JoeWallack

JW:
As they say, the battle is won before it is started. Here my opponent agrees with me that 16:9-20 is not original before I posted a single word! I should rest my case now (And now I'd like to introduce to you world famous Sextologist Joseph Wallack. "Ladies and gentlemen, it gives me great pleasure. Thank you.")

Ironically Snapp's main piece of related advice is to avoid Metzger's analysis but his conclusion above is designed to circumvent Metzger's analysis of the Internal evidence. Snapp's solution for the Internal evidence problem is to say that 16:9-20 is from the original author but was from a different Markan composition than the Gospel. This explains the continuity problem but not the vocabulary and style problems.

He will than argue that 16:9-20 is not a problem for vocabulary and style ala Bruce Terry:

The Style Of The Long Ending Of Mark

The objective student should notice how complicated, illogical and ad-hoc this defense is. At ErrancyWiki I have 3 minimum standards for arguments:

1) Simple

2) Logical

3) Supported by the Text

Posts that lack all 3 are not accepted as arguments. This has effectively ended Apologetics there. Specifically here Snapp proposes the following unlikely events:

1) "Mark" was unfinished.

2) "Mark" leaves Rome.

3) "Marks" colleagues attach a Markan post resurrection story to "Mark".

4) "Mark 16:9-20, was rejected by an overly meticulous second-century copyist"

5) "who may have preferred instead to use John 21 as the continuation and conclusion of Mark’s narrative." (Here's your company Loomis and Ben).

Note that statistically, when you combine unlikely events, the probability for the conclusion decreases exponentially. Mr. Snapp does not need the Stauros to save him, he needs the Statistics.

A humorous observation is that Snapp's position is primarily critical of Metzger but does not attribute motivation to Metzger. Therefore Snapp must be arguing that the greatest textual critic of all time is incompetent!

But seriously folk-tales, where Metzger does deserve criticism regarding Internal evidence is that he fails to consider the most important sub-Category which is Theme. Theme is the broadest category and therefore the most reliable as to conclusions. The other Internal categories, Vocabulary, Style and Continuity, are less important than Metzger thinks because it has been demonstrated that "Mark" has significant non-historical sources, the Jewish Bible, Paul and Josephus and often intentionally copies the language to make the connection clear.



Joseph

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

JoeWallack

JW:
We have seen that "Luke" closely follows "Mark" to 16:8. Let's see how well she than follows the LE:

