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.
Ulan
Posts: 1505
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:58 am

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

Post by Ulan »

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote:2) Ironically, the editor has not understood this specific use of the word σημεῖον in GMark. Because of the use of the word σημεῖον (sémeion – sign) in a positive sense in Ps-Mark 16:17.20 the believers und disciples now appear as the false prophets, against which Jesus warned in Mk 13:22. :mrgreen:
Well, according to gMark, the disciples were losers who didn't understand anything anyway, so how could they be anything but false prophets :mrgreen:.
User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1594
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

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

Post by JoeWallack »

JW:
Ben Smith was the best Christian bible scholar to ever grace the old FRDB. He has an excellent page in general on the issue (so to speak) of 16:8 and specifically has this to say about Origen:

The endings of the gospel of Mark

Origen
Early century III.

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

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

(Jim Snapp II mentions on his table of evidences that in Against Celsus 7.17 Origen states that the signs of the destruction of the kingdom of Satan include the casting out of demons. But such a statement is a poorer allusion to Mark 16.17 than to Matthew 12.28 = Luke 11.20, or to the concept of exorcism in general.)

Joseph

ErrancyWiki
Steven Avery
Posts: 987
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

Origen and the traditional Mark ending

Post by Steven Avery »

Mark 16:17
And these signs shall follow them that believe;
In my name shall they cast out devils;
they shall speak with new tongues;

Mark 16:20
And they went forth,
and preached every where,
the Lord working with them,
and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.

Matthew 12:28
But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God,
then the kingdom of God is come unto you.

Luke 11:20
But if I with the finger of God cast out devils,
no doubt the kingdom of God is come upon you.
Celsus - Book 7 Ch. 17
For we have signs and pledges of the destruction of his empire, in those who through the coming of Christ are everywhere escaping from the power of demons, and who, after their deliverance from this bondage in which they were held, consecrate themselves to God, and earnestly devote themselves day by day to advancement in a life of piety.
James Snapp
12. Origen (died 254) - did not quote explicitly from Mark 16:9-20 in his extant works, but in Against Celsus VII:17 he mentioned that signs of the destruction of Satan's kingdom include deliverance from the power of demons; this may be an allusion to Mark 16:17.
Clearly the Markan verses are the better fit, putting aside the attempted harumph in the post above. Especially since it is a reference to the signs following the believers.

There is quite a bit more from Origen as well.

The Original Ending of Mark: A New Case for the Authenticity of Mark 16:9-20 (2014)
Nicholas P. Lunn
http://books.google.com/books?id=D1UNBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA84

However, there is a limit right now to the amount of time on an ultra-minor attempted evidence from silence, so you will have to read it from Nicholas Lunn for now :). Notice especially the Philokalia reference that Lunn give, courtesy of James Snapp, unmentioned by JW.

And you can put forth the opposite evidence from silence, that if the Mark ending was radically different than the other gospels, no resurrection, woman afraid, it should have gotten Origen reference.

The limits of evidence from silence attempts.

Steven Avery
Last edited by Steven Avery on Fri Nov 21, 2014 1:42 am, edited 1 time in total.
Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 2110
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

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

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin »

Ulan wrote:
Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote:2) Ironically, the editor has not understood this specific use of the word σημεῖον in GMark. Because of the use of the word σημεῖον (sémeion – sign) in a positive sense in Ps-Mark 16:17.20 the believers und disciples now appear as the false prophets, against which Jesus warned in Mk 13:22. :mrgreen:
Well, according to gMark, the disciples were losers who didn't understand anything anyway, so how could they be anything but false prophets :mrgreen:.
Sad that I couldn't find an argument against it. I give up :mrgreen:
Sheshbazzar
Posts: 391
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2014 7:21 am

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

Post by Sheshbazzar »

Ever think ....that this might be the 'set up' that the original writers intended to set in motion by their imaginative religious compositions?

I do, in that I find the so called christian form of religion the very fulfillment of the prophecies of that degenerate and evil cult that would come to prevail.

