Freethought & Rationalism Archive

JoeWallack · 11-06-2009, 08:11 AM

JW:
My opponent has this to say about Tatian:

Quote:

And now, Tatian. My opponent concluded (reluctantly) that “the LE is original to the Diatessaron.” His quotations about Ephrem Syrus’ commentary on the Diatessaron come from a book written before the discovery of Chester Beatty Syriac MS 709 (copied c. 500), the chief witness to Ephrem’s commentary. That witness is over twice as old as the two abridged Armenian copies of Ephrem’s work (copied in 1195). Ephrem uses Tatian’s blend of Mt. 28:19 and Mark 16:15 in VIII:1 of his commentary. Carmel McCarthy translated the passage into English in 1993 as part of the book Saint Ephrem’s Commentary on Tatian’s Diatessaron: “After they had crucified him, he commanded his disciples, ‘Go out into the whole world and proclaim my Gospel to the whole of creation, and baptize all the Gentiles.’”

My opponent raised the question, “What was Tatian’s source for the LE?” He proposed that Tatian took the LE from “an unusual variation” of the Gospel of Mark. The evidence compels a different conclusion: Tatian’s main source for the distinctly Synoptic material (including Mk. 16:9-20) in the Diatessaron was the Synoptic-Harmony that his teacher Justin used.

JW:
I was already accepting Tatian as witness to LE. The quote above "Go out into the whole world and proclaim my Gospel to the whole of creation, and baptize all the Gentiles" has good parallels to the LE if the only sources are the Canonical Gospels.

Regarding Tatian having a source of Justin's supposed synoptic harmony, I've already indicated that that is unlikely. Justin had non-Synoptic sources and there is no direct evidence that he used a harmony. Tatian is the one that became infamous for using a harmony and as Tatian is later and only appears to use the Canoical Gospels as a source, it is much more likely that he created a harmony after four Gospels were identified as authoritative than it is that Justin created or even used a harmony before what exactly was considered authoritative was even identified.

A harmonization like the Diatesseron may also help explain how "Mark" ends up with an LE that clearly does not fit from an Internal standpoint. The LE fits in the Diatesseron because it has been harmonized. As the orthodox come to favor the LE, the external pressure forces the LE onto the end of "Mark", but the source is a harmonization, which when removed in total and directly added to just one Gospel, "Mark", no longer fits.

Joseph

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

JoeWallack · 11-07-2009, 07:16 AM

JW:
My opponent has this to say about Irenaeus:

Quote:

Now we come to Irenaeus. My opponent, recognizing the strength of Irenaeus’ testimony, attempted to belittle Irenaeus’ scholarship. I already pointed out that Irenaeus exhibited some text-critical skill when sorting out a textual variant in Rev. 13:18.

JW:
An excellent opportunity to evaluate Irenaeus' of Lyons (yes, "Lyons") scholarship:

Against Heresies Book V Chapter XXX

Quote:

2. And there is therefore in this beast, when he comes, a recapitulation made of all sorts of iniquity and of every deceit, in order that all apostate power, flowing into and being shut up in him, may be sent into the furnace of fire. Fittingly, therefore, shall his name possess the number six hundred and sixty-six, since he sums up in his own person all the commixture of wickedness which took place previous to the deluge, due to the apostasy of the angels. For Noah was six hundred years old when the deluge came upon the earth, sweeping away the rebellious world, for the sake of that most infamous generation which lived in the times of Noah. And [Antichrist] also sums up every error of devised idols since the flood, together with the slaying of the prophets and the cutting off of the just. For that image which was set up by Nebuchadnezzar had indeed a height of sixty cubits, while the breadth was six cubits; on account of which Ananias, Azarias, and Misaël, when they did not worship it, were cast into a furnace of fire, pointing out prophetically, by what happened to them, the wrath against the righteous which shall arise towards the [time of the] end. For that image, taken as a whole, was a prefiguring of this man’s coming, decreeing that he should undoubtedly himself alone be worshipped by all men. Thus, then, the six hundred years of Noah, in whose time the deluge occurred because of the apostasy, and the number of the cubits of the image for which these just men were sent into the fiery furnace, do indicate the number of the name of that man in whom is concentrated the whole apostasy of six thousand years, and unrighteousness, and wickedness, and false prophecy, and deception; for which things’ sake a cataclysm of fire shall also come [upon the earth].

JW:
The issue Irenaeus is dealing with is whether Revelation 13:18 has "666" or "616" for "the name of the beast". Irenaeus argues for "666" and gives his first argument, presumably what he considers his best one, as a proof-text. This is consistent with Irenaeus' scholarship in general. The best evidence for him is proof-texting. Here his "evidence" is:

1) Noah was 600 during the flood.

2) Nebuchadnezzar set up an image with a height of sixty cubits.

3) Nebuchadnezzar set up an image with a width of sixty cubits.

The result per Irenaeus is that the anti-Christ must have a number of 666.

Irenaeus' second argument is:

Quote:

1. Such, then, being the state of the case, and this number being found in all the most approved and ancient copies [of the Apocalypse],

JW:
Note Irenaeus' confirmation that the first argument, the proof-text, is the most important one ("Such, then, being the state of the case") with the implication that subsequent arguments support it.

Irenaeus' does display awareness of textual criticism here which does support his credibility.

Irenaeus' third argument is:

Quote:

and those men who saw John face to face bearing their testimony [to it];

JW:
Ouch! That's gotta hurt (Irenaeus' credibility). Irenaeus claims witnesses to the author of Revelation confirm "666". Problem is the consensus of modern Bible scholarship is that "John" was not the author of Revelation.

Okay, two strikes against Irenaeus.

Irenaeus' fourth argument is:

Quote:

while reason also leads us to conclude that the number of the name of the beast, [if reckoned] according to the Greek mode of calculation by the [value of] the letters contained in it, will amount to six hundred and sixty and six; that is, the number of tens shall be equal to that of the hundreds, and the number of hundreds equal to that of the units (for that number which [expresses] the digit six being adhered to throughout, indicates the recapitulations of that apostasy, taken in its full extent, which occurred at the beginning, during the intermediate periods, and which shall take place at the end)

JW:
Strike 3! you're out.

The practical question here is where does Irenaeus stand as to his assertion of "666". The evidence is mixed as to which is likely original, "666" or "616".

My opponent continues:

Quote:

And even if we were to suppose that Irenaeus was as sharp as wet flour, the testimony of Irenaeus’ copies of Mark would not be impugned. The claims about Irenaeus’ scholarship are rather tangential.

JW:
I accept that Irenaeus is evidence of the LE in his time. In the category of Patristic evidence we are going to have contradictory testimony. Relative credibility of the Patrician will be one of the most important related criteria.

Quote:

Nevertheless: in my opponent’s list of alleged mistakes in the Armenian text of Irenaeus’ “Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching,” what horrible mistakes has Irenaeus committed? He misquoted Genesis 9:25. He was off by five years when he recollected Abraham’s age in Genesis 12. He resorted to a Hebrew pun to teach the eternity of the Son. (A little knowledge of Hebrew reveals Irenaeus’ poor scholarship??) He assigned a passage from Psalms to Jeremiah. He introduced Numbers 24:17 by the formula, “Moses says,” leaving himself vulnerable to the objection that in this passage in the fourth Book of Moses the actual speaker is Balaam. He attributed Zechariah 9:9 to Isaiah. He misquoted Psalm 68:17 as if it said “Sion” instead of “Sinai.”