Mark. Mark 16	Luke. Luke 24
16.9-20. LE.	24.10-52. Resurrection Sighting.
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.	24.9 and returned from the tomb, and told all these things to the eleven, and to all the rest.
16.9 Now when he was risen early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from whom he had cast out seven demons.	-
16.10 She went and told them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept.	24.10 Now they were Mary Magdalene, and Joanna, and Mary the [mother] of James: and the other women with them told these things unto the apostles.
16.11 And they, when they heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, disbelieved.	24.11 And these words appeared in their sight as idle talk; and they disbelieved them.
-	24.12 But Peter arose, and ran unto the tomb; and stooping and looking in, he seeth the linen cloths by themselves; and he departed to his home, wondering at that which was come to pass.
-	24.13 And behold, two of them were going that very day to a village named Emmaus, which was threescore furlongs from Jerusalem.
-	24.14 And they communed with each other of all these things which had happened.
16.12 And after these things he was manifested in another form unto two of them, as they walked, on their way into the country.	24.15 And it came to pass, while they communed and questioned together, that Jesus himself drew near, and went with them.
-	24.16 But their eyes were holden that they should not know him.
-	24.17 And he said unto them, What communications are these that ye have one with another, as ye walk? And they stood still, looking sad.
-	24.18 And one of them, named Cleopas, answering said unto him, Dost thou alone sojourn in Jerusalem and not know the things which are come to pass there in these days?
-	24.19 And he said unto them, What things? And they said unto him, The things concerning Jesus the Nazarene, who was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people:
-	24.20 and how the chief priests and our rulers delivered him up to be condemned to death, and crucified him.
-	24.21 But we hoped that it was he who should redeem Israel. Yea and besides all this, it is now the third day since these things came to pass.
-	24.22 Moreover certain women of our company amazed us, having been early at the tomb;
-	24.23 and when they found not his body, they came, saying, that they had also seen a vision of angels, who said that he was alive.
-	24.24 And certain of them that were with us went to the tomb, and found it even so as the women had said: but him they saw not.
-	24.25 And he said unto them, O foolish men, and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken!
-	24.26 Behooved it not the Christ to suffer these things, and to enter into his glory?
-	24.27 And beginning from Moses and from all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.
-	24.28 And they drew nigh unto the village, whither they were going: and he made as though he would go further.
-	24.29 And they constrained him, saying, Abide with us; for it is toward evening, and the day is now far spent. And he went in to abide with them.
-	24.30 And it came to pass, when he had sat down with them to meat, he took the bread and blessed; and breaking [it] he gave to them.
-	24.31 And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight.
-	24.32 And they said one to another, Was not our heart burning within us, while he spake to us in the way, while he opened to us the scriptures?
-	24.33 And they rose up that very hour, and returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven gathered together, and them that were with them,
16.13 And they went away and told it unto the rest: neither believed they them.	24.34 saying, The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon.
-	24.35 And they rehearsed the things [that happened] in the way, and how he was known of them in the breaking of the bread.
16.14 And afterward he was manifested unto the eleven themselves as they sat at meat; and he upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them that had seen him after he was risen.	24.36 And as they spake these things, he himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace [be] unto you.
-	24.37 But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they beheld a spirit.
-	24.38 And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and wherefore do questionings arise in your heart?
-	24.39 See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye behold me having.
-	24.40 And when he had said this, he showed them his hands and his feet.
-	24.41 And while they still disbelieved for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here anything to eat?
-	24.42 And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish.
-	24.43 And he took it, and ate before them.
-	24.44 And he said unto them, These are my words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must needs be fulfilled, which are written in the law of Moses, and the prophets, and the psalms, concerning me.
-	24.45 Then opened he their mind, that they might understand the scriptures;
-	24.46 and he said unto them, Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer, and rise again from the dead the third day;
16.15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to the whole creation.	24.47 and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name unto all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem.
16.16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that disbelieveth shall be condemned.	-
16.17 And these signs shall accompany them that believe: in my name shall they cast out demons; they shall speak with new tongues;	-
16.18 they shall take up serpents, and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall in no wise hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.	-
-	24.48 Ye are witnesses of these things.
-	24.49 And behold, I send forth the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city, until ye be clothed with power from on high.
-	24.50 And he led them out until [they were] over against Bethany: and he lifted up his hands, and blessed them.
16.19 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.	24.51 And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he parted from them, and was carried up into heaven.
-	24.52 And they worshipped him, and returned to Jerusalem with great joy:

-	24.53 and were continually in the temple, blessing God.
16.20 And they went forth, and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word by the signs that followed. Amen.	-

JW:
For 16.1-8 "Luke" uses most of the same/similar words for her corresponding verses and most of "Luke's" resurrection sighting has no parallel to the LE. But note that for 16:9-20, while none of the corresponding verses of "Luke" use most of the same/similar words, most of verses 16:9-20 have some parallels in "Luke":

Rating of parallels:

16:9 Low
16:10 Medium
16:11 High
16:12 High
16:13 Medium
16:14 High
16:15 Medium
16:16 Low
16:17 Low
16:18 Low
16:19 High
16:20 Low

Score

Low = 5

Medium = 3

High = 4

Conclusion = The LE was not "Luke's" source but they did have a common source. This common source must have been written after "Mark" since "Mark" was the original narrative. Therefore, "Luke", like "Matthew", is evidence against the LE being original.



Joseph

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

JoeWallack

JW:
Using my criteria, Patristic is the most important category of External evidence, which I will demonstrate in a later post. For now let's examine the Patristic evidence by individual criterion and than weigh the Patristic category as a whole:

1) Age

The earliest Patristic evidence here is "Matthew"/"Luke" which is an argument from silence, but a strong argument from silence for AE. This is one of the best Patristic arguments for AE so let's look at the detail again:

"Mark" to 16:8 (AE) sure looks like "Matthew's" source to 28:8. Most of the content and nouns are the same or at least similar and both have the strong emotion of fear/amazement for flavor. The only significant difference is the last line of each where "Matthew's" women run to tell as opposed to "Mark's" woman who run not to tell.

We have the following reasons to think that "Matthew", c. before Tatian/Irenaeus, did not have the LE in his copy of "Mark":

1) "Mark" in general is "Matthew's" source. There is little of the LE in "Matthew".

