew”/”Luke” age is one of the few criteria that favors LE for this category (ASV):

Mark. Mark 16	Matthew Matthew 28
16.1-8. The visit to the tomb.	28.1-8. The visit to the tomb.
16.1 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the [mother] of James, and Salome, bought spices, that they might come and anoint him. 16.2 And very early on the first day of the week, they come to the tomb when the sun was risen.	28.1 Now late on the sabbath day, as it began to dawn toward the first [day] of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.
16.3 And they were saying among themselves, Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the tomb?
16.4 and looking up, they see that the stone is rolled back: for it was exceeding great.	28.2 And behold, there was a great earthquake; for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled away the stone, and sat upon it. 28.3 His appearance was as lightning, and his raiment white as snow:
16.5 And entering into the tomb, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, arrayed in a white robe; and they were amazed.	28.4 and for fear of him the watchers did quake, and became as dead men.
16.6 And he saith unto them, Be not amazed: ye seek Jesus, the Nazarene, who hath been crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold, the place where they laid him!	28.5 And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye; for I know that ye seek Jesus, who hath been crucified. 28.6 He is not here; for he is risen, even as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay.
16.7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter, He goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you.	28.7 And go quickly, and tell his disciples, He is risen from the dead; and lo, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you.
16.8 And they went out, and fled from the tomb; for trembling and astonishment had come upon them: and they said nothing to any one; for they were afraid.	28.8 And they departed quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy, and ran to bring his disciples word.

"Mark" to 16:8 (AE) sure looks like "Matthew's" source to 28:8. Most of the content and nouns are the same or at least similar and both have the strong emotion of fear/amazement for flavor. The only significant difference is the last line of each where "Matthew's" women run to tell as opposed to "Mark's" woman who run not to tell.

We have the following reasons to think that "Matthew", c. before Tatian/Irenaeus, did not have the LE in his copy of "Mark":

1) "Mark" in general is "Matthew's" source. There is little of the LE in "Matthew".

2) "Matthew" closely follows "Mark" to 16:8 (see 1).

3) "Matthew" flips the key assertion of 16:8, "ran and told no one", to "ran and told everyone", to change the expectation of what follows.

Origen/Clement

Regarding External evidence the next star witness against LE after "Matthew"/"Luke" is Origen/Clement who show no awareness of it.

In Against Celsus, Origen is specifically discussing resurrection sightings and explicitly refers to "Matthew" and "Luke" as authors of the resurrection sightings as well as refer to most of the information in their resurrection sightings and uses "John" as an unnamed base of resurrection sighting information but never refers to any resurrection sighting information in "Mark".

As we see here:

Against Celsus
Regarding Origen’s references to Gospel resurrection sightings for each Gospel:

1) "John". Origen refers to and quotes extensively from, using it as an unnamed base, to be supplemented by the other Gospels.

2) "Matthew". Explicitly names twice. Quotes unique material.

3) "Luke". Explicitly names twice. Quotes unique material.

4) "Mark". Never names or presents unique material. Additionally, Origen tells a story of Jesus’ followers figuratively defeating serpents and poison but does not tie it to “Mark” or the LE.

Origen/Clement lack the quality here of directness but make up for it with the quality of the scope of their testimony.

Eusebius/Jerome

Regarding External evidence the third star witness against LE after "Matthew"/"Luke" and Origen/Clement is Eusebius/Jerome who are aware of the LE but do not think it original:

TextExcavation - The endings of the gospel of Mark - Eusebius

Quote:

The solution of this might be twofold. For the one who sets aside the passage itself, the pericope that says this, might say that it is not extant in all the copies of the gospel according to Mark. The accurate ones of the copies, at least, circumscribe the end of the history according to Mark in the words of the young man seen by the women, who said to them: Do not fear. You seek Jesus the Nazarene, and those that follow, to which it further says: And having heard they fled, and said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.

For in this [manner] the ending of the gospel according to Mark is circumscribed almost in all the copies. The things that seldom follow, which are extant in some but not in all, may be superfluous, and especially if indeed it holds a contradiction to the testimony of the rest of the evangelists. These things therefore someone might say in avoiding and in all ways doing away with a superfluous question.

