Steven Avery

It is amazing to see Joe so misguided on the basics of looking at the early church writer evidences. Even UBS places the patristic evidence solidly for the verse, but Joe is apparently so corn-fused that he can't even see the forest, much less the trees.

Joe, you are already out of order,
in terms of chronology, significance and any other reasonable way .. :-)
Are you confusing the two Clements ???

And the ending of Mark WAS in fact used by many early writers, as is well documented. They all did not use the resurrection information from multiple various gospels. If you looked for the ending of Luke, or the ending of Matthew, or the ending of John, in all the various church writers, I would venture you could easily find a number of writers who didn't mention each ending. That is why your main evidence is essentially worthless... UNLESS it was a writer who had done a homily on all of Matthew, or some similar analysis where the ending would be expected.

This is weak even for a weak argument from silence, considering that we have about Papias is virtually zilch quotes on any scripture texts.
Stephen Carlson has most everything at ..
http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/...ext/papias.htm

And even that minuscule referencing has a possible allusion to the ending of Mark, in that Papias gives a story of healing that is of the type only referenced in the Mark ending, as discussed by Jim Snapp

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/papias.html
We must now point out how Papias, who lived at the same time, relates that he had received a wonderful narrative from the daughters of Philip. For he relates that a dead man was raised to life in his day. He also mentions another miracle relating to Justus, surnamed Barsabas, how he swallowed a deadly poison, and received no harm, on account of the grace of the Lord.

Mark 16:18
They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

While Holding tries to reduce this
"Papias is NOT being quoted here, and if anything, Eusebius is using an allusion to Mark 16:18 of his own to describe what Papias says. There is no evidence that Papias himself alluded to Mark 16:18"

It is not apparent why Papias not being 'quoted' here would be particularly relevant, if Papias was relating a miracuous account. And if it was Eusebius himself "using an allusion to Mark 16:18" that shows an additional Eusebius sense of the ending as scripture.

"Philip Sidetes (430) - gives a description of Papias' account of Jesus Barsabbas' poison-drinking which in some aspects may be more accurate than Eusebius' account. "(Snapp)

Since Eusebius was well aware of sources that had the ending of Mark, and wasn't doing a column A vs. column B type of analysis, there would be no expectation whatsoever for him to comment on Papias in that regard. This whole argument from silence is zilchy - a red herring.

Papias gives weak support to either side of the discussion.

Very good, Sherlock Wallack.
Maybe that is why I put Justin in the second section called
================================================== =====
"EARLY AND DISPUTABLE - JUSTIN, EPISTULA, HIPPOLYTUS"
================================================== =====
Which was AFTER the section that you completely IGNORED --
================================================== =====
NINE FULL EARCH CHURCH WRITER QUOTATIONS FROM MARK ENDING
================================================== =====

No, Joe.. The reference above from...

Irenaeus (wrote c. 180) - Against Heresies, Book III, 10:5-6,
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01...m#P7435_1989248
Also, towards the conclusion of his Gospel, Mark says: "So then, after the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God; " confirming what had been spoken by the prophet: "The Lord said to my Lord, Sit Thou on My right hand, until I make Thy foes Thy footstool."

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

was in the section asking for "Clear references", and it is chronologically before two of the three in the "EARLY AND DISPUTABLE" section that you decided to focus on :-) Hmmmmmmm.

And Irenaeus is nice and early and very solid for a patristic reference.... there are additional solid early references like the Apostolic Constitutions, but Irenaeus is very discomfiting to any "the ending was added" scenarios.

Joe, you are struggling on the basics.
Oh, none of this concerns "evidence of the trinity".

Hogwash. It is unusal for a scripture verse or section have the type of early demonstrable evidence like Irenaeus. (example, the incredibly significant verse, 1 Timothy 3:16, has no unequivocal reference on either side, until the 3rd century, only allusions earlier)

Thus, the type of 2nd and 3rd century evidence that we have in abundance on the ending of Mark, many clear quotes, as well as additional early allusions, is precisely why any position of late interpolation is an absolute disaster. This is the reason why the "no ending" folks try to switch to a VERY EARLY interpolation by Mark, like in the 1st century. Apparently you are unawares of this, or don't really have a sense of the issues.