Other items in my opponent’s mistakes-list are the Armenian translator’s mistakes. A few others appear to be mistakes that were made by the copyist of the Greek text used by the Armenian translator. And some items are not mistakes! The mistakes clearly attributable to Irenaeus are mild and minor. Some display over-cleverness, and some are symptoms of speediness, not of stupidity. The thing to see is that none of them lowers the weight of Irenaeus’ quotation of Mark 16:19 in Against Heresies III.

JW:
The key is the relative credibility of the Patristic witness. How does Irenaeus' scholarship compare to Patricians in general and specifically to Patricians on the other side of the issue (Origen, Eusebius and Jerome). I have demonstrated the low level of Irenaeus' scholarship in Against Heresies and The Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching. I challenge my opponent to find any other Patrician with as many errors/problems/difficulties per word in their writings compared to Irenaeus. Good luck Jim http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JtyByefOvgQ

Joseph

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

JoeWallack · 11-08-2009, 12:39 PM

JW:
My opponent writes regarding Clement:

Quote:

Finally, as promised: Clement of Alexandria. Until now I have aspired only to show that Clement’s non-use of Mark 16:9-20 cannot validly be used as evidence of the contents of his text of Mark, in light of his non-use of Mark chapters 1-9, 11, and 12. Now, however, I challenge the certitude of Metzger’s often-repeated claim that Clement shows no knowledge of the existence of Mark 16:9-20. Let’s examine Clement’s comment on Jude verse 24 in Adumbrationes, preserved in Latin by Cassiodorus:

“Now, in the Gospel according to Mark, the Lord being interrogated by the chief of the priests if he was the Christ, the Son of the blessed God, answering, said, “I am; and ye shall see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of power.” But “powers” mean the holy angels. Further, when he says “at the right hand of God,” he means the self-same [beings], by reason of the equality and likeness of the angelic and holy powers, which are called by the name of God. He says, therefore, that he sits at the right hand; that is, that he rests in pre-eminent honour.”

In this attempt by Clement to show that God’s heavenly glory consists of the presence of angels, when Clement says, “Further, when he says, ‘at the right hand of God,’” (Proinde enim *** dicit ‘a dextris dei’) who is the “he”? If we say “Jesus,” then we have to deduce that Clement imagined that Jesus used the phrase “at the right hand of God,” even though Jesus never does so. That seems unlikely. But if we say “Mark,” then obviously Clement is citing Mark 16:19.

This reference has gone unnoticed, because an editor of this text in the 1800’s thought that Clement was alluding to Luke 22:69. But the Latin text in Luke 22:69 is “a dextris virtutis Dei,” not “a dextris Dei.” Furthermore, Clement’s next paragraph begins by consulting the other Gospels, which suggests that Clement was consulting Mark up to this point. All things considered, this looks more like a quotation of Mark 16:19 than it looks like anything else.

JW:
Criteria! A one, and a two. You knows whats to do. For questionable Patristic witness to the LE:

Assuming the above quote is accurate, here is the drill:

Step 1 = The absolute test. Is there a minimum amount of parallels to support for LE?:

1. Similarity in language.

[Clement]

Quote:

Further, when he says “at the right hand of God,” he means the self-same [beings], by reason of the equality and likeness of the angelic and holy powers, which are called by the name of God. He says, therefore, that he sits at the right hand;

Verses:

[LE]

Quote:

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.

JW:
The phrase "sat down at the right hand of God" is a good match if you combine Clement's two related comments which I think is proper to do.

The 3 sub-categories:

1 - Unusual. Are the words unique or common?

The words can not be a unique match because of the different languages (Clement is Latin here). All of the words are common words.

2 - Popular. Are the words likely to be used by the author in general due to popularity?

Yes, as this phrase would be implied by every Gospel as well as supposed Christian history.

3 - Complete phrase. is the usage a complete phrase from the original or a partial?

Close to a complete phrase but not quite. The tense is different (sits/sat).

Rating:

Unusual = Low

Popular = Low

Complete phrase = Medium

2. Attribution

Not explicit but there is an implication of "Mark".

3. Scope

6 words out of 12 verses.

4. Similarity in context

The meaning of Clement is that the offending verse was said by Jesus but per the LE it is not. Also, the first reference by Clement is to the trial while the second, if it refers to LE, is to the ascension. Here we see the likely source for Clement where both contexts are the same:

http://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Luke_22

Quote:

Luke 22:69 But from henceforth shall the Son of man be seated at the right hand of the power of God.

Luke 22:70 And they all said, Art thou then the Son of God? And he said unto them, Ye say that I am.

Note that in "Luke" the context is the same and explains why Clement writes what he does. For the same Gospel scene "Mark" has Jesus say he will come in the sky sitting with power, implying that he is coming with the angels. "Luke" explicitly adds "power of God". Clement than is trying to harmonize by saying "angels" and "power of God" are synonymous.

I have faith that Clement refers to "Luke" far more than "Mark" and when a quote is not referenced it is much more likely from "Luke" than "Mark".

5. Consistency

This is the only evidence proffered for the LE here and my opponent otherwise confesses a conspiracy theory of Alexandria against the LE.

The criteria ratings:

1. Similarity in language. = Low

2. Attribution = Medium

3. Scope. = Low

4. Similarity in context. = Low

5. Consistency. Coordination with other evidence. = Low

Conclusion = Clement is probably not a witness for LE.

Step 2 = The relative test. Is there a minimum amount of parallels to other resurrection sighting and a minimum population of author writings to expect a reference to the LE which gives a witness against LE?:

Per e-Catena

"Luke" = 24.31 & 41.

"John" = 20.19, 29, 21.4.

No reference to "Matthew" or "Mark" here.

Relative parallels to resurrection sightings = Medium

What is the size of Clement's writings? Large. That there is no clear reference to the LE is noteworthy.

Potential population for parallels to the LE = High

Conclusion = Clement is witness against LE.

Joseph

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

JoeWallack · 11-18-2009, 05:41 AM

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

Quote:

Early Patristic Evidence – Part Nine

I have shown that Justin, Tatian, the Epistula Apostolorum, and Irenaeus support of Mark 16:9-20, and that the often-claimed non-use of Mark 16:9-20 by Clement and Origen is weightless, and that Clement’s comment on Jude verse 24 in Adumbrationes might include a citation of Mark 16:19. My opponent accepts Tatian (172) and Irenaeus (c. 184) as witnesses to Mark 16:9-20. He has scraped the bottom of the barrel searching for objections against the other evidence.

Our readers might wonder why we have spent so much time reviewing the patristic evidence. Patristic evidence is relevant as long as it reflects the contents of a copy of a text. The less clearly a patristic witness echoes a copy of the text, the less the witness weighs. Let’s test the relevance of the counter-evidence that my opponent has submitted.

Under the name of “Matthew” and “Luke,” he offered Streeter’s Four-Document Hypothesis and its family of sub-theories – and he said that I need to demonstrate why I don’t accept that cobweb. That’s what I did in my earlier remarks about the Synoptic Problem! Matthew and Luke are only valid witnesses to Mark’s text to the extent that they echo a copy of Mark. But their agreements and their differences are explained if Matthew possessed Proto-Mark and the Gospel of Mark, and Luke possessed only Proto-Mark. The same scenario accounts for their endings: Matthew follows Proto-Mark’s ending; Luke prefers to keep the narrative camera on Jerusalem.

