Freethought & Rationalism Archive

JoeWallack · 06-03-2010, 07:32 AM

JW:
Richard Carrier argues in his related article that he thinks Irenaeus' supposed reference to the LE is an interpolation. For those who have been carefully following the debate, Irenaeus' supposed reference is the only clear evidence for the existence of the LE in the 2nd century. Without a reference from Irenaeus, the identification of the LE and the issue of the ending of "Mark" moves up to Eusebius (MM, look out!). Did the LE even exist in the 2nd century and was Eusebius the first to bring it to the attention of Patrology? Indeed, subsequent Patristics invoke Eusebius on the issue and not Irenaeus. Almost as if in their time Irenaeus had never referred to the LE.

Note that Dr. Carrier's following argument covers it both ways, doubt as to when Irenaeus supposedly used LE and surprise as to when he did not. Enjoy:

Quote:

5.3.5. Irenaeus

The only other relevant author from the 2nd century is Irenaeus (c. 185 AD). He appears to provide the only reliable evidence that the LE was in any copies of Mark in the 2nd century. But the mss. of Irenaeus are notoriously corrupt and problematic. He only mentions the LE once, and that in a passage that only survives in Latin translation, yet the Latin texts of Irenaeus are among those most tampered with. The claim has been made that Theodoret of Cyrrhus (c. 450 A.D.) quotes this passage in the original Greek, confirming that if it had been interpolated, it happened in the Greek before the Latintranslation was made (which would certainly be possible). But this is not in fact true. Theodoret’s quotation is from a previous section of Irenaeus, not this one.[58] It has also been claimed this passage is quoted in Greek in a marginal note added next to the LE in a medieval Bible, but that’s also not true. [59] The scholium in question only says “Irenaeus, who was near to the apostles, in the third book against heresies quotes this saying as found in Mark.”[60] It does not quote the text of Irenaeus. As that ms. dates to the mid-10th century, and its marginalia are even later, this testimony confirms nothing, for the referenced passage could be an interpolation made anytime during the previous seven hundred years—even in the Greek, yet for all we know this scholar could be referring to a Latin text of Irenaeus. So we have no Greek text of this passage. It exists only in the medieval Latin.

Certainly, on its face we would still accept this passage as confirmation that Ireneaus’ copy of Mark by the late 2nd century contained the LE. But there is a persuasive argument to be made that this passage was not written by Irenaeus but interpolated (at least within two or three centuries, or even later), quite possibly by accident. The passage looks like a marginal note added by a scribe intending to add to Irenaeus’ arguments in that chapter. As there was no standard notation for distinguishing marginal notes from accidentally omitted text, we have countless examples of such notes being accidentally interpolated into the text of other manuscripts. This could be one such case. According to manuscript specialist F.W. Hall, “the casual jottings of readers and correctors are often imported into the text,” hence in his manual on textual criticism he dedicates an entire section to “Insertion of interlinear or marginal glosses or notes” as a common cause of erroneous interpolation in manuscripts. Robert Renehan agrees, “marginal confusions...occur frequently in mss.,” giving several examples (e.g. § 35 shows several “marginal scholia which have been incorporated into the text” of the letters of Epicurus, in some cases entire sentences). In his own brief survey, Miroslav Marcovich documents at least 33 examples of this kind of mistake in the works of the early Church Fathers.[61]

To understand why the passage attesting the LE in Irenaeus may be an interpolation, the entire section must be quoted to reveal the flow of Irenaeus’ argument, and why the LE does not appear to fit. Before this Irenaeus has spent an entire chapter arguing that Jesus is God and there is only one God in Jesus, extensively quoting the NT and OT, every instance confirming his thesis that he can find. He then concludes (emphasis added):

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. 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 Elijah,” “Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight paths before our God.” For the prophets did not announce one and another God, but one and the same, under various aspects, however, and many titles. For varied and rich in attributes is the Father, as I have already shown in the book preceding this, and as I shall show 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 sat 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.” 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.

(Irenaeus, Against All Heresies 3.10.5)

Note that before the sentence in bold, Irenaeus appears already to have concluded his argument. Yet then, out of the blue, he adds, as if an afterthought, “Also...” and quotes Mark 16:19 as verifying Psalms 110:1 (which had already been verified, and by Jesus himself, in Mark 12:35-37). Even more strangely, in none of this additional sentence does the word ‘Father’ appear, yet this passage is supposed to support Irenaeus’s argument that ‘thus God and the Father’ are one and the same. Because this is the argument of the preceding sentence, and the conclusion declared in the following sentence. If the material in bold is removed, we have a consistent argument from premise to conclusion. But reinsert the material in bold and there is an illogical disconnect between the argument Irenaeus is supposed to be making, and the passage being quoted—because that passage does not support this argument.

So why is it here? It would make sense as an addition to the whole theme of chapters 9 through 12, but it makes no sense appearing exactly here. And even though section 3.10.5 is where we would expect all his quotations from Mark to appear, this particular quotation still does not fit the specific argument Irenaeus is making. It would support only a different argument (albeit one that would reinforce his overall thesis), and thus should appear as a separate argument either before or after the present one, not inexplicably inserted in the middle of it. But a scholar who wished to add reinforcing evidence from Mark to Irenaeus’ overall theme would certainly place it in the margins of section 3.10.5, if he would place it anywhere. Which would explain how it came to be arbitrarily inserted into the text.

In further support of this conclusion, Irenaeus knows that his argument from Mark 1:1-3 requiresconsiderable elucidation (consisting of several sentences), but the comparably required elucidation of his supposed argument from Mark 16:19 is missing. As written, the text in bold actually refutes rather than supports Irenaeus, for it plainly says Jesus was a different entity from God (sitting next to him, not in his place), and it is not explained how the Psalm quoted makes any different conclusion out of this. Irenaeus would have needed to explain the connections here: how the Psalm supports reinterpreting Mark 16:19 as a confirmation rather than refutation of the thesis that Jesus and God are one and the same. He would certainly have called into service Mark 12:35-37, and explicitly identified the links we are supposed to make between the different Lords named and God and the Messiah and why we are to presume David is speaking of the latter in Psalm 110:1. Yet none of this is present. A marginal note would easily consist of a single sentence, leaving the connecting arguments implied, but Irenaeus himself would not likely deliver such a presumptuous and unfinished argument, especially one so manifestly supporting his opponents (the heretics he is here engaged in refuting). The fact that it doesn’t even support the argument it is attached to only confirms the conclusion that Irenaeus didn’t write this. I conclude this testimony is probably spurious.

Another passage in Irenaeus is sometimes adduced as evidence he knew the LE, but the passage in question actually argues against such knowledge.[62] For it neither quotes the LE, nor uses the same vocabulary as the LE, nor even implies he is drawing any information from the Gospels at all—for he is providing his own description of current activity in the Church, which he lists not as exorcism, speaking in tongues, immunity to poison, and healing, but exorcism, prophecy, healing, and resurrecting the dead (and each described elaborately), thus showing no congruity with the LE. His list simply reflects common Christian practice and belief at the time.[63] And since his point is that these powers prove the Christian gospel true, the fact that Jesus himself had said so (16:17-18: “these signs shall accompany them that believe,” thereby confirming the truth of the gospel) would so soundly secure his argument that for him to neglect citing it here is patently strange. This all but proves he did not know the LE. Similarly, Irenaeus mentions “speaking with all kinds of tongues” as a power Christians displayed, but only far away from this list, in a completely different book, showing no awareness that this was ever predicted by Jesus, much less in the same place as healing and exorcism. The phenomenon is already ubiquitously discussed in the Epistles and obviously still going on, so this passage does not attest knowledge of the LE. Indeed, again, this argues against such knowledge, since here as elsewhere he fails to associate the powers listed in the LE, and fails to mention that these powers were predicted by Christ himself. That he never shows any knowledge of ‘immunity to snakes and poison’ being a power any Christians should or did have only confirms the point. So from these passages as well it seems much more likely that Irenaeus did not know of the LE.

JoeWallack · 06-06-2010, 08:05 PM

JW:

Did Irenaeus Refer to the LE?

Background
Time to go back to the Patristic category and put more pressure on Irenaeus as evidence for the LE. My opponent’s argument for LE is based primarily on two things, positive Patristic references and quantity of Manuscripts. Of course when we properly consider the negative Patristic references to the LE as well, such as all 2nd century Gospels failing to show awareness of the LE, the Patristic category is clearly against LE. The main Patristic positive evidence against LE is Eusebius, who easily outweighs Irenaeus due to scope and credibility. We’ve just seen how much effort my opponent has put into discrediting Eusebius here.

We already have pressure on Irenaeus as a witness for LE due to timing and credibility. As the first supposedly clear witness to the LE it already stands out and the lack of clear confirmation in the 3rd century makes it stand out further. Ironically, after Irenaeus, it is Eusebius, my Patristic champion against LE, that provides the first clear evidence of the existence of the LE, although he supports Irenaeus’ supposed identification of the LE indirectly by indicating that at Eusebius time, start of the 4th century, the LE was already very old.

Dr. Richard Carrier has written an article for my site, ErrancyWiki, which argues against LE. In the article Dr. Carrier provides an argument that Irenaeus probably did not refer to the LE. I urge my opponent here to carefully follow how I present the evidence here of a supposed authority. “Authority” will be the final category of External evidence presented in this debate and like the categories it follows, Patristic, Manuscript and Scribal, will be evidence against LE. My opponent will readily confess that Authority is against LE. One of the things my opponent and I agree on is that Authority has the least weight of any category in this debate. What I say next than is applicable to me and Mr. Snapp but especially applicable to him since specifically in this debate he disputes Authority in general. When appealing to authority it is necessary to provide an outline of all the significant points of the related argument. Simply appealing to an authority in general terms or even supplying a few main related arguments which support your conclusion, is not enough. The reader needs the basics of the entire argument so a conclusion can be made based mainly on the argument and not the arguer.

Dr. Carrier Argument:

1) General reasons against LE:

Irenaeus’ manuscripts are corrupt even by Church Father standards.

He only mentions LE once. (By my count Irenaeus refers to the post resurrection Jesus once in “Matthew”, five time in “Luke” and 4 times in “John”.)

This part of Irenaeus exists only in Latin.

