andrewcriddle

I've posted on another list why I think Justin is a witness to the long ending of Mark.

Justin in the 1st Apology says 'the mighty word which his apostles going forth from Jerusalem preached everywhere' has been taken as an allusion to Mark 16:20 'TOU LOGOU.........EXELThONTES PANTAChOU EKHRUXAN. compared to '...EXELThONTES EKHRUXAN PANTAChOU....TON LOGON'.

Some have thought the parallel too weak to be fully conclusive but it has been replied that Tatian in his Diatessaron almost certainly had the long ending and the Gospel text of Justin was probably a synoptic harmony similar to the Diatessaron but without John. Hence a priori it is quite likely that Justin knew the long ending.

One major problem with the parallel is that Justin is very clearly talking of 'going forth from Jerusalem' while the long ending of Mark does not mention Jerusalem and on the basis of Mark 16:7 and the parallel in Matthew 28 it could plausibly be argued that Mark 16:15-18 are set in Galilee.

However if we assume that Justin's synoptic harmony was similar in arrangement to Tatian without John then the end of Justin's gospel would have combined Mark and Luke to give

Hence the context of Mark 16:20 has been changed to refer unambiguously to going forth from Jerusalem making the link between this hypothetical but plausible harmony and Justin's Apology substantially closer.



Close enough IMO to make an allusion here by Justin to a harmony including Mark 16:20 highly probable.



Andrew Criddle

Steven Avery

Hi Andrew, I didn't follow exactly what you did there, in the second quote, whether it was a conjecture modified combining Justin and Tatian or what :-)

I passed on Justin not because it isn't decent evidence, as you point out, but when there are two dozen hard evidences being ignored, word allusions can get you bogged down. We have similar on Ignatius on 1 Timothy 3:16, where he has some good allusion and words-in-synche evidence, but still pretty soft, and when you are dealing in a hostile environment, such evidences I decide not to push, in favor of "hard evidences" like the two dozen or so writers using the ending. And since we have Iraneaus rock-solid (despite the silly usual 'forgery' type of harumphing nonsense from Joe) and Tatian quite solid, that is a powerful 2nd century witness already.

The ending of Mark has overwhelming church writer attestation, and also manuscript attestation, but I learned that in this environment they really cannot handle the possible use of the Traditional Text, they will insist, like Joe, on the errors in the Alex text, otherwise so many of his "errors" would simply melt away.

Anyway, thank you Andrew, you've been a gentleman and a scholar, and if I lurk a bit I'll watch for your posts.

I gave my wrap-up speech on Dating of Mark, and wish you well. I enjoyed this thread and personally consider the issue closed, and Joe can do his little politicking dance for a few more posts. Its sorta funny.

Shalom,
Praxeas
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic/

JoeWallack

JW:
"highly probable"? Doesn't leave much room for even better evidence, does it? Overall I think Justin's argument is driven more by Philosophy and not texts so I don't think specific excerpts were overly important to him. This came later in the development of Christianity and is an important reason why we don't have much manuscript evidence for this time, it showed the lack of concern with limiting Gospels to what was previously written (it's Possible to change a Canon Before you have a Canon).

I don't think it's highly probable that Justin referred to the Long Ending for the following General reasons:

1) Uncertainty due to elapsed time from the Original.

2) Motive and Opportunity of Christianity to Edit original wording to wording Familiar to Subsequent Christianity in the Copying process.

3) Motive and Opportunity of Christianity to Edit original wording to wording Familiar to Subsequent Christianity in the Translation process.

I don't think it's highly probable that Justin referred to the Long Ending for the following Specific reasons:

1) Justin does not Explicitly or Implicitly identify the Ending of "Mark" or even just "Mark" as the Source. I think this by itself precludes "highly probable" as without identification of the Source you couldn't be sure that it was intended to be a quote of "Mark". It could just be a quote of the Source For The Long Ending.

2) The context of the Excerpt is Justin's claim of prophecy fulfillment from the Jewish Bible. For the three matching words in question, "going forth", "preached" and "everywhere", not only are none of these words or any combined phrase unique to "Mark's" ending they could be used to describe the ending of any of the Four Gospels or most other Orthodox Christian writings.

3) You only have three matching words out of 12 sentences and all three words would be popular words for Christianity.