But whether one accepts the Proto-Mark Theory or not, it is easy to expose the Flaw in my opponent’s attempt to use Matthew and Luke as witnesses to Mark’s text: if we possessed only Matthew and Luke, and asked someone to reconstruct their shared source-material, the result would contain much material that is not in Mark, while omitting much material that is in Mark. The flawed and extremely unreliable assumption that we can reconstruct a text of Mark by studying Matthew and Luke is the foundation of my opponent’s use of Matthew and Luke as witnesses. Remove that assumption, and you remove his entire case involving Matthew and Luke.

My opponent was amazed that it is not clear to Dr. Ehrman that the author of Gospel of Peter had access to the canonical Gospels. Amazing or not, some scholars (Ron Cameron, J. Crossan, et al) have proposed that the author of Gospel of Peter relied on non-canonical sources. As for me, as I said before, it looks like the author was acquainted with all four Gospels. That is not the same as having ready access to the four Gospels. Consulting one’s memory of a book is not the same as consulting a book. The author of Gospel of Peter apparently relied upon his memory of the four Gospels, rather than the four Gospels themselves. That is why the author pictured Joseph of Arimathea asking for Jesus’ body before the crucifixion, instead of after the crucifixion as in Mark 15:42ff. That is why the author pictures Jesus being made to sit upon the judgment seat – he misremembered or misinterpreted John 19:13. That is why the author, wanting to represent Jesus’ cry from the cross in Greek, did not provide the interpretation given in Matthew 27:46 and Mark 15:34, but instead he remembered that Jesus’ cry was a quotation from Psalm 22:1 and so he put the words of Psalm 22:1 into Jesus’ mouth. He used, however, the Psalms-translation made by Aquila of Sinope: “My strong one, my strong one,” or, “My strength, my strength.”

My opponent proposed that it would be inconsistent to deny that Gospel of Peter, with so many parallels to material in Mark, is not dependent upon Mark, while affirming Justin Martyr’s dependence upon Mark 16:20. I agree somewhat: a person who claimed, “Obviously, the author of Gospel of Peter never read Mark, and obviously, Justin read Mark 16:20,” would be inconsistent. But I’m not claiming that the author of Gospel of Peter had never read Mark; I believe the parallels show that he had read Mark. I only deduce from his disagreements with Mark that he did not have access to the Gospel of Mark as he wrote.

Some different views about Gospel of Peter are described at the Early Christian Writings website. Here, we don’t need to perfectly resolve all the issues involving the date and sources of Gospel of Peter. Our question is, “What can Gospel of Peter tell us about the ending of Mark?” If it is a first-century text and independent of Mark, then it says nothing about Mark’s ending. If it is a second-century text that is dependent upon the author’s recollection of all four canonical Gospels, then it might tell us something about the contents of all four canonical Gospels.

But what happens when we use Gospel of Peter to reconstruct the endings of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John? Sure, we get a text of Mark that stops in 16:8a. We also get a text of Matthew that stops in 28:8a, a text of Luke that stops at 24:8, and a text of John that doesn’t contain 20:11-31. When Gospel of Peter doesn’t use a portion of a canonical Gospel, such non-use cannot realistically be used as evidence that that portion was absent from the copies recollected by the author of Gospel of Peter. When you realize this, you will realize that Gospel of Peter is not a valid witness against Mark 16:9-20, any more than it is a valid witness against Matthew 28:9-20, Luke 24:9-53, and John 20:11-31.

I will say three more things about Gospel of Peter.

First: my opponent supposes that Gospel of Peter was written after Mark, and before Matthew and Luke. However, as I mentioned earlier, the author recollected Psalm 22:1 as it appears in the translation by Aquila of Sinope, who worked c. 130. (Eusebius mentions Aquila’s translation of Psalm 22:1 in Demonstration of the Gospel 10:8.) Thus Gospel of Peter post-dates Aquila’s work and all four canonical Gospels.

Second: my opponent asked for a demonstration that the author of Gospel of Peter used the Gospel of John as a source. This is a tangent of a tangent. Nevertheless: I am not saying that the author of Gospel of Peter consulted the Gospel of John as he wrote; rather, he recollected it. This cannot be demonstrated by a simple list of parallels, because the same parallels that show that Gospel of Peter is dependent upon the Gospel of John can be used to show that Gospel of Peter and the Gospel of John both depend upon a shared source. But other factors reveal which way things are flowing: its anti-Jewish tinge, its docetism, its downright saintly portrait of Pilate, its promotion of the “harrowing of hell,” its reference to “seven seals” (reminiscent of Revelation 5:1), its narration of Jesus’ resurrection and its depiction of the Roman soldiers as witnesses to it (thus filling a void left by the canonical Gospels) cumulatively point to a date in the 100’s, and the author’s use of Aquila’s version of the Psalms requires a composition-date later than 130.

Third: the author mentioned that the disciples “were weeping and sorrowful.” As my opponent said, “This is parallel evidence for the LE,” specifically, Mark 16:10.

(Continued in Part Ten.)

Yours in Christ,

James Snapp, Jr.

kcdad · 11-18-2009, 06:41 AM

Joe Wallack:

Brilliant! Absolutely brilliant!

Of course , for me, (I don't demand such high levels of certainty) it seems enough to say that Matthew, Luke and John's account are separate stories attached to the end of Mark's Jesus narrative by different regional church offshoots... in the same way the birth accounts in Matt and Luke are separate and distinctly different additions created by their respective authors to bookend the beginning of Mark's Gospel.

Just purely an opinion, but I do think the combination of Thomas, Mark and "local traditions" does explain the majority of differences between Luke and Matthew compared to Mark.

JoeWallack · 11-21-2009, 05:41 PM

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

Quote:

(Continued from the previous post.)

Now let’s consider my opponent’s claim that my hypothesis of a Johannine Ending has no patristic or textual support. Here’s the hypothesis again, summarized: a very early copy of Mark was taken to Ephesus, where John, being informed that Mark’s colleagues had attached 16:9-20, composed a new ending, which was later withdrawn in light of the continued Roman production of copies with 16:9-20. The Johannine Ending was then recast as part of John 21.

Patristic support for this hypothesis is staring right at us: the narrative in Gospel of Peter transitions from Mark 16’s scene with the women at the tomb to the scene in John 21:1. This is exactly the sort of transition that would be made by someone who believed that the apostolic continuation of Mark was embedded in John 21. Other patristic evidence of an interpretation of John 20:31 as the end of the Gospel of John – suggesting a reception of John 21 as something else – is in Tertullian’s Against Praxeas (25:17-18), where Tertullian says that 20:31 is found in John’s account “at its very termination.” Origen, similarly, used the contents of John 21 but states in his Commentary on Matthew (10:27) that the words “Blessed are they that have not seen and yet have believed” are found “at the end of the Gospel of John.” Augustine, after quoting John 20:30-31 in Tractate on John #122, observed, “This paragraph indicates, as it were, the end of the book.” Augustine explained the restart at John 21:1 as a device by which greater prominence was given to the events in chapter 21. But what we are really looking is a verbal seam, revealing how this part of the Gospel of John was assembled.