Interpolations in general are common in Patristics

JW:
Dr. Carrier’s general reasons only make it possible that the reference to LE is not original. We can also add the weight of the External pressure here to add support for LE to Irenaeus.

2) Specific reasons against LE:

Irenaeus’ related overall point starts at IX:

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iv.x.html

Quote:

Chapter IX.—One and the same God, the Creator of heaven and earth, is He whom the prophets foretold, and who was declared by the Gospel. Proof of this, at the outset, from St. Matthew’s Gospel.

1. This, therefore, having been clearly demonstrated here (and it shall yet be so still more clearly), that neither the prophets, nor the apostles, nor the Lord Christ in His own person, did acknowledge any other Lord or God, but the God and Lord supreme: the prophets and the apostles confessing the Father and the Son; but naming no other as God, and confessing no other as Lord: and the Lord Himself handing down to His disciples, that He, the Father, is the only God and Lord, who alone is God and ruler of all; —it is incumbent on us to follow, if we are their disciples indeed, their testimonies to this effect. For Matthew the apostle— knowing, as one and the same God, Him who had given promise to Abraham, that He would make his seed as the stars of heaven and Him who, by His Son Christ Jesus, has called us to the knowledge of Himself, from the worship of stones, so that those who were not a people were made a people, and she beloved who was not beloved —declares that John, when preparing the way for Christ, said to those who were boasting of their relationship [to Abraham] according to the flesh, but who had their mind tinged and stuffed with all manner of evil, preaching that repentance which should call them back from their evil doings, said, “O generation of vipers, who hath shown you to flee from the wrath to come? Bring forth therefore fruit meet for repentance. And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham [to our] father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.” There is therefore one and the same God, the Father of our Lord, who also promised, through the prophets, that He would send His forerunner; and His salvation—that is, His Word —He caused to be made visible to all flesh, [the Word] Himself being made incarnate, that in all things their King might become manifest. For it is necessary that those [beings] which are judged do see the judge, and know Him from whom they receive judgment; and it is also proper, that those which follow on to glory should know Him who bestows upon them the gift of glory.

Irenaeus is a poor writer by anyone’s standards so combined with the impossible subject of trying to defend the indefensible, that Jesus and the Father are only one God in total, as well as attempting to refute what he considers other heresies such as Jesus not having flesh, there is some difficulty in understanding what Irenaeus means. The main point of this section though seems to be arguing that Jesus and the Father are only one God:

“the Lord Himself handing down to His disciples, that He, the Father, is the only God and Lord, who alone is God and ruler of all”

The primary purpose of the chapter is arguing that Jesus = God and there is only one God.

#1 Carrier point

The offending verse comes after Irenaeus’ conclusion to Chapters IX and X:

“For the prophets did not announce one and another God, but one and the same; under various aspects, however, and many titles. For varied and rich in attribute is the Father, as I have already shown in the book preceding 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;”

#2 Carrier point

The offending verse contradicts Irenaeus’ overall conclusion that Jesus and the Father are the same:

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

If Jesus is sitting at the right hand of God than they are not the same. Carrier points out that it is especially strange that if Irenaeus did write this he would not provide some explanation as to why it did not support his opponents’ arguments that Jesus was subservient to God the Father. We can go beyond Carrier here and observe that even if Irenaeus was aware of the LE he would have rejected at a minimum this part of it since it contradicts his theology.

#3 Carrier point

Removal of the offending verse does not hurt the continuity of what precedes and follows:

“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. 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,” “Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight paths before our God.” For the prophets did not announce one and another God, but one and the same; under various aspects, however, and many titles. For varied and rich in attribute is the Father, as I have already shown in the book preceding this; and I shall show [the same truth] from the prophets themselves in the further course of this work. 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.”

Note that with this presentation Irenaeus’ conclusion is now united instead of being split by the offending verse.

#4 Carrier point

Dr. Carrier points out that the offending verse is placed next to the other quote from “Mark”. The title of this Chapter is proofs from Mark and Luke and comically, since “Mark” as the original Gospel has a much lower Christology, Irenaeus either way can only manage one paragraph from “Mark” for support that Jesus and God are the same. Regarding the offending verse, it provides support for a related argument that Jesus and God are both referred to as “Lord”. The purpose of this conclusion though is to argue that Jesus and God are the same since the same name is used for both. Again, the specifics of the offending verse contradict this conclusion as Jesus is not only shown as separate from the Father but subservient to him. The notice that the LE supports only the observation that “Lord” is used to describe Jesus and the Father rather than their being the same, seems more likely to be a limited commentary on this section that muscled its way into the text rather than part of Irenaeus’ original argument.

#5 Carrier point

Whereas Irenaeus spends a few sentences explaining how the specifics of the beginning of “Mark” quote support his conclusion, regarding the offending verse, while there is a claimed prophecy fulfillment, there is no explanation of how the specifics of the verse support his conclusion.

#6 Carrier point

The offending verse supports opponents that Irenaeus is arguing against. In Chapters IX and X here Irenaeus is mainly arguing against Marcion El All who had a basic position that the God of the Christian Bible was different from the God of the Jewish Bible. But in other parts of this book Irenaeus argues against those who think that Jesus was entirely separate from and inferior to God the Father and the offending verse is what they would have been using. If it existed.

#7 Carrier point

Irenaeus fails to invoke the LE when it would have clearly supported a different argument:

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf0...ii.xxxiii.html

Quote:

Chapter XXXII.—Further exposure of the wicked and blasphemous doctrines of the heretics.

4. If, however, they maintain that the Lord, too, performed such works simply in appearance, we shall refer them to the prophetical writings, and prove from these both that all things were thus predicted regarding Him, and did take place undoubtedly, and that He is the only Son of God. Wherefore, also, those who are in truth His disciples, receiving grace from Him, do in His name perform [miracles], so as to promote the welfare of other men, according to the gift which each one has received from Him. For some do certainly and truly drive out devils, so that those who have thus been cleansed from evil spirits frequently both believe [in Christ], and join themselves to the Church. Others have foreknowledge of things to come: they see visions, and utter prophetic expressions. Others still, heal the sick by laying their hands upon them, and they are made whole. Yea, moreover, as I have said, the dead even have been raised up, and remained among us for many years. And what shall I more say? It is not possible to name the number of the gifts which the Church, [scattered] throughout the whole world, has received from God, in the name of Jesus Christ, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and which she exerts day by day for the benefit of the Gentiles, neither practising deception upon any, nor taking any reward from them [on account of such miraculous interpositions]. For as she has received freely from God, freely also does she minister [to others].

Dr. Carrier notes the following supporting a lack of awareness or at least rejection of the LE:

1 - Different vocabulary compared to the LE

2 - Limited agreement with the LE

3 – Failure to claim LE as part of prophecy fulfillment

4 – Irenaeus writes of “speaking with all kinds of tongues” in a separate writing

I will now add to Dr, Carrier’s argument that Patristics subsequent to Irenaeus do not mention Irenaeus in the context of this debate until long after Eusebius/Jerome. Indeed Eusebius/Jerome, even though thoroughly familiar with Irenaeus, never mention him in context although they never mention anyone else either, except for Jerome mentioning Eusebius. Note that even though Jerome prefers the LE and uses it, the only Patristic he cites is Eusebius who argues against it. Why not cite Irenaeus as support for using it? Just as telling is that as we move forward in Patrology, Eusebius is still being cited as the Patristic reference and no one mentions Irenaeus, even those who support the use of LE such as Jerome. Victor of Antioch, c. 550, is for LE, but his related argument uses the words of Eusebius. Severus of Antioch, 6th century, is against LE and also uses the wording of Eusebius. If we go back to the Scribal evidence in the f1 family X to XV century, only Eusebius is invoked. In summary, even though Patristics actively preferred the LE starting around Jerome, no one ever invoked Irenaeus as support for the LE until? If a Patristic was invoked, it was Eusebius.

Joseph

andrewcriddle · 06-12-2010, 06:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

............
Richard Carrier argues in his related article that he thinks Irenaeus' supposed reference to the LE is an interpolation.
......

Quote:

5.3.5. Irenaeus

.......................
It has also been claimed this passage is quoted in Greek in a marginal note added next to the LE in a medieval Bible, but that’s also not true. [59] The scholium in question only says “Irenaeus, who was near to the apostles, in the third book against heresies quotes this saying as found in Mark.”[60] It does not quote the text of Irenaeus. As that ms. dates to the mid-10th century, and its marginalia are even later, this testimony confirms nothing, for the referenced passage could be an interpolation made anytime during the previous seven hundred years—even in the Greek, yet for all we know this scholar could be referring to a Latin text of Irenaeus. So we have no Greek text of this passage. It exists only in the medieval Latin.

According to Legg's edition of Mark the scholium continues

Quote:

ANELHPhThH CS IS PROS TON EN OUNOIS AUTOU PRA KAI ThN

expanding the nomina sacra we have

Quote:

ANELHPhThH ChRISTOS IHSOUS PROS TON EN OURANOIS AUTOU PATERA KAI ThEON

which translates something like Christ Jesus was received into Heaven, unto his Father and God. The Latin of Irenaeus has

Quote:

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

Although the scholium does not quote Ireneaus exactly, I think it is simpler to assume an underlying Greek text of Irenaeus, hence it seems likely that the reference to Mark 16:19 is was found both in the Latin and the Greek of Irenaeus' work.

Andrew Criddle

avi · 06-12-2010, 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Although the scholium does not quote Ireneaus exactly, I think it is simpler to assume an underlying Greek text of Irenaeus, hence it seems likely that the reference to Mark 16:19 is was found both in the Latin and the Greek of Irenaeus' work.

Andrew: I am confused. How do you, or anyone else, know what Ireneaus said, "exactly"?

Is your quote above, linguistically distinct from my writing this:
"Although the scholium quotes Ireneaus exactly (as we know from comparing the transcribed text to a tape recording of his voice, reading the text aloud), I think it is more accurate to assume something more attractive to my perspective, therefore, it seems more likely that the most reasonable version of Mark 16:19 is that found in the Byzantine version, rather than the edition of Hort & Westcott, in which the word "Jesus" has been interpolated.

