Freethought & Rationalism Archive

jakejonesiv · 07-16-2009, 06:00 AM

Joe,
Fascinating work.
Jake

JoeWallack · 07-16-2009, 08:31 AM

JW:
Analysis of External Categories

The next star witness against LE after

Codex Sinaiticus and

Codex Vaticanus is

Codex Bobbiensis

Quote:

Codex Bobiensis (k) is a fragmentary Latin manuscript of the bible. Specifically, it is an example of a Vetus Latina bible, which were used from the 2nd century until Jerome's Latin translation, the Vulgate, was written in the 5th century. The text contains parts of the Gospel of Mark (Mk 8:8-end) and Gospel of Matthew (Mt 1:1-15:36). The order of books was probably: John, Luke, Mark, and Matthew.[1]

It is from North Africa and is dated to the 4th or 5th century. Later it was brought to the monastery in Bobbio in northern Italy. Traditionally asserted to St. Columban, who died in the monastery he had founded there, in 615.[1] Today it is housed in the national library in Turin.

Researchers think, comparing the Codex Bobiensis with quotes from Cyprian’s publications from the 3rd century, that the Codex Bobienses is a page from the Bible Cyprian used while he was a bishop in Carthage.

From a paleographic study of the scripture, it is a copy of a papyrus script from the 2nd century. Codex Bobiensis is interesting, in that it is the only known scripture which has the addition of Mark 16:9's "short ending", but not the later, "long ending" through Mark 16:20.

The Latin text of the codex is a representative of the Western text-type in Afra recension.

JW:
Codex Bobienses has the following weighty attributes:

1) Age

It is one of the oldest extant Manuscripts, c. 400.

2) Connection to older textual evidence

It generally agrees to Early Patristic support (Cyprian).

The style of Bible, Vetus Latina, goes back to the 2nd century.

3) Variation in additions to AE

Codex Bobbiensis (itk) is also likely supported by ita, which is
considered the second best Itala witness. Part of the ending of "Mark" is
missing but an analysis of the related space indicates either the ending
was 16:8 or the SE. itk has the SE with no LE and ita either has the AE or
SE with no LE. The variation in additions after the AE (LE or SE) is
evidence that AE is original.

4) Western

Its provenance and text-type is Western adding scope to all of the
Eastern evidence against LE. It further solidifies Direction from AE to
LE as now there is East and West support for such change as well as Greek and Latin.

5) Authority

Generally considers Bobienses the most authoritative Latin manuscript of
Western text type and ita the second most authoritative.

Joseph

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

JoeWallack · 07-17-2009, 07:55 AM

JW:
Analysis of External Categories

The next star witness against LE after

Codex Sinaiticus,

Codex Vaticanus and

Codex Bobbiensis is the

Syriac Sinaiticus:

Quote:

The Syriac Sinaitic (syrsin), known also as Sinaitic Palimpsest, of Saint Catherine's Monastery, Mount Sinai is a late 4th century manuscript of 358 pages, containing a translation of the four canonical gospels of the New Testament into Syriac, which have been overwritten by a vita (biography) of female saints and martyrs with a date corresponding to AD 778. This palimpsest is the oldest copy of the gospels in Syriac, one of two surviving manuscripts (the other being the Curetonian Gospels) that predate the Peshitta, the standard Syriac translation of the Bible. The manuscript is designated by syrs.

JW:
The Syriac Sinaiticus has the following weighty attributes:

1) Age

It is one of the oldest extant Manuscripts, c. 385.

2) Connection to older textual evidence

It is supported by early 3rd century Western readings

3) Western

It is supported by early 3rd century Western readings which further solidifies Direction from AE to LE with Western support for such change as well as in Greek, Latin and Syriac.

4) Authority

It is considered the Oldest and best Syriac witness and therefore the most authoritative Syriac manuscript.

Joseph

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

JoeWallack · 07-18-2009, 07:15 AM

JW:
Analysis of External Categories

Additional Manuscript evidence against LE after

Codex Sinaiticus,

Codex Vaticanus,

Codex Bobbiensis and the

Syriac Sinaiticus is:

Sahidic

New Testament

Quote:

Early Versions

The first translations (usually called "versions") of the New Testament were made in the end of 2nd century into Syriac, Latin, and Coptic languages. These three versions were made directly from Greek, before a revision of Greek text, and they are always cited in modern critical apparatus.

The Sahidic is not later than the 6th century. One Sahidic manuscript has the AE. All other Sahidic have the SE (some have the LE after the SE). Thus, in addition to the original Greek, all early translations, Syriac, Latin, and Coptic show a Direction of AE to LE.

Armenian

The earliest extant Armenian text is 5th century. Almost all early Armenian manuscripts are AE so this is another language that supports change to LE. Also, the text-types are Caesarean or proto-Byzantine giving support to the AE in other text-types besides Alexandrian.

Georgian

The two oldest manuscripts, c. 900, support AE. Note than that every language where we have evidence of change has a direction of to LE.

Joseph

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

JoeWallack · 07-18-2009, 11:34 AM

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

Quote:

Early Patristic Evidence – Part One

My opponent has begun our review of external evidence by looking at the patristic evidence, and I think that’s a good idea, because our earliest manuscripts of Mark 16 are significantly younger than our earliest patristic evidence. First, though, twelve clarifications of the evidence-list which my opponent presented are in order.

Vaticanus should be given a date older than Codex Sinaiticus.

The Armenian copies in which Mark ends at 16:8 descend from a common source from the 400’s. Also, far more than 100 Armenian MSS include 16:9-20.

The Old Georgian version was translated from Armenian; therefore the two Old Georgian MSS which do not contain Mark 16:9-20 should be given no greater weight than what two Armenian copies with similar dates would be given.