Eusebius is clear that the evidence is for AE:

1) Manuscript quality favors AE.

2) Manuscript quantity favors AE.

Jerome later echoes Eusebius. The potential criterion weakness here for Origen/Clement/Eusebius/Jerome is confirmation - width. Ben Smith astutely points out that there is a geographical schism as to LE. Early on West supports and East does not. It's commonly thought that "Mark" was written in Rome (West). Origen/Eusebius/Jerome are on top of each other at Caesarea and Clement is in relatively close Alexandria, all East Coast. The question is how broad was the Manuscript evidence that Eusebius had? Did it extend beyond the East and if so, how much? We have reasons to think that Eusebius was not limited to Eastern manuscripts:

1) There is no general evidence that Eusebius intentionally limited himself to Eastern manuscripts.

2) Eusebius was an internationally recognized manuscript expert.

3) Eusebius was in close contact with Constantine during his Rome years.

4) Origen presumably accumulated many texts at Caesarea and was the first great textual critic of the Church specializing in the Jewish Bible and creating the Hexapla. He must have had many manuscripts available for this task (but probably not a whole lot from the West).

5) Pamphilus of Caesarea was explicitly a collector of manuscripts.

6) Eusebius of Caesarea inherits the above and like Origen, is the leading textual critic of his day.

7) Eusebius is hand picked by Constantine to interact with all Bishops due to the Arian controversy. This controversy revolves around what Manuscripts say and don't say. Presumably than, Eusebius needs to be familiar with all textual traditions.

8) Constantine, originally from the West, commissions Eusebius to produce 50 authoritative Bibles. Presumably Eusebius was recognized as an international textual expert by the highest level of authority. Note that Eusebius has a Scriptorium so he has not just been collecting manuscripts but producing them as well.

9) Jerome later inherits the Library at Caesarea.

10) Cumulatively Origen/Eusebius/Jerome are the three outstanding scholars and textual critics of the early Church. Their technical prominence is further evidence that they were likely familiar with manuscripts from the West as well as the East.

The star witness for External Patristic support for LE is Irenaeus/Tatian due to their quality of age. Irenaeus is dated as follows:

Quote:

3709 Epiphanius, in his De Mensuris, gives an account of these two men. The former published his version of the Old Testament in the year 181. The latter put forth his translation half a century earlier, about 129 a.d. This reference to the version of Theodotion furnishes a note of date as to the time when Irenæus published his work: it must have been subsequently to a.d. 181.

Irenaeus' witness:

Against Heresies 3.10.5

Quote:

Also, towards the conclusion of his Gospel, Mark says: “So then, after the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God;”

Verses:

Mark 16:9

Quote:

Mark 16:19 So then the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken unto them, was received up into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of God.

The question here is not simply what exactly Irenaeus' source was but the broader question of what exactly Irenaeus' evidence was. We have the following reasons to think that Irenaeus simply preferred the LE over the AE and that his selection was conclusion driven and not evidence driven:

1) Irenaeus in general is conclusion driven rather than evidence driven. He is simply an advocate for what he considers orthodox and does not grant any supporting evidence to other conclusions.

The friendly Christian commentator has this to say about Irenaeus:

Quote:

2702 Luke xiv. 27. It will be observed that the quotations of Scripture made by Irenæus often vary somewhat from the received text. This may be due to various reasons—his quoting from memory; his giving the texts in the form in which they were quoted by the heretics; or, as Harvey conjectures, from his having been more familiar with a Syriac version of the New Testament than with the Greek original.

2) Relative to other Fathers he often gives quotes/references found nowhere in extant Greek text.

3) Relative to other Fathers his scholarship is poor.

4) His quotes tend to agree with Codex Bezae

Codex Bezae has the most unique material of any early manuscript and is considered somewhat unreliable compared to other early manuscripts. Note especially that it has the Pericope de adultera and no indication that it is doubtful. Its type is Western which fits Irenaeus and its later known provenance is Lyons (yes "Lyons") which fits even better. So it would seem that its ancestor may have been what Irenaeus used.