As for textual support, I grant that we don’t have copies of Mark in which Mark 16:8 is followed by the Johannine Ending. (Similarly we don’t have copies of “Q.”) However, the internal evidence virtually shouts that chapter 21 was attached after John 1-20 had been written by someone who had intended to stop at 20:31. John 21 consists of the Johannine Ending, with explanatory additions: 21:1-13 echoes its first part. 21:14 is an explanatory addition. 21:15-19 echoes its second part. 21:20-22 are from a different source. 21:23 is an explanation of vv. 20-22. And 21:24 and 21:25 are additional notes, placed here after the other parts were attached to John 1-20. The Johannine Ending was not incorporated into the Gospel of John initially because the Johannine Ending was already being used as a sequel to Mark’s narrative. But after John and his Ephesian colleagues realized that copies from Rome would continue to contain Mark 16:9-20, it was not Mark 16:9-20, but the Johannine Ending, which was regarded as extraneous, so, with some readjustment, it was attached instead to the end of the Gospel of John.

The reasonableness and elegance of this analysis is, I believe, self-evident. I wonder how my opponent tries to explain why John 20:31 looks like a book-conclusion, and why the material in John 21 works so well as a sequel to Mark 16:8.

Now let’s briefly consider my opponent’s analysis of Justin’s testimony.

First, he claimed that in Dialogue with Trypho, ch. 51, “the only distinctive prophecy here is eating and drinking with the disciples.” However, in chapters 50-51 of Dialogue with Trypho, Justin lists a long series of events he considered to be prophecy-fulfillments.

Second, he claimed that when Justin, in First Apology 39, says that twelve men went out into the world to teach the word of God, this shows that Justin had not read Mark 16:14, where only eleven apostles are mentioned. However, Matthew 28:16 and Luke 24:33 also mention eleven apostles, and Matthew 28:19 and Luke 24:47-49 depict Jesus commissioning those apostles to spread the good news. My opponent’s line of reasoning requires Justin to be unaware of Mark 16:14, and Mt. 28:16, and Lk. 24:33. The obvious alternative is that Justin was aware that Matthias replaced Judas Iscariot as one of the twelve apostles before they left Jerusalem.

Third, he observed that in Dialogue with Trypho, ch. 56, Justin alluded to Luke 24:36. A completely benign observation.

Fourth, he claimed that when Justin says, “He was to ascend into heaven according to prophecy,” in First Apology ch. 51, Justin’s words parallel Luke 24:51 (anafereto eis ton ouranon) better than Mark 16:19 (anelhmfqh eis ton ouranon). However, Justin’s Greek words, eis ton ouranon emellen anienai, approximate the meaning of both passages. Furthermore, Justin used a form of the “Western” text, and in the “Western” text, Luke 24:51 does not contain the phrase “and was taken up into heaven.”

Fifth, he claimed, “Regardless of whether Justin used a harmony the criteria for and against the LE are the same.” This is not the case; if Justin used a Synoptics-Harmony, then we should compare that to First Apology 45. And William Petersen and Helmut Koester both affirm that Justin used a Synoptics-Harmony. (In 1990 in Ancient Christian Gospels, Petersen stated, “Justin’s APOMNHMONEUMATA was a harmony, and it also excluded John,” and on p. 378, Koester stated that Justin’s materials included “a harmony of the Synoptic Gospels.”) My opponent already affirmed that the parallel between First Apology 45 and Mark 16:20 is “clear and close to matching.” Watch what happens which this parallel is interpreted as what it really is: a parallel between First Apology 45 and a Synoptics-Harmony that combined Mark 16:20 and Luke 24:52-53. Look at a snippet from chapter 55 of the Diatessaron made by Justin’s student Tatian, compared to Justin’s statement:

Tatian: “And they worshipped him, and returned to Jerusalem with great joy; and they were continually in the temple, praising and blessing God. Amen. And they went forth from thence, and preached everywhere, the Lord helping them, and confirming their sayings with the signs which they did.”
Justin: “That which he says, ‘He shall send to Thee the rod of power out of Jerusalem,’ is predictive of the mighty word, which His apostles, going forth from Jerusalem, preached everywhere.”

That's a Remarkably Clear Parallel! The observation that the Greek words for “going forth,” “preached,” and “everywhere” in First Apology 45 are e-x-a-c-t-l-y the same in Mk. 16:20 should sweep away any remaining doubt.

My opponent asked about other uses of Mark 16:9-20 by Justin. In First Apology ch. 51, Justin uses the phrase, “Husterwn de, ek nekrwn anastantos kai ofqentos autois,” that is, “And afterwards, when He had risen from the dead and appeared to them.” “Husterwn de” matches the beginning of Mark 16:14 (“And afterwards”), and “ek nekrwn” matches the reading of Codex Alexandrinus (and other MSS) near the end of 16:14. (Autois is also in 16:14.) The correspondence to Justin’s topic is exact, and the verbal correspondence covers five words.

But even if the match between First Apology 45 and Mk. 16:20 stood alone, that would be sufficient. My opponent claimed that “ecelqontes pantacou ekhrucan” involves “Words with average usage. Not common or distinct.” The individual words “a,” “new,” “nation,” “conceived,” “in,” and “liberty” are common, but together they form a distinctive phrase. We would easily deduce that someone using the phrase “a new nation, conceived in liberty” had derived it from Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address. Similarly, the phrase in question is distinctive. (My opponent provided no other examples of its occurrence.)

Sixth, my opponent claimed that Justin’s non-use of other unique material in Mark 16:9-20 should be considered evidence that he did not use 16:20. That’s like saying that if someone uses the phrase, “a new nation, conceived in liberty,” without using other unique phrases in the Gettysburg Address, we should conclude that he did not use any material from the Gettysburg Address! This fallacy pervades all his superficial arguments involving a criterion of “scope.”

Next, my opponent turned to Epistula Apostolorum, and mentioned that he has written somewhere about Epistula Apostolorum. He provided a link to his writing. If he wants that material to be a part of this discussion, it should be a part of this discussion, not something in a link. Nevertheless I will respond to the questions he raised in his linked-to material, in order to dispatch them expeditiously:

-- Where are the sustained verbal parallels in Greek?
There is no extant Greek text of Epistula Apostolorum.

-- Why doesn’t the author name Mark as his source?
Epistula Apostolorum is presented as if it records a conversation between Jesus and the apostles that took place before Jesus’ ascension. Obviously, the author is not going to present the apostles citing not-yet-written Gospels.

-- Don’t the alleged parallels occur in different contexts?
The phrase “as they mourned and wept” is applied to the women in Epistula Apostolorum, and in Mark 16:10 it is applied to those to whom she first reported, but it’s still there, along with the parallels in the narrative framework, and the other verbal parallels.

-- Doesn’t Luke 24:10-11 parallel Epistula Apostolorum’s statement that the disciples did not believe Mary’s report about her encounter with Jesus?
No; Luke 24:10-11 pertains to the women’s report about angels.

-- Doesn’t Luke 24:25 parallel Epistula Apostolorum’s statement that Jesus rebuked the disciples?
No; in Luke 24:25 Jesus addresses the two travelers, not the assembled disciples.