And as you should know, the earlier early church writer references like Clement of Rome, Barnabas, or Ignatius, or Justin, tend to have less definite quoting, (with more alllusions, as above with Justin Martyr on the ending of Mark). Later, as with Cyprian and Tertullian and the Apostolic Constitustions, do we get the wealth and abundance of clear referencing. Making your observation a truism, yet of no relevance in claiming a spurious ending.

Most definitely. Your usage of phrases like "Liars for Jesus", "Truth-Challenged Advocates for that guy", the mangling of names, is truly a stench, apparently used by you to hide the weakness of your argumentation, as above. If you clean up your act on this forum, it would be very nice. Your rather sleazy tactics make it very hard not to emphasize your many debating ploys, slick and smarmy langauge, logical errors, and switching gears and arguments, in response. And I will acknowledge I make a little extra effort to demonstrate your shenanigans.

Putting all this junque aside, and the readers should note that Joe did not RESPOND AT ALL to the NINE early and clear references given of Patristic usage of the ending of Mark, as well as many auxiliary references.

By such omission, Joe has basically defacto admitted his error on this thread.

Will he be a mentsch and really address believers in an Insprired NT text, or will he base argument after argument on seeking out the most unbelieving paradigms and theories of the text, no inspiration, no preservation, and then foist these theories on his own petard, like he did here ?

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

Amaleq13

If you really agree, lead by example and take the high road.

-Amaleq13, BC&H moderator

Steven Avery

Hi Andrew..greetings..

Naah.. I see the transition as very natural.. from the fear that they felt, to the discussion of the risen Lord. Perhaps you might consider it "a literary device" and if was done by Steinbeck, you would probably laud the transition :-) There are all sorts of "abrupt transitions" throughout the Gospels and Acts, and to make such a major part of any textual theory is rather dubious.

This adds up to about five manuscripts, most from gnostic Alexandrian Egypt (weighed against multi-hundreds). And then we see lots of early Old Latin and Syriac and Greek manuscripts in all textlines lines that do have the ending, in huge numerical preponderance. Why and how could this diversity change arise ? There is no mechanism.

And the time element you would try to allude to here, (maybe the ending was added around the fourth century) is completely negated by the ending of Mark usage in one to two dozen early church writers references from the second century through Jerome and Augustine. Completely and fully negated.

Well, from a textcrit point of view there is only a western and alexandrian type of text that could be early :-) Such modes of thinking are essentially bankrupt, when you look at the actual evidences, as we did on this thread for the church writers, and you can see on the Jim Snapp website for the manuscript evidence.

How can I say this nicely.. this sounds like typical Westcott-Hort drivel to try to put aside overwhelming manuscript and early writer references, that are geographically and textually diverse.

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

Steven Avery

Okayfonokay :-) Appreciate alert and preemptive moderation.

Shalom,
Praxeus

andrewcriddle

The abruptness is the absence of anything explicit in 16:9 as to who the he who is risen is.

If it said 'Now when Jesus rose early...' or 'Now when Christ rose early' or 'Now when the Lord rose early..' it would be fine but it doesn't.
If you count versions there are much more than five manuscripts without the 'Long Ending' in fact there are about a hundred mostly Armenian.

Neither the Old Syriac represented by the Sinaiticus Syriac nor the African Old Latin represented by Codex Bobiensis nor the Armenian and Georgian tradition are in general particularly Alexandrian.
Of course the 'Long Ending' is early (before 150 CE IMO). I said nothing whatever to suggest otherwise.
Unless you define Alexandrian and Western very broadly many textual critics would regard other text types as very ancient eg the Caesarean.

However it seems likely from the Armenian and Georgian evidence plus the critical note in family 1 that the oldest form of the Caesarean text lacked the 'long ending'.