Note especially that Codex Bezae has the Western order of "Matthew", "John", "Luke" and "Mark". Irenaeus is the first known champion of the four-fold tradition. Having "Mark" at the end would give added incentive to have a resurrection sighting for the final Gospel as opposed to no resurrection sighting. Also, Irenaeus tells us that the specific issue of his time with "Mark" was Separationism. The LE contradicts the Separationists by showing the same Jesus Christ before and after the resurrection.

Thus Irenaeus is evidence for second century LE but not strong evidence for its originality.

Tatian uses almost all of the LE in his Diatessaron so he adds late second century scope to Irenaeus’ testimony. We don’t know that much about Tatian (we know that Irenaeus discredited him) compared to Origen/Eusebius/Jerome so he may have simply chosen the LE for the same reason that Irenaeus may have chosen it, he preferred it, as opposed to based on the evidence. Subsequent Patristics for the LE likewise may have simply preferred the LE rather than selected it based on evidence as there is no known Patristic support for LE based on analysis of the issue until Victor.

JoeWallack · 07-12-2009, 09:35 AM

JW:
Now to analyze the data for External Patristic evidence by criteria. Again, the Patristic sources:

Against LE:

“Matthew”, “Luke”, “John”, Clement, Origen, Eusebius, Jerome, Hesychius, Severus

For LE:

Irenaeus, Tatian, Tertullian, Porphyry (referred to), Epiphanius, Aphraates, Gospel of Nicodemus, Constitutions of the Holy Apostles, Ambrose, Nestorius, Cyril, Gregory, Chrysostom, Augustine, Victor

Criteria ranked in order of weight:

1 - Credibility of source. Greater = more weight. Potentially the most important criterion and one that authority largely ignores.

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

High advantage = 3

Medium advantage = 2

Low advantage = 1

Here the 3 outstanding scholars and textual critics of the early Church, Origen, Eusebius and Jerome, all witness against LE. Clearly a 3 against LE.

2- Common sense. Potentially one of the most important criteria if there is a common sense issue. Here there is. Was it more likely that LE would be added or deleted.

What would a Patristic prefer if there was evidence for both? Clearly the LE. Therefore, another 3 here against LE.

3 - Applicability (general vs. specific). General = more weight. Does the source refer to the issue or just a reference to a text? One of the most important criteria due to its comprehensive and direct nature. Generally under-estimated by authority.

Again, no contest. Origen, Eusebius, Jerome, Hesychius, and Severus all identify the issue and are against. Victor is the only for who identifies the issue. Another 3 against.

4 – Age. Older = more weight. The most commonly identified criterion and an important one. As we will see later though, it will have limited value by itself in this discussion.

The oldest Patristic data is "Matthew"/"Luke" which is against. Irenaeus/Tatian, late 2nd century, is the oldest evidence for. What the difference is depends on where you date "Matthew"/"Luke". I date maybe 50 years earlier so I give against a rating here of 2.

5 - Confirmation – width. Wider = more weight. The context is geographical. Confirmation is an important quality as it helps reduce sampling bias.

Big edge to for as against is concentrated around Ceasarea. 3 to for.

6 - Confirmation – quantity. Larger = more weight.

Advantage to for as it has about twice as many early supporters. 2 to for.

7 - Direction (of change). Away from = more weight. What is the direction of change over time for the category.

Big advantage to against as there is a definite movement from against to for. 3 to against.

8 – Variation. Lesser = more weight. What is the quantity of variation in the category?

Small edge to against as the Patristic is unanimous that without any resurrection sighting the ending is always 16:8. With a resurrection sighting it is usually LE but not always. 1 to against.

9 - 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.

10 – Consistency. Greater = more weight. Does the evidence for the category coordinate with the evidence for other categories?

Will have to save for later.

11 – Directness. Direct = more weight. Reduces opportunity for bias.

Against has clarity of often being described with the specific words that end 16:8. For requires more exlanation. 3 against.

12 – Simplicity. Simpler = more weight. Reduces opportunity for bias.[/INDENT]
Patristics witness a specific word ending for against. For has variation and usually referred to in part and not in total. 3 against.

