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

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

As I've mentioned before, GMark looks like a preQuelle to Paul in general and especially here. At 16:8 the final vestiges of the disciples decide not to proclaim the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus at the end of the supposedly historical account. This is the ending point of the disciples per "Mark" but the starting point for Paul who begins his Gospel by deciding to proclaim the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. In addition, there is one final (so to speak) reason for "Mark" to end the disciples career with "gar" and use it to begin Paul's:

4) While "gar" is a common word, "Mark's" (author) likely major source Paul, does use the offending word in a verse that parallels well with 16:8:[/list]

1 Corinthians 2:2

Strong's	Transliteration	Greek	English	Morphology
3756 [e]	ou	οὐ	nothing	Adv
1063 [e]	gar	γὰρ	indeed	Conj
2919 [e]	ekrina	ἔκρινά	I decided	V-AIA-1S
5100 [e]	ti	τι	anything	IPro-ANS
1492 [e]	eidenai	εἰδέναι	to know	V-RNA
1722 [e]	en	ἐν	among	Prep
4771 [e]	hymin	ὑμῖν	you,	PPro-D2P
1487 [e]	ei	εἰ	if	Conj
3361 [e]	mē	μὴ	not	Adv
2424 [e]	Iēsoun	Ἰησοῦν	Jesus	N-AMS
5547 [e]	Christon	Χριστὸν	Christ,	N-AMS
2532 [e]	kai	καὶ	and	Conj
3778 [e]	touton	τοῦτον	Him	DPro-AMS
4717 [e]	estaurōmenon	ἐσταυρωμένον.	having been crucified.	V-RPM/P-AMS

You should add Mark 9:6-8 in part two of this case.

[Blood]

As I've mentioned before, GMark looks like a preQuelle to Paul in general and especially here. At 16:8 the final vestiges of the disciples decide not to proclaim the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus at the end of the supposedly historical account. This is the ending point of the disciples per "Mark" but the starting point for Paul who begins his Gospel by deciding to proclaim the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus.

Good observation, Joe. The idea being that you, the reader, are supposed to read Mark and Paul as one long, integrated text. Mark doesn't mention the resurrection because Paul explains the significance of that starting on the next page. Paul doesn't talk about "the life of Jesus" because Mark just finished that. And this was the original "New Testament," not Marcion's later, derivative copy with Lukan expansions.

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

The best traditional reason to doubt 16:8 as original (ending) is

Massive manuscript support for the traditional ending.
99.9% of the Greek, Latin and Syriac mss. 999 with to each one 1 contra.

And excellent Ante-Nicene ECW support. Before any extant mss.

Internal considerations are excellent too, however more subjective and easier to tinge. In this regard, it is well-known today that the loss of text by scribes, omission, is a more common phenomenon than addition.

Thus massive and early support for the traditional ending is the "best" traditional reason.
Manuscript and ECW.

We do agree that "lost ending" speculations are rather worthless. The traditional position of Markan authorship is far superior. (Also it is good to discard the Markan priority nonsense.) As for γὰρ ,Burgon mentions en passant that this is a false idea that the gospel "terminated abruptly", Last Twelve Verses, p. 244. In the big picture, which Burgon understood, there was no need to emphasize the unlikely ending in terms of writing style. Since the evidence for the traditional ending is simply massive and more basic issues were emphasized.

Steven Avery

[Charles Wilson]

http://www.michaelturton.com/Mark/GMark16.html#16X :

"It is impossible to reconstruct a chiasm from the remaining verses.

2: And very early on the first day of the week they went to the tomb when the sun had risen.
3: And they were saying to one another, "Who will roll away the stone for us from the door of the tomb?"
4: And looking up, they saw that the stone was rolled back; -- it was very large.
5: And entering the tomb, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, dressed in a white robe; and they were amazed.
6: And he said to them, "Do not be amazed; you seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has risen, he is not here; see the place where they laid him.
7: But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going before you to Galilee; there you will see him, as he told you."
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.

There is no A' bracket to oppose v2, a bracket involving movement from one geographical location to another. v8 resembles a very typical B' bracket that should be followed by an A' bracket reading, in typical Markan style, something like: "And they returned to Jerusalem."

