Vorkosigan

Ben, I had to comment:

• (A funny scenario occurs to me in which the historical Justus, aware that snake venom is harmless to the gastric system, takes advantage of the ignorance of a group of unbelievers who are not aware of this little datum, and walks away with an impressive, but faked, miracle. But proof for or against the historicity of this episode might well elude us forever.)

Tricky, man. What if Justus has a bleeding ulcer? Curtains!

That page kicks ass, BTW.

Ben C Smith

Thanks!

First, when I say external evidence, I mean (as you appear to have deduced) both the fathers and the texts. The fathers often require inference, of course, but then again so do some of the texts (like Vaticanus).

Basically agreed.

Well, sort of. Origen is silent, so to use him is an argument from silence. On my page I use Origen only in conjunction with the silence of Clement before him as an indicator. Eusebius is good to go; he does not favor the longer ending. Jerome (and this is important) is dependent on Eusebius. The manuscript claims of Eusebius must not have seemed out of place to him, but I have no reason to suppose that he himself did his own count.

It appears to be deeply split between east and west. There is no evidence that it was ever lacking in the west. There is no evidence that it was ever extant in the east until, what was it, the fourth century? Two very different scenarios could easily have led to such a split:

1. The longer ending is original, but was lost very early in the east.
2. The longer ending is not original, and was added very early in the west.

I tend to regard the external evidence as suggestive, but not probative. It is the internal evidence that locks it up for me.

That said, I am not a professional textual critic. I may well be quite mistaken. My primary intention on virtually all my pages is to present the extant evidence as best I can. That Marcan endings page is still incomplete. I plan to add more to it someday.

Thanks for your comments.

Ben.

Ben C Smith

And who knows? If he did not already have a bleeding ulcer, maybe drinking snake venom is a good way to get one.

Many thanks.

JoeWallack

JW:
Roger that. Exxxcellent. I'll resist the Yetzer Hora to be my ususal jerky self with you and just say thank you Mr. Pearse.

Let's compare the relevant references to the Long Ending:

Eusebius:

"1. The solution to this might be twofold. For, on the one hand, the one who rejects the passage itself, [namely] the pericope which says this, might say that it does not appear in all the copies of the Gospel according to Mark. At any rate, the accurate ones of the copies define the end of the history according to Mark with the words of the young man who appeared to the women and said to them, “Do not fear. You are seeking Jesus the Nazarene�19 and the [words] that follow. In addition to these, it
says,20 “And having heard [this] they fled, and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.�21
For in this way the ending of the Gospel according to Mark is defined in nearly all the copies. The things that appear next, seldom [and] in some but not in all [of the copies], may be spurious, especially since25 it implies26 a contradiction to the testimony of the rest of the evangelists."


Jerome:

"The solution of this question is two-fold; for either we do not accept the testimony of Mark, that is carried in few gospels, almost all the books of Greece not having this passage at the end, especially and since it seems to speak various and contrary things to the other evangelists; or this must be replied, that both speak truly: Matthew, when the Lord rose again on the evening of the Sabbath, Mark however, when Mary Magdalen saw him, that is, on the morning of the first day of the week."


The key assertions:

Eusebius:

1) it does not appear in all the copies of the Gospel according to Mark.

2) the accurate ones of the copies define the end of the history according to Mark with the words of the young man

3) For in this way the ending of the Gospel according to Mark is defined in nearly all the copies.

4) The things that appear next, seldom [and] in some but not in all [of the copies], may be spurious,

5) especially since25 it implies26 a contradiction to the testimony of the rest of the evangelists."


Jerome:

1) either we do not accept the testimony of Mark, that is carried in few gospels almost all the books of Greece not having this passage at the end

2) and since it seems to speak various and contrary things to the other evangelists


Comparison as to:

1) Quality -

Eusebius - The accurate ones have the Abrupt.

Jerome - No comment

2) Quantity -

Eusebius - Some have the Long.

Jerome - Almost all Greek lack the Long.