The earliest Sahidic copy (c. 425) ends Mark at 16:8, but all the others include 16:9-20 (usually with the Shorter Ending), so it is inaccurate to simply list "Sahidic" on the side of omission. (The "Shorter Ending," by the way, is a short paragraph which appears to have been composed to round off the otherwise abrupt ending in 16:8. Its earliest witness is the Old Latin Codex Bobbiensis. We shall take a closer look at this later, God willing.)

MSS L, Ψ, 099, 0112, 274, and 579 present the Shorter Ending, but they also present 16:9-20 (though not in its entirety in 099 and 0112, because they are damaged).

Every Bohairic copy that contains Mark 16:8 contains 16:9-20. In two of them, the Shorter Ending appears in the margin.

All Ethiopic MSS of Mark that contain Mark 16:8 contain Mark 16:9-20, frequently with the Shorter Ending in between.

My opponent listed It(a) (the Old Latin Codex Vercellensis, made c. 365) as a witness against 16:9-20, but it does not contain its original pages from Mark 15:15 onward. We don’t know its original contents at the end of Mark. We do know, however, that Codex Vercellensis contains features shared by Old Latin MSS that contain Mark 16:9-20.

Some readers may have been puzzled when my opponent listed Codex W as a witness against Mark 16:9-20, and then included it in his very incomplete list of witnesses that support 16:9-20. Codex W contains 16:9-20, with the Freer Logion between verses 14 and 15.

My opponent referred to "Notes that older Greek lacked it," and the impression that such notes exist is naturally obtained from Metzger’s comments. However, while it is obvious that any note describing MSS must describe MSS older than the copyist writing the note, the notes do not explicitly refer to older MSS as witnesses against 16:9-20. They say (in 12 MSS), "In some of the copies, the gospel ends here," at the end of 16:8. In eight MSS, the note continues, saying that Eusebius did not include 16:9-20 in his Canons, but 16:9-20 is attested in many MSS. In three MSS, we find the only explicit references to the age of any copies: "In the old ones, it all appears."

The claim that some MSS contain "Codes for spurious addition" sounds like it is based on Metzger’s statement about asterisks and obeli. However, my opponent (and Metzger) may have been misled by researchers who inaccurately described ordinary lozenges and other marks as if they were asterisks. MS 2346 has a lozenge, not an asterisk, before 16:9. MS 1241 has neither an asterisk nor an obelus here; the copyist centered the last line of 16:8 before beginning 16:9 on the next page. These ambiguous features are different from the asterisks that accompany passages such as John 7:53-8:11 and John 5:4 in some MSS. Their use as evidence against Mk. 16:9-20 is unwarranted.

My opponent listed the margin of the Harclean Syriac as a witness against Mark 16:9-20, but that is simply where the Shorter Ending is found; Mark 16:9-20 is in the text.

Onward to the early patristic evidence.

My earlier comments address the oversimplified misuse of Matthew and Luke as witnesses to the text of Mark: my opponent proposed that Matthew and Luke would have used Mark 16:9-20 if they had known it. But the evidence points to Luke’s use of Proto-Mark instead of the Gospel of Mark. Matthew may have known and utilized Proto-Mark and the Gospel of Mark, in which case he chose to use the ending in Proto-Mark instead of what was, in comparison, a patch at the end of the Gospel of Mark. The "Minor Agreements" between Matthew and Luke further indicate that their source was not identical to the Gospel of Mark as we know it, either with or without 16:9-20. So this evidence is inconclusive.

Our exploration of patristic evidence begins with Papias, who wrote in Asia Minor in about 108. His statement is only a possible allusion to Mk. 16:18, but since my opponent has used the silence of Clement and Origen, the whisper from Papias should also be heard. Plus, Papias’ statement provides some background for a feature in an Armenian MS we might examine later.

Eusebius stated that Papias "also mentions another miracle relating to
Justus, surnamed Barsabbas, how he swallowed a deadly poison, and received no harm, on account of the grace of the Lord." Philip of Side, in about 435, mentioned this in slightly more detail: "Papias recorded, on the authority of the daughters of Philip, that Barsabbas, who was also called Justus, drank the poison of a snake in the name of Christ when put to the test by the unbelievers and was protected from all harm."

It could be coincidental that believers’ invulnerability to the ingestion of poison is predicted in Mark 16:18, and an exhibit of such invulnerability is exactly what Papias records. On the other hand, if Papias had wished to mention an example of the fulfillment of this prophecy, he might have written precisely as he wrote.

Our next patristic witness is Justin Martyr. In his First Apology, chapter 45 (in about 160), Justin treats Psalm 110:1-3 as a prophecy and illustrates its fulfillment. He writes: "That which he says, ‘He shall send to you the rod of power out of Jerusalem,’ is predictive of the mighty word, which his apostles, going forth from Jerusalem, preached everywhere. And though death is decreed against those who teach or at all confess the name of Christ, we everywhere both embrace and teach it. And if you also read these words in a hostile spirit, you can do no more, as I said before, than kill us; which indeed does no harm to us, but to you and all who unjustly hate us, and do not repent, brings eternal punishment by fire."

In this short chapter Justin mentions several things mentioned in Mark 16:9-20: the ascension of Christ, victory over devils, the use of the name of Christ, a lack of true harm done to Christians, the spread of the word, and the punishment of unbelievers. But the heaviest evidence consists of the verbal parallel between Mark 16:20 and Justin’s statement that the apostles “went forth everywhere preaching.” Justin’s words are ECELQONTES PANTACOU EHKRUXAN; the same three words are found, transposed, in Mark 16:20, and Justin repeats PANTACOU (writing, “we everywhere both embrace and teach it”) as if alluding to an authoritative precedent.

Metzger conceded, “It is probable that Justin Martyr at the middle of the second century knew this ending,” that is, 16:9-20. His slight uncertainty is an effect of his reliance upon comments made by Hort in 1881. Hort’s main reason for regarding Justin’s support as tenuous was that Mark 16:9-20 does not convey the point that Justin is making, namely, that the disciples went forth from Jerusalem.