2) "Matthew" closely follows "Mark" to 16:8 (see 1).

3) "Matthew" flips the key assertion of 16:8, "ran and told no one", to "ran and told everyone", to change the expectation of what follows.

4) There's no substantially complete sentence (based on meaning) in the LE that corresponds to "Matthew's" ending.

5) There are insufficient theological reasons for "Matthew" to reject almost all of the LE.

6) "Matthew" would not have had any other known source for his ending.

"Luke" has a few parallels to the LE but most of "Luke's" ending does not parallel the LE.

Also note that "Matthew" and "Luke" both react to The Empty Tomb:

Matthew 28

For "Matthew" to devote 5 of our lines in a post-resurrection ending to apologize for the empty tomb suggests that that was all he found at the ending of "Mark", The Empty Tomb (and no sightings).

Likewise, "Luke":

Luke 24

"Luke's" Peter has to check The Empty Tomb himself. Why this much interest in The Empty Tomb by "Matthew"/"Luke" if "Mark" had a resurrection sighting? The simple answer is it did not and "Matthew"/"Luke" had to deal with a source that was dominated by The Empty Tomb and not a resurrection sighting.

Ironically, Snapp would date "Matthew"/"Luke" extremely early, making it a century earlier than his second century Patristic references to the LE. I date "Matthew"/"Luke" to c. 130s, the same century as Patristic references to the LE.

The earliest Patristic evidence I see for the LE is Tatian, c. 175, in the Diatessaron. Although there is some overlap with "Luke", almost all unique verse from the LE is in the Diatessaron which otherwise includes most of the unique verses of "Mark" in general.

For my rating scale for age I use:

1 - 2nd & 3rd century = High = 3

2 - 4th & 5th century = Medium = 2

3 - 6th & 7th century = Low = 1

As the earliest evidence here for AE and LE is 2nd century for both I give a small edge to AE here for the Age criterion.

Note that Snapp does not include "Matthew"/"Luke" in his Patristic category and the key to his informal argument for LE is that the Patristic evidence is the earliest evidence and supports LE as the earliest. The exercise above refutes his argument for LE all by itself. In contrast though, I am using a formal argument, so the above is just one piece and is only small support for AE.



Joseph

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

JoeWallack

JW:
Continuing the examination of Patristic evidence by individual criterion:

2) Confirmation - quantity (To the 7th century)

For AE = 9

Matthew

Luke

John

Clement

Origen

Eusebius

Jerome

Hesychius

Severus

For LE = 15

Irenaeus

Tatian

Tertullian

Porphyry (referred to)

Epiphanius

Aphraates

Gospel of Nicodemus

Constitutions of the Holy Apostles

Ambrose

Nestorius

Cyril

Gregory

Chrysostom

Augustine

Victor

Summary LE 15 vs. AE 9 = Medium advantage to LE for this criterion.




Joseph

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

JoeWallack

JW:
Continuing the examination of Patristic evidence by individual criterion:

3) Confirmation - width (To the 7th century)

Width here is location.

For AE

Matthew

Luke

John

Clement

Origen

Eusebius

Jerome

Hesychius

Severus

Note the relatively small geographical area here. Dominated by Israel, Syria and Egypt.

For LE

Irenaeus

Tatian

Tertullian

Porphyry (referred to)

Epiphanius

Aphraates

Gospel of Nicodemus

Constitutions of the Holy Apostles

Ambrose

Nestorius

Cyril

Gregory

Chrysostom

Augustine

Victor

Here the location is much broader.

Summary = High advantage to LE for this criterion.


4) Applicability (general vs. specific) (To the 7th century)

This criterion involves identifying textual criticism of the ending as an issue (general) as opposed to only referencing an ending (specific):

For AE

Eusebius

Jerome

Hesychius

Severus

For LE

Victor

Summary = High advantage to AE for this criterion.



Joseph

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

JoeWallack

JW:
Analysis of External Categories

First, the Patristic. The data against LE is “Matthew”, “Luke”, “John”, Clement, Origen, Eusebius, Jerome, Hesychius and Severus..