In other words, Andrew, I don't share your enthusiasm for interpreting text in accord with your own personal wishes, rather than as the data reveals itself--muddled, distorted, and contradictory.

avi

andrewcriddle · 06-14-2010, 05:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Although the scholium does not quote Ireneaus exactly, I think it is simpler to assume an underlying Greek text of Irenaeus, hence it seems likely that the reference to Mark 16:19 is was found both in the Latin and the Greek of Irenaeus' work.

Andrew: I am confused. How do you, or anyone else, know what Ireneaus said, "exactly"?

i

Hi avi

I should have said: Although the scholium is not an accurate quotation of any plausible Greek original underlying the Latin translation of this portion of Irenaeus' text, I think it is simpler to assume that this Greek scholium derives from a Greek text of Irenaeus rather than being a paraphrastic back translation from the Latin into Greek. Hence it seems likely that some sort of reference to Mark 16:19 was found both in the Latin and the Greek of Irenaeus' work.

Andrew Criddle

JoeWallack · 06-23-2010, 07:48 PM

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

Quote:

I suppose that any readers who are still with us are so dedicated to read the entire debate that there is only a small chance of losing them by revisiting the testimony of Irenaeus. I will try to make this mercifully swift.

JW: “The main Patristic positive evidence against LE is Eusebius, who easily outweighs Irenaeus due to scope and credibility.”

Incorrect. Neither writer has “scope” – a term that refers to the geographic range of the witnesses that support a variant – but Irenaeus’ location is of greater weight than Eusebius’ location, because Irenaeus was geographically closer to the city of Rome, where the Gospel of Mark had been written, and because Irenaeus had visited the city. Irenaeus is also 140 years closer to the production-date of the Gospel of Mark. Irenaeus is also more credible as a textual critic, inasmuch as he expressed a valid text-critical principle in his writings, while Eusebius’ guiding text-critical principle was apologetic convenience.

JW: “We already have pressure on Irenaeus as a witness for LE due to timing and credibility. As the first supposedly clear witness to the LE it already stands out and the lack of clear confirmation in the 3rd century makes it stand out further.”

That's inaccurate altogether, because Justin clearly used 16:20 in the Synoptics-Harmony that he utilized in First Apology 45, and Tatian clearly used practically the entire passage in the Diatessaron. This is an amazing claim coming from someone who tried to use the appearance of the mere silence of Clement and Origen as evidence. Also, inasmuch as quotations from anywhere in Mark are few and far between in earlier writers, there’s no “pressure” whatsoever on his testimony. Plus, we have already seen third century support for Mark 16:9-20 from Hippolytus, from Tertullian, from the author of De Rebaptismate, from Vincentius of Thibaris, from the source-material of Doctrine of Addai, and from Porphyry.

JW: “After Irenaeus, it is Eusebius, my Patristic champion against LE, that provides the first clear evidence of the existence of the LE.”

That’s false, for the same reasons that his previous claim is false.

My opponent stated that “Authority” – which seems to be his name for conventional wisdom – will be his final category. If he were serious about that, we could dispense with the notion that Irenaeus’ use of Mark 16:19 is an interpolation right now, because Tregelles, Scrivener, Burgon, Hort, Lake, Streeter, Kenyon, Metzger, Aland, Ehrman, etc. acknowledge that Irenaeus used Mark 16:19.

But let’s hear what Richard Carrier had to say. First, he had four points:

(1) “Irenaeus’ manuscripts are corrupt even by Church Father standards.”
(2) Irenaeus “only mentions LE once.”
(3) “This part of Irenaeus exists only in Latin.”
(4) “Interpolations in general are common in Patristics.”

The first point may be dispatched immediately; a general statement about corruptions does not prove or even indicate any specific claim of corruption. It’s like saying, “Many people make false statements; therefore my opponent’s statement is false.” The same goes for the fourth point, for the same reason. The second point may also be dispatched immediately; it would be ridiculous to refrain from accepting patristic testimony for any passage on the grounds that an author cites it once instead of twice. The third point may also be dispatched immediately, because this is true of almost all of Against Heresies, and because the Latin translation is extremely literal, and because of the marginalia in MS 1582, which I will describe shortly.

My opponent proposed that Mark 16:19 does not fit the argument that Irenaeus was making in Against Heresies 3:10, on the grounds that Irenaeus was attempting to show that Jesus is God, and Mark 16:19 says that Jesus sat at the right hand of God; thus Mark 16:19 thus collides with Irenaeus’ point that Jesus and God are the same. To see why my opponent’s view about this is incorrect, we shall consider some the passages that Irenaeus cites in this part of Book III.

In chapter 6, Irenaeus cites Psalm 110:1 as proof of Christ’s divinity – the same passage used by Justin in First Apology 45. Psalm 110:1 says, “The Lord said to my Lord, ‘Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool.’” Plainly two entities are involved; yet Irenaeus interpreted this as evidence of Jesus’ divinity, on the grounds that David thus refers to him as “Lord.”

In chapter 8, to show proof that Christ and the Father are one God, Irenaeus cites John 1:3, which, referring to the Word, states, “All things were made by him, and without him was not anything made that was made.” Even though God and His Word are portrayed distinctly, Irenaeus deduced that they both compose one God, on the grounds that neither the Father nor the Word is among the created things: “He indeed who made all things can alone, together with His Word, properly be termed God and Lord.”

In chapter 9, Irenaeus cited Matthew 3:16-17, where, after Jesus was baptized, a heavenly voice said, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” Again, although the Father is portrayed speaking from heaven, while the Son is standing in the Jordan River, Irenaeus does not see this as anything but a demonstration that Jesus has always been the divine Christ, since God the Father declared that Jesus is his Son, not that Jesus had suddenly become his Son.

In chapter 9, Irenaeus refers to Matthew 2:11, where the wise men present gifts to the infant Jesus, and Irenaeus states that the gift of frankincense allegorically shows that Christ – an infant, in Matthew 2:11 – was God. Clearly, to Irenaeus the portrayal of the incarnate Son being distinct from the Father was not problematic to his understanding of Christ as God. Thus, Carrier’s proposal that Mark 16:19’s portrayal of Jesus being seated in heaven at God’s right hand would pose a problem for Irenaeus’ position utterly defies the evidence.

But there is something even more basic to consider: Irenaeus’ real point here is not merely to show that Jesus is God. His purpose is to show that the same divinity is shared eternally by Jesus and by Jesus’ Father, who is the Creator and the God of Israel, and to thus refute the Marcionites and the Gnostics who taught things to the contrary. The Marcionites believed that the creator of the world and the God of Israel was not Jesus’ Father, but was the Ogdoad, a sub-deity. The Gnostics believed that the divine essence entered into Jesus at His baptism, and left when Jesus was on the cross. These are the heresies that Irenaeus was refuting here. He intended to identify Jesus’ Father as the Creator, and as the God of Israel who sent the prophets of the Old Testament. The heretics agreed that Christ was divine; Irenaeus’ position encompasses much more than that; it also involved establishing the Scriptural definition of divinity and the Scriptural identification of Jesus’ Father. Carrier realized that Irenaeus was refuting the Marcionites and the Gnostics, but he seems to have oversimplified Irenaeus’ doctrinal goals.

Now we enter chapter 10. Here, Irenaeus used selections from Luke 1-2, where the Father sends angels as the Son is born and placed in a manger, and Irenaeus emphasizes, “The Israelitish shepherds did not glorify another god, but him who had been announced by the law and the prophets, the Maker of all things, whom also the angels glorified. But if the angels who were from the Ogdoad were accustomed to glorify any other, different from him whom the shepherds (glorified), these angels from the Ogdoad brought to them error and not truth.” This is not the sort of thing one says if one's sole concern is to prove the deity of Jesus Christ; clearly Irenaeus also desired to show that Jesus’ Father is the same God who sent the angels, and who inspired the prophets, who told about Jesus.

Also in chapter 10, Irenaeus summed up Luke 2:21-38, where Jesus is portrayed as a baby. This does not impede Irenaeus’ belief in His divinity. His goal here is not to show that the Father and the Son are not distinct; it is to show, as he put it, that “one God is shown forth, revealing to men the new dispensation of liberty, the covenant, through the new advent of His Son.” He is showing that the sub-deity posited by Marcion is not in the equation; the God who sent the Law and the prophets (and Ana, the prophetess) is the same God who shares His essence with His Son Jesus.

Immediately after that, we find Irenaeus’ citations from Mark 1:1-3. And again, Irenaeus’ point is that the God who sent the prophets is the God who sent Jesus, thus blocking the Marcionite claim that a sub-deity sent the prophets. Then comes the quotation from Mark 16:19, which Irenaeus immediately links to Psalm 110:1, to show, as he has been showing, that the God of the prophets is the Father of Jesus: “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 sits 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.’ 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.”

Mark 16:19 actually fits Irenaeus’ agenda quite snugly. Four points from internal evidence may also be considered:
(1) Irenaeus has made his point in several different ways, so it would take a strange sort of interpolator to make the same point yet again, re-using Psalm 110:1.
(2) An interpolator would tend to describe Psalm 110 as something spoken by David, but Irenaeus, to bolster his thesis, cites it as “spoken by the prophet.”
(3) Because Irenaeus uses a form of Mark 16:19 which has the variant, “Lord Jesus,” the use of Mark 16:19 fits his agenda. This variant was not so common in later centuries, so it is less likely that any interpolator would happen to find it and select it to make Irenaeus’ point.
(4) The Latin form of Irenaeus’ quotation differs from the Vulgate: the Vulgate text here is “Et Dominus quidem Iesus postquam locutus est eis, assumptus est in caelum, et sedet a dextris Dei.” The Latin translation of Irenaeus: “Et quidem Dominus Jesus, postquam locutus est eis, receptus est in caelos, et sedet ad dexteram Dei.”

Carrier’s third point was, “Removal of the offending verse does not hurt the continuity of what precedes and follows,” but this is something that can be said of many of Irenaeus’ statements, because he illustrated his points over and over and over again, using different proof-texts to make the same point.

Carrier’s fourth point was that Mark 16:19 “provides support for a related argument that Jesus and God are both referred to as “Lord”.” I agree; this is one reason why Irenaeus used it, and interpreted it through the lens of Psalm 110:1: the Father – David’s Lord – and the Son – the Lord Jesus – share divine Lordship.