A And very early on the first day of the week they went to the tomb when the sun had risen.
___B And they were saying to one another, "Who will roll away the stone for us from the door of the tomb?"
______C And looking up, they saw that the stone was rolled back; -- it was very large.
_________D And entering the tomb, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, dressed in a white robe; and they were amazed.
_________D And he said to them, "Do not be amazed; you seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has risen, he is not here; see the place where they laid him. But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going before you to Galilee; there you will see him, as he told you."
______C And they went out and fled from the tomb; for trembling and astonishment had come upon them;
___B and they said nothing to any one, for they were afraid.
A It was the last day of the feast of the unleavened bread and many people were going out, returning to their houses since the festival was over. (Gospel of Peter)"

I hope all of the Spacing and indentations come through.
"Sayin' it's so don't make it so...". In a previous Post, I pointed out that the Ending of Mark means that our version of Mark at one time came from the ONLY BOOK OF MARK that existed. Whatever redactions and modifications came after this were made to the original. Turton's Internal Evidence shines through right at this moment. Before it was "Finalized" it was in the form that we have for 16:8.

CW

EDIT: I feel like I'm painting the Sistine Chapel using Paint-by-Numbers. The Indents on Turton's exquisite work did not come through so I re-edited it to make the Structure apparent.

[JoeWallack]

Hi,

The best traditional reason to doubt 16:8 as original (ending) is

Massive manuscript support for the traditional ending.
99.9% of the Greek, Latin and Syriac mss. 999 with to each one 1 contra.

And excellent Ante-Nicene ECW support. Before any extant mss.

Internal considerations are excellent too, however more subjective and easier to tinge. In this regard, it is well-known today that the loss of text by scribes, omission, is a more common phenomenon than addition.

Thus massive and early support for the traditional ending is the "best" traditional reason.
Manuscript and ECW.

We do agree that "lost ending" speculations are rather worthless. The traditional position of Markan authorship is far superior. (Also it is good to discard the Markan priority nonsense.) As for γὰρ ,Burgon mentions en passant that this is a false idea that the gospel "terminated abruptly", Last Twelve Verses, p. 244. In the big picture, which Burgon understood, there was no need to emphasize the unlikely ending in terms of writing style. Since the evidence for the traditional ending is simply massive and more basic issues were emphasized.

Steven Avery

JW:
Dr. Richard Carrier provides the scholarship accepted (and best) argument that 16:8 is the likely original ending here:

Mark 16:9-20 as Forgery or Fabrication by Richard Carrier, Ph.D. (2009)

Textual Criticism generally uses primarily two main criteria:

• 1) Qualitative External support (primarily Age and also Width (text type and geographical)
  
  2) Difficult Reading Principle

Specifically regarding 16:8 as original ending Bible Scholarship accepts that there is quality external support for 16:8 and that it is [understatement]the difficult reading[/understatement]. Hence, regarding the increasingly worse categories of Bible Scholarship, Skeptical, Liberal, Mainstream, Traditional, Conservative and Fundamentalist, only Fundamentalist would be divided on the issue. So the evidence criterion of Authority is clearly 16:8 original. Of course on this unholy Forum, supposed authority is not necessarily authoritative.

The 16:8 issue is probably the best example of the difficult reading principle. A 16:8 ending is consistent with GMark's primary theme that the supposed disciples never believed in, witnessed or promoted Jesus' supposed resurrection. And this is the original resurrection narrative that all other Gospels are based on meaning there was no other supposed witness available. The LE provides a direct cure to this (with scope). Thus 16:8 can be used to identify Apologists. If someone ignores/denies the difficult reading principle of 16:8 (like Steven), than they are an Apologist.

The difficult reading principle is so strong here that relatively little quality External evidence would be needed to make 16:8 likely original. Here the External evidence is pretty mixed for and against 16:8 when you properly apply criteria to it.