After all, it is written "God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:"
Thus the 'Word' of biblegod becomes the very vehicle of conveying the lie and the delusion that a man ('Jesus' sic) was/is the Eternal God of Israel
.
Yea, the 'God' of the most bloody of liars, thieves, murderers, religious shysters and perverts that this world has ever known IS this mythical 'Jesus'.
That in the end, 'The Prince of Darkness' of this world will prove to be none other than the lie of a 'Jesus' that never was, yet whom by means of lie led gentile religion into their mass delusion and murderous mayhem.

Thus a planned religious plotting carried out by means of contrived religious writings, that at the end the monotheistic Yahweh'ism of the Jews may stand vindicated, while the religious lies and myths that gullible gentiles have bought into are revealed, discredited, and destroyed.
No wonder then that at the end the saints will be found triumphantly singing with one voice the Hebrew 'Hallelu-YAH! kall goyim!', > 'Praise ye YAH!' all you Nations!'

The NT Gospel is a Jewish fashioned 'Trojan Horse', one so carefully crafted and so decked out in gentile approved Greek language and regalia that the Hellenists of this world would drag it within their gates, to the ultimate destruction of all that they may hold as 'Holy'.
Behold you among the Gentiles, and regard, Be utterly astounded!: for I will work a work in your days, which you will not believe, though it be told you.
The pen will yet prove to be mightier than all the swords of christiandumb.


Thus bid I you, DO NOT BELIEVE THIS. ;)
....least you should see with your eyes, hear with your ears, and understand.

Shalom, and thank you for your time, Sheshbazzar, The Hebrew.
User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1594
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Apologists Now! God I Love the Sound of Psalms in the Mornin

Post by JoeWallack »

Steven Avery wrote: And to say that Jerome is a witness against is Wonderland logic, for a number of reasons. Jerome included the ending in the Vulgate, and the thousands of Vulgate ms all have the traditional ending. This is part of the 99.9% (999 out of 1,000) Greek, Latin and Syriac mss that have the ending. We can consider the attempt to avoid the massive evidence the elephant smashing the critical text parlor tricks.

Thus, with the Vulgate text, Jerome accepted authenticity. He simply pointed out, echoing a writing from Eusebius (essentially the same singular testimony) that the Greek ms line included omission texts. (Mark just as likely wrote originally in Latin. Jerome was updating the Old Latin and did not indicate ms. lacking the ending there.)

And Jerome is a powerful witness for in his own usage
In Against the Pelagians 2:14-15,
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/30112.htm
"Even the Apostles showed unbelief and hardness of heart."
Mark 16:14
Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat,
and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart,
because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen.
JW:
Jerome. Back to Textexcavation:

Jerome witness to 16:8 as original (ending).
The solution of this question is two-fold; for either we do not accept the testimony of Mark, [1]that is carried in few gospels, [2]almost all the books of Greece not having this passage at the end, especially and since it seems to speak various and contrary things to the other evangelists; or this must be replied, that both speak truly: Matthew, when the Lord rose again on the evening of the Sabbath, Mark however, when Mary Magdalen saw him, that is, on the morning of the first day of the week.
Jerome witness to VLE (Very Long Ending) as original (ending).
In Against the Pelagians 2.15 he writes:
...[Latin]
[3]In certain manuscripts, and especially in the Greek codices, next to Mark, at the end of his gospel, it is written: Afterward, when the eleven were reclining, he appeared to them, and he reproached their incredulity and their hardness of heart, because they did not believe those who had seen him risen. And they made excuses, saying: This age of iniquity and incredulity is {under Satan}, who through unclean spirits does not allow the true power of God to be apprehended. For this reason, reveal your righteousness now.
JW:
The evidence from the above (per Jerome) is as follows:
  • [1] 16:8 is original in most Gospels of Jerome's time that he was aware of, presumably Greek and Latin.

    [2] The LE (Long Ending) is rarer in Greek than Latin.

    [3] The VLE was more common in the Greek than the LE.
On the other hand, Jerome includes the LE in his Latin translation, which is evidence against 16:8.