Carrier’s fifth point was that “there is no explanation of how the specifics of the verse support his conclusion.” Rather, Irenaeus did explain this, by using Psalm 110:1 as an interpretive lens for the reader to look through and see the obvious point that the Father – who is “the Lord” in Psalm 110, and God in Mark 16:19 – and the Son – who is the prophet’s “Lord” in Psalm 110, and “the Lord Jesus” in Mark 16:19 – share Lordship. No further explanation is necessary; the alignment of these two texts speaks for itself.

Carrier’s sixth point was that Mark 16:19 “supports opponents that Irenaeus is arguing against,” but this is simply not the case. Can Carrier really imagine that anybody who proposed that Psalm 110:1 was inspired by an inferior deity, and that Jesus was sent by someone else, would be glad to use a Scripture which shows that Jesus fulfilled Psalm 110?! Or does Carrier imagine that anybody who taught that the divine essence departed from Jesus on the cross would quote a passage that described His post-resurrection ascension and heavenly enthronement?!

Carrier’s seventh point was, “Irenaeus fails to invoke the LE when it would have clearly supported a different argument” in Book 2:32:4. In that passage, Irenaeus answers the charge that Jesus and His disciples merely appeared to perform miracles by providing a general description of the many miraculous signs performed by Christians. Not only is Carrier making an argument from silence here, but the whole objection can be dispensed with simply by noticing that Irenaeus does not explicitly cite any passage of Scripture there. Irenaeus opted to say – concisely, for once! – that a consultation of the Scriptures would fully refute the heretics’ claim, and he does not undertake a list because “It is not possible to name the number of the gifts which the church, throughout the whole world, has received from God in the name of Jesus Christ.”

Carrier’s argument is thus shattered, but let’s go ahead and examine one of the shards. He claimed that Irenaeus’ vocabulary in 2:32:4 is “different vocabulary compared to the LE.” Yes; the vocabulary is different, because Irenaeus is describing all the apostles’ miracles, not just the ones mentioned in Mark 16:17-20. But Carrier alleges a remarkable fortuitousness, inasmuch as Irenaeus and Mark 16:15-20 both mention “all the world;” both mention the performance of miraculous deeds in Jesus’ name; both mention the casting-out of demons; Irenaeus and Mk. 16:18 both refer to healings done through the laying-on of hands, and that the sick recover. There’s no quotation here, but there seems to be strong recollection. And shortly before this, in II:32:3, Irenaeus stated that the Lord rose from the dead on the third day, and manifested Himself to His disciples, “and was in their sight received up into heaven,” which practically dovetails with his quotation of Mark 16:19 in 3:10:5. But I suppose Carrier would say that this is an interpolation too.

Continued in Part 2.

Yours in Christ,

James Snapp, Jr.

JoeWallack · 06-23-2010, 07:51 PM

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

Quote:

(Continued from Part 1)

Next, my opponent proposed that there is no evidence that anyone cited Irenaeus’ use of Mk. 16:19 until long after Eusebius and Jerome. A fine example of special pleading. Shall we disregard every patristic citation that is not mentioned by subsequent writers?? For those who had no doubts about the legitimacy of Mark 16:9-20 – that is, as far as the evidence shows, everyone outside of Egypt and Caesarea in the 100’s, 200’s, and 300’s – there was no need to cite Irenaeus or anyone else in its defense; it was in their exemplars along with the rest of the Gospel of Mark.

To those who had Mark 16:9-20 in their exemplars, the thought of appealing to Irenaeus’ quotation to support the inclusion of Mark 16:9-20 would only occur to individuals who had encountered Eusebius’ statements about its absence from his “accurate copies” (in his answer to Marinus’ first question) or from “some copies” (in his answer to Marinus’ second question). Happily, just such an appeal is preserved in MS 1582.

My opponent stated, “If we go back to the Scribal evidence in the f1 family X to XV century, only Eusebius is invoked.” But that is not true. MS 1582 is the rightful flagship MS of f-1 (we really should call it f-1582). 1582 was made in 948 by Ephraim the Scribe, who had a habit of not just copying his exemplars but of replicating them, line for line, marginalia and all. Because of this quality, copies made by Ephraim do not merely show us a text and marginalia that were extant in the tenth century; for all practical purposes, they are reproductions of an earlier ancestor-MS. How old was the text in Ephraim’s exemplar of the Gospels? Well, the text of 1582 has a strong affinity with a Gospels-text used by Origen (d. 254) at Caesarea. And the most recent patristic writer named in the margin-notes is Cyril of Alexandria (d. 444). Figuring that later writers would have been cited if the marginalia-writer had known about them, this establishes a likely date for the text in 1582 in the late 400’s. For more information about this see Amy Anderson’s dissertation on Codex 1582 (published as Volume 32 of New Testament Tools & Studies, “The Textual Tradition of the Gospels”), in which she cautiously stated, “One could claim that Family 1 provides textual scholars with a 6th century text at the latest, and it may well be earlier.”

MS 1582, between Mark 16:8 and 16:9, adds the same note that was mentioned as a feature of f-1. But the marginalia-writer of 1582’s exemplar or ancestor-MS also wrote, in the margin next to Mark 16:19, another note, written in Greek, in the same inverted triangular format as some other margin-notes: “Irenaeus, who lived near the time of the apostles, cites this from Mark in the third book of his work Against Heresies.” Thus we have, in MS 1582, evidence of a Greek copyist of the late 400’s or 500’s affirming, in answer to the note that precedes 16:9, that Irenaeus cited 16:19 in the third book of Against Heresies. So unless my opponent has some evidence that the originator of this Greek note in a Greek manuscript with a text with Caesarean affinities had read an interpolated Latin copy of Against Heresies Book III, we may drop Carrier’s theory where it belongs.

Readers, thank you for your patience. Onward to the internal evidence.

Yours in Christ,

James Snapp, Jr.

stephan huller · 06-23-2010, 10:10 PM

Hi Joe Wallack

I am late coming to this debate and can't imagine that I would re-read the whole debate from the beginning but being already familiar with Snapp's position from other sites I find it difficult to argue that something like LE was always fixed to the end of Mark. I don't necessarily expect expect you to revisit all the evidence for my benefit I just want to clarify what your position is.

I think Irenaeus is citing the LE and whether or not every witness that Snapp says is referencing the LE is actually referencing the LE he has so many of these witnesses that he can lose a single battle and still end up winning the war.

In my opinion, the best argument against Snapp is to make the case the case that Irenaeus is NOT ONLY citing the LE but in fact arguing against another heretical ending which resembles the LE but is used to prove a heretical position.

Look again at the section please. I will cite from the English translation for simplicity's sake. The section begins with Irenaeus saying:

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. 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,""Prepare ye the way of me Lord, make straight paths before our God." For the prophets did not announce one and another God, but one and the same; under various aspects, however, and many titles. For varied and rich in attribute is the Father, as I have already shown in the book preceding this

It is important to cite the context of the statement in AH iii.10.5 in order to make sense of what follows. Irenaeus is making a twofold argument (a) that Mark begins with a citation from the Jewish prophets and (b) that this proves that the Christian God was the same as the Jewish God.

We may presume that there must have been a rival argument that (i) Mark did not begin with a citation of the Jewish prophets and (b) that this community believed the opposite of what Irenaeus was teaching (i.e. that Jesus was not both Lord (Messiah) and God.

Indeed in the chapter that follows Irenaeus makes clear that THIS EXACTLY what is going on when he writes again AGAINST THE SAME 'HERETICAL' COMMUNITY:

Those, again, who separate Jesus from Christ, alleging that Christ remained impassible, but that it was Jesus who suffered, preferring the Gospel by Mark, if they read it with a love of truth, may have their errors rectified. [AH iii.11.7]

This is the whole point of the argument. The other community 'of (the Gospel of) Mark' thinks that Jesus is not the Christ. This is explicit here. They separate Jesus from Christ and so also - as we learn from the last reference - also 'Lord' Christ and God are separated. My guess is that Jesus is God and Christ is someone else. I happen to identify this 'radical' monophysite position with the Alexandrian followers of Mark (also called 'Marcionites') but I won't get into my own beliefs for this post.

Jesus is God and someone else is Christ. This position is associated with a group associated with the gospel of Mark in chapter 11 and it goes a long way to explain what is actually going on in the previous chapter.

Indeed isn't it odd that Irenaeus should take on 'incorrect' views of Luke AND Mark in one chapter? It's really puzzling to me. John gets a whole chapter to itself. Matthew also gets the chapter which precedes this one. Indeed if we look carefully at the manner in which Irenaeus tackles the four gospels we see chapter 9 is Matthew, then most of chapter ten deals with Luke (10.1 - 4), Mark gets a paltry single section with frequent references to Luke in the course of the discussion and then chapter eleven is devoted to John.

Not only does Mark end up losing its place to Luke but it is developed as a kind of appendage to the argument FOR Luke which is strange.

Indeed if we look further at the section which deals with Luke in chapter 10 (sections 1 - 4) it all deals with material which Tertullian EXPLICITLY states was NOT a part of the Marcionite gospel. AH iii.10.1 starts with the words "Luke also, the follower and disciple of the apostles, referring to Zacharias and Elisabeth, from whom, according to promise, John was born ..." and makes reference to Luke i. 6, 8 and 15 the last reference deals with John the Baptist and we know from Tertullian that he accuses Marcion of only having John 'suddenly' appear in Luke 5. AH iii.10.2 deals with Luke i. 26 etc, 32 - 33, 46 - 47, 78, 68 and 76. AH iii.10.3 introduces Luke chapter 2 (also not a part of the Marcionite gospel) Luke 2:11 etc. and 20. AH iii.10.4 Luke ii.22, 29 etc. and 38.