Research conducted after 1881 has removed Hort’s objection. An Arabic translation of a Syriac MS of Tatian’s Diatessaron was published in 1888. Studies of Justin’s writings (such as A.J. Bellinzoni’s 1967 work) revealed that Justin appears to have combined the Synoptic Gospels into one continuous narrative (which he used in Dialogue with Trypho, set in the 130’s, as well as in First Apology). William Petersen, in 1990 (in New Testament Studies), investigated the possibility of a relationship between Justin’s quotations-source and Tatian’s Diatessaron, and concluded that Justin’s quotations-source was “almost certainly” a harmony. This indicates that Tatian, in constructing the Diatessaron, blended John into Justin’s already-blended text of Matthew+Mark+Luke. Now let’s consult section 55 of Tatian’s Diatessaron, the passage that runs parallel to Justin’s phrase in First Apology 45:

“And they worshipped him, and returned to Jerusalem with great joy, and at all times they were in the temple, praising and blessing God. Amen. And from thence they went forth, and preached everywhere; our Lord helping them, and confirming their sayings with the signs which they did.”

This arrangement of Luke 24:52-53 and Mark 16:20 compels the understanding that the apostles went forth from Jerusalem. So if Justin used a Synoptics-Harmony similar to the Diatessaron (minus material from John), it would convey precisely Justin’s point that the disciples went forth from Jerusalem. Thus Hort’s objection is completely removed. Almost as soon as the Arabic Diatessaron was published, F. H. Chase and J. Rendel Harris realized that the new evidence destroys Hort’s objection. Harris noted, "Dr. Hort may therefore remove the query" (i.e., the question-mark) "from the name of Justin."

-- Continued --

JoeWallack · 07-18-2009, 05:09 PM

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

Quote:

Early Patristic Evidence – Part Two

After Justin, our third witness is Tatian, who studied under Justin in Rome, and eventually went to Syria. He was criticized for embracing a somewhat extreme form of asceticism. My opponent has already granted that Tatian incorporated Mark 16:9-20 into the Diatessaron, c. 172.

Our fourth witness is Epistula Apostolorum, which is assigned a date prior to 150, with a revision/translation occurring before 180. Metzger does not mention it, perhaps because he relied so much on Hort, who did not mention it because it was unknown in 1881. The author of Epistula Apostolorum repeatedly adapts the narrative in Mark 16:9-20 as he presents his own version of events surrounding Jesus’ resurrection. In one scene, resembling 16:10-11, a woman meets the risen Jesus, reports to the apostles, and her account is not believed. The apostles say, “We believed her not that the Savior was risen from the dead. Then she returned unto the Lord and said to Him, ‘None of them hath believed me, that you live.’” In chapter 30, Jesus is pictured saying to the apostles, “Go ye and preach unto the twelve tribes, and preach also unto the heathen, and to all the land of Israel from the east to the west and from the south unto the north.” This appears to be based on Mark 16:15. Commentators James Edwards and Robert Stein are among the few who have shown an awareness that Epistula Apostolorum exists, and they concur that it is a witness for Mark 16:9-20.

Our fifth patristic witness is Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons. In 184, he cited Mark 16:19 in Book III (10:5) of his work Against Heresies: "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.'" This is mentioned in a Greek note in the margin near Mark 16:19 in MSS 1582 and 72: "Irenaeus, who lived near the time of the apostles, cites this from Mark in the third book of his work Against Heresies."

So far, we have considered five witnesses from the 100's: Papias (108), Justin (160), Epistula Apostolorum (150), Tatian (172), and Irenaeus (184). Four of them – Justin, Epistula Apostolorum, Tatian, and Irenaeus – constitute secure second-century support for Mark 16:9-20. (We may look at the Gospel of Peter later.) Each one attests to the existence of a second-century copy of Mark that contained Mark 16:9-20; each one implies the existence of four papyri copies of Mark, produced in the 100’s, containing the passage in question. The testimony of Papias, however, is such a faint whisper that it would be understandable if some readers consider its employment here a case of clutching at straws.

Speaking of clutching at straws, I now turn to Clement of Alexandria and Origen – star witnesses. Neither one says that the Gospel of Mark fails to tell about Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances. Why are they silent about Mark’s abrupt ending? If I wished to form arguments from silence, I could propose that their failure to mention Mark’s abrupt ending demonstrates that they had no knowledge of its existence.

But Clement and Origen might not be altogether silent. In Stromata VI:6, Clement cites a text called The Preaching of Peter: “In the Preaching of Peter, the Lord says, ‘I chose out you twelve, judging you to be disciples worthy of me, whom the Lord willed, and thinking you faithful apostles; sending you unto the world to preach the gospel to men throughout the world, that they should know that there is one God; to declare by faith in me [the Christ] what shall be, that they that have heard and believed may be saved, and that they which have not believed may hear and bear witness, not having any defense so as to say 'We did not hear.'" Who can listen to this cluster of phrases – “preach the gospel” “throughout the world,” “they that believe” “may be saved,” and “they that have not believed” – without thinking of Mark 16:15-16? I submit that this should be considered a probable adaptation of Mark 16:15-16.

Origen, in Philocalia 5:5, may have blended Luke 10:19 with Mark 16:18-20; these passages are linked by the mention of serpents and invulnerability in both passages. Origen wrote: the Lord “has given authority to His true disciples to tread upon serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy, being by no means hurt by them. Let a man observe how the apostles who were sent by Jesus to proclaim the gospel went everywhere, and he cannot help seeing their superhuman daring in obedience to the divine command.” When Origen wrote that the apostles went everywhere, he used the term PANTACOSE; this brings to mind PANTACOU in Mk. 16:20.

And in Against Celsus 2:62, how does Origen deduce the name of “Simon” for the companion of Cleopas, if not by using a “Western” text in which the term LEGONTAS in Luke 24:34 had been replaced (as in Codex Bezae) with LEGONTES?

Now I am going to pretend that the citations I just mentioned do not exist, and that we can confidently state that Origen and Clement show no awareness of Mark 16:9-20.