Contrast this with the evidence for Irenaeus where he explicitly identifies the Ending of "Mark" as the source and quotes an entire sentence.

I do find Justin's hypothetical conflation of "Mark" and "Luke" that you presented interesting. I agree that the three word phrase "going forth preached everywhere" (I see "Jerusalem" as even less of a problem than you do) would fit the Body of "Mark" better than the other Gospels. The time period (mid second century) would also be about right. It's Possible that you are right and Justin referred to the Long Ending. I just don't think it's Probable for the reasons above.



Joseph

Steven Avery

I will be interested in Andrew's response. He did set a high bar with "highly probable", and I wonder if the bar might have to be lowered to "likely" or "probable". Such words-in-synch and allusion arguments are always very interesting, Ignatius on 1 Timothy 3:16 being the most fascinating I've seen, here you do have the extra aspects of Justin being the teacher of Tatian.

Of course, I consider Joe's first group of arguments generally irrelevant. He seems to think that copyists throughout the ages were always trying to anticipate 21st century inerrancy and manuscript integrity debates :-)

The second group of arguments, however, are more probative.

You never know. A surprisingly realistic conclusion.

On the evidences that Joe has actually discussed, he has actually been in the ballpark.

Shalom,
Praxeas
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic/

andrewcriddle

Hi praxeus

What I did was take the ending of the Arabic version of the Diatessaron from Here and remove the passages from John.

Notes

1/ The Arabic Diatessaron is too close to the Peshitta to be a good witness to the text of the original but it probably preserves accurately the way in which the Gospels were combined.

2/ IMHO the main difference between the Gospel harmony used by Justin and the Diatessaron of Tatian is that the Diatessaron included John and Justin's harmony did not.

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle

This is a minor quibble because I agree that the extant manuscripts are late. I just don't think they are all later than Erasmus.

IIUC the oldest surviving Latin manuscript of Against Heresies is from 1100 or earlier (See http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc2.v.xv.xxiv.html )

I think the point about Erasmus is that he used for his edition of Irenaeus (the first printing of Irenaeus' work) a manuscript somewhat older than any now existing. This manuscript has since disappeared or been destroyed.

So all currently avaliable manuscripts are later than the manuscript used by Erasmus but not later than Erasmus himself.

Andrew Criddle

JoeWallack

JW:
Continuing with Patristic Evidence:

Tertullian Early Third Century

The best potential reference I can find to the Long Ending is:

Tertullian Against Praxeas 2:1

http://ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-03/anf...#P10885_3057808

"we believe Him to have suffered, died, and been buried, according to the Scriptures, and, after He had been raised again by the Father and taken back to heaven, to be sitting at the right hand of the Father"

Compare to:

16:19
"So the Lord Jesus, after speaking with them, was received up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of God."

I think this is weak evidence.

In General Tertullian thinks in terms of a "Gospel" and doesn't identify quotes from specific Gospels. He seems to think like Paul, that "Scripture" is the Jewish Bible, except he also thinks of Paul as Scripture. As a side observation this is good evidence that even in Tertullian's time there were no generally accepted authoritative Gospels.

Specifically, the key match words, "Heaven", "sit/sat", and "Father/God" don't match up exactly, would probably be theology for many of the Gospels and are a small part of the Long Ending.


Hippolytus Early Third Century

The best potential reference I can find to the Long Ending is:

Constitutions of the Holy Apostles Book VIII-Chapter I

http://ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-07/anf...m#P7001_2348812

"With good reason did He say to all of us together, when we were perfected concerning those gifts which were given from Him by the Spirit: "Now these signs shall follow them that have believed in my name: they shall cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; they shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall by no means hurt them: they shall lay their hands on the sick, and they shall recover."

Compare to:

16:17-18
"These signs will accompany those who have believed: In my name they will cast out demons, they will speak with new tongues,
{and in their hands} they will pick up serpents, and if they should drink any deadly thing it will not harm them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will get well."

It has the weakness that there is no specific identification of the ending of "Mark" and it's unclear if Hippolytus was the author but it has the strength of an extended quote with 7 components matching and following the order of the Long Ending and no other known possible Source which would match as well. If it's not a reference to the Long Ending it could very well be a reference to the same Source.

I take it as evidence of a Long Ending.