I assume, as does authority, that “Mark” was written first and that “Matthew” and “Luke” used “Mark” as a primary source and that “John” was aware of “Mark”. “Matthew” often follows “Mark” closely, “Luke” follows somewhat less closely and “John” does not follow much at all except for the Passion. Metzger does not mention “Matthew” and “Luke” as evidence against LE as he generally avoids arguments from silence. Modern arguments against LE generally do. The potential strength of “Matthew”/”Luke” as evidence here is the quality of age. This would not only be the earliest known Patristic evidence but the earliest External evidence.
This is especially applicable to arguments for LE as their primary claimed evidential quality is age, specifically, early Patristic references.

The weakness of “Matthew”/”Luke” here as evidence is it is indirect but this is offset by the width (scope) of the evidence, especially “Matthew”:

1) Generally follows “Mark” closely.

2) Specifically follows what comes before LE (16:1-8) closely.

3) Does not follow 16:9-20.

This is evidence that “Matthew” did not follow the LE because it was not there at the time “Matthew” copied from “Mark”. I’ll use up some of my word limit here to demonstrate 2) and 3) because without considering “Matthew”/”Luke”, age is one of the few criteria that favors LE for this category:

Mark. Mark 16	Matthew Matthew 28
16.1-8. The visit to the tomb.	28.1-8. 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.	28.1 Now late on the sabbath day, as it began to dawn toward the first [day] of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.
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.	28.2 And behold, there was a great earthquake; for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled away the stone, and sat upon it. 28.3 His appearance was as lightning, and his raiment white as snow:
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.	28.4 and for fear of him the watchers did quake, and became as dead men.
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!	28.5 And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye; for I know that ye seek Jesus, who hath been crucified. 28.6 He is not here; for he is risen, even as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay.
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.	28.7 And go quickly, and tell his disciples, He is risen from the dead; and lo, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told 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.	28.8 And they departed quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy, and ran to bring his disciples word.

JW:
"Mark" to 16:8 (AE) sure looks like "Matthew's" source to 28:8. Most of the content and nouns are the same or at least similar and both have the strong emotion of fear/amazement for flavor. The only significant difference is the last line of each where "Matthew's" women run to tell as opposed to "Mark's" woman who run not to tell.

We have the following reasons to think that "Matthew", c. before Tatian/Irenaeus, did not have the LE in his copy of "Mark":

1) "Mark" in general is "Matthew's" source. There is little of the LE in "Matthew".

2) "Matthew" closely follows "Mark" to 16:8 (see 1).

3) "Matthew" flips the key assertion of 16:8, "ran and told no one", to "ran and told everyone", to change the expectation of what follows.



Joseph

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

JoeWallack

JW:
We have seen that "Matthew" closely follows "Mark" to 16:8. Let's see how well it than follows the LE:

Mark. Mark 16	Matthew. Matthew 28
16.9-20. LE.	28.9-20. Resurrection Sighting.
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.	28.8 And they departed quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy, and ran to bring his disciples word.
16.9 Now when he was risen early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from whom he had cast out seven demons.	28.9 And behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and took hold of his feet, and worshipped him. 28.10 Then saith Jesus unto them, Fear not: go tell my brethren that they depart into Galilee, and there shall they see me.
-	28.11 Now while they were going, behold, some of the guard came into the city, and told unto the chief priests all the things that were come to pass.
-	28.12 And when they were assembled with the elders, and had taken counsel, they gave much money unto the soldiers,
-	28.13 saying, Say ye, His disciples came by night, and stole him away while we slept.
-	28.14 And if this come to the governor`s ears, we will persuade him, and rid you of care.
-	28.15 So they took the money, and did as they were taught: and this saying was spread abroad among the Jews, [and continueth] until this day.
16.10 She went and told them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept.
16.11 And they, when they heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, disbelieved.
16.12 And after these things he was manifested in another form unto two of them, as they walked, on their way into the country.
-	28.16 But the eleven disciples went into Galilee, unto the mountain where Jesus had appointed them.
16.14 And afterward he was manifested unto the eleven themselves as they sat at meat; and he upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them that had seen him after he was risen.	28.17 And when they saw him, they worshipped [him]; but some doubted.
16.15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to the whole creation.	28.18 And Jesus came to them and spake unto them, saying, All authority hath been given unto me in heaven and on earth.
16.16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that disbelieveth shall be condemned.	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:
16.17 And these signs shall accompany them that believe: in my name shall they cast out demons; they shall speak with new tongues;	-
16.18 they shall take up serpents, and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall in no wise hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.	-
-	28.20 teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I commanded you: and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world.
16.19 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.
16.20 And they went forth, and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word by the signs that followed. Amen.	-

JW:
Note that for 16:9-20, there are no good parallels for "Matthew". Also note that the largest block of material in "Matthew's" ending deals with the problem of The Empty Tomb (28:11-15).