In “Exhortation to the Heathen,” “The Instructor,” “Stromateis,” “Who Is the Rich Man That Shall Be Saved?,” and the comments preserved by Cassiodorus, Clement did not use Mark chapter 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, and 16. Clement used no more than 23 of Mark’s 678 verses. This makes it difficult to perceive what Clement’s text of Mark looked like. But Clement used a substantial part of Mark chapter 10. Recently Carl Cosaert’s detailed analysis of Clement’s Gospels-text was published; Cosaert concludes that in Luke and in Mark chapter 10, Clement used a text with a strong Western influence – the “Western” text being the sort of text used by Irenaeus and found in Codex Bezae – a text containing Mark 16:9-20.

As for Origen, his neglect of the Gospel of Mark is chronic. Even in places in his writings where Origen compares the contents of the other Gospels to one another, he does not usually mention the contents of Mark. The example my opponent has mentioned in Against Celsus is a typical case of Origen’s neglect of Mark, and it merely shows that Origen paid as little attention to Mark 16:9-20 as he did to most 12-verse sections of Mark, despite his abundant comments on their parallels in the other Gospels.

Origen’s tendency to neglect the Gospel of Mark is well-illustrated by a sentence he wrote in De Oratione 18:3: commenting on the Lord's Prayer, he wrote, “We have also searched Mark for some such similar prayer that might have escaped our notice, but we found no trace of one.” No one well-acquainted with the Gospel of Mark would need to consult it to see if it contains the Lord’s Prayer. Metzger affirms that this shows that Origen “was apparently less well acquainted with the Gospel of Mark than with the other Gospels.”

To more precisely illustrate Origen’s distaste for using the Gospel of Mark, we may picture the Gospel of Mark as a pizza, sliced into 56 or 57 pieces; each slice consisting of 12 verses. Origen does not touch 34 of those slices, which constitute over 60% of the text.

To conclude: Clement used 23 verses from Mark. Origen did not use 34 twelve-verse sections of Mark. Therefore it is unrealistic to treat their non-use of a 12-verse passage as if it implies anything whatsoever about its presence or absence in their copies of Mark. (Perhaps someone with more resources can find a few more Markan passages used by Clement or Origen, but that would not significantly reduce the force of this argument.)

I have only reached the early 200’s, and there are eight more patristic witnesses to consider – Hippolytus, Tertullian, De Rebaptismate, Vincentius of Thibaris, Porphyry, the Freer Logion's author, Acts of Pilate, and Marinus – before we finally reach my opponent’s next star patristic witness, Eusebius of Caesarea, in the fourth century. Then, before we reach his other one (Jerome, in 406 or 407), we must visit Ambrose, Aphraates, Apostolic Constitutions, Augustine, Chrysostom, Didymus (or, the author of De Trinitate, writing in the same time and place as Didymus), Epiphanius of Salamis, and History of John the Son of Zebedee.

Perhaps we can conserve words by agreeing that all sixteen of these patristic witnesses from the 200's and 300's support Mark 16:9-20, and then turn our attention to Eusebius and Jerome.

Yours in Christ,

James Snapp, Jr.

JoeWallack · 07-19-2009, 06:40 AM

JW:
I've previously demonstrated here in Table form that "Matthew" follows "Mark" closely to 16:8 and after is completely different than the LE and that "Luke" also follows "Mark" fairly close to 16:8 and than has only a few parallels after compared to the LE. I'm also claiming that "John" is evidence against the LE as well:

Mark. Mark 16	John 20 John 20
16.1-8. The visit to the tomb.	20.1-13. The visit to the tomb.
16.1 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the [mother] of James, and Salome, bought spices, that they might come and anoint him. 16.2 And very early on the first day of the week, they come to the tomb when the sun was risen.16.3 And they were saying among themselves, Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the tomb? 16.4 and looking up, they see that the stone is rolled back: for it was exceeding great.	20.1 Now on the first [day] of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, while it was yet dark, unto the tomb, and seeth the stone taken away from the tomb.
	20.2 She runneth therefore, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we know not where they have laid him. 20.3 Peter therefore went forth, and the other disciple, and they went toward the tomb. 20.4 And they ran both together: and the other disciple outran Peter, and came first to the tomb; 20.5 and stooping and looking in, he seeth the linen cloths lying; yet entered he not in. 20.6 Simon Peter therefore also cometh, following him, and entered into the tomb; and he beholdeth the linen cloths lying, 20.7 and the napkin, that was upon his head, not lying with the linen cloths, but rolled up in a place by itself. 20.8 Then entered in therefore the other disciple also, who came first to the tomb, and he saw, and believed. 20.9 For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise from the dead. 20.10 So the disciples went away again unto their own home.
16.5 And entering into the tomb, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, arrayed in a white robe; and they were amazed.	20.11 But Mary was standing without at the tomb weeping: so, as she wept, she stooped and looked into the tomb; 20.12 and she beholdeth two angels in white sitting, one at the head, and one at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain.
16.6 And he saith unto them, Be not amazed: ye seek Jesus, the Nazarene, who hath been crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold, the place where they laid him!	20.13 And they say unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? She saith unto them, Because they have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid him.
16.7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter, He goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you.	-
16.8 And they went out, and fled from the tomb; for trembling and astonishment had come upon them: and they said nothing to any one; for they were afraid.	-

JW:
Note that "John" accepts "Mark's" basic Empty Tomb story:

1) MM(M) comes to the tomb.

2) It's the first day of the week.

3) It's early.

4) The stone is moved.

5) MM sees an angel(s) in the tomb.

6) The angel is dressed in white.

7) The angel speaks to MM.

"John's" account has two significant differences:

1 - 9 of the 13 lines deal with the competition between Peter and the Beloved Disciple (not Peter). This is a major theological issue for "John" which obviously "Mark" does not have and is mindful of "Matthew" devoting 5 of his 12 resurrection sighting lines to apologizing for his source's ("Mark") Empty Tomb. "John" is motivated to add to "Mark" here.