3) Best Reason -

Eusebius - The Long implies Gospel contradiction

Jerome - The Long implies Gospel contradiction


Ben, let me say first of all there can be a difference between Dependence on Writing and Dependence on Thought. Jerome could have simply answered by referring to Eusebius (assuming he was familiar with it) but this wouldn't prove he was dependent on Eusebius for his Position. He may just agree with it and refer to it out of respect or convenience or pressure. I find it hard to believe that Jerome would simply be dependent on Eusebius here as Jerome was a superior scholar, the manuscripts were what he did for a Living (pun intended), he would have been the manuscript Expert of his time and the Ending of "Mark" would have been an important topic.

Looking at my summary of Key elements above I see:

1) Quality - no dependence.

2) Quantity - no dependence.

3) Best Reason - Dependence. This can be easily explained though as it would be the standard position of a Father that the best reason not to accept a Text is because it would indicate Gospel contradiction.

Generally Apologists argue that Jerome is dependent so they can dismiss one witness instead of two. Obviously you are not an Apologist (nor is Mr. Carlson) and certainly the Style of Eusebius and Jerome above is similar.

Please expand on why you think Jerome was dependent on Eusebius here for his position if you can. I find what little you previously wrote on this subject unconvincing:

"Eusebius is good to go; he does not favor the longer ending. Jerome (and this is important) is dependent on Eusebius. The manuscript claims of Eusebius must not have seemed out of place to him, but I have no reason to suppose that he himself did his own count."




Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

"I never believed in any Type of Resurrection until I saw John Travolta in "Pulp Fiction". - JoeWallack

Ben C Smith

Joe Wallack:

I am not ruling Jerome out. I am qualifying his witness, since (A) he is dependent on Eusebius and (B) he included the longer ending both in his Vulgate and in his commentary on Mark.

With regard to A above, William Farmer cites Jerome, epistle 119, as follows on pages 22-23 of The Last Twelve Verses of Mark:

Being pressed for time, I have presented you with the opinions of all the commentators, for the most part translating their very words, in order both to get rid of your question and to put you in possession of ancient authorities on the subject.... This has been hastily dictated in order that I might lay before you what have been the opinions of learned men on this subject, as well as the arguments by which they have recommended their opinions.

Farmer notes that he goes on to relativize his own authority and praise that of Origen and Eusebius. Jerome appears to have used this procedure often, practically plagiarizing from his predecessors quite frequently.

Jerome continues:

My plan is to read the ancients, to prove all things, to hold fast to that which is good, and to abide steadfast in the faith of the catholic church. I must now dictate replies, either original or at second-hand, to other questions which lie before me.

It is quite apparent that his solution to the discrepancy between Matthew and Mark in epistle 120 is not original, but rather at second-hand. Eusebius writes:

The solution of this might be twofold. For the one who sets aside the passage itself, the pericope that says this, might say that it is not extant in all the copies of the gospel according to Mark.

Jerome writes:

The solution of this question is two-fold; for either we do not receive the testimony of Mark, which is extant in rare gospels, almost all of the Greek books not having this chapter at the end....

Both Eusebius and Jerome call the solution two-fold. The first solution for both is to reject Mark 16.9-20. The second solution for both is to harmonize Matthew and Mark. Jerome is copying from Eusebius, just as he admits to doing frequently.

Now, as you say, it is quite possible that Jerome is dependent on Eusebius for his words, but has independently come to his own judgments on the matter. And I think that this is exactly what has happened. Jerome copied the two-fold Eusebian solution for Hedibia, but for his own part accepted, not rejected, the longer ending of Mark. See B above. Whatever his impression of current manuscript ratios, they did not turn his opinion. He was not opposed to offering the first solution, of course, especially since his authority Eusebius had it, but it was worded only as one of two options, after all.

Sure, it is possible that he undertook his own independent manuscript count instead of merely relying on Eusebius, but is it likely? At the very least I know of no evidence that he did so. I state on my page that he must not have flinched too badly at what Eusebius said; that is, he knew that some or many manuscripts lacked the longer ending. But his witness is somewhat tainted by his dependence on Eusebius. He does witness to a mixed manuscript tradition in the fifth century (some having and some lacking the longer ending), but we already knew about that from other sources.

