Be Afraid. Be Very Afraid For. Confirmation 16:8 Original

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Steven Avery
Posts: 609
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

Re: Be Afraid. Be Very Afraid For. Confirmation 16:8 Original

Post by Steven Avery » Fri Jun 19, 2020 10:42 pm

Ulan wrote:
Fri Jun 19, 2020 3:04 am
A theory is based on existing evidence
Joe is not offering a theory.

It is a simple question.
What is the theory of when, where, how and by who were the verses added.

Even just the when.

Also, was there an original Markan ending, lost?

User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 6142
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Be Afraid. Be Very Afraid For. Confirmation 16:8 Original

Post by MrMacSon » Fri Jun 19, 2020 11:40 pm

That the Long Ending Was Not Original to Mark
Internally, there are three sets of evidence weighing against authenticity [of the Long Ending (the LE) of G.Mark]
  • The transition from verse 8 to verses 9-12 is structurally illogical. It’s more improbable the original author would have composed this than an interpolator.
  • The LE is a creative summary of the other three Gospels (even including, just as suspiciously, Acts) that are now in the canon, yet they had not been written or combined into a common edition when Mark composed his Gospel. It is unlikely Mark could presciently know which three Gospels would be merged with his in that future edition, much less what would be said in them.
  • Most importantly, the grammar and vocabulary is so deviant from the rest of the Gospel of Mark as to alone render Markan authorship extremely improbable.

Externally, there are several sets of evidence weighing against authenticity -
  • All the earliest manuscripts extant, including the earliest complete bibles to survive, lack the LE; it begins to appear in the extant manuscript record only in the 4th century, which means it can only have been a rare reading before that
  • Even in translations, the earliest manuscripts (e.g. in Syriac and Latin) lack the LE; and later traditions that contain it show textual evidence of it not having originally been there (e.g. in Coptic, Ethiopic, Georgic, and Armenian); only the late 4th century Gothic likely originated from a text including the LE
  • most later manuscripts that do contain the LE place it after another forged ending, the so-called “Short Ending” (or SE, designated verse 16:9a or 16:20b), a sequence highly improbable unless the LE was added after that verse was, and thus not original to the text
  • We also have physical evidence, actual annotations, gaps, and marks in extant manuscripts indicating the LE was an additional reading, or where the LE was explicitly added by a later scribe
  • We have the testimony of Christian authors. No second century author evinces any knowledge of the LE being in Mark, even though in several places they would likely have mentioned that fact. Only a medieval Latin translation of Irenaeus includes mention of it, and there is strong evidence that’s an interpolation of a marginal note not written by Irenaeus. Third century authors all fail to mention the LE even when they should have (e.g. Hippolytus, Origen, Clement, Vincentius), while fourth century authors (e.g. Eusebius and Jerome) outright tell us it was a rare reading. A later medieval author even admitted to adding it to manuscripts he found lacking it
https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/14921
The Aristonian theory of the LE
that it came from [Ariston's] lost Biblical commentary on Mark, and someone else transposed it to their copy of the Gospel. Subsequent church communities then started regarding it as a lost original reading and added it (the same way the SE came to be widely disseminated, again without any notice or protest in the record). Only a few had done so by the time Eusebius noticed, and he regarded it as an interpolation. It thus only became widely disseminated after Eusebius, indeed after even Jerome. It wasn’t a common reading until after the 4th century.
https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/14921
More here https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/14999

Steven Avery
Posts: 609
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

the earliest complete NT Bibles,Old Latin and Syriac mss

Post by Steven Avery » Sun Jun 21, 2020 10:49 am

‘All the earliest manuscripts extant, including the earliest complete bibles to survive, lack the LE;“

Allowing this to be NT only (correction). what is the reference here, plural other than the 1800s Sinaiticus.

“ Even in translations, the earliest manuscripts (e.g. in Syriac and Latin) lack the LE;”

What is the earliest Latin ms?
How are you dating the two Old Syriac mss?

Thanks!
Last edited by Steven Avery on Sun Jun 21, 2020 3:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Steven Avery
Posts: 609
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

the accuracy? Of Richard Carrier

Post by Steven Avery » Sun Jun 21, 2020 3:30 pm

If you going to quote Richard Carrier as your source, what do you do with his many errors?

=========

This is amusing:

“All the earliest manuscripts extant, including the earliest complete bibles to survive, lack the LE; it begins to appear in the extant manuscript record only in the 4th century, which means it can only have been a rare reading before that (Hitler Homer, pp. 269-72).”

Outside the very limited early Egyptian papyri, afaik they do not touch Mark 16, please indicate the “extant manuscript record” before the 4th century.

Thanks!