Based on the specific witness that Jerome gives, 16:8 is dominant in the Manuscripts, especially in the Greek, he is clearly a witness for 16:8. The value of his decision to use the LE in the Latin potentially can be measured to the extent we can determine his likely why (he used the LE in translation despite witnessing dominant specific evidence that it was likely not original).

Here there is no Pauline mystery. We do not need to guess or even use implications. Jerome's quote above tells us all we need to know about the why:

"The solution of this question is two-fold; for either we do not accept the testimony of Mark...or this must be replied, that both speak truly"

Jerome is clear that neither option is in error, both are acceptable readings, so you can use either one. Jerome preferred the LE. Presumably he felt the same way about the VLE. If he accepted a three-way (reading), more evidence that he accepted bi-sectual readings. Eusebius similarly indicates that either reading is acceptable and adds that a reason to accept the inferior attested reading is its tradition. Jerome probably agreed.

So, in the word of John, Boom!, Origen, Eusebius and Jerome clearly stand as witness to 16:8.

Bonus material for KK. The only criterion I am currently discussing is Credibility. But there is an interesting difference here between Eusebius and Jerome regarding the critical criterion of Direction of Change. Note that Eusebius included a qualitative component, "accurate", in his testimony. Jerome, while paralleling Eusebius, exorcises this. We have a clear broader change in Patristic assertion regarding the amount of evidence for LE as time goes by:
  • Eusebius = Quantity and quality evidence for 16:8.

    Jerome = Only quantity evidence for 16:8.

    Hesychius = 16:8 is original but no evidence is given.

    Victor = Quantity evidence for 16:8. Quality evidence for LE.

    Steven = Quantity and quality evidence for LE.
Also note for future reference regarding the important criterion of Coordination, that Jerome's transition here
c. 400, of changing to a reading that is not supported by the evidence he gives, coordinates well with other evidence regarding timing, such as the Age of the witness, extant Manuscripts before = For 16:8.


Joseph

ErrancyWiki
User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1594
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

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

Post by JoeWallack »

JW:
I currently judge the second most important criterion for evidence to be common sense, here, also known as The Difficult Reading Principle ( Lectio difficilior potior):
Lectio difficilior potior (Latin for "the more difficult reading is the stronger") is a main principle of textual criticism. Where different manuscripts conflict on a particular word, the principle suggests that the more unusual one is more likely the original. The presupposition is that scribes would more often replace odd words and hard sayings with more familiar and less controversial ones, than vice versa.[1] It will readily be seen that lectio difficilior potior is an internal criterion, which is independent of criteria for evaluating the manuscript in which it is found,[2] and that it is as applicable to manuscripts of a roman courtois or a classical poet as it is to a biblical text.
Top Textual Critic Bart Ehrman rightly divides The Difficult Reading Principle into two parts:

http://ehrmanblog.org/jesus-sweating-bl ... -evidence/
There are two kinds of internal evidence that are usually called (1) intrinsic probabilities and (2) transcriptional probabilities. For now, I’ll focus on the first.

Intrinsic probabilities involve determining which of two (or more) forms of the text found in the manuscripts is the one that the author himself was more likely to have written. Suppose you have a verse worded in two different ways. If one of the ways uses the vocabulary and the writing style found elsewhere in the author, and presents ideas that he otherwise attests, whereas the other way includes words and grammatical constructions and ideas that are alien to the author, then the first is obviously more likely (though not certainly) the thing he wrote.
http://ehrmanblog.org/jesus-sweating-bl ... abilities/
The second kind of internal evidence is a kind of flip side of the coin, and it’s called “transcriptional probabilities.” With arguments/evidence of this kind the question is not which reading is more inherently likely to go back to the author; instead it is which reading is more inherently likely to have been created by a scribe or scribes.