Now if anyone has any doubt that Irenaeus IS REALLY SAYING 'hey Marcionites, you have cut out the beginning of Luke,' they only need to flip to the end of the next chapter in the summary (after his discussion of the Gospel of Mark) where we notice an echo of the curious order of the gospels with a specific association of the Marcionites to Luke:

For the Ebionites, who use Matthew's Gospel only, are confuted out of this very same, making false suppositions with regard to the Lord. But Marcion, mutilating that according to Luke, is proved to be a blasphemer of the only existing God, from those [passages] which he still retains. Those, again, who separate Jesus from Christ, alleging that Christ remained impassible, but that it was Jesus who suffered, preferring the Gospel by Mark, if they read it with a love of truth, may have their errors rectified. Those, moreover, who follow Valentinus, making copious use of that according to John, to illustrate their conjunctions, shall be proved to be totally in error by means of this very Gospel, as I have shown in the first book. Since, then, our opponents do bear testimony to us, and make use of these [documents], our proof derived from them is firm and true. [AH iii.11.7]

Now before we get back to his treatment of Mark, just notice one thing about his actual treatment of Luke. Irenaeus never gets into a specific accusation against the Marcionites that they 'removed' the beginning of Luke. Indeed the specific term 'Marcionite' or the idea that the Marcionites 'remove passages from the prophets' never even comes up a single time. Instead he makes a blanket reference to "the falsely-called Gnostics." [AH iii.10.3]

There can be no doubt that Irenaeus is arguing FOR Luke chapters 1 and 2 against MARCIONITES who claim that none of these things appear in the true Evangelium. However we have to take note of his caution. Why the caution? Because I am not at all convinced that the Marcionites would have ever conceded that their gospel was 'according to Luke.' As the Philosophumena confirms, it was understood to be the 'true Mark.'

This is precisely why Luke and Mark are lumped together in a single chapter and why - CURIOUSLY - only the beginning of the Gospel of Luke is referenced in the section of Luke.

The Marcionite gospel had an enthronement ending. There can be no doubt of this given that Origen notes that Marcion is understood to be enthroned beside Jesus by the Marcionites (Hom. Luc. 25.5). The reference is admitted confused but is clearly a reflection of the ending of the Marcionite gospel. All of which takes us to AH iii.10.5 again.

The structure of chapter 10 is (a) argue against the Marcionites FOR the authenticity of the first two chapter of Luke (b) argue that the beginning of the gospel NOT ONLY has the words 'the gospel of Jesus Christ' (the Marcionite gospel is loosely referenced by Tertullian as the 'Gospel of the Lord') but also the citation of the prophets and then (c) that the ending of the gospel DOES NOT SEPARATE JESUS AND CHRIST AND HAS CHRIST enthroned beside Jesus and thus - according to the Marcionites proving that there are two separate gods one who judges and another who is merciful.

So it is that when we reach the section that James Snapp cites to say that Irenaeus knew the LE, I will agree with him. Irenaeus is citing something like the LE. However that is only half of the story. His argument is to infer that BECAUSE the true gospel ALWAYS references Jewish scriptures that the Marcionites are wrong in inferring that two powers are attested in the act of enthronement. Look again at what is said:

and I shall show [the same truth just cited in my discussion of Mark i.2] 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; " 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." 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.[AH iii.10.5]

The point is that what James Snapp will never see is that chapter 10 is one of the strangest chapters in all of Irenaeus. He is arguing against the Marcionites that the inferences they draw from their gospel are flawed because they do not have the 'true copies' of Luke and Mark. If they had the true copies of Luke and Mark they would know that EVERYWHERE in the gospel a confession of normative expression of Judaism (being defined as a veneration of one God the Creator) is affirmed.

Not only do I take issue with this idiotic and implausible definition of 'normative Judaism' I want to emphasize that at the very same time as Irenaeus confirms the LE he also confirms that there is SOMETHING ELSE lurking in Christian history. A single text that seems to contain elements of Luke and Mark (and John as we learn from Origen) which is traditionally associated with the Marcionites.

The point is that Snapp's argument does not prove that Mark originally had the LE. This was undoubtedly Irenaeus's invention and clearly there was another OLDER version of Mark which had a similar but very different ending which involved 'Christ' (not Jesus) getting enthroned with Jesus sitting to his right exactly as Zechariah 6:13 has it (isn't it amazing how BADLY Church Fathers can apply the Jewish scriptures when it suits their purposes). Incidentally if Marcion is sitting to Jesus's left then that means Jesus was sitting to his right (cf. Zech 6:13 " The priest (Jesus) shall be put at his right hand, and between the two of them there shall be friendly understanding.")

AND ONE MORE THING. If you don't believe my claims about a hybrid gospel of Mark just look at the way Irenaeus makes reference to ideas from Luke in his paltry little chapter on Mark:

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. 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,” [Luke i. 17] “Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight paths before our God.” For the prophets did not announce one and another God, but one and the same; under various aspects, however, and many titles. For varied and rich in attribute is the Father, as I have already shown in the book preceding 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" 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.” 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. [AH iii.10.5]

In other words, section 5 is A CONTINUATION of the arguments in sections 1 - 4. Not only doesn't Mark get its own chapter WHICH IS STRANGE ENOUGH but the arguments against the Marcionite 'removal' of Luke 1 and 2 CONTINUE through with the claims that the Marcionites REMOVED the prophetic citation which followed Mark 1:1 AND alterations to the conclusion of their gospel. Irenaeus also argues that one of the reasons why the heretics don't like Luke 1 and 2 is that it confirms that Jesus was Lord and God (which is continued in AH iii.10.5 again.

AND YET ANOTHER THING. When Irenaeus's very brief discussion of the Gospel of Mark references something said in Book II viz:

For varied and rich in attribute is the Father, as I have already shown in the book preceding 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" 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.” Thus God and the Father are truly one and the same [ibid]

Notice that the closest statement in Book Two which resembles this argument makes specific reference to Marcion:

I have shown by numerous arguments of the very clearest nature) He (the Creator) made all things freely, and by His own power, and arranged and finished them, and His will is the substance of all things, then He is discovered to be the one only God who created all things, who alone is Omnipotent, and who is the only Father rounding and forming all things, visible and invisible, such as may be perceived by our senses and such as cannot, heavenly and earthly, "by the word of His power;" and He has fitted and arranged all things by His wisdom, while He contains all things, but He Himself can be contained by no one: He is the Former, He the Builder, He the Discoverer, He the Creator, He the Lord of all; and there is no one besides Him, or above Him, neither has He any mother, as they falsely ascribe to Him; nor is there a second God, as Marcion has imagined; nor is there a Pleroma of thirty Aeons, which has been shown a vain supposition; nor is there any such being as Bythus or Proarche; nor are there a series of heavens; nor is there a virginal light, nor an unnameable Aeon, nor, in fact, any one of those things which are madly dreamt of by these, and by all the heretics. But there is one only God, the Creator--He who is above every Principality, and Power, and Dominion, and Virtue: He is Father, He is God, He the Founder, He the Maker, He the Creator, who made those things by Himself, that is, through His Word and His Wisdom--heaven and earth, and the seas, and all things that are in them: He is just; He is good; He it is who formed man, who planted paradise, who made the world, who gave rise to the flood, who saved Noah; He is the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, the God of the living: He it is whom the law proclaims, whom the prophets preach, whom Christ reveals, whom the apostles make known s to us, and in whom the Church believes. He is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ: through His Word, who is His Son, through Him He is revealed and manifested to all to whom He is revealed; for those [only] know Him to whom the Son has revealed Him. But the Son, eternally co-existing with the Father, from of old, yea, from the beginning, always reveals the Father to Angels, Archangels, Powers, Virtues, and all to whom He wills that God should be revealed.[AH ii.30.9]

The point is that I think we have to be fair to James Snapp and agree that Irenaeus is referencing something like the LE. But so what? Irenaeus at the very same time is telling us that there exists ANOTHER VERSION of the Evangelium with a variant enthronement ending which leaves open the question of whether LE is authentically Markan or - as I would contend - a modification - even a deliberate falsification - of the original Marcionite ending.

JoeWallack · 06-24-2010, 07:25 AM

JW:
Time to revisit Tatian as possible witness to LE. My commentary here will consist of two parts:

1) Is the LE original to the Diatessaron(D)?

General reasons to doubt:

1) Date

At c. 168 it would be the first clear reference to the LE. Subsequently, except possibly for Irenaeus there are than no clear references to the LE until Eusebius.

2) Variation

Extant copies and references show exponentially more variation than the Gospels.

3) Justin

It’s commonly thought that Justin had a Synoptic harmony with no LE. Tatian was Justin’s star pupil, and both lived before there were any individual Gospels designated as Canonical. So Tatian may have used Justin’s harmony as a source or at least been influenced by it.

4) Heretical

D was branded as heretical by the Syrian Bishop Theodoret c. 458 for lacking Canonical verse, notably the genealogies. This helped justify subsequent additions to D to conform to manuscripts of the time. Note that Victor of Antioch, same area and shortly after Theodoret, is busy manufacturing LEs for the manuscripts of his time. Would he have also created external pressure for D to add the LE? Does a Bar take a Peshitta to read in the woods?

5) Harmonic nature

Note that the essence of D is harmony. Most of the many contradictions in the Gospels are relatively easy to harmonize because “Matthew” and “Luke” use “Mark” as a base as does “John’s” Passion and “John’s” ministry has mostly different stories than “Mark”. Thus there are few same stories in the Gospels with significant scope differences. One would be the genealogies but Tatian omitted them. Another would be the infancy narratives but the relatively long time frame allows Tatian to weave them together with little added material. The main harmonizing problem than are the resurrection narratives as they have scope and a relatively short time frame. Thus they require significant added material to harmonize. Supposed early references to the LE in D, such as Ephrem, may just be much lesser additions put in by Tatian only to harmonize rather than incorporate all of the LE.

Specific reasons to doubt:

1) Pericope Adultera

It’s generally accepted that the Pericope Adultera (PA) was not in the original D. It has been added to some extant Manuscripts and is therefore evidence that the likewise controversial LE was also added to extant manuscripts due to the same external pressure. Ephrem though, the earliest reference to D, does not appear to refer to it in his commentary on D.

2) Genealogies

Similarly, it’s generally agreed that the genealogies were not part of the original D but were added to subsequent copies. Again, Ephrem has no references to the genealogies.

3) “Luke’s” prologue

Same as above for “Luke’s” prologue

4) Variation

Incorporation of the LE into D varies and variation in placement is often a clue to interpolation.