-- Doesn’t First Thessalonians 4:13-14 parallel the doublet in Epistula Apostolorum about believers’ salvation and unbelievers’ condemnation?
Not even remotely as closely as Mark 16:16 does.

-- Isn’t Epistula Apostolorum’s use of “go and preach” paralleled in the Short Ending, Matthew 28:19, and Lk. 24:47?
No: the Short Ending, Matthew 28:19, and Luke 24:47 do not contain the simple imperative commands to "Go ye" and "preach." They are found in Mark 16:15 and twice in Epistula Apostolorum 30.

My opponent also wrote something about Clement . . . somewhere else. I will conserve words by only noting that nothing he said about Clement erodes anything I’ve said about Clement.

So: my opponent acknowledged Tatian and Irenaeus as witnesses for Mark 16:9-20. His objections to the testimony of Justin and Epistula Apostolorum are perfectly harmless. He has not provided sound reasons to regard Matthew or Luke or Gospel of Peter as texts that clearly echo a copy of Mark that did not contain 16:9-20.

Now we have given the second-century evidence plenty of attention. My opponent could continue to scrape the bottom of the apple-barrel in search of objections, or in search of testimony for his position, and I could continue to point out that he’s got barrel-shavings instead of apples. But we should probably proceed to the fourth-century witnesses, in order to avoid exasperating our readers.

Yours in Christ,

James Snapp, Jr.

JoeWallack · 11-21-2009, 06:05 PM

JW:
Time to summarize the Patristic witness who identify the issue of which ending of “Mark” is likely original. This identification of the issue is the Applicability criterion, which is an important criterion.

Following the leg work of Ben Smith @

http://www.textexcavation.com/marcan....html#eusebius

we have the following related Patristic witness:

1) Eusebius c. 300 –

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 he thinks the AE is original.

2) Jerome c. 400 -

Quote:

Of which question the solution is twofold. For either we do not receive the testimony of Mark, which is extant in rare gospels, almost all of the Greek books not having this chapter at the end, especially since it looks like it narrates things diverse from and contrary to certain evangelists....

Jerome echoes Eusebius that the AE is original.

3) Victor of Antioch c. 450 -

Quote:

But even if the [words]: And having arisen early on the first day of the week he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, as well as the things that are extant in the following in the gospel according to Mark, do not stand alongside most copies, so that certain ones reckon them to be illegitimate, but we, finding them as in most of those from the accurate copies in accordance with the Palestinian gospel of Mark, have placed them together [with the rest of the gospel] as the truth holds.

Victor still confirms that quantity favors AE but has the first known assertion based on textual criticism that the quality favors LE. Note especially that Victor confesses he and others are actively adding the LE to existing manuscripts.

4) Severus of Antioch c. 500 –

Quote:

In the more accurate copies, therefore, the gospel according to Mark has the end until the [statement]: For they were afraid. But in some these things too stand in addition: And having arisen early on the first day of the week he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from whom he had cast out seven demons.

Severus confirms Eusebius/Jerome that quality and quantity favor AE. Note that Severus is in the same location as Victor and that they agree on the more objective quantitative measurement. The disagreement is the more subjective qualitative measurement. Note here that unlike Eusebius/Jerome who have no known contemporary disagree with their assessment, Severus, not long after Victor and in the same city, presumably looking at mostly the same evidence, disagrees with Victor’s qualitative conclusion for LE.

This is the known extent of early Patristic commentary on the issue of the original ending of “Mark”. Every single criteria here favors AE as original so there is no need for weighing.

Of special interest here is the documentation of change from Patristic support of AE to LE:

1) Eusebius, one of the 3 great textual critics of the early Church and the first commentator here, is clear that quantitative and qualitative support AE.

2) Jerome, another one of the 3 great textual critics of the early Church, confirms Eusebius that quantitative and qualitative support AE.

3) Victor, not one of the 3, only disputes the more subjective conclusion of Eusebius/Jerome, quality, and actively converts AE to LE.

4) Whereas Eusebius/Jerome have no contemporary dispute them, Victor has a near contemporary, Severus, dispute his qualitative conclusion.

The change here of support from AE to LE coordinates with the change we see in the broader category of Patristic as a whole, from AE to LE, and will coordinate with the change we see in all categories.

Joseph

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

JoeWallack · 11-22-2009, 05:26 PM

Weighting of Evidence for Patristic Category

Now to weigh the evidence for the category of Patristic by individual criterion and in total. Again, the Patristic sources:

Against LE:

“Matthew”, Gospel of Peter, “Luke”, “John”, The Epistula Apostolorum, Justin,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

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

High advantage = 3

Medium advantage = 2

Low advantage = 1

Criteria ranked in order of relative weight to each other:

Qualitative:

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

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

Origen – compiled the Hexapla. Considered the classic work of Greek Jewish Bible textual criticism by the early Church.

Eusebius – compiled Canons of Scripture. Considered the classic work of Greek Christian Bible textual criticism by the early Church.

Jerome - compiled the Vulgate. Considered the classic work of Latin Bible textual criticism by the early Church.

Compare/contrast to Tatian who appears to have the first clear use of LE in his Diatessaron. The Diatessaron though consists of taking verses from where they belong and putting them where they do not. We also know that Tatian edited what he selected from the Canonical Gospels based on theological considerations. Compare/contrast to Irenaeus who is probably the most famous Patristic to support LE and one of the first. I’ve already indicated how poor his scholarship is in Against Heresies and The Demonstration of the Apostolic Preachingrelative to other Patricians. What are the credentials of Tatian/Irenaeus compared to Origen/Eusebius/Jerome. In this category than it’s not simply that the most credible Fathers are against, it’s that they are against some of the least credible Fathers. A strong 3 against.

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.

My opponent will offer a conspiracy theory for why an Alexandrian scribe(s) preferred the AE. As this theory goes, because an Alexandrian scribe preferred the LE, Alexandrian scribes preferred the LE and therefore Ceasarean scribes prerferred the LE and therefore Western scribes preferred the LE and therefore Latin, Syriac, Coptic and Armenian scribes preferred the LE. The extension of this conspiracy theory I suppose is that subsequent Patricians preferred AE because of all this Manuscript support for it. What category of evidence though supports this conspiracy theory? None. There is no Patristic, Manuscript, Scribal, Authority or Internal evidence for it.

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. Eusebius, Jerome, and Severus all identify the issue and are against. Victor is the only one for who identifies the issue. Note especially that Eusebius is the first to identify the issue and the lone father for here, Victor, is contradicted by near contemporary Severus. Another 3 against.

4 – Age. Older = more weight. The most commonly identified criterion and an important one.

The oldest Patristic evidence is “Matthew”, Gospel of Peter, “Luke”, “John”, The Epistula Apostolorum and Justin which are all 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.

Note the cumulative observation here that relatively older Patristic evidence has less in common with the LE:

“Matthew” = Nothing

“Peter” = Next to nothing

“Luke” = A few parallels

“John” = A few parallels

My opponent, desperate for support for LE, any support, does not even claim Patristic support until The Epistula Apostolorum. Than my opponent’s claims of support gradually strengthen with subsequent Patistics:

The Epistula Apostolorum = Weak

Justin = Mediocre.

Tatian = Good

Irenaeus = Strong.

When we get to the Internal evidence we will see that the LE has the most in common with Acts, which looks to be after Justin and before Tatian (late second century) and coordinates well with the other evidence.