2 - "John", like "Matthew" and "Luke", wanting to convert "Mark" from Revelation to Historical witness, uses his preparation day to prepare MM for a Jesus sighting.

"John's" post-resurrection story is as completely different from the LE as handling Monty Pythons so it is evidence along with "Matthew' and "Luke" that the LE did not exist at the time "John" was written. "John" likely helps set the parameters for when the LE was created. Looking at super Skeptic Neal Godfree's parallels of Justin to the Gospels, Justin Martyr's Gospel Narrative it's likely that Justin was not familiar with "John". Either it was still in Gnostic form (which would mean that an AE was no problem) or hadn't been written at all. "John" is the last clear witness to LE not existing at the time. Irenaeus of Lyons (yes, "Lyons") is the first clear witness to existence of the LE. So we likely have provenance for the creation of LE c. 155 - 180.

Joseph

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

JoeWallack · 07-19-2009, 11:14 AM

Joseph Wallack Response to Early Patristic Evidence by James Snapp Jr

JW:
I’ll start with a defense of what I consider star Patristic witnesses against the Long Ending (LE). My opponent writes regarding “Matthew”/”Luke”:

Quote:

My earlier comments address the oversimplified misuse of Matthew and Luke as witnesses to the text of Mark: my opponent proposed that Matthew and Luke would have used Mark 16:9-20 if they had known it. But the evidence points to Luke’s use of Proto-Mark instead of the Gospel of Mark. Matthew may have known and utilized Proto-Mark and the Gospel of Mark, in which case he chose to use the ending in Proto-Mark instead of what was, in comparison, a patch at the end of the Gospel of Mark. The "Minor Agreements" between Matthew and Luke further indicate that their source was not identical to the Gospel of Mark as we know it, either with or without 16:9-20. So this evidence is inconclusive.

Our exploration of patristic evidence begins with Papias,

At my website I have three minimum reasonableness standards for Biblical arguments at least one of which must be met in order for an argument to be considered:

1) Simple

2) Logical

3) Supported by Text.

My opponent’s argument above has none of these qualities. It is complex, illogical and not supported by any known Text:

1 – “Proto-Mark” is otherwise unknown.

2 – The main agreements with “Matthew” and “Luke” are sayings known as
Q. These have little overlap with “Mark” and would likely not be a source for a resurrection sighting story which is mainly narrative.

3 – This argument is not supported by any of the Categories of External evidence I have identified, Patristic, Manuscript, Scribal and Authority.

My opponent’s conclusion that “this evidence is inconclusive” implies that he thinks it should be ignored here as evidence against the LE. As I have demonstrated though his argument does not have a minimum level of reasonableness and therefore is a long way from summarily eliminating “Matthew”/”Luke” as any evidence here. The criteria I have identified will be determining the weight of the evidence here. To the extent Mr. Snapp has valid criticisms of the evidential value of “Matthew”/”Luke” that should be reflected as weaknesses in criteria. If it is not and should be than the criteria should be adjusted.

As I’ve previously mentioned “Matthew”/”Luke” have high evidential weight potential due to the criteria of Age and Confirmation –width. They are potentially the earliest Patristic evidence and the greatest in scope as unlike all of the other Patristic evidence they give complete pre and post resurrection narrative. I’ve previously demonstrated that “Matthew” follows “Mark” closely to 16:8. When these Gospels are placed in parallel form it is easy to see. Here is a post where you can easily see the parallel of “Matthew” to “Mark” to 16:8:

http://www.freeratio.org//showpost.p...&postcount=97]

Likewise, here is a link where you can easily compare and see that there are very few parallels between the LE and “Matthew’s” post resurrection narrative:

http://www.freeratio.org//showpost.p...1&postcount=87

The same is generally true to a lesser extent for “Luke”. Here is a link to a post where you can easily see the parallel of “Luke” to “Mark” to 16:8:

http://www.freeratio.org//showpost.p...5&postcount=76

And, here is a link where you can easily compare and see that there are a few general parallels between the LE and “Luke’s’’ post resurrection narrative, but on the whole likely a different source:

http://www.freeratio.org//showpost.p...9&postcount=82

I had previously included “John” in my inventory of Patristic evidence against the LE but had not given any detail explanation. “John” has the same characteristics here of “Matthew”/”Luke”. It follows the basics of “Mark” to 16:8 as illustrated here:

http://www.freeratio.org//showthread...94#post6021094

but “John’s” post resurrection narrative is completely different than the LE and clearly had a different source.

Note the cumulative strength of the subsequent Gospels. Arguments from silence are the weaker argument but as opportunity for mention grows, so does the strength. This observation of lack of awareness of the LE in the early Gospels also coordinates with the observation that there is no quality evidence that the LE even existed at the time since there is no clear reference to the LE until Irenaeus.

My opponent takes the use of the LE in the Gospel Diatesseron as evidence for LE. Should I try to argue that extant Diatesseron may be a recension and the proto-Diatesseron may not have had the LE? No, because this argument is not simple, logical or supported by the text and no category of external evidence supports it. While it’s possible that the original Diatesseron did not have the LE, if our extant text has it and there is no quality evidence disputing it, than it is likely original to the Diatesseron. Therefore, I accept it as evidence for LE. Likewise, by the same basic reasoning, “Matthew”/”Luke”/”John” should be accepted as evidence against LE. The criteria may weigh it as weak evidence but it is still evidence and can not be ignored.