Summary of Patristic evidence in order of weight:

1 - Credibility of source. Against = 3

2- Common sense. Against = 3

3 - Applicability. Against = 3

4 – Age. Against = 2

5 - Confirmation – width. For = 3

6 - Confirmation – quantity. For = 2

7 - Direction (of change). Against = 3

8 – Variation. Against = 1

9 - External force. Against = 3

10 – Directness. Against = 3

11 – Simplicity. Against = 3

Totals:

Against 3 = 7 criteria

Against 2 = 1 criterion

Against 1 = 1 criterion

For 3 = 1 criterion

For 2 = 1 criterion

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

1 - 9 of 11 criteria favoring Against.

2 - 7 of these 9 criteria being 3

3 - The top 4 criteria all being Against with the top 3 being 3s.

Joseph

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

JoeWallack · 07-13-2009, 07:47 AM

JW:
Analysis of External Categories

Second, the Manuscript. The data against LE is:

Sinaiticus (One of two oldest)

Vaticanus (One of two oldest)

Sinaitic Syriac

Most of one hundred Armenian

Two oldest Georgian

Sahidic

L Ψ 099 0112

Several Bohairic

Some Ethiopic

Bobbiensis

It(a)

Codex Washingtonianus

The first star witness against LE is

Codex Sinaiticus:

Quote:

Codex Sinaiticus (Shelfmarks and references: London, Brit. Libr., Additional 43725; Gregory-Aland nº א [Aleph] or 01, [Soden δ 2]) is one of the most important hand-written ancient copies of the Greek Bible.[1] It was written in the 4th century in uncial letters. It came to the attention of scholars in the 19th century at the Greek Monastery of Mount Sinai, with further material discovered in the 20th century. Most of it is today in the British Library.[2] Originally, it contained the whole of both Testaments. The Greek Old Testament (or Septuagint) survived almost complete, along with a complete New Testament, plus the Epistle of Barnabas, and portions of The Shepherd of Hermas.[2]

JW:
Codex Sinaiticus has the following weighty attributes:

1) Age

It is one of the two oldest extant Manuscripts, c. 342.

2) Connection to older textual evidence

It generally agrees to extant 2nd century papyri.

It generally agrees to Papyrus 75 which is early 3rd century.

It generally agrees to Early Patristic support (Clement, Origen).

The text-type is Alexandrian which authority claims goes back to the 2nd
century.

3) It has more difficult readings compared to other early Manuscripts

4) It has avoided some External force by being discovered 19th century.

5) It has significant Editing from the early centuries with the original still
detectable

6) It generally agrees with Vaticanus, the other earliest manuscript, against other early manuscripts.

7) Some editing is to the Byzantine text type indicating the Alexandrian text
type was earlier.

8) Authority generally considers Sinaiticus was of the best witnesses for the original.

Joseph

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

JoeWallack · 07-14-2009, 07:27 AM

JW:
Analysis of External Categories

The second star witness against LE after

Codex Sinaiticus is

Codex Vaticanus:

Quote:

The Codex Vaticanus, (The Vatican, Bibl. Vat., Vat. gr. 1209; no. B or 03 Gregory-Aland, δ 1 von Soden), is one of the oldest and most valuable extant manuscripts of the Greek Bible. The codex is named for its place of housing in the Vatican Library.[1] It is written in Greek, on 759 vellum leaves, with uncial letters, dated to the 4th century.[2] It is one of the best manuscripts of the Bible in Greek. Codex Sinaiticus is its only competitor. Until the discovery by Tischendorf of the Codex Sinaiticus, it was without a rival in the world.

JW:
Codex Vaticanus has the following weighty attributes:

1) Age

It is one of the two oldest extant Manuscripts, c. 325.

2) Connection to older textual evidence

It generally agrees to extant 2nd century papyri.

It generally agrees to Papyrus 75 which is early 3rd century.

It generally agrees to Early Patristic support (Clement, Origen).

The text-type is Alexandrian which authority claims goes back to the 2nd
century.

3) It has more difficult readings compared to other early Manuscripts

4) It has avoided some External force by being somewhat ignored until relatively modern times.

5) It has significant Editing from the early centuries with the original still
detectable

6) It generally agrees with Sinaiticus, the other earliest manuscript, against other early manuscripts.

7) Some editing is to the Byzantine text type indicating the Alexandrian text type was earlier.

8) Authority generally considers Vaticanus one of the best witnesses for the original.

In connection with Codex Sinaiticus there is some independence as the two show numerous differences which make it likely that they had different exemplars.