The deal is this: a lot of times when there are variant readings for a verse, one of the readings is really hard to understand, or grammatically incorrect, or contains a historical error, or presents a theological view that later came to be seen as dubious, whereas the other reading is easy to understand, grammatically correct, has no historical problems, and presents a perfectly acceptable theological view. Now, this criterion may seem backwards, but it’s one of the best in the business: it is the *more difficult* reading that is more likely original than the less difficult one. The one that is hard to figure out or that has grammatical, historical, or theological problems is more likely to be the one the author originally wrote. And why is that? Because scribes who were changing the text were more likely to make it better – if they were consciously changing it – rather than worse; they were more likely to try to *correct* problems than *create* them.
Regarding the first, intrinsic probability, the question is:

Based on the rest of GMark, was that author more likely to have written LE or not to have written LE?

Note that for all of the related points identified by Ehrman it is more likely that "Mark" (author) did not write the LE:
  • 1) Vocabulary = poor parallel (with the rest of GMark). High percent of words and grammar not used in the rest of GMark.

    2) Style = poor parallel (with the rest of GMark). No stylish technique such as that used in the rest of GMark.

    3) Ideas = contradicted (with the rest of GMark). GMark otherwise has a primary theme that the disciples never believed in, witnessed or promoted Jesus' supposed resurrection. Unlike Vocabulary and Style where Apologists are totally defensive and can only try to minimize the parallels and exorcise the related conclusion, here Apologists argue that "Mark" is more likely to have had some, any, post-resurrection witness because the earliest supposed Christianity had it and it was a pillar of Christianity from the start. This thought is anachronistic though since GMark is likely the original Gospel narrative and would have stood alone when it was written and first distributed. For those who need points sharply explained = at that time there would not have any other Gospels contradicting GMark's post resurrection story.
Regarding the second, transcriptional probability, the question is:

Was the LE more likely to have been added by scribes or removed by scribes?

In general, the most important Christian assertion is that there was supposed historical witness to Jesus' supposed resurrection. Thus it is exponentially more likely that scribes would add the LE than delete it. There is no comparable example of scribes being more likely to remove either on a quantitative or qualitative basis. All this is supported by every major category of External evidence, Patristic, Scribal and Manuscript showing direct evidence for addition and not showing any direct evidence for deletion.

The related argument by Apologists is that the contradictions between the LE and the other post-resurrection narratives was a/the reason to delete the LE. They cite Eusebius and Jerome as support for identifying the contradiction. Note though that while Eusebius/Jerome both say that you could consider the LE as contradictory, both conclude that it is not necessary to delete the LE. They say it is not necessarily contradictory and Eusebius adds that the tradition of the LE is another reason not to delete it. Thus Eusebius is not evidence that the LE was more likely to be deleted. Jerome likewise is not evidence that the LE was more likely to be deleted. He is actually evidence that the LE was more likely to be added as his testimony indicates the evidence supports 16:8 as more likely original yet he adds the LE to the Manuscript evidence he received. Additionally, subsequent Patristics use the Eusebius/Jerome apology here to argue that there is no contradiction, completely exorcising support for the Apologist argument here. So at a relatively early stage (when Patristic evidence testifies that 16:8 was overwhelming) the potential Apologist reason for deletion moves from "could be a contradiction" to "is not a contradiction". Again, note the complimentary important criteria of Coordination and Direction of Change. At the same time that contradiction is being denied, change is being made to LE.


Joseph

ErrancyWiki
User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1594
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

The Apollogist 13 Mission

Post by JoeWallack »

JW:
I currently judge the third most important criterion for evidence to be Direction of Change. In general, which way is the evidence moving? Here the question is:

Does the evidence indicate movement from 16:8 (as original) or movement to 16:8?

This is a key and the underlying question of Textual Criticism, potentially decisive all by itself, but with ancient questions usually the related evidence is small compared to the total potential quality evidence. For the major external categories:

1) Patristic

Patristic can be rightly divided here between Textual Criticism context and mere verse citation or lack thereof (when expected). Where Patristics has identified a textual criticism issue is exponentially better evidence than verse citation as textual criticism has the quality of scope and evidence while citation may merely have personal preference.

