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.
User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 905
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

We Got The LE Under Pressure

Post by JoeWallack » Tue Sep 19, 2017 7:06 am

We Got The LE Under Pressure

JW:
We can add Pater Gregory of Nyssa
Gregory of Nyssa, also known as Gregory Nyssen (Greek: Γρηγόριος Νύσσης; c. 335 – c. 395), was bishop of Nyssa from 372 to 376 and from 378 until his death.
to our list of early Patristic support for 16:8 as original with Text Critical scope. Gregory fits in between Eusebius and Jerome and is another Patristic here outside of Alexandrian influence:

Gregor of Nyssa [Use Chrome and hit "translate"]
There is another witness here. Gregory, Bishop of Nyssa (died 394), one of the three Cappadocians and brother of Basil of Caesarea, writes in his second speech on the resurrection of Jesus:

Ἐν μὲν τοῖς ἀκριβεστέροις ἀντιγράφοις τὸ κατὰ Μάρκον Εὐαγγέλιον μέχρι τοῦ, Ἐφοβοῦντο γαρ, ἔχει τὸ τέλος. Ἐν δέ τισι πρόσκειται καὶ ταῦτα Ἀναστὰς δὲ πρωῒ πρώτῃ σαββάτου ἐφάνη πρῶτον Μαρίᾳ τῇ Μαγδαληνῇ, ἀφ' ἧς ἐκβεβλήκει ἑπτὰ δαιμόνια . (MPG XLVI, 644-645)

"In fact, the Gospel of Mark is in the exact copies of the (words) for they were afraid 8 to an end. But in some (copies) to add them to: but rose early on the first (day) of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven demons . " 9 (MT)
Thus the earliest Patristic Text Critical commentary, Eusebius, Gregory and Jerome, is all for 16:8 as original.

Nota Ben = Feel free to update your related great article The endings of the gospel of Mark.


Joseph

The New Porphyry

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 4169
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: We Got The LE Under Pressure

Post by Ben C. Smith » Tue Sep 19, 2017 8:41 am

JoeWallack wrote:
Tue Sep 19, 2017 7:06 am
Nota Ben = Feel free to update your related great article The endings of the gospel of Mark.
Good one.

I doubt I will be updating my site, however. While I have no plans to take it down, I also have no plans to undertake the vast amount of updating it would take to get it to where I would like it to be. It started simply as a place for me to collect my notes and my thoughts on things, and began to turn into something more than that at some point, but I am back to keeping my own notes and thoughts in a less public, less formal manner. Also, since the relative originality of the abrupt ending compared to the other extant endings in the manuscript recrod is extremely obvious to me, at any rate, I find myself unmotivated to pour additional proof onto the pile.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΕΘΕΙΑ

User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 905
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

A Burgon for Gregory

Post by JoeWallack » Wed Sep 20, 2017 4:59 pm

JW:
Regarding Gregory of Nyssa(GoN) as witness for 16:8 original it would appear that the Apologist John Burgon(JB) is the source for modern Apologists' not mentioning Gregory. Burgon's god-awful The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel According to S. Mark Vindicated Against Recent Critical Objectors and Established is freely available and well worth the price of omissions (from this site you can likewise freely download the E-book and what a load it is!)

On page 39 JB confesses that GoN is credited in general by Christian Bible Scholarship (CBS) with writing that supports 16:8 as original:
Gregory of Nyssa. [370]This illustrious Father is represented as expressing himself as follows in his second " Homily on the Resurrection 0 ;" — " In the more accurate copies, the Gospel according to Mark has its end at ' for they were afraid.' In some copies, how ever, this also is added, — ' Now when He was risen early the first day of the week, He appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom He had cast seven devils. ...[Greek] Opp. (ed. 1638) iii. 411 B.
JB then claims on page 40 that Hesychius wrote the same thing so you can only count one of them as a witness:
word for word the same Homily which Combefis in his " Novum Auctarium," and Gallandius in his "Bibliotheca Patrum" printed as the work of Hesychius, [410] and vindicated to that Father, respectively in 1648 and 1776*.
per Ben Smith's great site though this is the related Hesychius evidence:

Hesychius
From Hesychius, Collection of Difficulties and Solutions, question 52 (century V):

Διαφορως γαρ προς το μνημα δραμουσαις, ου ταις αυταις γυναιξιν, αλλα ποτε μεν δυσιν εξ αυτων, ποτε δε μια ετερα παρ αυτας τυγχανουση, ποτε δε αλλαις, διαφορως και ο κυριος εφανη, ων τη μεν ως ασθενεστερα, τη δε ως τελειοτερα τυγχανουση· καταλληλως εμετρει τον εαυτου εμφανισμον ο κυριος. οθεν Μαρκος μεν εν επιτομω τα μεχρι του ενος αγγελου διελθων, τον λογον κατεπαυσεν.