Vincentius Early Third Century

The best potential reference I can find to the Long Ending is:

The Seventh Council of Carthage Under Cyprian.

http://ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-05/anf...m#P9407_2933203

"Munnulus29 of Girba30 said: The truth of our Mother631 the Catholic Church, brethren, hath always remained and still remains with us, and even especially in the Trinity of baptism, as our Lord says, "Go ye and baptize the nations, in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."32 Since, then, we manifestly know that heretics have not either Father, or Son, or Holy Spirit, they ought, when they come to the Church our Mother, truly to be born again and to be baptized; that the cancer which they had, and the anger of damnation, and the witchery of error, may be sanctified by the holy and heavenly layer."

The applicable excerpt is:

"Go ye and baptize the nations, in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit"

Compare to:

Mark 16:15-16
"And he said to them: Go into all the cosmos and preach the gospel to every creature. He who has believed and been baptized will be saved, but he who has not believed will be condemned."

Not such a good match. A much better match is:

Matthew 28:19 (NIV)

"Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[a] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,"

Note that Praxeus listed this as support for the Long Ending which he copied from other Apologists. Where the hell are Bede and Pearse with the articles on how faulty Internet research is rePetered Ad Nazorean, when you really need them?


Andrew:
"IIUC the oldest surviving Latin manuscript of Against Heresies is from 1100 or earlier (See http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc2.v.xv.xxiv.html )"


JW:
I relied on secondary sources for my comment that there are no extant (and I mean complete) manuscripts dated before Erasmus. I've read enough of your posts to know that you are usually right but I didn't see any specifics in your reference proving me wrong. I'd be looking for a manuscript identification and date. On the other hand we agree that 500 years would be half a day in Christian Dogma years.

So Schmuelman!, you no Longer Dare to continue.

The Waco Kid: Must you continue then JW?

JW: I must, I must!



Joseph

WARNING -
The Skeptical General has determined that the:

http://hometown.aol.com/abdulreis/myhomepage/index.html

contains dangerous amounts of Tarivial and Nicpicotine which could be harmful to the health of your arguments when trying to convince a Fundie who's about to murder an abortion provider because killing is always a Sin, that they should first count to ten.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Errors...yguid=68161660

andrewcriddle

I was referring to this passage Andrew Criddle

JoeWallack

JW:
Continuing with Patristic Evidence:

Eusebius - Early 4th century

Letter To Marinus:

"[Marinus] How is it that in Matthew the savior appears late on the sabbath after he has been raised, but in Mark it is early on the first day of the week?"

[Eusebius] "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."

But someone else, [someone] who dares to set aside nothing at all in any way of the things that are extant in the writing of the gospels, says that the reading is double, as also in many other [passages], and each is to be accepted, not this rather than that, or that than this, as the classification of the faithful and the reverent.

And indeed, this part granted to be true, it is fitting to interpret the mind of the reading. If I at least grasp the meaning of the word, we should not find that it is opposite to the things said by Matthew: Late on the sabbath the savior was raised. For the [statement]: And having risen up early on the first day of the week, according to Mark, we will read with a pause. And after the [statement]: And having risen up, we will place a comma. And we will divide the meaning of those things that are said following. Then, on the one hand, the [statement]: Having risen up, might be upon that of Matthew: Late on the sabbath, for then he was raised. On the other hand, that which follows we might join together with the things said after that, which gives rise to other meanings: For early on the first day of the sabbath he appeared to Mary Magdalene."


JW:
The key Statements of Eusebius:

"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"

So according to Eusebius the accurate copies of "Mark" as well as most copies of "Mark" have the Short Ending.

Eusebius is the first Patristic evidence of Identifying the Ending of "Mark" as an Issue. Eusebius gives clear and explicit testimony that the Short Ending was likely Original. This evidence is strengthened by the observation that in General Eusebius is considered to be an expert on Manuscripts. On the other hand the Context of Eusebius' evidence here is in response to a question from a single Letter and not from a General Writing for the Church.