User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1285
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

The Purple Gang

Post by JoeWallack » Sun Jul 05, 2020 8:06 am

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gj0Rz-uP4Mk

JW:
Supporters of LE as original generally point to the quantity of Greek manuscripts supporting LE as the best related evidence. The majority of Skeptics think that GMark originally ended at 16:8 but most Skeptics are not aware of just how lacking quality manuscript support for the LE is. So (for starters and in chronological order):

Table of NT Greek Manuscripts

Manuscript Date Contents Qualifications Commentary
P137 c. 200 1:7-9, 16-18 - A little piece but the cumulative effect of little pieces will have some weight.
P45 c. 250 4:36-40; 5:15-26, 38-43 6:1-3, 16-25, 36-50; 7:3-15, 25-37 8:1, 10-26, 34-38, 9:1-9, 18-31; 11:27-33, 12:1, 5-8, 13-19,24-28; - The prize of the early witness as it is before the Lucian Recension. It contains a minority of GMark but as I've previously indicated Lakuna Markata. The Relationship of Lacunae to Difficult Readings it suggests that lack of excerpts containing difficult readings was intentional. A related observation is that p45 appears to have originally contained about a Chapter more than orthodox GMark, suggesting Secret Mark.
P88 c. 350 2:1-26 - -
Sinaiticus c. 350 All - Ends at 16:8. Note that Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are both after the Lucian Recension and as noted Cumulative Weight of Early Witness for Difficult Readings both are usually on the wrong side of difficult readings.
Vaticanus c. 350 All - Ends at 16:8. GMark was likely written c. 100 so up to 250 years later there is no extant Greek Manuscript support whatsoever for the LE. c. 300 Eusebius famously testifies that the LE is rare and in bad company and Jerome later confirms. Presumably Lucian and the scribes of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are aware of the LE but it is just too weakly attested to use.
P0188 c. 350 11:11-17 - -
Washingtoniensis c. 400 Almost all including 16:9-20 After 16:14 has Freer Logion (For we are many (sentences))
And they excused themselves, saying, "This age of lawlessness and unbelief is under Satan, who does not allow the truth and power of God to prevail over the unclean things of the spirits [or: does not allow what lies under the unclean spirits to understand the truth and power of God]. Therefore reveal thy righteousness now" - thus they spoke to Christ. And Christ replied to them, "The term of years of Satan's power has been fulfilled, but other terrible things draw near. And for those who have sinned I was delivered over to death, that they may return to the truth and sin no more in order to inherit the spiritual and incorruptible glory of righteousness which is in heaven.
Significant Textual Variation, especially after the above =
16:14 ὕστερον
16:17 ταῦτα παρακολουθήσει
16:17 λαλήσουσιν καιναῖς
16:18 ὄφεις
16:19 κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς
16:20 σημείων. ἀμήν

Western order = Matthew, John, Luke, Mark. After Eusebius not so famously commented that "Mark" and "Luke" did not write any post resurrection sightings leaving that to the superior witnesses "Matthew" and "John".

Text type eclectic (harmonistic). Supporting eclectic ending.

Caesarean/Westen text type for "Mark" as a whole. But textual variation for LE tends to agree with the inferior (later) Byzantine.
Note that this is the first extant Manuscript that contains the LE. About 100 years after Eusebius famously opined that it was acceptable to choose whichever earlier ending you preferred. The main takeaway of the Freer Logion is that at this time it was considered okay to ADD to the ending of GMark and secondarily that it was okay to add the LE. Supporters of LE simply include Washingtoniensis along with the overwhelming quantity of Greek support without giving it qualification. Again note that this qualification is not only content but timing = c. 400 it's become acceptable to add to the ending of GMark but specifically the LE is not considered sufficiently authoritative to limit the ending to only it. Can you say "transition"?

Washingtoniensis specifically and the following witnesses for LE generally, show significantly more Textual Variation after 16:15. This suggests that in the development of the LE 16:15 was a natural stopping point =
And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to the whole creation.
The main underlying issue of Textual Criticism is for each candidate, which has the best explanation for change? For supporters of LE Washingtoniensis is a claimed star witness as it is near in date to Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. But Washingtoniensis, with its significant variation from the LE, also provides quality evidence for change to the LE. So which is it better evidence for?
Alexandrinus (CA) c. 450 Almost all including 16:9-20 The Text-type is Byzantine which is the weakest of all the Greek Text-types.
CA contains the Eusebian Canons in an early form. This is consistent with the original Eusebian Canons which did not include the LE. So while CA does include most of the LE it also indicates that earlier evidence did not include it.
A short space appears between 16:14 and 16:15, and the “T” in the αυτοις(autois) in 16:15 is enlarged in the margin. This is exactly where The Freer Logion was. Jerome c. 400 and Codex Washingtonianus c. 400 evidence the existence of The Freer Logion. So CA likely shows awareness of even more textual variation in the LE here.
In its text of Mark 16:9-20, Codex A has the variant εκ νεκρων (ek nekron), “from the dead,” in 16:14. Textual variation. Evidence of unoriginality.
And does not have the phrase και εν ταις χερσιν (kai en tais chersin), “And in their hands,” in 16:18. Textual variation. Evidence of unoriginality.
In summary, while CA is probably the best Manuscript witness for the LE it has every characteristic of a later Manuscript reading:
  • 1) Late Text-type, post recension.