(If you do define the Western text very broadly then the evidence of Codex Bobiensis and the Sinaiticus Syriac indicates that the 'long ending' is only found in part of the Western tradition).

Andrew Criddle

Steven Avery

However, with three verses earlier ..
"...Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen.."
and with verse nine saying
"...was risen early"
... they absence of the name is a minor question.
Contextually clear, I doubt if any of Mark's Greek (or Latin) readers struggled.
"count manuscripts" (not versions) Outside of the Armenian you basically covered it with your earlier list. Against a wealth of manuscripts in a wide swath of languages, locales and 'text types'.

Whatever you want to call the Old Syriac, the manuscript you are referencing comes from the very same monastery as Codex Sinaticus. And the Curetonian Old Syriac manuscript has the long ending, as well as the hundreds of manuscripts of the Peshitta and Peshitto.

"Codex Bobiensis (c. 430) - besides including the Short Ending and not 16:9-20, this Latin manuscript's text of Mark 16 also adds an interpolation describing Christ's resurrection and ascension after 16:3, presents the angel saying that he will be seen in Galilee, and removes part of 16:8." (Jim Snapp)- making it a minor witness --
- even more so since all other Old Latin manuscripts have the long ending.

For more on the above, and the Armenian, Gothic and Coptic manuscripts, you might like the Jim Snapp article.
http://www.waynecoc.org/MarkTwo.html

Joe W was trying to place the witnesses as late, not understanding the manuscript or church writer history.

Most of this I view as filtering the raw data of manuscript evidences through a Westcott-Hort filter that has been pre-designed to buttress the corrupt couple of alexandrian manuscrpts. A lot of people don't even define the "Caesarean text" as a textline today. Here is Michael Marlowe's summary thereof..
http://www.bible-researcher.com/kenyon/sotb14.html .. note the Aland view.
So please understand if I pass on this section.

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

JoeWallack

"God I love the sound of Psalms in the morning."



JW:
We continue with our textbook example of how the Brave and Truthful Counter-Missionary should deal with missionaries.


Praxeus:
"Joe, you are already out of order,
in terms of chronology, significance and any other reasonable way .. :-)
Are you confusing the two Clements ???"


JW:
No Prixeus, I started with Clement of Alexandria because he was quoting "The Preaching Of Peter" which is generally dated the earliest of anything I've shown so far. Why would Clement of Rome have anything significant to pass on to Pastority just because he lived in New Jerusalem with Peter, Paul and Mary. Continuing:


Tatian

http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...atessaron.html

55 "1 But the eleven disciples went into Galilee, to the mountains where Jesus had 2 appointed them. And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but there were of 3 them who doubted. And while they sat there he appeared to them again, and upbraided them for their lack of faith and the hardness of their hearts, those that saw him when he was risen, and believed not. 4 Arabic, Then said Jesus unto them, I have been given all authority in heaven 5 and earth; and as my Father hath sent me, so I also send you. Go now into 6 all the world, and preach my gospel in all the creation; and teach all the peoples, and 7 baptize them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; and teach them to keep all whatsoever I commanded you: and lo, I am with you all the days, unto 8 the end of the world. For whosoever believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but 9 whosoever believeth not shall be rejected. And the signs which shall attend those that believe in me are these: that they shall cast out devils in my name; and they shall speak with new tongues; and they shall take up serpents, and if they drink deadly poison, it shall not injure them; and they shall lay their hands on the diseased, and they shall be healed. But ye, abide in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be clothed with power from on high."

Compare to the most popular Long Ending:

"And having arisen early on the sabbath he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from whom he had cast out seven demons.
She went and announced it to those who had been with him while they were mourning and weeping.
And they, having heard that he lived, and that he had been seen by her, did not believe.
And after these things he appeared in another form to two of them while they were walking along, going to the country.
And they went away and announced it to the others, but they did not believe them.
{And} afterward he appeared to the eleven as they reclined, and he reproached their lack of belief and their hardness of heart, because they did not believe those who had seen him risen.
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.
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.
So the Lord Jesus, after speaking with them, was received up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of God.
And they went out and preached everywhere, and the Lord worked with them and confirmed the word through the accompanying signs."