Joseph

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

07-11-2009, 07:31 AM	#96
JoeWallack Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Nazareth Posts: 2,357	Joseph Wallack Opening Position – Mark 16:9-20 Not Original - Part 1 of 2 Opening Position – Mark 16:9-20 Not Original - Part 1 of 2 Outline of Methodology An outline of my methodology is as follows: 1. Identification of Categories I will first identify the categories of evidence to use in order to create a position on the originality of Mark 16:9-20 (LE) and the sources used to identify the categories. 2. Identification of Criteria Next I will identify the criteria to use in order to analyze the data for categories. Existing efforts are informal and incomplete so I will spend some words justifying criteria. 3. Identification of Data for Categories Next I will identify the data applicable to categories and the sources used to identify the data. 4. Analysis of External Categories Next I will analyze the data for External categories and summarize the evidence by category. 5. Analysis of Internal Categories Next I will analyze the data for Internal categories and summarize the evidence by category. 6. Comparison and summary of Categories evidence Next I will weigh specific categories against each other as to evidential value and determine a cumulative weight for External and Internal evidence for and against the LE 7. Conclusion Finally, I will conclude as to whether LE is original to “Mark” and relative difference in the weight of the for/against conclusions for originality. 1. Identification of Categories My sources for identification of categories are: 1) Bruce Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament 2) Perspectives On The Ending Of Mark 3) Myself Due to word limitation for this post I will only address External Categories in what follows here. External 1 – Patristic. Manuscript is normally the first category of External evidence. I list Patristic first because, for reasons I will give in Section 6, I think it is the category with the most weight here. 2 – Manuscript. It is arguable whether this is the next most important category but I list it next due to word limitations. 3 – Scribal. Scribal is normally considered a part of the Manuscript category. I present it separately because as will be seen in Section 6, it emphasizes different criteria than manuscripts and may actually be a more important category. 4 – Authority. The importance of authority as a category depends on the degree of specialized science involved in the subject. Since the science here is dominated by language special technical skills are not required and the evidence is subjective compared to hard sciences. I’ll explain in Section 6 why I give this category the least weight. 2. Identification of Criteria Ranked in order of weight: 1 - Credibility of source. Greater = more weight. Potentially the most important criterion and one that authority largely ignores. 2- Common sense. Potentially one of the most important criteria if there is a common sense issue. Here there is. Was it more likely that LE would be added or deleted. 3 - Applicability (general vs. specific). General = more weight. Does the source refer to the issue or just a reference to a text? One of the most important criteria due to its comprehensive and direct nature. Generally under-estimated by authority. 4 – Age. Older = more weight. The most commonly identified criterion and an important one. As we will see later though, it will have limited value by itself in this discussion. 5 - Confirmation – width. Wider = more weight. The context is geographical. Confirmation is an important quality as it helps reduce sampling bias. 6 - Confirmation – quantity. Larger = more weight. 7 - Direction (of change). Away from = more weight. What is the direction of change over time for the category. 8 – Variation. Lesser = more weight. What is the quantity of variation in the category? 9 - External force. Lesser = more weight. What external force, if any, is affecting the category. 10 – Consistency. Greater = more weight. Does the evidence for the category coordinate with the evidence for other categories? 11 – Directness. Direct = more weight. Reduces opportunity for bias. 12 – Simplicity. Simpler = more weight. Reduces opportunity for bias. 3. Identification of Data for Categories - External My sources here are the same as for Identification of Categories. Patristic Against LE: “Matthew”, “Luke”, “John”, Clement, Origen, Eusebius, Jerome, Hesychius, Severus For LE: Irenaeus, Tatian, Tertullian, Porphyry (referred to), Epiphanius, Aphraates, Gospel of Nicodemus, Constitutions of the Holy Apostles, Ambrose, Nestorius, Cyril, Gregory, Chrysostom, Augustine, Victor Manuscript Against LE: Sinaiticus (Oldest) Vaticanus (Second oldest) Sinaitic Syriac Most of one hundred Armenian Two oldest Georgian Sahidic L Ψ 099 0112 Several Bohairic Some Ethiopic Bobbiensis It(a) Codex Washingtonianus For LE: A C D K W X Δ Θ Π Ψ 099 0112 f 13 28 33 al Scribal Against LE: Notes that older Greek lacked it Codes for spurious addition Harelean Syriac margin Authority Against LE: Broad consensus