5) Ephrem

The extant manuscripts of D are long after D was originally written and generally have known additions such as the genealogies, Lukan prologue and PA, due to external pressure to conform to Gospels of that time. Ephrem is the earliest reference to D and thought to have wrote c. 350. Ephrem is potentially a much better witness to LE than the manuscripts since he wrote much earlier, wrote before D was labeled as lacking and heretical and does not appear to have referred to the genealogies or PA. The question is does Ephrem refer to the LE in D?

The one Syriac copy of Ephrem has a possible reference to the LE. The two Armenian copies of Ephrem lack this possible reference. Per my opponent the reference is:

“Ephrem combines Mark 16:15 and Matthew 28:19 (Comm. §VIII:1): “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’” (p. 145, McCarthy).”

Of course Syriac is a better witness than Armenian here but again variation. Combine this with the following issues:

1 – I believe my opponent will confirm here that this verse is not in the latter part of Ephrem’s commentary where he otherwise comments mainly on the post-resurrection sightings (I have since ordered the commentary for myself since I now think Ephrem did not refer to the LE).

2 – I have faith that my opponent will likewise confess that Ephrem refers numerous times to the post-resurrection stories of the other Gospels in D.

3 – The offending verse is a combination of post resurrection stories:

“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”

Possible sources:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Mark_16

16:15 “And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to the whole creation.”

and

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php...=Matthew_28:19

28:19 “Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit:”

Note that “Matthew’s” “into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” is probably a forgery/interpolation. Note that everything than in the offending verse of Ephrem is either, in “Matthew”, with the same meaning in “Matthew” but different words, or at least implied in “Matthew” here. The main advantage “Mark” has here over “Matthew” is “preach the gospel”. “Preach the Gospel” is not exactly [understatement] a distinct phrase [/understatement]. When we get to the Internal evidence we will see that almost all of the LE can be found in other parts of the Christian Bible suggesting that these other parts are the source of the LE. Here we can find “preach the gospel” earlier in “Mark” itself:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Mark_14

14:9 “And verily I say unto you, Wheresoever the gospel shall be preached throughout the whole world, that also which this woman hath done shall be spoken of for a memorial of her.”

This is repeated in “Matthew” 26:13 and “Matthew” also has:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Matthew_24

24:14 “And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world for a testimony unto all the nations; and then shall the end come.”

So for an offending verse that my opponent already confesses is a conflation, why not a conflation without the LE? The earlier placement in Ephrem supports that the LE was not a source of the conflation.

2) If the LE is original to D, was “Mark” the source?

General reasons to doubt:

1) Syriac

A majority of authority thinks that D was originally composed in Syriac. If so than this reduces its weight as witness for an original Greek LE in “Mark”.

2) Gospel of Thomas

There is evidence that the Gospel of Thomas was a source for D. If so than the sources for D were not limited to the Canonical Gospels.

3) Non-canonical words and phrases

Per Dr. Richard Carrier, Ephrem references many non-canonical words and phrases in D. This is again evidence that the sources for D were not limited to the Canonical Gospels.

4) 56 verses omitted

Per this article, http://www.btinternet.com/~lmf12/TatianArticle.pdf

56 Canonical verses were omitted from D. The majority of these verses are the already mentioned genealogies, prologue and PA but are additional evidence along with 2) and 3) that Tatian edited sources to produce D.

5) Harmonic nature

Getting back to the harmonic nature of D, as mentioned above, D would require significant additions to the Canonical Gospels in order to get the post resurrection stories harmonized. Even if all the additions, or the entire LE, is original to D, Tatian’s source may still have been his motivation to harmonize with the primary source being the post resurrection information of the Christian Bible and not the LE of “Mark”. Thus the direction would be the opposite. The LE would be obtained for “Mark” by mainly taking post resurrection information from D not found in the other Gospels. This would explain the lack of continuity of the LE with the Empty Tomb story of “Mark”. The LE only reconciles the other post resurrection information in D but by itself would not reconcile the story in any individual Gospel. To fully evaluate this theory one would need to consider the extent of the LE that is in the other Gospels and the extent of the LE not needed to harmonize.

I’ll decline to do this for the time being as I think the combination of:

1) Dating – no other references around that time

2) Loss of Ephrem as a witness

3) History of conforming D to orthodoxy

as well as the lesser reasons given above make it likely that Tatian is not evidence for LE plus it looks like it would really be a lot of work.

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

JoeWallack · 06-27-2010, 07:22 AM

JW:
Regarding whether Irenaeus referred to the LE I will now convert from Dr. Carrier’s argument to my own. I will place Mr. Snapp’s relevant objections next to my related point.

General (reasons to doubt that Irenaeus referred to the LE)

1) Interpolations in Patristics

Interpolations in general are common in Patristics because Fathers had Motivation and Opportunity to convert what was originally written to the orthodox line. This observation is not a strong reason here to doubt but is only intended to communicate that while what is written in Patristics starts out as a default for the original it is not as strong a default as it would be in other non-Patristic areas.

2) Interpolations in Irenaeus

The extant Manuscripts of Irenaeus have a high degree of corruption. If we go to:

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.ii.i.html [Against Heresies]:

you can see by the commentary that Irenaeus averages an embarrassing error about every 3 paragraphs which is the highest rate I’ve seen in Patristics and also the most extreme errors. The Demonstration of Apostolic Preaching, Irenaeus’ other extant work, has a likewise high error rate. His friendly commentators frequently propose that these errors are transmission errors. However, it is likely that the reverse is true. That the transmission process has served to reduce errors (including perceived). Thus in general Irenaeus is more likely to include an interpolation than Patristics in general.

3) Timing

My position is that Irenaeus would be the first reference to LE. Even my opponent would concede that other than possibly Tatian, Irenaeus is the first clear reference. Likewise, my position is that there is no other reference to the LE until Eusebius and again, even my opponent would concede no clear reference until Eusebius.

4) Lack of subsequent references

Note that while the LE is first identified as an issue in Patristics and than as a controversial issue there is no known invoking of Irenaeus as witness for LE during the controversy. Eusebius is the Patrician always mentioned:

Eusebius: Eusebius, c. 300, does not mention any Patrician but otherwise is thoroughly familiar with Irenaeus and relies on Irenaeus for many key assertions of orthodoxy.

Jerome: Jerome, c. 400, mentions Eusebius.

Victor: Victor, c. 550, uses the related words of Eusebius.

Severus: Severus, c. 575, uses the words of Eusebius.

f1 family: X to XV century. Eusebius invoked with one exception.

Specific (reasons to doubt that Irenaeus referred to the LE)

1) Language

This part of Irenaeus exists only in Latin.

My opponent:

Quote:

MS 1582, between Mark 16:8 and 16:9, adds the same note that was mentioned as a feature of f-1. But the marginalia-writer of 1582’s exemplar or ancestor-MS also wrote, in the margin next to Mark 16:19, another note, written in Greek, in the same inverted triangular format as some other margin-notes: “Irenaeus, who lived near the time of the apostles, cites this from Mark in the third book of his work Against Heresies.” Thus we have, in MS 1582, evidence of a Greek copyist of the late 400’s or 500’s affirming, in answer to the note that precedes 16:9, that Irenaeus cited 16:19 in the third book of Against Heresies. So unless my opponent has some evidence that the originator of this Greek note in a Greek manuscript with a text with Caesarean affinities had read an interpolated Latin copy of Against Heresies Book III, we may drop Carrier’s theory where it belongs.

For starters, my opponent agrees that there is no Greek text of Irenaeus with the offending verse. MS 1582 has a reference to the offending verse which my opponent dates to 948. Also note that there is no quote from Irenaeus’ Against Heresies, only a reference.

2) Irenaeus mentions once

In relatively lengthy writings by Patristic standards Irenaeus only mentions the LE once. By my count Irenaeus refers to the post resurrection Jesus once in “Matthew”, five time in “Luke” and 4 times in “John”.

3) Placement

The offending verse comes in the middle of Irenaeus’ conclusion to Chapters IX and X:

Quote:

For the prophets did not announce one and another God, but one and the same; under various aspects, however, and many titles. For varied and rich in attribute is the Father, as I have already shown in the book preceding this; and I shall show [the same truth] from the prophets themselves in the further course of this work. [Conclusion] 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." 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. [Conclusion]

Related to this observation note that removal of the offending verse does not hurt the continuity of what precedes and follows:

Quote:

“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. 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,” “Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight paths before our God.” For the prophets did not announce one and another God, but one and the same; under various aspects, however, and many titles. For varied and rich in attribute is the Father, as I have already shown in the book preceding this; and I shall show [the same truth] from the prophets themselves in the further course of this work. 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.”

4) Failure to invoke LE

Irenaeus fails to invoke the LE when it would have clearly supported a different argument:
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf0...ii.xxxiii.html

Quote:

Chapter XXXII.—Further exposure of the wicked and blasphemous doctrines of the heretics.
4. If, however, they maintain that the Lord, too, performed such works simply in appearance, we shall refer them to the prophetical writings, and prove from these both that all things were thus predicted regarding Him, and did take place undoubtedly, and that He is the only Son of God. Wherefore, also, those who are in truth His disciples, receiving grace from Him, do in His name perform [miracles], so as to promote the welfare of other men, according to the gift which each one has received from Him. For some do certainly and truly drive out devils, so that those who have thus been cleansed from evil spirits frequently both believe [in Christ], and join themselves to the Church. Others have foreknowledge of things to come: they see visions, and utter prophetic expressions. Others still, heal the sick by laying their hands upon them, and they are made whole. Yea, moreover, as I have said, the dead even have been raised up, and remained among us for many years. And what shall I more say? It is not possible to name the number of the gifts which the Church, [scattered] throughout the whole world, has received from God, in the name of Jesus Christ, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and which she exerts day by day for the benefit of the Gentiles, neither practising deception upon any, nor taking any reward from them [on account of such miraculous interpositions]. For as she has received freely from God, freely also does she minister [to others].