JW:
I think this is pretty good evidence that Tatian choose from the Long Ending as the Diatessaron is primarily a conflation of the Four Gospels (some parts of the Diatessaron do not appear to come from any current Gospel version) and a lot of the Diatessaron ending seems to be specific to "Mark's" Long Ending. As Tatian appears to be the First Source to refer to the Long Ending this also may help to date its Creation to approximately middle of the second century as Andrew said which I agree with. The Second century is when Christianity made a Jew-Turn down a One Way God street transitioning from priMarily Jewish based to Gentile based as evidenced Specifically by the addition of the Virgin Birth stories and as evidenced Generally by the prosyliferation of Editing of 1st Century and Pyscho-graphical new Gospels.

Tatian was an intellectual by "Church Tradition" standards so of course he had to be branded a "heretic" by subsequent Christianity. As an "intellectual" he recognized the Logical problem of promoting as Inerrant Scripture, Scripture that was filled with Contradictory type Errors between the Gospels. His solution was to eliminate the Problem at The Source, so to speak, and make One Gospel. Ultimately "Church Tradition" belief in the "Church Tradition" belief of Four Gospels made Tatian's experiment a failure. This is probably why Irenaeus makes such a big deal about there being Four Gospels, no more and no less, even with such a superstitious and non-sensical argument, because at the time that's what Irenaeus was dealing with, Christian Tradition and attempts to use other than The Four.

Being more of a Thinker and less of a Believer it's also possible that Tatian was one of the first to see the Original Short ending as a serious Contradiction just as having Four Gospels was a serious Contradiction, so he had incentive to Adopt (write?) the Long Ending for his conflation.

The subsequent selection of Four contradictory Gospels makes for a serious problem when Christians try to argue for the historicity of the supposed resurrection. Generally, Apologists, like Lord Moldy Butt (Occam's razor found among James' personal belongings in Oded Golen's medecine cabinent. Jesus' death claimed to be suicide by BAR), relie on an argument that the resurrection is supported by thousands of year old writings long preserved by a large institution with no contempory dispute of Christian claims. However, the Christian Bible itself is the very best Evidence that this argument doesn't carry much weight because its Contradictory claims are ALL supported by thousands of year old writings long preserved by a large institution with no contempory dispute of Christian claims.

Schmuelman!, before I move on to one of the most relieable Church Fathers of all time (course that's about as diffiCult as teaching a dog how to bark), Origen, I'll give you a chance to digress, er, digest the above. If you dare!



Joseph

MAGIC, n.
An art of converting superstition into coin. There are other arts serving the same high purpose, but the discreet lexicographer does not name them.


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

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

JoeWallack

JW:
Continuing with the Patristic Evidence for the Origenal Ending of "Mark" let's look at Origen next even though most would list Irenaeus first. I have something special in mind for Irenaeus.

Origen was relatively honest by Church Father standards (a short Puttristic) because he wrote before Christianity gained Control. He may have been the most scholarly Church Father, relative to his time, of all time. Naturally then, the subsequent Church had to brand him a heretic (surprise) and even went to the trouble of maintaining the text of exactly how Origen's origenal writing was Edited.

In Contra Celsus, probably Origen's most famous work, Origen tries (unsuccessfully) to defend the assertions of Christianity, including the most important Assertion, that Jesus resurrected. Keep in mind that Contra Celsus was probably written after Irenaeus' Against Heresies where Irenaeus' supposedly refers to the Long Ending.

In Book II

http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...origen162.html

Origen quotes from "Matthew", "Luke" and "John" to provide supposed post resurrection evidence:

"CHAP. LIX.