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

Advantage to for as there is a concentration of against in the East., specifically Alexandria and Ceasarea. 2 to for.

6 - Direction (of change). Away from = more weight. What is the direction of change over time for the category. Importance depends on the existence. If it exists it is one of the most important as it helps explain the relationship.

Big advantage to against as there is a definite movement from against to for. We not only have the earliest Patristic evidence against LE but the Patristic evidence for LE gradually becomes stronger. 3 to against.

7 - 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.

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

The evidence here for Patristic clearly points to against LE. This will coordinate well with the Manuscript and Scribal categories which all not only show support against LE but the same development of change in evidence from against LE to for LE. 3 against.

Quantitative:

1 - Confirmation – quantity. Larger = more weight.

Advantage to for as it has a few more supporters. 1 to for.

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

Advantage 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 and there are several alternatives. Variation is a top clue for editing. 2 to against.

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

Against has clarity of often being described with the specific words that end 16:8. For has more uncertainty because a partial/limited referral to has doubt as to the total. 2 against.

Summary of Patristic evidence separated by Qualitative and Quantitative and in order of weight:

Qualitative:

1 - Credibility of source. Against = 3

2- Common sense. Against = 3

3 - Attribution. Against = 3

4 – Age. Against = 2

5 - Confirmation – width. For = 2

6 - Direction (of change). Against = 3

7 - External force. Against = 3

8 – Consistency. Against = 3.

Quantitative:

1 - Confirmation – quantity. For = 1

2 – Variation. Against = 2

3 – Directness. Against = 2

Totals:

Against 3 = 6 criterion

Against 2 = 3 criterion

For 2 = 1 criterion

For 1 = 1 criterion

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

1 - 9 of 11 criteria favoring Against.

2 - 6 of these 9 criteria being 3

3 - The top 3 qualitative criteria all being 3 Against.

And so, in the category my opponent thought (hoped) was his to take, the Patristic, we see that the evidence, when scientifically weighed with criteria, strongly supports against LE. Now on to the Categories I think my opponent will readily confess are worse for his conclusion than the Patristic, namely Manuscript, Scribal and Authority.

Joseph

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

JoeWallack · 12-12-2009, 02:34 PM

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

Quote:

(Once again, remember that you can increase the font-size by pressing "CTRL" and the "+" key at the same time.)

As we conclude the discussion of early patristic evidence, I will examine the evidence from the 300’s and later which my opponent has introduced – specifically, the testimonies of Eusebius of Caesarea, Jerome, Victor of Antioch, and Severus of Antioch. These four testimonies will be the focus of this reply.

Eusebius of Caesarea, writing c. 325, is the only one of the four who actually regarded Mark 16:9-20 as dispensable.

Jerome included Mark 16:9-20 in the Vulgate in 383. And in his composition Against the Pelagians 2:14, Jerome referred his readers to Mark 16:14 in the course of locating the interpolation now called the “Freer Logion,” stating that he had found it in some copies, especially Greek copies. He stated this without any hint that his readers might not find the surrounding text in their copies.

The sole reason why Jerome is ever cited as a witness for the non-inclusion of Mark 16:9-20 is that in his Epistle 120, To Hedibia, he included a large extract from Eusebius’ Ad Marinum, which he translated spontaneously and loosely (and without acknowledgement) from Greek into Latin as he wrote the letter via dictation. My opponent’s statement, “Jerome echoes Eusebius” is quite literally accurate: sustained parallels occur between Jerome’s Latin letter to Hedibia and Eusebius’ Greek letter to Marinus. Jerome even presented three of Marinus’ questions as if Hedibia had asked them! If my opponent’s source had made a less selective presentation of Jerome’s statement about Mark 16:9-20, my opponent would have seen that Jerome proceeded to instruct Hedibia to retain Mark 16:9-20, and to resolve the apparent discrepancy between Mark 16:9 and Matthew 28:1 by punctuating Mark 16:9 with a comma after “And rising.”

Victor of Antioch (or a co-compiler of his commentary), aware of his inability to disprove Eusebius’ claims about the contents of the majority of manuscripts (since Victor was separated from Eusebius by over a century), and also aware of his inability to count all the manuscripts extant in his own era, declined to challenge Eusebius’ claim outright, but appealed to what he regarded as a superior copy. Or to put it another way, Victor valued quality over quantity, and it was his view that most of the accurate copies that he had found contained Mark 16:9-20. Among these copies with Mark 16:9-20 was a particularly cherished Palestinian gospel of Mark. Victor’s description of this copy as a copy of the Gospel of Mark implies that it displayed the text of a lone Gospel: it came from an age when the Gospel of Mark was still freestanding, before it was collected with the other four Gospels. This indicates that it was a survivor of an age greatly predating Victor.

My opponent attempted to enlist Severus of Antioch’s statements in Homily 77 as a witness for the abrupt ending. However, Severus, like Jerome, had read Eusebius’ letter to Marinus. And Severus, like Jerome, repeated Eusebius’ claim about the contents of the “accurate copies,” before proceeding to recommend that Mark 16:9 should be retained, and that it should be punctuated so as to remove the apparent discrepancy with Matthew 28:1. In addition, further along in Homily 77, Severus quoted from Mark 16:19, assigning it explicitly to Mark, thus showing that he regarded the passage as genuine.

So: Eusebius of Caesarea gave Marinus the options of either rejecting Mark 16:9-20, or retaining it and punctuating Mark 16:9 with a comma after the opening phrase. Jerome retained Mark 16:9-20 and expected his readers to do the same. Victor of Antioch also retained Mark 16:9-20, justifying this by appealing to the majority of accurate copies and especially to an authoritative copy of Mark that contained the passage. Severus also retained Mark 16:9-20. So, the question, “What should we do with Mark 16:9-20?” is asked to these witnesses, three of them, though aware of Eusebius’ dissenting view, answer by example: retain Mark 16:9-20 as part of the Gospel of Mark.

My opponent described the testimony of Eusebius, Jerome, Severus, and Victor as “the known extent of early Patristic commentary on the issue of the original ending of “Mark.”” Allow me to put it another way: their testimonies (plus echoes of their statements by a few medieval writers) are the full extent of patristic expression of awareness of copies with the abrupt ending. Many other patristic writers in the 200’s, 300’s, 400’s, and 500’s, routinely used Mark 16:9-20 as Scripture. They did not write about the issue of the original ending of Mark because it never occurred to them that there was any ending other than the end of 16:20. Furthermore, they are independent writers, from a wide range of locations throughout the Roman Empire.

My opponent stated, “Of special interest here is the documentation of change from Patristic support of AE to LE.” That is a complete illusion, because there is no patristic support for the abrupt ending until Eusebius.

Regarding Origen and his Hexapla: I would call this a tangent, but a tangent would at least touch the subject at hand. The fact is that Origen expresses no support for the abrupt ending.

My opponent stated that the Eusebian Canons were considered “the classic work of Greek Christian Bible textual criticism by the early Church.” That is not true. The Eusebian Canons are a cross-reference system for the Gospels, not a text-critical production involving the whole New Testament.

My opponent called Eusebius of Caesarea “one of the three great textual critics of the early Church.” However, Eusebius was not a great textual critic. Eusebius tended to mention textual variants only in order to resolve problematic questions. He was usually content to adopt the readings he found in the copies descended from those that had been used by Origen and Pamphilus, who had preceded him at Caesarea.