For [he appeared] to different women who had run to the tomb, not to the same women, but now to two from among them, and then to the other one who happened to be with them, and then to others, and differently did the Lord appear, to one of which who was weaker, and to another who happened to be more perfect. The Lord measured out his own appearance appropriately. Whence Mark, having gone through in brief the things until the one angel, ceased the word.

Hesychius takes a somewhat different approach to the ending of Mark than does Eusebius. He neither tallies manuscripts nor opines as to which are the more accurate; rather, he simply takes it for granted that the text of Mark ends at the single angel, by which I presume he means the young man of 16.5-7. For Hesychius this ending is something that calls for explanation, but it is his best judgment nonetheless.
This is completely different evidence from Hesychius. Either JB was unaware of it or he is being dishonest.

JB is not finished trying to use the supposedly same Homily to minimize witness to 16:8. Still on page 40 he than attributes the same Homily evidence to Severus:
(2.) Again. Inasmuch as page after page of the same Homily is observed to reappear, word for word, under the name of "Severus of Antioch," and to be unsuspiciously printed as his by Montfaucon in his " Bibliotheca Coisli- niana" (1715), and by Cramer in his "Catena8" (1844),— although it may very reasonably become a question among critics whether Hesychius of Jerusalem or Severus of Ant was the actual author of the Homily in question
Here Severus' evidence for 16:8 looks just like Gregory's:

Severus of Antioch.
From Severus of Antioch, homily 77 (century VI):

Εν μεν ουν τοις ακριβεστεροις αντιγραφοις το κατα Μαρκον ευαγγελιον μεχρι του· Εφοβουντο γαρ, εχει το τελος. εν δε τισι προσκειται και ταυτα· Αναστας δε πρωι πρωτη σαββατου εφανη πρωτον Μαρια τη Μαγδαληνη αφ ης εκβεβληκει επτα δαιμονια.

In the more accurate copies, therefore, the gospel according to Mark has the end until the [statement]: For they were afraid. But in some these things too stand in addition: And having arisen early on the first day of the week he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from whom he had cast out seven demons.

Severus, who also seems to have read Eusebius, agrees with Eusebius, and against Victor, on which copies are the more accurate. Severus does not explicitly tally the manuscripts, but that he mentions some (τισι) that contain Mark 16.9-20 may imply that most still lack it.
JB concludes as follows on page 41 that Hesychius is the likely author and therefore Gregory and Severus should be exorcised as witnesses:
41
(3.) In short, here are three claimants for the authorship of one and the same Homily. To whichever of the three we assign it, — (and competent judges have declared that there are sufficient reasons for giving it to Hesychius rather than to Severus, — while no one is found to suppose that Gregory of Nyssa was its author,) — who will not admit that no further mention must be made of the other two ? (4.) Let it be clearly understood, therefore, that henceforth the name of "Gregory of Nyssa" must be banished from this discussion. So must the name of " Severus of Antioch." The memorable passage which begins, — "In the more ac curate copies, the Gospel according to Mark has its end at 'for they were afraid,'" — is found in a homily which was probably written by 2 Presbyter of Jerusalem, — a writer of the vi* century.
We have the following reasons to think that JB is full of holy shpirit here:
  • 1) CBS generally accepts that there are three here, Gregory, Hesychius and Severus, who witness 16:8 as original.

    2) Even if a prior Patristic was copied exactly the default is that the subsequent Patristic agreed with the earlier Patristic.

    3) JB's claim that "no one is found to suppose that Gregory of Nyssa was its author" is strange/bizarre/macabre given that he previously bitshoped and memed that current scholarship carelessly assigned it to Gregory.

    4) Since JB has no reason then, not even a bad one, to assign the supposedly same Homily to a later author in a question of authorship, the default is the earlier one.

    5) As pointed out Hesychius has other evidence against 16:8.