Joseph

ErrancyWiki

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

And I like these quotes from a real textual analyst (not a "New Testament textual critic"), the second is about lectio difficilior:

Martin Litchfield West, OM, FBA (born 23 September 1937) is an internationally recognised scholar in classics, classical antiquity and philology.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Litchfield_West

Textual Criticism and Editorial Technique (1973)
Martin Litchfield West
http://books.google.com/books?id=AXuk4pdxk1YC&pg=PA51

"This is not to say that the age of a manuscript is necessarily a guide to its quality. Recentiores, non deteriores: that is the famous heading of a chapter in which Pasquali protested against the tendency to equate the two terms, and showed that true readings are sometimes preserved only among the latest manuscripts. ... very old copies such as papyri sometimes disappoint expectation by giving a worse text than the medieval tradition instead of a better one. The quality of a manuscript can only be established by reading it. And when an opinion has been formed on the quality of a manuscript, it can be used as a criterion only when other criteria give no clear answer. The absurdity of following whatever is regarded as the best manuscript so long as its readings are not impossible (continues with example)... " p. 50

When we choose the 'more difficult' reading, however, we must be sure that it is in itself a plausible reading. The principle should not be used in support of dubious syntax, or phrasing that it would not have been natural for the author to use. There is an important difference between a more difficult reading and a more unlikely reading. p. 51

And the missing snipped ending is very unlikely.

When you look closely, you find that all the various posturing positions that came out from Hort, mangling the inconsistent Griesbach, fall to careful and scientific analysis. Lectio brevior is another example .. disproven. There is no surprise that enemies of the integrity of scripture look for and embrace theories that make scripture errant, inconsistent and unlikely.

Steven Avery

[Ulan]

I actually don't put too much faith in the "difficult reading" argument. It may sometimes work, but I don't think that the rule itself passes logic, at least not as "rule".

On the other hand, it's pretty clear that Mark 16:9-20 is not original. It doesn't fit Mark's style, and it's quite obviously a short summary of all three other canonical gospels, which means it must be from a time when all four canonical gospels and neither less nor more were considered canonical. The easiest explanation would be, indeed, that this was transferred from a diatessaron-type text to Mark's gospel, but then again, this must have been some diatessaronic summary in this case, and I don't know whether there are any examples of this? A more purpose-bound addition seems more likely.

Whether Mark was originally longer than 16:8 is difficult to judge. Something like John 21 sounds logical at first glimpse, but doesn't really gel with the rest of this gospel. The idea with this having been bound together with 1Cor is an interesting one, but I'm not sure whether it makes for a good transition. So, I don't know.

The open chiasm doesn't disturb me much. Perhaps, the text is from some kind of "mystery cult". Which would also explain why it was so rare.

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

It doesn't fit Mark's style, ...

Mark’s voice (8:34-38)

the cretin’s voice (16:14)

“If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake and the gospel’s will save it. For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world and forfeit his soul? For what can a man give in return for his soul? For whoever is ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him will the Son of Man also be ashamed when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.”

”Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.”

no further argument necessary

[JoeWallack]

Hi,

And I like these quotes from a real textual analyst (not a "New Testament textual critic"), the second is about lectio difficilior:

Martin Litchfield West, OM, FBA (born 23 September 1937) is an internationally recognised scholar in classics, classical antiquity and philology.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Litchfield_West

Textual Criticism and Editorial Technique (1973)
Martin Litchfield West
http://books.google.com/books?id=AXuk4pdxk1YC&pg=PA51

"This is not to say that the age of a manuscript is necessarily a guide to its quality. Recentiores, non deteriores: that is the famous heading of a chapter in which Pasquali protested against the tendency to equate the two terms, and showed that true readings are sometimes preserved only among the latest manuscripts. ... very old copies such as papyri sometimes disappoint expectation by giving a worse text than the medieval tradition instead of a better one. The quality of a manuscript can only be established by reading it. And when an opinion has been formed on the quality of a manuscript, it can be used as a criterion only when other criteria give no clear answer. The absurdity of following whatever is regarded as the best manuscript so long as its readings are not impossible (continues with example)... " p. 50

When we choose the 'more difficult' reading, however, we must be sure that it is in itself a plausible reading. The principle should not be used in support of dubious syntax, or phrasing that it would not have been natural for the author to use. There is an important difference between a more difficult reading and a more unlikely reading. p. 51

And the missing snipped ending is very unlikely.