He imagines also that both the earthquake and the darkness were an invention; but regarding these, we have in the preceding pages, made our defence, according to our ability, adducing the testimony of Phlegon, who relates that these events took place at the time when our Saviour suffered. And he goes on to say, that "Jesus, while alive, was of no assistance to himself, but that he arose after death, and exhibited the marks of his punishment, and showed how his hands had been pierced by nails." We ask him what he means by the expression, "was of no assistance to himself?" For if he means it to refer to want of virtue, we reply that He was of very great assistance. For He neither uttered nor committed anything that was improper, but was truly "led as a sheep to the slaughter, and was dumb as a lamb before the shearer;" and the Gospel testifies that He opened not His mouth. But if Celsus applies the expression to things indifferent and corporeal, (meaning that in such Jesus could render no help to Himself,) we say that we have proved from the Gospels that He went voluntarily to encounter His sufferings. Speaking next of the statements in the Gospels, that after His resurrection He showed the marks of His punishment, and how His hands had been pierced, he asks, "Who beheld this?" And discrediting the narrative of Mary Magdalene, who is related to have seen Him, he replies, "A half-frantic woman, as ye state." And because she is not the only one who is recorded to have seen the Saviour after His resurrection, but others also are mentioned, this Jew of Celsus calumniates these statements also in adding, "And some one else of those engaged in the same system of deception!""


"CHAP. LXII.

Now it followed from all the predictions which were uttered regarding Him --amongst which was this prediction of the resurrection --and, from all that was done by Him, and from all the events which befell Him, that this event should be marvellous above all others. For it had been said beforehand by the prophet in the person of Jesus: "My flesh shall rest in hope, and Thou wilt not leave my soul in Hades, and wilt not suffer Thine Holy One to see corruption." And truly, after His resurrection, He existed in a body intermediate, as it were, between the grossness of that which He had before His sufferings, and the appearance of a soul uncovered by such a body. And hence it was, that when His disciples were together, and Thomas with them, there "came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you. Then saith He to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger," etc. ["John"]"


"And in the Gospel of Luke also, while Simon and Cleopas were conversing with each other respecting all that had happened to them, Jesus "drew near, and went with them. And their eyes were holden, that they should not know Him. And He said unto them, What manner of communications are these that ye have one to another, as ye walk?""


"CHAP. LXX.

But how is it that this Jew of Celsus could say that Jesus concealed Himself? For his words regarding Him are these: "And who that is sent as a messenger ever conceals himself when he ought to make known his message?" Now, He did not conceal Himself, who said to those who sought to apprehend Him, "I was daily teaching openly in the temple, and ye laid no hold upon Me." Bat having once already answered this charge of Celsus, now again repeated, we shall content ourselves with what we have formerly said. We have answered, also, in the preceding pages, this objection, that "while he was in the body, and no one believed upon him, he preached to ail without intermission; but when he might have produced a powerful belief in himself after rising from the dead, he showed himself secretly only to one woman, and to his own boon companions." Now it is not true that He showed Himself only to one woman; for it is stated in the Gospel according to Matthew, that "in the end of the Sabbath, as it began to dawn towards the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene, and the other Mary, to see the sepulchre. And, behold, there had been a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord had descended from heaven, and come and rolled back the stone." And, shortly after, Matthew adds: "And, behold, Jesus met them" - clearly meaning the afore-mentioned Marys -"saying, All hail. And they came and held Him by the feet, and worshipped Him."


JW:
Origen does not quote from "Mark" for post resurrection evidence when he had specific reason to which is Evidence that Origen either was unaware of the Long Ending or was lying when he responded to Celsus' charge that Christianity changed the Original Gospel:

"CHAP. XXVII.

"After this he says, that certain of the Christian believers, like persons who in a fit of drunkenness lay violent hands upon themselves, have corrupted the Gospel from its original integrity, to a threefold, and fourfold, and many-fold degree, and have remodelled it, so that they might be able to answer objections. Now I know of no others who have altered the Gospel, save the. followers of Marcion, and those of Valentinus, and, I think, also those of Lucian. But such an allegation is no charge against the Christian system, but against those who dared so to trifle with the Gospels. And as it is no ground of accusation against philosophy, that there exist Sophists, or Epicureans, or Peripatetics, or any others, whoever they may be, who hold false opinions; so neither is it against genuine Christianity that there are some who corrupt the Gospel histories, and who introduce heresies opposed to the meaning of the doctrine of Jesus.""