Looking at the direction of change per Ben Smith's related site:

The endings of the gospel of Mark

it's clear that Patristic identification of textual criticism regarding 16:8 shows a direction of change against 16:8 (as original).

Regarding the less valuable citation/lack of citation, we see the same direction of change against 16:8. Again, following along at Ben Smith's most excellent site, the earlier Patristics generally show no quality evidence for preference against 16:8.

2) Scribal

I rate Scribal next in value because it is somewhere in between a textual criticism comment and a personal preference. Another clear direction of change from 16:8 as every related scribal comment I am aware of is next to a Long Ending and indicates something between the Long Ending is likely not original or there is at least evidence that it is not original.

3) Manuscript

It's a sweeper! More clear direction of change from 16:8 as the two oldest Greek witnesses, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, are for 16:8. Additionally, all major Versions also show direction of change from 16:8.

4) Authority

Last, and least, authority. For most of the history of Christianity, the LE was the official ending of GMark and publicly stating otherwise was very bad for your health. In modern times authority assures us that 16:8 is original. Direction of change here (ironically) is to 16:8. Since modern authority is exponentially superior to ancient, the change here to for 16:8 is not really hurting the change from 16:8 in the other categories here.

Summary = Direction of Change is clearly from 16:8 (as original) since all categories of evidence here except Authority show evidence of clear change from 16:8.

Nota Benefit = when an Apologist like Snapp compares these categories, he generally only presents/emphasizes the Quantitative. "Sinaiticus and Vaticanus verses the 99.9%". As spin would say, "That is naughty." The related Qualitative should not only also be considered but emphasized. Point of fact here, it's not just S & V verses 99.9%, but what are the Qualitative relationships such as Direction of Change.


Joseph

ErrancyWiki
User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1594
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Re: The Apollogist 13 Mission

Post by JoeWallack »

JW:
I currently judge the fourth most important criterion for evidence to be Applicability. Does the source refer to the related issue of Textual Criticism (general and broad) or is it just a reference to a text (specific and narrow)?

Categories of Evidence:

1) Patristic

Eusebius, Jerome, and Severus:

Severus
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.
all identify the issue and are for 16:8 (as original). Victor is the only one against who identifies the issue. Note especially that Eusebius is the first to identify the issue and the lone father against here, Victor, is contradicted by near contemporary Severus.

2) Scribal

Scribal comments are generally somewhere in between a textual criticism comment and a reference to a specific excerpt. Their implication is that they are a textual criticism comment but usually are accompanied by relatively less or no supporting evidence compared to the above. Scribal comments are clearly for 16:8.

3) Manuscript

N/A

4) Authority

Authority clearly looks at the issue from a Textual Criticism standpoint and is overwhelmingly for.

Summary of evidence = All categories that report in here are strongly in favor of 16:8.


Joseph

ErrancyWiki
User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1594
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Re: The Apollogist 13 Mission

Post by JoeWallack »

JW:
I currently judge the fifth most important criterion for evidence to be Age.

1) Patristic

The oldest Patristic evidence for 16:8 (as original) is GMatthew, GPeter, GLuke, GJohn, The Epistula Apostolorum and Justin. The subsequent Gospels follow GMark 16:1-8 closely but have weak parallels to the LE. The Epistula Apostolorum and Justin have numerous clear references through 16:8 but no clear references to the LE.

Irenaeus is the oldest quality evidence against as there is reason to doubt that Tatian included the LE.

Clearly the oldest extant evidence is for 16:8.

2) Scribal

N/A since there is no Scribal evidence against.

3) Manuscript

The oldest Manuscript evidence for is Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Sinaitic Syriac and the Old Latin which are 4th century.

Codex Bobiensis is also 4th century with the only ending of GMark being the Short Ending.

The oldest evidence against is Codex Alexandrinus, Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus and Codex Bezae which are 5th century.

So the extant Manuscript evidence favors For.

4) Authority

Authority against is older.


Summary of evidence = The important categories here of Patristic and Manuscript report in that For is earlier than Against. Not relatively a lot earlier, just earlier.


Joseph

ErrancyWiki
Post Reply