When you look closely, you find that all the various posturing positions that came out from Hort, mangling the inconsistent Griesbach, fall to careful and scientific analysis. Lectio brevior is another example .. disproven. There is no surprise that enemies of the integrity of scripture look for and embrace theories that make scripture errant, inconsistent and unlikely.

Steven Avery

JW:
When I debated James Snapp Jr.(oh no I di-int. oh yes I di-id) on the issue of 16:8 at The Great Counter-Missionary Victory at CARM I introduced an element to the argument that he had never seen before = formal criteria (here used for the External). His reaction was to travel farther away from me than Matthew Mcconaughey in Interstellar.

I currently judge the most important criterion for evidence to be credibility (of source). Here's that reference again for Dr. Carrier's related article:

Mark 16:9-20 as Forgery or Fabrication by Richard Carrier, Ph.D. (2009)

Regarding credibility of source let's match the three best witnesses for 16:8 (as original) against the three best witnesses against:

For:

• 1) Origen
  
  2) Eusebius
  
  3) Jerome

Against:

• 1) Irenaeus
  
  2) Tatian
  
  3) Ambrose

Trying to only focus on general credibility here, clearly the witnesses for 16:8 have superior credibility. Origen, Eusebius and Jerome were the three outstanding Bible scholars of the early Church. Of course all of these Church Fathers have low credibility by modern standards but we can still compare their credibility relative to each other. On the other side, Irenaeus is one of the least credible Fathers. His writings probably have the highest rate of error of any early Church writer and his quotes tend to agree with Bezae, probably the worst early manuscript witness.

So, for the most important External criterion, credibility, big edge for 16:8.


Joseph

ErrancyWiki

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

Now we see some of the most absurdist argumentation possible:

JW
debated James Snapp Jr.... I introduced an element to the argument that he had never seen before = formal criteria (here used for the External). ... I currently judge the most important criterion for evidence to be credibility (of source).]

The argument that an ECW silence such as that of Origen (if he were silent) is == to ECW use of a verse or section is totally specious. A flunk of Logic 101. Especially in the Ante-Nicene period, where even the most prolific writers only touched a small % of verses. A silence of any small number of ECW is as minor an evidence as possible. While the inclusion of the section means the verses were in the Bible.

Richard Carrier, ...Regarding credibility of source let's match the three best witnesses for 16:8 (as original) against the three best witnesses against:

Again, the fallacy here is kindergarten glaring. A witness for inclusion means that the section was in their Bible. A witnesses against simply means that we don't have an extant record of the section in their Bible. Totally different.

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.

Similarly Origen-Celsus has two allusions that indicate familiarity with the Mark ending (plus Origen was weak on Mark) so it 100% clear that he does not belong on any such list.

For:

• 1) Origen
  2) Eusebius
  3) Jerome

Against:

• 1) Irenaeus
  2) Tatian
  3) Ambrose

The conclusion follows the various methodology blunders mentioned above. Not sure who is more to blame, Richard Carrier or Joe Wallach, for such an absurd argument.

A couple of more errors.

The attempt to make a convoluted criteria of credibility, when the issue is very simple. Is the section in the Bibles in Gaul used by Irenaeus (Greek and Latin.) Is the section in the Bibles used by Tatian? Whether they were orthodox, heretics, strict quoters, right on historical facts about the 1st century, etc. is all basically irrelevant.

Then, if the focus is ECW you have omitted Tertullian, far earlier than Ambrose.
Also the:

Justin Martyr allusion
The Treatise on Rebaptism.
The Council of Carthage under Cyprian.
Apostolic Constitutions.
Aphrahat.
Papias through Eusebius
Porphyry
Macarius Magnes
Hippolytus.

Thus, by choosing "3 against 3" you can omit a sound analysis. The "3" is barely 1, since Origen is not even silent, and Jerome is pro and Eusebius is simply a discussion of mss and the canon table.

The "3" for inclusion is about a dozen early. With fine "credibility"
(I'm not double-checking each one, nor am I including all.)

I've rarely seen such a rigged and deficient methodology as this Carrier-Wallach nonsense.

This is the type of junque pseudo-scholarship that comes out of trying to hold up the decrepit positions of Hort.

Steven Avery