Joseph

The New Porphyry

andrewcriddle
Posts: 1396
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

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

Post by andrewcriddle » Fri Sep 22, 2017 12:32 am

Severus is probably the author of the homily attributed to Gregory of Nyssa.

See ...reception of Ad Marinum

Andrew Criddle

User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 905
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

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

Post by JoeWallack » Fri Sep 22, 2017 9:30 am

andrewcriddle wrote:
Fri Sep 22, 2017 12:32 am
Severus is probably the author of the homily attributed to Gregory of Nyssa.

See ...reception of Ad Marinum

Andrew Criddle
JW:
Kelhoffer's supposed support is not only Burgon, but specifically Burgon's claims that I already dealt with in the post you were responding to. So you saw the supposed defense and just assumed Kelhoffer had something other than Burgon, yes?

Again, Christian Bible scholarship accepts that the offending homily is attributed to Gregory in multiple relatively old Patristic compilations. Even Burgon confesses this. Burgon exorcises Gregory as even being worthy of evidence mention because Burgon claims that Severus has the same homily "word for word" in his attributed compilation. Gregory is earlier and no one has given any good reason why they could not both have the same Homily as part of their writings.

When presenting the evidence, why not just list Gregory as having the homily and when listing Severus note that he has the same homily? Isn't not listing Gregory dishonest here?

More important question Andrew. Do you think the LE is original?


Joseph

The New Porphyry

User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 905
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

O Snapp!

Post by JoeWallack » Sat Sep 23, 2017 6:41 am

JW:
James O. Snapp, the foremost advocate for the LE that the world has ever known, has a Pharisee inspired compilation of the evidence regarding the LE here:

The Authenticity of Mark 16:9-20

On page 12 Snappo invokes Burgon regarding Gregory of Ny(!)ssa with a footnote on page 80, in total saying a bit less than Burgon did. So Snappy, like Burgon, does not provide any good reason to erase the name of Gregory from the discussion. Snaffu than follows Burgon's and now his own advice by making no mention of Gregory as a witness in his later Authentic: The Case for Mark 16:9-20: 2016 Edition [Oh no he di'int-O Snapp!]


Joseph

The New Porphyry

User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 905
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Ammonius

Post by JoeWallack » Sat Sep 23, 2017 5:32 pm

JW:
Ammonius of Alexandria:
Ammonius of Alexandria (Greek: Ἀμμώνιος) was a Christian philosopher who lived in the 3rd century.
used to be cited as a witness to 16:8 original but is generally no longer used (mainly because it's not needed).

The evidence of Ammonius = Eusebian Canons:
Until the 19th century it was mostly believed that these divisions were devised by Ammonius of Alexandria, at the beginning of the 3rd century (c. 220), in connection with a Harmony of the Gospels, now lost, which he composed. It was traditionally believed that he divided the four Gospels into small numbered sections, which were similar in content where the narratives are parallel. He then wrote the sections of the three last Gospels, or simply the section numbers with the name of the respective evangelist, in parallel columns opposite the corresponding sections of the Gospel of Matthew, which he had chosen as the basis of his Gospel Harmony. Now it is believed that the work of Ammonius was restricted to what Eusebius of Caesarea (265-340) states concerning it in his letter to Carpianus (Epistula ad Carpianum), namely, that he placed the parallel passages of the last three Gospels alongside the text of Matthew, and the sections traditionally credited to Ammonius are now ascribed to Eusebius, who was always credited with the final form of the tables.

Eusebius describes the related influence of Ammonius here:

Epistula ad Carpianum:
I drew up a total of ten tables according to another system, acquiring the raw data from the work of the man mentioned above.
The meaning of the underlying Greek for "raw data" is of course disputed. Ben?

It's generally agreed that Eusebius' related table did not include the LE. This then provides general and specific evidence for 16:8 original. The general evidence is that all Manuscripts with the related Eusebian numbers, and there are a lot of them, show evidence for 16:8. The specific evidence is that since Eusebius hisself tells us that Ammonius' related work was his only significant source for his Tables, than there is some implication that Ammonius did not have the LE next to the post resurrection reunion in GMatthew. This is supported in general by Ammonius literally being from Alexandria (text-type).