Nice Evidence, conveniently preserved by Christianity itself that there was One Original Gospel like "Mark" which was Edited to support Christian Assertions.

So Schmuelman!, which do you think it was? The most famous Christian Bible scholar of his time, Ignorant of the Long Ending or Lying? Respond if you dare!



Joseph

LAWYER, n.
One skilled in circumvention of the law.

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

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

Steven Avery

"The ending of Mark is the most notable manuscript variation in the entire New Testament" - - Christian Debater

Now that you have discussed three references, about which we mostly agree

AGAINST
1) Origen is an evidence from silence against the long ending,
2) Clement of Alexandria is more or less an evidence from silence

FOR
3) Tatian's Diatessoran is some evidence for the long ending

Lets see to what extent you will address the following 27 references,
24 of which are FOR the long ending, and 3 are mild alllusion.

Our views on the 3 you have written about are not too far apart, in terms of what they reference, and don't reference, and all 3 are of a moderate, significance, one favorable, two unfavorable.

Now, discuss the remaining 27 witnesses, of which the last three are more on the level of allusion, so you can discuss only 24 for simplicity.

================================================== =====
SEVEN EARLY CHURCH WRITER w/ NINE FULL QUOTES READY
================================================== =====
Irenaeus (wrote c. 180) - Against Heresies, Book III,10:5-6 -- (3.10.5)

Constitutions of the Holy Apostles Book V - XIV
VI-XV
VIII-Chapter I
Treatise on Rebaptism (A.D. 250) - IX

Aphraates (Aphrahat), A.D. 337,
Demonstration One: Of Faith (Syrian Church, in Syriac)

The Apocriticus of Macarius Magnes (c. 300)

Ambrose (c. 390) -The Prayer of Job and David.
"Ambrose - quotes from Mark 16:9-20 repeatedly"

Augustine (c 420 AD) Homilies On The Epistle of John To The Parthians (IV:2)

================================================== =====
TWELVE POST-NICENE REFERENCES 325-450 per UBS and Jim Snapp
================================================== =====

Asterius (c. 340)
Marcus-Eremit (pre-450)
Severian (c. 400 AD)
Didymus of Alexandria (390) dub :-)
Hilary of Poitiers (pre-360)
John Chrysostom - Lectionary (pre-360)
John Cassian (430)
Nestorius & Cyril of Alexandria (pre-444) Cyril quotes Nestorius' 16:20. Theodoret of Cyrrhus (c. 450)
Ephrem (Ephraim) Syrus (370
Basil (pre-379)

================================================== =====
FIVE ADDITIONAL EARLY FAVORABLE REFERENCES, ALLUSIONS, QUOTES
================================================== =====

3rd century
Council of Carthage (200+ bishops at council)
Apostolic Traditions (Church doctrine - precedes Apostolic Constitution)
Tertullian (multiple references of various weight)

===============================================
THE LAST THREE CAN BE BYPASSED FOR NOW, FOR SIMPLICITY IN DIALOG

2nd century
Papias - likely reference

================================================== =====
TWO 2nd CENTURY ALLUSIONS - referenced due to being very early.
================================================== =====

Justin Martyr (c. 155)
Epistula Apostolorum (c. 145)

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

JoeWallack

JW:
Continuing with possibly the greatest Compilation since Mishnah Torah in Order to determine Objectively, Intellectually and Unemotionally whether Truth-Challenged Advocates for that man deliberately forged the Long Ending with malice aforethought:


Praxeus:
"THE LAST THREE CAN BE BYPASSED FOR NOW, FOR SIMPLICITY IN DIALOG
2nd century
Papias - likely reference
================================================== =====
TWO 2nd CENTURY ALLUSIONS - referenced due to being very early.
================================================== =====
Justin Martyr (c. 155)
Epistula Apostolorum (c. 145)"