JoeWallack · 07-26-2009, 12:57 PM

Joseph Wallack Response to Early Patristic Evidence by James Snapp Jr

JW:
The next star Patristic witness against LE after “Matthew”/”Luke”/”John” is Origen/Clement. My opponent writes:

Quote:

As for Origen, his neglect of the Gospel of Mark is chronic. Even in places in his writings where Origen compares the contents of the other Gospels to one another, he does not usually mention the contents of Mark. The example my opponent has mentioned in Against Celsus is a typical case of Origen’s neglect of Mark, and it merely shows that Origen paid as little attention to Mark 16:9-20 as he did to most 12-verse sections of Mark, despite his abundant comments on their parallels in the other Gospels.
…

To more precisely illustrate Origen’s distaste for using the Gospel of Mark, we may picture the Gospel of Mark as a pizza, sliced into 56 or 57 pieces; each slice consisting of 12 verses. Origen does not touch 34 of those slices, which constitute over 60% of the text.

To conclude: Clement used 23 verses from Mark. Origen did not use 34 twelve-verse sections of Mark. Therefore it is unrealistic to treat their non-use of a 12-verse passage as if it implies anything whatsoever about its presence or absence in their copies of Mark. (Perhaps someone with more resources can find a few more Markan passages used by Clement or Origen, but that would not significantly reduce the force of this argument.)

The above asserts that in general Origen preferred not to use “Mark”. There is no evidence that Origen considered “Mark” any less authoritative than the other Canonical Gospels but there are reasons why Origen would make less references to it. It is shorter, has more common material and has a lower Christology than the other Gospels. Additionally, we have extant commentaries of Origen on “Matthew” and “John” but no extant commentary on “Mark”. So I accept that in general Origen is less likely to refer to “Mark”. None of these qualities though, apply to the LE. The LE is 12 verses, the same as “Matthew’s” resurrection story (I’m surprised my opponent has not inventoried this as support for LE) . Most of the LE is unique and the Christology is high. So there are no general reasons for Origen to avoid the LE. Specifically, the post resurrection stories are easily the most important assertion of Christianity in general and specifically to Origen so it is exponentially more likely that he would refer to them compared to the rest of the Gospels. And that is exactly what we see. At least for “Matthew”, “Luke” and “John”.

Specifically here, Celsus’ The True Doctrine is c. 177. As filtered by Origen it appears that Celsus was not aware of the Canonical names and instead thought of the Gospels as a group, the same as Justin and presumably the same as Tatian. Tatian also never names the Canonical Gospels which apparently gave him the freedom to try and harmonize them into the Diatessaron. Irenaeus looks like the first to attribute names to the Gospels and is also (not coincidently I think) probably the first to identify the LE. More on that later. The distinction of which Gospel is being referred to than, normally comes from Origen, since he, unlike Celsus, thinks of the Gospels individually.

Per e-Catena, http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/e-catena/, we see that Origen refers to every Chapter of “Mark” except Chapters 2 and 16. So in general Chapter 16 already stands out as not being referred to. Mark 16:1-8 is closely paralleled by the other Gospels and does not contain much useful information for Origen, women come to an empty tomb expecting Jesus to be dead, compared to what follows, so there shouldn’t be much expectation of Origen specifically referring to it. Specifically in Against Celsus, Origen seems to have no problem referring to “Mark” when it is useful to him as it is part of his opening quote:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...origen161.html

Quote:

BOOK I.
PREFACE.
1. … Now, with respect to our Lord's silence when false witness was borne against Him, it is sufficient at present to quote the words of Matthew, for the testimony of Mark is to the same effect.

I accept than that in general Origen is less likely to refer to “Mark” than the other Gospels but I do not accept that he would neglect “Mark” if it had information which was useful to him. So on to more specifics of Against Celsus:

Book II is where Origen defends against specific problems pointed out by Celsus in the Gospels and especially problems with the post resurrection narratives.

Quote:

CHAP. I.
. … Wherefore also in the Acts of the Apostles it is related that he even brought an offering to the altar, that he might satisfy the Jews that he was no apostate from their law. Now, if Celsus had been acquainted with all these circumstances, he would not have represented the Jew holding such language as this to the converts from Judaism:

Note that based on what Origen has presented Celsus seems unaware of Acts. As far as we know Irenaeus is the first to identify Acts. Those who have been reading carefully may remember that Irenaeus is also the first to identify the Canonical Gospels by name. He is also apparently the first to claim the LE. This concentration (and there are a lot more) of assertional firsts is going to be a weakness in the critical criteria of credibility.

Quote:

IV
“…Nay, even one of the evangelists--Mark--says: "The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as it is written in the prophet Isaiah, Behold, I send My messenger before Thy face, who shall prepare Thy way before Thee," which shows that the beginning of the Gospel is connected with the Jewish writings.

Celsus correctly observes that the Jewish Bible with its emphasis on the Law is generally contradictory to the Gospels which do not emphasize the Law. Origen disputes Celsus’ observation here by invoking the beginning of “Mark” showing that per “Mark” Jesus’ history was the Jewish Bible. This demonstrates early on in Book II Origen is perfectly willing to refer to “Mark” if he thinks it helps him.

Quote:

CHAP. XLII.
… Jesus, however, performed all that He promised to do, and by which He conferred benefits upon his adherents. And we, continually seeing fulfilled all that was predicted by Him before it happened, viz., that this Gospel of His should be preached throughout the whole world,

Here the subject is Jesus’ prophecies and specifically regarding the benefits to his followers. The claimed fulfillment is from the little apocalypse. There is however a better potential claim of prophecy fulfillment here. The LE is the only post resurrection story where Jesus predicts benefits for his adherents, power over demons, speaking in tongues, protection from serpents, protection from poison and healing the sick. Unlike the little apocalypse, these are supernatural predictions. Why no mention by Origen?

Quote:

CHAP. XLVIII.
.… And these lame who have been healed, receive from Jesus power to trample, with those feet in which they were formerly lame, upon the serpents and scorpions of wickedness, and generally upon all the power of the enemy; and though they tread upon it, they sustain no injury, for they also have become stronger than the poison of all evil and of demons.

The topic here are the supposed miracles of Jesus. Origen than refers to Jesus’ prediction that his disciples would perform even greater miracles. Origen describes these miracles in figurative terms and uses many of the same key words or at least synonyms in the LE, “demons”, “serpents”, “poison” and “healing the sick”. So why no mention of the LE?