    2) Evidence of an earlier reading.

    3) Awareness of Textual Variation.

    4) Textual Variation.
(That it is on the wrong side of The Difficult Reading Principle goes without a Saying).
O Snapp!
Ephraemi Rescriptus (ER) c. 450 Most including 16:9-20 The text has been erased and written over making it very difficult to determine what was original. The Text-type is weak Alexandrian. ER contains the Ammonian Sections. This is consistent with the original Eusebian Canons which did not include the LE. So while ER does include most of the LE it also indicates that earlier evidence did not include it. In summary, while ER is a good Manuscript witness for the LE it has some characteristics of a later Manuscript reading:
  • 1) It has the Ammonian Sections which means it was aware of the earlier tradition of 16:8 being the ending.

    2) The Codex has been erased and written over meaning there is probably more Textual variation than what has been officially noted (unknown letters/words and partial letters/words assumed to be standard).

    3) The Text type is weak Alexandrian (Category 2 rating).

    4) Textual variation:
    16:14 lacks δὲ
    16:20 adds ἀμήν
Regarding Textual Variation in general for the LE it is interesting to note that there is exponentially more Textual Variation after 16:14-15 than before, right where the Freer Logion is, suggesting an earlier ending than the LE before 16:6. Presumably the Gospel Text was written over because it was Alexandrian and therefore (in the Middle Ages) considered non-authoritative.
Codex Bezae (D) c. 450 Original Missing 16:15-20 16:15-20 was added much later and the accompanying Latin version likewise originally was missing 16:15-20 which was also added much later. In verse 9, D has εφανερωσεν πρωτοις (efanerosen protois) instead of εφανη πρωτον (efane proton); in verse 10, D has αυτοις (autois) after απηγγειλεν (apengeilen); in verse 11, D has και ουκ επιστευσαν αυτω (kai ouk episteusan auto) instead of ηπιστησαν (epistesan); D adds και (kai) at the beginning of verse 12; near the beginning of verse 15 D has προς αυτους (pros autous) instead of αυτοις (autois); in the same verse D omits απαντα (apanta) and inserts και (kai) before κηρυξατε (keruxate). The added
16:15-20 is the standard LE text. The Text-type is Western which is inferior to Alexandrian. D contains the Ammonian Sections. This is consistent with the original Eusebian Canons which did not include the LE.
We have the following reasons to think that 16:15-20 was either not original to D or had significant variation compared to the standard wording:
  • 16:15-20 is missing in the original Greek and Latin.

    16:9-14 has significant variation from the standard wording which makes it likely that if it originally had 16:15-20 there would also be significant variation.

    It has the Ammonian Sections which means it was aware of the earlier tradition of 16:8 being the ending.

    The Text type is Western.

    Two of the three so far extant Manuscripts of the time period, c. 450, Washingtoniensis (Freer Logion), Alexandrinus (space between 16:14 and 16:15) also evidence significant variation at this point.
It's possible that 16:14 was an ending to GMark or that there was a significant variation to 16:15-20 after 16:14.
P069 c. 450 10:50-51; 11:11-12 - -
P0274 c. 450 6:56- 7:4,6-9,13-17, 19-23, 28-29, 34-35; 8:3-4,8-11; 9:20-22,26-41; 9:43- 10:1, 17-22 - -
P0313 c. 450 4:9, 15 - -
072 c. 500 2:23- 3:5 - -
0213 c. 500 3:2-3,5 - -
P84 c. 550 2:2-5, 8-9, 6:30-31, 33-34, 36-37, 39-41 - -
P024 c. 550 1:2-11; 3:5-17; 14:13-24,48-61; 15:12-37 - -
042 c. 550 All except 16:14-20 Missing 16:14-20
references the Ammonian Sections and Eusebian Canons
That it is only missing the second half of the LE suggests it was intentional.
The references to Ammonian and Eusebian indicate awareness of an earlier ending.
As we have already seen there is significantly more textual variation starting at 16:14 suggesting what follows was an even later addition.
043 c. 550 1:1- 14:62 - -

How much further forward do we need to go to find unqualified Greek manuscript support for the LE? To be continued.


Joseph

Skeptical Textual Criticism

Post Reply