Aphraates - Early 4th century

Demonstration I.--OF FAITH.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/370101.htm

"And again when our Lord gave the Sacrament of Baptism
to His apostles, He said thus to them:--Whosoever believeth and is baptized
shall live, and whosoever believeth not shall be condemned.(5) Again He said
to his Apostles:--If ye believe and doubt not, there is nothing ye shall not
be able to do.(8) For when our Lord walked on the billows of the sea, Simon
also by his faith walked with Him; but when in respect of his faith he
doubted, and began to sink, our Lord called him, thou of little faith.(7) And
when the Apostles asked of our Lord, they begged nothing at His hands but
this, saying to Him:--Increase our faith. He said to them:--If there were in
you faith, even a mountain would remove from before you.(8) And He said to
them:--Doubt ye not, lest ye sink down in the midst of the world, even as
Simon when he doubled began to sink in the midst of the sea, (9) And again He said thus;--This shall be the sign for those that believe; they shall speak
with new tongues and shall cast out demons, and they shall lay their hands on the sick and they shall be made whole.(1)"


I'm pretty sure most of this is coming from the Long Ending and not George Michael's song.


Jerome - 5th century

Epistle 120, to Hedibia (century V):

"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"

Like Eusebius we have an expert in Manuscripts Identify the issue and clearly state that almost all Greek manuscripts did not have the Long Ending and the Long Ending may also contradict other Gospels. Also like Eusebius though, we have the weakness that this answer was in response to a question, sort of a "Dear Abbey", and not a Work for the General Church establishing policy.


Andrew:
"I was referring to this passage
Quote:
We have, however, the entire work in a slavishly literal translation into barbarous Latin, crowded with Grecisms, but for this very reason very valuable. Three MSS. of the Latin version survive, the oldest is the Codex Claromontanus of the tenth or eleventh century. This and the Arundel MS. are now in England (see a description in Harvey’s Preface, i. viii. sqq. with facsimiles)."


JW:
Thanks Andrew. I suppose if I was in the right mood I'd say, "C'mon Andrew, the author of that article was from the 19th century." My original comment (which was really based on second hand sources) was not only stupid but funny. If we didn't have any manuscripts since Erasmus we wouldn't have any manuscripts. Ouch! I just didn't think anyone was actually reading my posts.

Coming (eventually). A summary of the Evidence. Thank God!



Joseph


TRANSLATOR, n.
One who enables two persons of different languages to understand each other by repeating to each what it would have been to the translator's advantage for the other to have said.


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Error...?yguid=68161660

http://hometown.aol.com/abdulreis/myhomepage/index.html

JoeWallack

JW:
Continuing With The Patristic Evidence:

Hesychius - Fifth Century

Collection of Difficulties and Solutions, question 52

"For [he appeared] to different women who had run to the tomb, not to the same women, but now to two from among them, and then to the other one who happened to be with them, and then to others, and differently did the Lord appear, to one of which who was weaker, and to another who happened to be more perfect. The Lord measured out his own appearance appropriately. Whence Mark, having gone through in brief the things until the one angel, ceased the word."

Hesychius does not explicitly identify textual variation as an issue but has an implication that he considered the short Ending Original based in part on textual variation. Also, the context is the General issue of "difficulties" rather than a response to an individual giving Hesychius' evidence more weight.


Victor of Antioch - Late 5th century

From a catena of Victor of Antioch

"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 Identifies the Ending of "Mark" as an issue and gives the opinion that the Long Ending is Original. He concedes though that in his time most copies of "Mark" had the Short Ending. This matches with the statements of Eusebius and Jerome that most copies in their time also had the short ending. Again, this could help explain why we have relatively few manuscripts before the sixth century, they contained the Short Ending. Note that Victor is the first Father who Identifies the Issue and gives the opinion that the Long Ending is Original. This was the guy who I Originally thought was Verbose of Hyppocritia.


Severus of Antioch - Sixth Century

Severus of Antioch, homily 77

"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 Identifies the Ending of "Mark" as an Issue and explicitly Identifies the Short Ending as Likely Original. Note that Severus is also an especially good witness against Victor above as they are both from Antioch.


By the end of the sixth century the Long Ending is completely dominant in manuscripts although a few Patristic commentators still identify the issue or even favor the short ending as Original. Before I summarize the Patristic Evidence, in a feeble and transparent attempt to give myself a thin veernear of objectivity, I will go back through Schmuelman's! detailed post to look for other Patristic Evidence. If I dare!



Joseph

"Objectivity is Subjective" - Woody Allen

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Errors...yguid=68161660

http://hometown.aol.com/abdulreis/myhomepage/index.html