My opponent called Jerome’s Vulgate “the classic work of Latin Bible textual criticism by the early Church.” He is partly right: Jerome used some sound text-critical principles when compiling the Vulgate. He valued especially the testimony of old Greek manuscripts, rather than simply favoring the majority. I don’t see how this helps my opponent’s case, though, since the Vulgate includes Mark 16:9-20.

My opponent listed Hesychius in a list of witnesses against Mark 16:9-20. However, Hesychius is not a valid witness. Probably my opponent relied on some source which either isolated a snippet of Hesychius’ Quaestione 52 (without mentioning Hesychius’ use of Mark 16:9 in Quaestione 50), or which misidentified Severus’ 77th Homily.

Those claims and others were intended to support the idea that “the 3 outstanding scholars and textual critics of the early Church, Origen, Eusebius and Jerome” favor the abrupt ending. However, Origen is silent (as I have already explained, Mark 16:9-20 is just one of the 34 out of 57 12-verses slices of the Gospel of Mark untouched by Origen), and Jerome testifies in favor of Mark 16:9-20.

So when my opponent asks, “What are the credentials of Tatian/Irenaeus compared to Origen/Eusebius/Jerome?” we must first unload the question. Then it becomes, “What are the credentials of Tatian/Irenaeus compared to Eusebius?” But such a question ignores other important testimony. To make the question equitable, we must ask, “What are the credentials of Justin, Tatian, Irenaeus, the author of Epistula Apostolorum, Hippolytus, Tertullian, the author of De Rebaptismate, Vincentius of Thibaris, the author of the Syriac Didascalia, the author of Acts of Pilate, the author of Doctrine of Addai, the compiler of the Claromontanus Catalogue, Porphyry/Hierocles, Aphrahat, Marinus, Ambrose, the author of the Freer Logion, Apostolic Constitutions, Didymus, Epiphanius of Salamis, Augustine, the copyists of Augustine’s Greek manuscripts, the copyists of Augustine’s Latin manuscripts, John Chrysostom, Macarius Magnes, Jerome, Eznik of Golb, Marcus Eremita, Prosper of Aquitaine, Marius Mercator, Nestorius, Peter Chrysologus, Leo the Great, Saint Patrick, and Leontius of Jerusalem, compared to Eusebius?”

If my opponent’s goal was to convey that intelligent writers used the abrupt ending and unintelligent writers used Mark 16:9-20, I don’t think he has succeeded. But the question of the general intelligence of Eusebius, or of anyone else, is really a diversion that belongs on the sideline of the present debate. The text of a manuscript does not become better or worse by being used by a good writer or a bad writer. What is important is not the character or competence of a manuscript’s owner, but the contents of the manuscript itself.

(Continued in Part 12)

Yours in Christ,

James Snapp, Jr.

JoeWallack · 12-12-2009, 02:42 PM

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

Quote:

(Continued from Part 11)

Let’s move on to examine what my opponent called a “common sense” argument: doesn’t common sense dictate that it is more likely that a scribe added Mark 16:9-20 than that a scribe deleted the passage? That is essentially a way of saying that if motivations to remove the passage are not immediately obvious, they probably don’t exist. I propose, however, that in several reasonable hypotheses, each of which takes all the available evidence into account, common sense dictates that a copyist would be more likely to remove Mark 16:9-20 than to add it. I’ve already outlined the hypothesis that I advocate, and I intend to revisit it later in the debate. My opponent did not summarize it correctly.

And now a few miscellaneous notes. I will refrain from repeating the reasons why my opponent’s use of silent witnesses is invalid. Similarly, the reasons why Gospel of Peter is not a valid witness for non-inclusion have not changed. As for the idea that Justin is a witness against Mark 16:9-20, my opponent’s case is so transparently weak that no further comment is necessary. And, although my opponent stated that I do not claim patristic support for Mk. 16:9-20 until Epistula Apostolorum (a witness over 50 years older than the oldest manuscript of Mark), I stand by the evidence already presented from Papias as a possible witness; Papias’ statement suggests an awareness of Mark 16:18 more strongly than the non-statements of Clement and Origen suggest anything. Also, my opponent stated, “We will see that the LE has the most in common with Acts, which looks to be after Justin and before Tatian (late second century).” I only draw attention to this because it says something about the premises my opponent employs when he assigns dates to other texts, such as Gospel of Peter.

Here are some concluding thoughts for your consideration.

Consider the age of the evidence. Mark 16:9-20 is used in the 100’s by Justin, Tatian, Irenaeus, and the author of Epistula Apostolorum. When we consider that the earliest extant copy of the Gospel of Mark is P45, from about 225, and that the earliest copy of Mark 16 is Codex Vaticanus, from about 325, it becomes clear that the patristic evidence for Mark 16:9-20 is remarkably early. Meanwhile, Eusebius is the first patristic writer to mention copies with the abrupt ending, in the early 300’s.

Consider the geographic range of the evidence. Eusebius and the manuscripts in the library at Caesarea have a very limited range; Origen took Egyptian copies from Alexandria to Caesarea in the 230’s, and the descendant-copies of those manuscripts are probably the ones that Eusebius considered “accurate” copies. Meanwhile, patristic testimony in favor of Mark 16:9-20 has an exceptionally wide range: its use is attested in Ireland, Britain, Gaul, Milan, Rome, Constantinople, Asia Minor, Egypt, Jerusalem, Antioch, Caesarea, North Africa, Syria, Armenia – indeed, practically every locale from which patristic evidence has survived.

Consider the doctrinal diversity of the evidence. Tatian the Encratite and Irenaeus the heresy-hunter both support Mark 16:9-20. Patrick and Nestorius both support Mark 16:9-20. Porphyry the pagan and Prosper the preacher both support Mark 16:9-20. Meanwhile, a doctrinal agenda is on display in the works of Eusebius: a determination to defend the veracity and harmoniousness of the Gospels, even to the point of making conjectural emendations. We see this agenda at work in Ad Marinum, as Eusebius told Marinus the reasons why Mark 16:9-20 could be rejected: his first reason was its absence from manuscripts. His second reason was, “Since it could imply a contradiction to the testimony of the other Gospels.”

Consider the relationships of the evidence. Most of the patristic writers who use Mark 16:9-20 do so independently. They emerge from a spectrum of backgrounds. Only in a few cases (such as when Ephrem Syrus uses Tatian’s Diatessaron) do we see writers use Mark 16:9-20 in a way that shows dependence upon an earlier writer. But in the case of the abrupt ending, it is obvious that the pertinent parts of Jerome’s letter to Hedibia, and Victor’s commentary, and Severus’ 77th Homily, would not exist without Eusebius’ statements in Ad Marinum. This indicates that the loss of Mark 16:9-20 did not occur at a very early stage, at which point such a loss would affect all transmission-streams. It occurred in a narrow transmission-stream which affected only the Alexandrian text, until Alexandrian copies were taken to Caesarea, where, in the early 300’s, their descendant-copies were regarded by Eusebius as “accurate” copies, by virtue of having a pedigree associated with Origen.