Dr. Carrier notes the following supporting a lack of awareness or at least rejection of the LE:

Quote:

1 - Different vocabulary compared to the LE
2 - Limited agreement with the LE
3 – Failure to claim LE as part of prophecy fulfillment
4 – Irenaeus writes of “speaking with all kinds of tongues” in a separate writing

My opponent:

Quote:

Carrier’s seventh point was, “Irenaeus fails to invoke the LE when it would have clearly supported a different argument” in Book 2:32:4. In that passage, Irenaeus answers the charge that Jesus and His disciples merely appeared to perform miracles by providing a general description of the many miraculous signs performed by Christians. Not only is Carrier making an argument from silence here, but the whole objection can be dispensed with simply by noticing that Irenaeus does not explicitly cite any passage of Scripture there. Irenaeus opted to say – concisely, for once! – that a consultation of the Scriptures would fully refute the heretics’ claim, and he does not undertake a list because “It is not possible to name the number of the gifts which the church, throughout the whole world, has received from God in the name of Jesus Christ.

The related paragraph looks to be 5 sentences. Irenaeus’ reference to the Prophets follows his claim of Jesus performing miracles. The claim of Jesus’ followers likewise performing miracles follows and dominates the paragraph. The only potential reference from the Gospels would be the LE. In the first paragraph of the Chapter Irenaeus refers twice to “Matthew” as fulfilling prophecy.

My opponent:

Quote:

And shortly before this, in II:32:3, Irenaeus stated that the Lord rose from the dead on the third day, and manifested Himself to His disciples, “and was in their sight received up into heaven,” which practically dovetails with his quotation of Mark 16:19 in 3:10:5. But I suppose Carrier would say that this is an interpolation too.

No, Dr. Carrier, as I, would say that the more likely source is
[Acts 1]

Quote:

9 When he had said this, as they were watching, he was lifted up, and a cloud took him out of their sight. 10 While he was going and they were gazing up towards heaven,

It’s only in Acts that they explicitly observe Jesus going to Heaven, not in the LE. “Mark” also used “after 3 days” which “Luke” had to change to “on the 3rd day”.

Joseph

06-24-2010, 07:25 AM	#239
JoeWallack Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Nazareth Posts: 2,357	Revisiting Tatian JW: Time to revisit Tatian as possible witness to LE. My commentary here will consist of two parts: 1) Is the LE original to the Diatessaron(D)? General reasons to doubt: 1) Date At c. 168 it would be the first clear reference to the LE. Subsequently, except possibly for Irenaeus there are than no clear references to the LE until Eusebius. 2) Variation Extant copies and references show exponentially more variation than the Gospels. 3) Justin It’s commonly thought that Justin had a Synoptic harmony with no LE. Tatian was Justin’s star pupil, and both lived before there were any individual Gospels designated as Canonical. So Tatian may have used Justin’s harmony as a source or at least been influenced by it. 4) Heretical D was branded as heretical by the Syrian Bishop Theodoret c. 458 for lacking Canonical verse, notably the genealogies. This helped justify subsequent additions to D to conform to manuscripts of the time. Note that Victor of Antioch, same area and shortly after Theodoret, is busy manufacturing LEs for the manuscripts of his time. Would he have also created external pressure for D to add the LE? Does a Bar take a Peshitta to read in the woods? 5) Harmonic nature Note that the essence of D is harmony. Most of the many contradictions in the Gospels are relatively easy to harmonize because “Matthew” and “Luke” use “Mark” as a base as does “John’s” Passion and “John’s” ministry has mostly different stories than “Mark”. Thus there are few same stories in the Gospels with significant scope differences. One would be the genealogies but Tatian omitted them. Another would be the infancy narratives but the relatively long time frame allows Tatian to weave them together with little added material. The main harmonizing problem than are the resurrection narratives as they have scope and a relatively short time frame. Thus they require significant added material to harmonize. Supposed early references to the LE in D, such as Ephrem, may just be much lesser additions put in by Tatian only to harmonize rather than incorporate all of the LE. Specific reasons to doubt: 1) Pericope Adultera It’s generally accepted that the Pericope Adultera (PA) was not in the original D. It has been added to some extant Manuscripts and is therefore evidence that the likewise controversial LE was also added to extant manuscripts due to the same external pressure. Ephrem though, the earliest reference to D, does not appear to refer to it in his commentary on D. 2) Genealogies Similarly, it’s generally agreed that the genealogies were not part of the original D but were added to subsequent copies. Again, Ephrem has no references to the genealogies. 3) “Luke’s” prologue Same as above for “Luke’s” prologue 4) Variation Incorporation of the LE into D varies and variation in placement is often a clue to interpolation. 5) Ephrem The extant manuscripts of D are long after D was originally written and generally have known additions such as the genealogies, Lukan prologue and PA, due to external pressure to conform to Gospels of that time. Ephrem is the earliest reference to D and thought to have wrote c. 350. Ephrem is potentially a much better witness to LE than the manuscripts since he wrote much earlier, wrote before D was labeled as lacking and heretical and does not appear to have referred to the genealogies or PA. The question is does Ephrem refer to the LE in D? The one Syriac copy of Ephrem has a possible reference to the LE. The two Armenian copies of Ephrem lack this possible reference. Per my opponent the reference is: “Ephrem combines Mark 16:15 and Matthew 28:19 (Comm. §VIII:1): “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’” (p. 145, McCarthy).” Of course Syriac is a better witness than Armenian here but again variation. Combine this with the following issues: 1 – I believe my opponent will confirm here that this verse is not in the latter part of Ephrem’s commentary where he otherwise comments mainly on the post-resurrection sightings (I have since ordered the commentary for myself since I now think Ephrem did not refer to the LE). 2 – I have faith that my opponent will likewise confess that Ephrem refers numerous times to the post-resurrection stories of the other Gospels in D. 3 – The offending verse is a combination of post resurrection stories: “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” Possible sources: http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Mark_16 16:15 “And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to the whole creation.” and http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php...=Matthew_28:19 28:19 “Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit:” Note that “Matthew’s” “into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” is probably a forgery/interpolation. Note that everything than in the offending verse of Ephrem is either, in “Matthew”, with the same meaning in “Matthew” but different words, or at least implied in “Matthew” here. The main advantage “Mark” has here over “Matthew” is “preach the gospel”. “Preach the Gospel” is not exactly [understatement] a distinct phrase [/understatement]. When we get to the Internal evidence we will see that almost all of the LE can be found in other parts of the Christian Bible suggesting that these other parts are the source of the LE. Here we can find “preach the gospel” earlier in “Mark” itself: http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Mark_14 14:9 “And verily I say unto you, Wheresoever the gospel shall be preached throughout the whole world, that also which this woman hath done shall be spoken of for a memorial of her.” This is repeated in “Matthew” 26:13 and “Matthew” also has: http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Matthew_24 24:14 “And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world for a testimony unto all the nations; and then shall the end come.” So for an offending verse that my opponent already confesses is a conflation, why not a conflation without the LE? The earlier placement in Ephrem supports that the LE was not a source of the conflation. 2) If the LE is original to D, was “Mark” the source? General reasons to doubt: 1) Syriac A majority of authority thinks that D was originally composed in Syriac. If so than this reduces its weight as witness for an original Greek LE in “Mark”. 2) Gospel of Thomas There is evidence that the Gospel of Thomas was a source for D. If so than the sources for D were not limited to the Canonical Gospels. 3) Non-canonical words and phrases Per Dr. Richard Carrier, Ephrem references many non-canonical words and phrases in D. This is again evidence that the sources for D were not limited to the Canonical Gospels. 4) 56 verses omitted Per this article, http://www.btinternet.com/~lmf12/TatianArticle.pdf 56 Canonical verses were omitted from D. The majority of these verses are the already mentioned genealogies, prologue and PA but are additional evidence along with 2) and 3) that Tatian edited sources to produce D. 5) Harmonic nature Getting back to the harmonic nature of D, as mentioned above, D would require significant additions to the Canonical Gospels in order to get the post resurrection stories harmonized. Even if all the additions, or the entire LE, is original to D, Tatian’s source may still have been his motivation to harmonize with the primary source being the post resurrection information of the Christian Bible and not the LE of “Mark”. Thus the direction would be the opposite. The LE would be obtained for “Mark” by mainly taking post resurrection information from D not found in the other Gospels. This would explain the lack of continuity of the LE with the Empty Tomb story of “Mark”. The LE only reconciles the other post resurrection information in D but by itself would not reconcile the story in any individual Gospel. To fully evaluate this theory one would need to consider the extent of the LE that is in the other Gospels and the extent of the LE not needed to harmonize. I’ll decline to do this for the time being as I think the combination of: 1) Dating – no other references around that time 2) Loss of Ephrem as a witness 3) History of conforming D to orthodoxy as well as the lesser reasons given above make it likely that Tatian is not evidence for LE plus it looks like it would really be a lot of work. Joseph ErrancyWiki