Joseph

The New Porphyry

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 4169
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Ammonius

Post by Ben C. Smith » Sat Sep 23, 2017 5:49 pm

JoeWallack wrote:
Sat Sep 23, 2017 5:32 pm
JW:
Ammonius of Alexandria:
Ammonius of Alexandria (Greek: Ἀμμώνιος) was a Christian philosopher who lived in the 3rd century.
used to be cited as a witness to 16:8 original but is generally no longer used (mainly because it's not needed).

The evidence of Ammonius = Eusebian Canons:
Until the 19th century it was mostly believed that these divisions were devised by Ammonius of Alexandria, at the beginning of the 3rd century (c. 220), in connection with a Harmony of the Gospels, now lost, which he composed. It was traditionally believed that he divided the four Gospels into small numbered sections, which were similar in content where the narratives are parallel. He then wrote the sections of the three last Gospels, or simply the section numbers with the name of the respective evangelist, in parallel columns opposite the corresponding sections of the Gospel of Matthew, which he had chosen as the basis of his Gospel Harmony. Now it is believed that the work of Ammonius was restricted to what Eusebius of Caesarea (265-340) states concerning it in his letter to Carpianus (Epistula ad Carpianum), namely, that he placed the parallel passages of the last three Gospels alongside the text of Matthew, and the sections traditionally credited to Ammonius are now ascribed to Eusebius, who was always credited with the final form of the tables.

Eusebius describes the related influence of Ammonius here:

Epistula ad Carpianum:
I drew up a total of ten tables according to another system, acquiring the raw data from the work of the man mentioned above.
The meaning of the underlying Greek for "raw data" is of course disputed. Ben?
Honestly, I have no information about any dispute over the meaning of the terms involved, but here is the paragraph you are referring to:

Ammonius the Alexandrian, having exerted a great deal of energy and effort as was necessary, bequeaths to us a harmonized account of the four gospels. Alongside the Gospel according to Matthew, he placed the corresponding sections of the other gospels. But this had the inevitable result of ruining the sequential order of the other three gospels, as far as a continuous reading of the text was concerned. Keeping, however, both the body and sequence of the other gospels completely intact, in order that you may be able to know where each evangelist wrote passages in which they were led by love of truth to speak about the same things, I drew up a total of ten tables according to another system, acquiring the raw data from the work of the man mentioned above [ἐκ τοῦ πονήματος τοῦ προειρημένου ἀνδρὸς εἰληφὼς ἀφορμὰς]. These tables are set out for you below.

The bracketed Greek phrase I would somewhat literalistically translate as follows: "having taken my starting point [εἰληφὼς ἀφορμὰς] from the work [ἐκ τοῦ πονήματος] of the aforementioned man [τοῦ προειρημένου ἀνδρὸς]."

You can see LSJ's definition of ἀφορμή (which I have rendered as "starting point") here: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... a)formh%2F. I would go with definition A2 or A3, I think.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΕΘΕΙΑ

User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 905
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Epiphanius

Post by JoeWallack » Sun Sep 24, 2017 6:39 am

JW:
Thanks Ben.

We can likewise add Epiphanius of Salamis:
Epiphanius of Salamis (Greek: Ἐπιφάνιος; c. 310–320 – 403) was bishop of Salamis, Cyprus, at the end of the 4th century.
to our list of witnesses for 16:8 original.

It's generally agreed that The Eusebian Canons had 1165 Sections:
There are about 1165 sections: 355 for Matthew, 235 for Mark, 343 for Luke, and 232 for John; the numbers, however, vary slightly in different manuscripts.[2]
Epiphanius confirms the 1165 sections in Ancoratus c. 50. There was no section for the LE in the Eusebius Canon of course.



Joseph

The New Porphyry

User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 905
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Caesarius

Post by JoeWallack » Sun Sep 24, 2017 4:37 pm

JW:
Burgon mentions that Tischendorf also cited Caesarius of Nazianzus:
Caesarius of Nazianzus (also spelled Cæsarius [pronounced "Kesarios"] and Caesarios [Gr.] ) (c. 331 - 368) was a prominent physician and politician. He is best known as the younger brother of Gregory of Nazianzus. He is recognized as a saint in the Eastern Orthodox and the Catholic Church.[1]
as a witness to 16:8 original by like Epiphanius, referring to the 1,165 Sections of Eusebius.


Joseph

The New Porphyry

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Ben C. Smith, Bernard Muller, Jax, MrMacSon, Ulan and 86 guests