JW:
I've already covered Papias and Justin showing they probably don't refer to the Long Ending. And now:

Irenaeus of Lyons (yes, "Lyons")

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/...#P7435_1989248

"5. Wherefore also Mark, the interpreter and follower of Peter, does thus commence his Gospel narrative: "The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God; as it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send My messenger before Thy face, which shall prepare Thy way.117 The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make the paths straight before our God." Plainly does the commencement of the Gospel quote the words of the holy prophets, and point out Him at once, whom they confessed as God and Lord; Him, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who had also made promise to Him, that He would send His messenger before His face, who was John, crying in the wilderness, in "the spirit and power of Elias,"118 "Prepare ye the way of me Lord, make straight paths before our God." For the prophets did not announce one and mother God, but one and the same; under rations aspects, however, and many titles. For varied and rich in attribute is the Father, as I have already shown in the book preceding119 this; and I shall show [the same truth] from the prophets themselves in the further course of this work. Also, towards the conclusion of his Gospel, Mark says: "So then, after the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God; "120 confirming what had been spoken by the prophet: "The Lord said to my Lord, Sit Thou on My right hand, until I make Thy foes Thy footstool."121 Thus God and the Father are truly one and the same; He who was announced by the prophets, and handed down by the true Gospel; whom we Christians worship and love with the whole heart, as the Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things therein."


The applicable quote is:

""So then, after the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God;"

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."

This is the best evidence yet for the Long Ending, Irenaeus, an important late second century Father, explicitly refers to the Ending of "Mark" and pretty much quotes 16:19. This also ties to Tatian, by the middle to late 2nd century we have Evidence that the Long Ending was known. My guess is that Irenaeus' quote of the Long Ending is Original to Against Heresies.

We have the following reasons though to doubt that Irenaeus' reference is Original to Against Heresies:

1) The extant manuscripts are few and Late all coming after Erasmus.

2) There are no extant Greek manuscripts (only fragment quotes).

3) The extant manuscripts are based on a Latin translation which is generally thought to be a poor translation (difficult to understand what is trying to be said or even what language it was translated from). The Latin translations have textual variation (surprise).

4) The manuscript and Patristic evidence indicates it was Likely that Irenaeus' writings were Edited by the Church.

5) It's Likely that forged Greek fragments of Irenaeus have been presented as authentic.

6) The supposed quote of 16:19 is only known to exist in the Latin:

"In fine autem evangelii ait Marcus: Et quidem dominus Iesus, posteaquam locutus est eis, receptus est in caelos, et sedit ad dexteram dei."

"At the end, moreover, of the gospel Mark says: And so the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken to them, was received into the heavens, and sits at the right hand of God."

There is no known Greek fragment of this.

We also have the following reasons not to give much weight to Irenaeus' supposed quote of the Long Ending as evidence of its being Original:

1) Irenaeus never identifies the Ending of "Mark" as an issue.

2) Irenaeus shows no interest in Textual Variation acting largely as an Advocate, even by Patristic standards, simply choosing whatever he thought was the best evidence for his position and ignoring other alternatives. It's easy to picture Irenaeus selecting the Long Ending based on what it said and not based on its Textual history. Note that in the quote above Irenaeus does the same for his quote of the beginning of "Mark":

"The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God;"

It's generally thought by modern Bible scholarship that "Son of God" is not Original but a second century addition. And:

"as it is written in the prophets"

Again, it's generally thought by modern Bible scholarship that "prophets" (as opposed to "Malachi") is not Original but a second century addition. So we may have two other examples in the same quote that Irenaeus simply choose from a second century variation and ignored the earlier wording.

By The Way Schmuelman!, congratulations on getting Peter mad which I believe would be even rarer than claimed resurrections. Peter probably has more knowledge and has done less speaking than any other Skeptic here. There could be a realtionship.

Now, shall we continue? If you dare!



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