Quote:

CHAP. LV.
… A half-frantic woman, as you state, and some other one, perhaps, of those who were engaged in the same system of delusion, who had either dreamed so, owing to a peculiar state of mind, or under the influence of a wandering imagination bad formed to himself an appearance according to his own wishes, which has been the case with numberless individuals; or, which is most probable, one who desired to impress others with this portent, and by such a falsehood to furnish an occasion to impostors like himself.

Here Celsus is specifically critiquing the post resurrection story. Note that there is nothing above unique to the LE.

Quote:

CHAP. LXII.
And truly, after His resurrection, He existed in a body intermediate, … 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?" And when their eyes were opened, and they knew Him, then the Scripture says, in express words, "And He vanished out of their sight.

Here Origen continues with an explanation that Jesus’ appearance is now different after the resurrection. He still uses “John” as an unnamed base but now explicitly identifies “Luke” as additional support that Jesus’ appearance has changed and that is why he is not immediately recognized. “Matthew” has no support for Jesus having a different appearance but the LE does:

Quote:

12 And after these things he was manifested in another form unto two of them, as they walked, on their way into the country.

Why doesn’t Origen appeal to this?

Quote:

CHAP. LXVIII.
But let us observe how this Jew of Celsus asserts that, "if this at least would have helped to manifest his divinity, he ought accordingly to have at once disappeared from the cross." …For it is related in St. Luke's Gospel, that Jesus after His resurrection took bread, and blessed it, and breaking it, distributed it to Simon and Cleopas; and when they had received the bread, "their eyes were opened, and they knew Him, and He vanished out of their sight,

Here Origen deals with Celsus complaint that if Jesus was divine he should be able to disappear. Note that Origen has to explicitly identify “Luke” to refer to Jesus’ disappearing. He could also have referred to the LE:

Quote:

19 So then the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken unto them, was received up into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of God.

Why didn’t he?

Quote:

CHAP. LXX.
… 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.

Celsus makes the point that the resurrected Jesus’ only shows himself to believers, specifically one woman and his disciples. In “John” and the LE Jesus only appears to one woman yet Origen, as always regarding the post resurrection, never mentions “Mark”. Origen explicitly identifies “Matthew” as contradicting Celsus.

In summary, we have the following reasons to think that Origen either was not familiar with the LE or did not think it original:

1) The post resurrection sightings in the Gospels would be the best potential historical evidence available to Origen. He refers to “Matthew’s” 7 times (4 in AC), “Luke’s” 6 times (2 in AC), “John’s” 13 times (5 in AC) and “Mark’s” -0-. Amazingly similar to what we would expect if he thought “Mark” had no post resurrection. The LE is also one of the few sections of “Mark” that is unique to “Mark”. Why not invoke its material if Origen thought it original?

2) In all of Origen’s writings he only fails to refer to Chapters 2 and 16 of “Mark”. So Chapter 16 stands out in general.

3) In Against Celsus, Origen refers to Chapters 1, 3, 6, 10 and 13. Against Celsus specifically deals at length with the post resurrection story. Why not use the LE if he has no problem using "Mark" in general in Against Celsus?

4) Origen misses several opportunities to invoke the LE as support for his position when specifically discussing the post resurrections story:

1 – Fulfillment of Jesus’ prediction of benefits to his followers.

2- While claiming that Jesus’ followers performed even greater miracles than Jesus, Origen uses many key words from the LE but does not refer to the LE.

3 – Origen describes Celsus as hyper-critical, especially regarding the post resurrection, yet never says that Celsus criticized the LE prediction that followers could safely handle serpents and drink poison. Another argument from silence but I think we can safely hand Celsus, c. 177, over to evidence that the LE is not original.

4 – Origen is supporting his assertion that Jesus’ post resurrection appearance was different and cites “John” and “Luke” as support. “Matthew” has no related support but the LE does.

5 – Origen needs support for his assertion that Jesus could disappear and cites “Luke” but does not refer to the available support in the LE.

This is the best evidence against the LE here. The expectation is specifically high for multiple missed opportunities.

JoeWallack · 08-08-2009, 09:55 AM

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

Quote:

Early Patristic Evidence – Part Three (1 of 2)

So far in our review of external evidence from the first, second, and third centuries, my opponent has attempted to present Matthew, Luke, John, and Origen as if they are soldiers in the service of his case. However, each one is a neutral party, forced into service contrary to his nature.

Consider our claims about the Synoptic Problem. We agree that an uncomplicated explanation of all the evidence is to be preferred to a complicated explanation of all the evidence. But a simple answer that doesn’t explain all the evidence is as useful as a simple bridge that doesn’t reach all the way across the river. The Two-Source (or “Four Document”) Hypothesis does not account for all the evidence. It is welded to a pedestal of complicated sub-theories (as those who have read Streeter can attest) in which Luke’s non-use of Mark 6:45-8:26 is supposed to be due to Luke’s use of a mutilated copy of Mark; the “Minor Agreements” are supposed to have been created by copyists; Q and Mark are supposed to share the blessed overlap, a recension of Mark with an expanded ending is supposed to have been used at Ephesus, etc.

My opponent raised an objection about complexity, but he overlooked these complex aspects of his own favored theory. He also objected that Proto-Mark is not otherwise known, but inasmuch as he casually posits the equally non-extant Q, he must not be persuaded by his own objection. And his argument has a deeper flaw: it assumes an automatic correlation between simplicity and historicity. A better premise, I submit, is that explanations should only be as simple as the evidence allows.

J. Keith Elliott has weighed the sort of approach to Matthew and Luke proposed by my opponent. Dr. Elliott concluded, “We cannot use Matthew or Luke to make claims about what they may or may not have read in their copies of Mark 16.” Matthew and Luke had multiple sources and we cannot tell what Matthew and Luke were reading, or what they were thinking, when they wrote their accounts of Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances. If we are to admit the possible testimony of potential witnesses, then Luke’s detailed account of the two travelers on the road to Emmaus might be based on Mark 16:12, and Matthew 28:18-20 may be the earliest use of Mark 16:15-20.