07-12-2009, 09:35 AM	#98
JoeWallack Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Nazareth Posts: 2,357	JW: Now to analyze the data for External Patristic evidence by criteria. Again, the Patristic sources: Against LE: “Matthew”, “Luke”, “John”, Clement, Origen, Eusebius, Jerome, Hesychius, Severus For LE: Irenaeus, Tatian, Tertullian, Porphyry (referred to), Epiphanius, Aphraates, Gospel of Nicodemus, Constitutions of the Holy Apostles, Ambrose, Nestorius, Cyril, Gregory, Chrysostom, Augustine, Victor Criteria ranked in order of weight: 1 - Credibility of source. Greater = more weight. Potentially the most important criterion and one that authority largely ignores. For purposes of comparing evidence for and against LE the weighting will be as follows: High advantage = 3 Medium advantage = 2 Low advantage = 1 Here the 3 outstanding scholars and textual critics of the early Church, Origen, Eusebius and Jerome, all witness against LE. Clearly a 3 against LE. 2- Common sense. Potentially one of the most important criteria if there is a common sense issue. Here there is. Was it more likely that LE would be added or deleted. What would a Patristic prefer if there was evidence for both? Clearly the LE. Therefore, another 3 here against LE. 3 - Applicability (general vs. specific). General = more weight. Does the source refer to the issue or just a reference to a text? One of the most important criteria due to its comprehensive and direct nature. Generally under-estimated by authority. Again, no contest. Origen, Eusebius, Jerome, Hesychius, and Severus all identify the issue and are against. Victor is the only for who identifies the issue. Another 3 against. 4 – Age. Older = more weight. The most commonly identified criterion and an important one. As we will see later though, it will have limited value by itself in this discussion. The oldest Patristic data is "Matthew"/"Luke" which is against. Irenaeus/Tatian, late 2nd century, is the oldest evidence for. What the difference is depends on where you date "Matthew"/"Luke". I date maybe 50 years earlier so I give against a rating here of 2. 5 - Confirmation – width. Wider = more weight. The context is geographical. Confirmation is an important quality as it helps reduce sampling bias. Big edge to for as against is concentrated around Ceasarea. 3 to for. 6 - Confirmation – quantity. Larger = more weight. Advantage to for as it has about twice as many early supporters. 2 to for. 7 - Direction (of change). Away from = more weight. What is the direction of change over time for the category. Big advantage to against as there is a definite movement from against to for. 3 to against. 8 – Variation. Lesser = more weight. What is the quantity of variation in the category? Small edge to against as the Patristic is unanimous that without any resurrection sighting the ending is always 16:8. With a resurrection sighting it is usually LE but not always. 1 to against. 9 - 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. 10 – Consistency. Greater = more weight. Does the evidence for the category coordinate with the evidence for other categories? Will have to save for later. 11 – Directness. Direct = more weight. Reduces opportunity for bias. Against has clarity of often being described with the specific words that end 16:8. For requires more exlanation. 3 against. 12 – Simplicity. Simpler = more weight. Reduces opportunity for bias.[/INDENT] Patristics witness a specific word ending for against. For has variation and usually referred to in part and not in total. 3 against. Summary of Patristic evidence in order of weight: 1 - Credibility of source. Against = 3 2- Common sense. Against = 3 3 - Applicability. Against = 3 4 – Age. Against = 2 5 - Confirmation – width. For = 3 6 - Confirmation – quantity. For = 2 7 - Direction (of change). Against = 3 8 – Variation. Against = 1 9 - External force. Against = 3 10 – Directness. Against = 3 11 – Simplicity. Against = 3 Totals: Against 3 = 7 criteria Against 2 = 1 criterion Against 1 = 1 criterion For 3 = 1 criterion For 2 = 1 criterion Conclusion = The Patristic category of evidence is strongly against LE due to: 1 - 9 of 11 criteria favoring Against. 2 - 7 of these 9 criteria being 3 3 - The top 4 criteria all being Against with the top 3 being 3s. Joseph http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.