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

06-23-2010, 10:10 PM	#238
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Hi Joe Wallack I am late coming to this debate and can't imagine that I would re-read the whole debate from the beginning but being already familiar with Snapp's position from other sites I find it difficult to argue that something like LE was always fixed to the end of Mark. I don't necessarily expect expect you to revisit all the evidence for my benefit I just want to clarify what your position is. I think Irenaeus is citing the LE and whether or not every witness that Snapp says is referencing the LE is actually referencing the LE he has so many of these witnesses that he can lose a single battle and still end up winning the war. In my opinion, the best argument against Snapp is to make the case the case that Irenaeus is NOT ONLY citing the LE but in fact arguing against another heretical ending which resembles the LE but is used to prove a heretical position. Look again at the section please. I will cite from the English translation for simplicity's sake. The section begins with Irenaeus saying: 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. 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,""Prepare ye the way of me Lord, make straight paths before our God." For the prophets did not announce one and another God, but one and the same; under various aspects, however, and many titles. For varied and rich in attribute is the Father, as I have already shown in the book preceding this It is important to cite the context of the statement in AH iii.10.5 in order to make sense of what follows. Irenaeus is making a twofold argument (a) that Mark begins with a citation from the Jewish prophets and (b) that this proves that the Christian God was the same as the Jewish God. We may presume that there must have been a rival argument that (i) Mark did not begin with a citation of the Jewish prophets and (b) that this community believed the opposite of what Irenaeus was teaching (i.e. that Jesus was not both Lord (Messiah) and God. Indeed in the chapter that follows Irenaeus makes clear that THIS EXACTLY what is going on when he writes again AGAINST THE SAME 'HERETICAL' COMMUNITY: Those, again, who separate Jesus from Christ, alleging that Christ remained impassible, but that it was Jesus who suffered, preferring the Gospel by Mark, if they read it with a love of truth, may have their errors rectified. [AH iii.11.7] This is the whole point of the argument. The other community 'of (the Gospel of) Mark' thinks that Jesus is not the Christ. This is explicit here. They separate Jesus from Christ and so also - as we learn from the last reference - also 'Lord' Christ and God are separated. My guess is that Jesus is God and Christ is someone else. I happen to identify this 'radical' monophysite position with the Alexandrian followers of Mark (also called 'Marcionites') but I won't get into my own beliefs for this post. Jesus is God and someone else is Christ. This position is associated with a group associated with the gospel of Mark in chapter 11 and it goes a long way to explain what is actually going on in the previous chapter. Indeed isn't it odd that Irenaeus should take on 'incorrect' views of Luke AND Mark in one chapter? It's really puzzling to me. John gets a whole chapter to itself. Matthew also gets the chapter which precedes this one. Indeed if we look carefully at the manner in which Irenaeus tackles the four gospels we see chapter 9 is Matthew, then most of chapter ten deals with Luke (10.1 - 4), Mark gets a paltry single section with frequent references to Luke in the course of the discussion and then chapter eleven is devoted to John. Not only does Mark end up losing its place to Luke but it is developed as a kind of appendage to the argument FOR Luke which is strange. Indeed if we look further at the section which deals with Luke in chapter 10 (sections 1 - 4) it all deals with material which Tertullian EXPLICITLY states was NOT a part of the Marcionite gospel. AH iii.10.1 starts with the words "Luke also, the follower and disciple of the apostles, referring to Zacharias and Elisabeth, from whom, according to promise, John was born ..." and makes reference to Luke i. 6, 8 and 15 the last reference deals with John the Baptist and we know from Tertullian that he accuses Marcion of only having John 'suddenly' appear in Luke 5. AH iii.10.2 deals with Luke i. 26 etc, 32 - 33, 46 - 47, 78, 68 and 76. AH iii.10.3 introduces Luke chapter 2 (also not a part of the Marcionite gospel) Luke 2:11 etc. and 20. AH iii.10.4 Luke ii.22, 29 etc. and 38. Now if anyone has any doubt that Irenaeus IS REALLY SAYING 'hey Marcionites, you have cut out the beginning of Luke,' they only need to flip to the end of the next chapter in the summary (after his discussion of the Gospel of Mark) where we notice an echo of the curious order of the gospels with a specific association of the Marcionites to Luke: For the Ebionites, who use Matthew's Gospel only, are confuted out of this very same, making false suppositions with regard to the Lord. But Marcion, mutilating that according to Luke, is proved to be a blasphemer of the only existing God, from those [passages] which he still retains. Those, again, who separate Jesus from Christ, alleging that Christ remained impassible, but that it was Jesus who suffered, preferring the Gospel by Mark, if they read it with a love of truth, may have their errors rectified. Those, moreover, who follow Valentinus, making copious use of that according to John, to illustrate their conjunctions, shall be proved to be totally in error by means of this very Gospel, as I have shown in the first book. Since, then, our opponents do bear testimony to us, and make use of these [documents], our proof derived from them is firm and true. [AH iii.11.7] Now before we get back to his treatment of Mark, just notice one thing about his actual treatment of Luke. Irenaeus never gets into a specific accusation against the Marcionites that they 'removed' the beginning of Luke. Indeed the specific term 'Marcionite' or the idea that the Marcionites 'remove passages from the prophets' never even comes up a single time. Instead he makes a blanket reference to "the falsely-called Gnostics." [AH iii.10.3] There can be no doubt that Irenaeus is arguing FOR Luke chapters 1 and 2 against MARCIONITES who claim that none of these things appear in the true Evangelium. However we have to take note of his caution. Why the caution? Because I am not at all convinced that the Marcionites would have ever conceded that their gospel was 'according to Luke.' As the Philosophumena confirms, it was understood to be the 'true Mark.' This is precisely why Luke and Mark are lumped together in a single chapter and why - CURIOUSLY - only the beginning of the Gospel of Luke is referenced in the section of Luke. The Marcionite gospel had an enthronement ending. There can be no doubt of this given that Origen notes that Marcion is understood to be enthroned beside Jesus by the Marcionites (Hom. Luc. 25.5). The reference is admitted confused but is clearly a reflection of the ending of the Marcionite gospel. All of which takes us to AH iii.10.5 again. The structure of chapter 10 is (a) argue against the Marcionites FOR the authenticity of the first two chapter of Luke (b) argue that the beginning of the gospel NOT ONLY has the words 'the gospel of Jesus Christ' (the Marcionite gospel is loosely referenced by Tertullian as the 'Gospel of the Lord') but also the citation of the prophets and then (c) that the ending of the gospel DOES NOT SEPARATE JESUS AND CHRIST AND HAS CHRIST enthroned beside Jesus and thus - according to the Marcionites proving that there are two separate gods one who judges and another who is merciful. So it is that when we reach the section that James Snapp cites to say that Irenaeus knew the LE, I will agree with him. Irenaeus is citing something like the LE. However that is only half of the story. His argument is to infer that BECAUSE the true gospel ALWAYS references Jewish scriptures that the Marcionites are wrong in inferring that two powers are attested in the act of enthronement. Look again at what is said: and I shall show [the same truth just cited in my discussion of Mark i.2] 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; " 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." 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.[AH iii.10.5] The point is that what James Snapp will never see is that chapter 10 is one of the strangest chapters in all of Irenaeus. He is arguing against the Marcionites that the inferences they draw from their gospel are flawed because they do not have the 'true copies' of Luke and Mark. If they had the true copies of Luke and Mark they would know that EVERYWHERE in the gospel a confession of normative expression of Judaism (being defined as a veneration of one God the Creator) is affirmed. Not only do I take issue with this idiotic and implausible definition of 'normative Judaism' I want to emphasize that at the very same time as Irenaeus confirms the LE he also confirms that there is SOMETHING ELSE lurking in Christian history. A single text that seems to contain elements of Luke and Mark (and John as we learn from Origen) which is traditionally associated with the Marcionites. The point is that Snapp's argument does not prove that Mark originally had the LE. This was undoubtedly Irenaeus's invention and clearly there was another OLDER version of Mark which had a similar but very different ending which involved 'Christ' (not Jesus) getting enthroned with Jesus sitting to his right exactly as Zechariah 6:13 has it (isn't it amazing how BADLY Church Fathers can apply the Jewish scriptures when it suits their purposes). Incidentally if Marcion is sitting to Jesus's left then that means Jesus was sitting to his right (cf. Zech 6:13 " The priest (Jesus) shall be put at his right hand, and between the two of them there shall be friendly understanding.") AND ONE MORE THING. If you don't believe my claims about a hybrid gospel of Mark just look at the way Irenaeus makes reference to ideas from Luke in his paltry little chapter on Mark: 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. 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,” [Luke i. 17] “Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight paths before our God.” For the prophets did not announce one and another God, but one and the same; under various aspects, however, and many titles. For varied and rich in attribute is the Father, as I have already shown in the book preceding 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" 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.” 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. [AH iii.10.5] In other words, section 5 is A CONTINUATION of the arguments in sections 1 - 4. Not only doesn't Mark get its own chapter WHICH IS STRANGE ENOUGH but the arguments against the Marcionite 'removal' of Luke 1 and 2 CONTINUE through with the claims that the Marcionites REMOVED the prophetic citation which followed Mark 1:1 AND alterations to the conclusion of their gospel. Irenaeus also argues that one of the reasons why the heretics don't like Luke 1 and 2 is that it confirms that Jesus was Lord and God (which is continued in AH iii.10.5 again. AND YET ANOTHER THING. When Irenaeus's very brief discussion of the Gospel of Mark references something said in Book II viz: For varied and rich in attribute is the Father, as I have already shown in the book preceding 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" 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.” Thus God and the Father are truly one and the same [ibid] Notice that the closest statement in Book Two which resembles this argument makes specific reference to Marcion: I have shown by numerous arguments of the very clearest nature) He (the Creator) made all things freely, and by His own power, and arranged and finished them, and His will is the substance of all things, then He is discovered to be the one only God who created all things, who alone is Omnipotent, and who is the only Father rounding and forming all things, visible and invisible, such as may be perceived by our senses and such as cannot, heavenly and earthly, "by the word of His power;" and He has fitted and arranged all things by His wisdom, while He contains all things, but He Himself can be contained by no one: He is the Former, He the Builder, He the Discoverer, He the Creator, He the Lord of all; and there is no one besides Him, or above Him, neither has He any mother, as they falsely ascribe to Him; nor is there a second God, as Marcion has imagined; nor is there a Pleroma of thirty Aeons, which has been shown a vain supposition; nor is there any such being as Bythus or Proarche; nor are there a series of heavens; nor is there a virginal light, nor an unnameable Aeon, nor, in fact, any one of those things which are madly dreamt of by these, and by all the heretics. But there is one only God, the Creator--He who is above every Principality, and Power, and Dominion, and Virtue: He is Father, He is God, He the Founder, He the Maker, He the Creator, who made those things by Himself, that is, through His Word and His Wisdom--heaven and earth, and the seas, and all things that are in them: He is just; He is good; He it is who formed man, who planted paradise, who made the world, who gave rise to the flood, who saved Noah; He is the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, the God of the living: He it is whom the law proclaims, whom the prophets preach, whom Christ reveals, whom the apostles make known s to us, and in whom the Church believes. He is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ: through His Word, who is His Son, through Him He is revealed and manifested to all to whom He is revealed; for those [only] know Him to whom the Son has revealed Him. But the Son, eternally co-existing with the Father, from of old, yea, from the beginning, always reveals the Father to Angels, Archangels, Powers, Virtues, and all to whom He wills that God should be revealed.[AH ii.30.9] The point is that I think we have to be fair to James Snapp and agree that Irenaeus is referencing something like the LE. But so what? Irenaeus at the very same time is telling us that there exists ANOTHER VERSION of the Evangelium with a variant enthronement ending which leaves open the question of whether LE is authentically Markan or - as I would contend - a modification - even a deliberate falsification - of the original Marcionite ending.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.