As for the Gospel of John, my opponent’s claim is not supported by the evidence. Instead, the evidence which he cited – comparing Mark 15-16 to John 19-20 – only reveals that John 19 closes at the same point as Mark 15. If you look, you will see that there is no indication of literary dependence upon Mark 16. The entire episode in Mark 16:1-8 about the women’s visit to the empty tomb is untouched by John. John 20 says nothing about Mark 16:9-20 that it does not say about Mark 16:1-8.

While we are considering potential witnesses, possible evidence, and the Gospel of John, this may be a good place to mention an intriguing possibility about how John 21 was made. Many interpreters of the Gospel of John have wondered why the book comes to a conclusion at 20:31, and then keeps going for another 25 verses before being re-concluded. A hypothesis exists which, as it answers that question, contributes to the case for the authenticity of Mark 16:9-20 by showing that copyists could indeed prefer a text of Mark that ended at 16:8. Picture a sequel to the scenario in which Mark 1:1-16:20 was finished in Rome: a copy – or perhaps even the autograph – was taken to John in Ephesus, along with knowledge of how it had been written by Mark and how it had been completed by Mark’s colleagues. (The question of whether this was John the son of Zebedee, or another John, regarded by his colleagues as a living depository of traditions taught by John the beloved disciple, may be left open.) John was asked about what happened after 16:8. He responded by composing a short narrative in which some of the disciples decided to go fishing in Galilee, where Jesus appeared to them and restored them to service, especially Peter – just as one would expect from Mark 14:28 and 16:7. (Possibly an awareness of EFANERWQH in Mark 16:12 and 16:14 moved him to use EFANERWSEN in what we know as John 21:1 and EFANERWQH in 21:14.)

This Johannine ending was very satisfying – so satisfying that some Ephesians preferred it to Mark 16:9-20. (Possibly, the Gospel of Peter was written by someone who knew the Johannine ending and Mark 16:9-20, and borrowed from them both.) Copies from Rome, though, continued to circulate with 16:9-20. John acquiesced to the Roman form of Mark’s Gospel. Later, the Johannine ending was recast to form part of an appendix to John’s own Gospel-account.

But not everyone acquiesced to the Roman form of Mark. Someone in the second century, with knowledge of the original purpose of the main source of John 21, regarded Mark 16:9-20 as an expediency rendered superfluous by John’s ending of Mark’s narrative, and he removed it for that reason. And from this person’s excised copy, the manuscripts in which Mark ends at 16:8 have descended, beginning in Egypt and spreading in the 200’s to Caesarea. Also in Egypt, someone composed the Shorter Ending to relieve the abruptness of the excised text. Later, when copies with 16:9-20 were encountered, both endings were retained – the Shorter Ending being put first for the practical reasons that it fits the narrative better there, and it ends a lection on a positive note.

Before turning to Origen, I will briefly revisit the concrete evidence from the 100’s. My opponent has said nothing that would cause the use of Mark 16:9-20 in Justin’s First Apology (160), the Epistula Apostolorum (150/180), and Tatian’s Diatessaron (172) to be less than clear. These are not explicit citations, but they are clear utilizations, of Mark 16:9-20. We have seen how Justin’s statement in First Apology 45 fits a Diatessaron-like Synoptics-Harmony hand-in-glove. We are aware that parts of three scenes in Epistula Apostolorum are paralleled nowhere but in Mark 16:14. And, regarding the Diatessaron, while the consideration that the Diatessaronic witnesses are not uniform in their arrangement of Mark 16:9-20 should be placed on the scales, it sits there alone and undeveloped, while on the other side some very heavy Diatessaronic witnesses are looming, such as the Arabic Diatessaron, Ephrem’s Commentary, and the Doctrine of Addai in the east, and the Wessex Gospels and Codex Fuldensis in the west.

We now give Origen our full attention. And again we remember Origen’s statement in Philocalia 5:5, where after quoting Luke 10:19 he states, “Let a man observe how the apostles who were sent by Jesus to proclaim the gospel went everywhere, and he cannot help seeing their superhuman daring in obedience to the divine command.” We may wonder, “What deeds of the apostles, performed as they went everywhere, would make Origen think that the apostles exercised superhuman daring?” and find ourselves thinking of the signs mentioned in Mark 16:17-18. But setting that aside, as previously, I want my first point about Origen to be that if someone were to discover, tomorrow, a treatise by Origen in which he explicitly stated that his copy of Mark ended at the end of 16:8, nothing at all in my approach would be altered. I believe that copies of Mark with the abrupt ending existed in Egypt in the early 200’s, when Origen worked there.

Nevertheless the attempt to use Origen as a witness for the abrupt ending should be answered. It is an attempt to make something out of nothing. My opponent pointed outside our discussion-arena, to e-Catena’s list of references, but that list (and more) has already been taken into account; my earlier statement remains unaltered: Origen does not touch 60% of the pizza. Next came the claim that Origen used material from every chapter of Mark except chapters 2 and 16. That isn’t true, because Origen doesn’t quote from Mark 13. Furthermore, that is like saying that Origen ate from 14 slices of a 16-slice pizza; when we learn that the slices vary greatly in size, and when we learn that Origen has only nibbled here and there, such a statement is completely meaningless, if it is supposed to give readers an impression of how much of Mark’s text was cited by Origen.

My opponent suggested that Origen would have quoted from Mark 16:9-20 if he had known about it, because it has such important subject-matter. Important topics are covered in Mark 15:22-16:8, too: Christ’s crucifixion, His death, His burial, and the women’s visit to the empty tomb. But Origen does not use those 33 verses!

(Continued . . .)

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

07-16-2009, 06:00 AM	#101
jakejonesiv Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Atlanta Posts: 2,060	Joe, Fascinating work. Jake

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.