Conclusion = The LE was not a source for "Matthew" and the ending "Matthew" had to work with from "Mark" was dominated by The Empty Tomb. "Matthew" is a witness (the earliest) against LE.



Joseph

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

JoeWallack

JW:
Regarding External evidence the next star witness against LE after "Matthew"/"Luke" is Origen/Clement who show no awareness of it.

In Against Celsus, Origen is specifically discussing resurrection sightings and explicitly refers to "Matthew" and "Luke" as authors of the resurrection sightings as well as refer to most of the information in their resurrection sightings and uses "John" as an unnamed base of resurrection sighting information but never refers to any resurrection sighting information in "Mark".

Let's look at the context and details of what exactly Origen was responding to and what his response was:

Against Celsus

JW:
We see the superiority here of Celsus' scholarship over Origen's:

1) He recognizes that there is one original Gospel narrative.

2) That two Gospels are just editing of the original.

3) That the 4th Gospel uses the original as a major source.

4) That there are many other Gospels which still have a basis of the original.

5) That Christianity makes specific edits to solve problems.

JW:
Note that Origen's base Gospel here is "John" which he quotes the most and contains the unique material he refers to. To distinguish from "John" he explicitly names "Luke".

JW:
A second explicit naming of "Luke".

JW:
The context is Celsus' supposed claim that per the Gospels Jesus only showed himself after resurrecting to one woman. Both "Mark" and "John" have Jesus showing himself to one woman. Since it's been previously clear that Origen uses "John" as an unnamed base to start with and than be supplemented by the other Gospels, the preference here is that Origen is referring to "John". He than explicitly names "Matthew" twice.

Of added interest:

Note the parallel words to LE, serpents, poison, demons and no injury. Too bad the context is different. Origen is speaking figuratively while the LE is speaking literally. Still, Origen is perfectly willing to invoke much weaker parallels to the Gospels so why not refer to "Mark's" LE here?

In summary than regarding resurrection sighting:

1) "John". Origen refers to and quotes extensively from, using it as an unnamed base, to be supplemented by the other Gospels.

2) "Matthew". Explicitly names twice. Quotes unique material.

3) "Luke". Explicitly names twice. Quotes unique material.

4) "Mark". Never names or presents unique material and misses a golden opportunity to invoke the LE.

Conclusion = Origen did not think the LE was original.



Joseph

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

andrewcriddle

One interesting point here, is that it might be evidence that Celsus knew the LE. The reference to Mary Magdalene as A half-frantic woman, as ye state probably alludes to Mary's status as an ex-demoniac. This may be derived from Celsus having read Luke 8:2 but Mark 16:9 is more likely.

Andrew Criddle

JoeWallack

JW:
There you go again. spin? spin! Where the hell are you (probably off obfusacating on Pearse's garden)?

TextExcavation - The endings of the gospel of Mark - Celsus

JW:
Nota Ben E. I'll add to the above (so that Snapp can not count me and Ben as just one source) that I think Ben misses the main reason why Celsus refers to Mary M. as "half-frantic":

John 20

For a woman to be running qualifies as "half-frantic" I think. Note that "Mark's" Mary M. also runs, but not in the LE.

Since you force me to come back to this, I'm going to add to my previous summary of evidence that Origen did not think the LE original based on Against Celsus that where Origen presents text shared by the LE and "John":

"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"

Origen makes no effort to clarify whether it's from "Mark" or "John". This is consistent with Origen's general presentation here that when he is referring to resurrection sighting and does not identify the Gospel, it is always from "John" and that is why it is not named. When he supplements "John" with another Gospel here, he always names the Gospel to distinguish it from "John". The summary:

1) "John". Origen refers to and quotes extensively from, using it as an unnamed base, to be supplemented by the other Gospels. All unnamed references are to "John".

2) "Matthew". Explicitly names twice. Quotes unique material.

3) "Luke". Explicitly names twice. Quotes unique material.

4) "Mark". Never names or presents unique material and misses a golden opportunity to invoke the LE.

5) Where there is shared material with "John" and the LE, Origen does not distinguish by name.

Conclusion = Origen did not think the LE was original.



Joseph

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