Nothing in my opponent’s magical analysis (in which over 30 patristic witnesses magically disappear with a tap of the illogical “applicability” wand!), or in his reality-defying assertions (in which Origen testifies for the abrupt ending, and in which the production of the Eusebian Canons was a text-critical enterprise, and in which Acts was written in the mid-100’s), or in his interpretations of his own analysis (using nebulous quantities such as “external force” and “directness” to handicap, rather than weigh, the evidence), comes remotely close to lightening the enormous weight of these four considerations.

I have covered the post-Nicene patristic evidence sparingly. Much more could be said. Yet, as we move along to the early manuscript-evidence, I am confident that you will arrive at the conclusion that this concise review, combined with the much more detailed examination of the earlier patristic evidence, has sufficiently exhibited the vastly superior strength, and enormously greater weight, of the patristic evidence in favor of Mark 16:9-20.

Yours in Christ,

James Snapp, Jr.

11-22-2009, 05:26 PM	#198
JoeWallack Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Nazareth Posts: 2,357	Weighting of Evidence for Patristic Category Weighting of Evidence for Patristic Category Now to weigh the evidence for the category of Patristic by individual criterion and in total. Again, the Patristic sources: Against LE: “Matthew”, Gospel of Peter, “Luke”, “John”, The Epistula Apostolorum, Justin,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 For purposes of comparing evidence for and against LE the weighting will be as follows: High advantage = 3 Medium advantage = 2 Low advantage = 1 Criteria ranked in order of relative weight to each other: Qualitative: 1 - Credibility of source. Greater = more weight. Potentially the most important criterion and one that authority largely ignores. Here the 3 outstanding scholars and textual critics of the early Church, Origen, Eusebius and Jerome, all witness against LE: Origen – compiled the Hexapla. Considered the classic work of Greek Jewish Bible textual criticism by the early Church. Eusebius – compiled Canons of Scripture. Considered the classic work of Greek Christian Bible textual criticism by the early Church. Jerome - compiled the Vulgate. Considered the classic work of Latin Bible textual criticism by the early Church. Compare/contrast to Tatian who appears to have the first clear use of LE in his Diatessaron. The Diatessaron though consists of taking verses from where they belong and putting them where they do not. We also know that Tatian edited what he selected from the Canonical Gospels based on theological considerations. Compare/contrast to Irenaeus who is probably the most famous Patristic to support LE and one of the first. I’ve already indicated how poor his scholarship is in Against Heresies and The Demonstration of the Apostolic Preachingrelative to other Patricians. What are the credentials of Tatian/Irenaeus compared to Origen/Eusebius/Jerome. In this category than it’s not simply that the most credible Fathers are against, it’s that they are against some of the least credible Fathers. A strong 3 against. 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. My opponent will offer a conspiracy theory for why an Alexandrian scribe(s) preferred the AE. As this theory goes, because an Alexandrian scribe preferred the LE, Alexandrian scribes preferred the LE and therefore Ceasarean scribes prerferred the LE and therefore Western scribes preferred the LE and therefore Latin, Syriac, Coptic and Armenian scribes preferred the LE. The extension of this conspiracy theory I suppose is that subsequent Patricians preferred AE because of all this Manuscript support for it. What category of evidence though supports this conspiracy theory? None. There is no Patristic, Manuscript, Scribal, Authority or Internal evidence for it. 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. Eusebius, Jerome, and Severus all identify the issue and are against. Victor is the only one for who identifies the issue. Note especially that Eusebius is the first to identify the issue and the lone father for here, Victor, is contradicted by near contemporary Severus. Another 3 against. 4 – Age. Older = more weight. The most commonly identified criterion and an important one. The oldest Patristic evidence is “Matthew”, Gospel of Peter, “Luke”, “John”, The Epistula Apostolorum and Justin which are all 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. Note the cumulative observation here that relatively older Patristic evidence has less in common with the LE: “Matthew” = Nothing “Peter” = Next to nothing “Luke” = A few parallels “John” = A few parallels My opponent, desperate for support for LE, any support, does not even claim Patristic support until The Epistula Apostolorum. Than my opponent’s claims of support gradually strengthen with subsequent Patistics: The Epistula Apostolorum = Weak Justin = Mediocre. Tatian = Good Irenaeus = Strong. When we get to the Internal evidence we will see that the LE has the most in common with Acts, which looks to be after Justin and before Tatian (late second century) and coordinates well with the other evidence. 5 - Confirmation – width. Wider = more weight. The context is geographical. Confirmation is an important quality as it helps reduce sampling bias. Advantage to for as there is a concentration of against in the East., specifically Alexandria and Ceasarea. 2 to for. 6 - Direction (of change). Away from = more weight. What is the direction of change over time for the category. Importance depends on the existence. If it exists it is one of the most important as it helps explain the relationship. Big advantage to against as there is a definite movement from against to for. We not only have the earliest Patristic evidence against LE but the Patristic evidence for LE gradually becomes stronger. 3 to against. 7 - 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. 8 – Consistency. Greater = more weight. Does the evidence for the category coordinate with the evidence for other categories? The evidence here for Patristic clearly points to against LE. This will coordinate well with the Manuscript and Scribal categories which all not only show support against LE but the same development of change in evidence from against LE to for LE. 3 against. Quantitative: 1 - Confirmation – quantity. Larger = more weight. Advantage to for as it has a few more supporters. 1 to for. 2 – Variation. Lesser = more weight. What is the quantity of variation in the category? Advantage 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 and there are several alternatives. Variation is a top clue for editing. 2 to against. 3 – Directness. Direct = more weight. Reduces opportunity for bias. Against has clarity of often being described with the specific words that end 16:8. For has more uncertainty because a partial/limited referral to has doubt as to the total. 2 against. Summary of Patristic evidence separated by Qualitative and Quantitative and in order of weight: Qualitative: 1 - Credibility of source. Against = 3 2- Common sense. Against = 3 3 - Attribution. Against = 3 4 – Age. Against = 2 5 - Confirmation – width. For = 2 6 - Direction (of change). Against = 3 7 - External force. Against = 3 8 – Consistency. Against = 3. Quantitative: 1 - Confirmation – quantity. For = 1 2 – Variation. Against = 2 3 – Directness. Against = 2 Totals: Against 3 = 6 criterion Against 2 = 3 criterion For 2 = 1 criterion For 1 = 1 criterion Conclusion = The Patristic category of evidence is strongly against LE due to: 1 - 9 of 11 criteria favoring Against. 2 - 6 of these 9 criteria being 3 3 - The top 3 qualitative criteria all being 3 Against. And so, in the category my opponent thought (hoped) was his to take, the Patristic, we see that the evidence, when scientifically weighed with criteria, strongly supports against LE. Now on to the Categories I think my opponent will readily confess are worse for his conclusion than the Patristic, namely Manuscript, Scribal and Authority. Joseph http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

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

11-18-2009, 06:41 AM	#195
kcdad Banned Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: illinois Posts: 688	Joe Wallack: Brilliant! Absolutely brilliant! Of course , for me, (I don't demand such high levels of certainty) it seems enough to say that Matthew, Luke and John's account are separate stories attached to the end of Mark's Jesus narrative by different regional church offshoots... in the same way the birth accounts in Matt and Luke are separate and distinctly different additions created by their respective authors to bookend the beginning of Mark's Gospel. Just purely an opinion, but I do think the combination of Thomas, Mark and "local traditions" does explain the majority of differences between Luke and Matthew compared to Mark.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.