I just think that it is all too easy to exaggerate the external evidence.

Ben.

JoeWallack

JW:
That is more convincing than what you previously wrote, thanks.

I still have a problem here with the use of "Dependent" in light of my previous post. My choice would be "Influenced". "Dependent" still sounds like an overstatement attractive to Apologists. The situation is not like later Fathers being Dependent on what Papias, the Story Sailor Man, had to say about Gospel authors because these Fathers no longer had access to the Evidence Papais supposedly had. Jerome on the other hand would not only have had manuscript Evidence still available to him, he would probably would have been The Expert at the time and this is why the question was addressed to him. "Dependent" reminds me too much of Tom Delay being asked by Ronnie Earl if he has ever been Convicted of a Felony, and Delay responding with Bill Murray mannerism, "Convicted? No!".

Let's move on dot org to Origen now, a very brave and influential Father. You wrote:

http://www.textexcavation.com/marcanendings.html#origen

"Origen.
Early century III.

The illustrious Alexandrian father Origen never cites or shows acquaintance with Mark 16.9-20, even in Against Celsus, in which he discusses the resurrection appearances in Matthew, Luke, and John, and Mark is conspicuously absent.

It would be an argument from silence to call Origen as a witness against the longer ending, but I beg leave to consider both him and his Alexandrian predecessor, Clement, in conjunction with one another, and to consider it telling that neither evinces any knowledge of Mark 16.9-20."


JW:
Please allow me to Expand:

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

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

In Book II

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

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

"CHAP. LIX.

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


"CHAP. LXII.

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


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


"CHAP. LXX.

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


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

"CHAP. XXVII.

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


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

Yes, this is Evidence from Silence, but as this Type of Evidence goes, it is very Good:

1) Origen is specifically challenged to produce post-resurrection evidence.

2) Supposed post-resurrection evidence would potentially be the best evidence available to support Christianity.

3) Origen was the outstanding Christian manuscript expert of his time.

4) Origen responds with detail citations of "Matthew", "Luke" and "John".

5) Origen is silent on the Long Ending.

6) Christian Editing was far less likely to Edit arguments from silence which reduces the gap of it's value compared to Positive evidence.

So, from a Patristic standpoint we have Origen, Eusebius and Jerome, with an obelisk, all supporting Abrupt. On the other Side Ben, what do you consider the best Patristic evidence for the Long Ending?

I gotta tell you Man, your site is one of those that you have to keep reading over and over to pick up all the subtleties: (How Ben's site ends)

"The abrupt ending at Mark 16.8.
The abrupt ending, aptly named, is that which concludes the gospel with the stark phrase εφοβουντο γαÏ?, for they were afraid."



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

"Why did the Chicken MissionMarine "Cross" the road? To get to the "other" side, Sir!"

Ben C Smith

All right, I can perhaps buy into your terminology, while still preferring my own.

I thank you for your detailed look at Against Celsus. It has always been my intention to expand several parts of my piece, including (and perhaps especially) Origen, precisely because it is much more convincing to actually read the relevant sections of his work and notice what I call the conspicuous absence of any Marcan resurrection appearances than to merely summarize Origen as I have done so far. I agree with you that some arguments from silence are weighier than others. But if you peruse the table at the end of the external evidence section you will note that I do place a minus sign next to Origen, and assume that he did not know the longer ending in the ensuing discussion. He is yet another Alexandrian witness against the longer ending.

The western witnesses: Irenaeus, Tatian, Hippolytus (provisionally), Vincentius, possibly Justin. And the Syrian father Aphraates. As I said before, I find no evidence that the longer ending was ever missing in the west, nor any evidence that it was extant in the east before the fourth century.

Ah, you caught that. Thanks.

I do plan on discussing whether the abrupt ending is the original or the original was lost, but will probably do so on a separate page so as to preserve the abruptness.

Ben.

Roger Pearse

You're welcome. Isn't it incredible that neither text has been translated?

I'm with Ben on this, btw -- we mustn't 'force' what the text says further than what it says. Both Jerome and Eusebius are ambivalent. How, in the fourth century, could they be otherwise?

All the best,

Roger Pearse