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: 1298
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus

Post by JoeWallack » Sun Dec 03, 2017 6:44 pm

JW:
Continuing with my characters assassination of the earliest Manuscript support for LE, we have seen that the earliest Manuscript support for 16:8 as original is Sinaiticus and Vaticanus which is unqualified support. Regarding the inferior, later Manuscript support for LE, Codex Washingtonianus and Codex Alexandrinus, we have seen that they are qualified support for LE due to significant textual variation, a common sign of forgery.

Another early witness for LE is Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus:
Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus (Paris, National Library of France, Greek 9; Gregory-Aland no. C or 04, von Soden δ 3) is a fifth-century Greek manuscript of the Bible,[1] sometimes referred to as one of the four great uncials (see Codex Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus and Vaticanus). The manuscript is not intact: in its current condition, Codex C contains material from every New Testament book except Second Thessalonians and Second John; however, only six books of the Greek Old Testament are represented.
Everyone agrees that it contained the LE. In discussions of the ending of Mark its LE is never described as containing any textual variation. The original text though is very difficult to read due to most of it being written over. I have faith that its LE has significant textual variation but is not mentioned in LE discussions because the specifics of the variation are unclear. The online pictures look unreadable to me. Is anyone aware of an available scholarly attempt to recreate the specific wording of its LE?


Joseph

The New Porphyry

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 7882
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus

Post by Ben C. Smith » Sun Dec 03, 2017 7:12 pm

JoeWallack wrote:
Sun Dec 03, 2017 6:44 pm
Everyone agrees that it contained the LE. In discussions of the ending of Mark its LE is never described as containing any textual variation. The original text though is very difficult to read due to most of it being written over. I have faith that its LE has significant textual variation but is not mentioned in LE discussions because the specifics of the variation are unclear. The online pictures look unreadable to me. Is anyone aware of an available scholarly attempt to recreate the specific wording of its LE?
Tischendorf himself published a printed attempt at a reconstruction, but I cannot locate his NT efforts online. However, Edward Hansell reproduced Tischendorf's text in his publication of the parallel texts of Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, Bezae, and Ephraemi rescriptus. The Internet Archive has this volume, and Mark's longer ending begins here: https://archive.org/stream/novumtestame ... 9/mode/2up (C is in the lefthand column). Awkwardly, the pages are collated incorrectly for some reason, such that each single leaf has the corresponding text from C and D on one side and from A and B on the other. But at least Tischendorf's text is there and readable. I have no insight whatsoever on how accurate his reading was from Ephraemi rescriptus; I have found photographs of it to be unreadable, too. Maybe you just "have to be there."
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 7882
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

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

Post by Ben C. Smith » Sun Dec 03, 2017 7:31 pm

I just took the standard NA27 text of the longer ending, compared it word by word to Ephraemi rescriptus, made the necessary changes, and created a digital version for you. I changed only the words themselves, not the punctuation or the capitalization:

Mark 16.9-20 (apud Ephraemi rescriptus): 9 Ἀναστὰς δὲ πρωῒ πρώτῃ σαββάτου ἐφάνη πρῶτον Μαριὰμ τῇ Μαγδαληνῇ, παρ᾿ ἧς ἐκβεβλήκει ἑπτὰ δαιμόνια. 10 ἐκείνη πορευθεῖσα ἀπήγγειλεν τοῖς μετ᾿ αὐτοῦ γενομένοις πενθοῦσι καὶ κλαίουσιν· 11 ἐκεῖνοι δὲ ἀκούσαντες ὅτι ζῇ καὶ ἐθεάθη ὑπ᾿ αὐτῆς ἠπίστησαν. 12 μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα δυσὶν ἐξ αὐτῶν περιπατοῦσιν ἐφανερώθη ἐν ἑτέρᾳ μορφῇ πορευομένοις εἰς ἀγρόν· 13 κἀκεῖνοι ἀπελθόντες ἀπήγγειλαν τοῖς λοιποῖς· οὐδὲ ἐκείνοις ἐπίστευσαν. 14 ὕστερον ἀνακειμένοις αὐτοῖς τοῖς ἕνδεκα ἐφανερώθη, καὶ ὠνείδισεν τὴν ἀπιστίαν αὐτῶν καὶ σκληροκαρδίαν ὅτι τοῖς θεασαμένοις αὐτὸν ἐγηγερμένον ἐκ νεκρῶν οὐκ ἐπίστευσαν. 15 καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς· Πορευθέντες εἰς τὸν κόσμον ἅπαντα κηρύξατε τὸ εὐαγγέλιον πάσῃ τῇ κτίσει. 16 ὁ πιστεύσας καὶ βαπτισθεὶς σωθήσεται, ὁ δὲ ἀπιστήσας κατακριθήσεται. 17 σημεῖα δὲ τοῖς πιστεύσασιν ἀκολουθήσει ταῦτα· ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί μου δαιμόνια ἐκβαλοῦσιν, γλώσσαις λαλήσουσιν καιναῖς, 18 καὶ ἐν ταῖς χερσὶν ὄφεις ἀροῦσιν, κἂν θανάσιμόν τι πίωσιν οὐδὲν αὐτοὺς βλάψῃ, ἐπὶ ἀρρώστους χεῖρας ἐπιθήσουσιν καὶ καλῶς ἕξουσιν. 19 ὁ μὲν κύριος Ἰησοῦς μετὰ τὸ λαλῆσαι αὐτοῖς ἀνελήμφθη εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ ἐκάθισεν ἐν δεξιᾷ τοῦ θεοῦ. 20 ἐκεῖνοι δὲ ἐξελθόντες ἐκήρυξαν πανταχοῦ, τοῦ κυρίου συνεργοῦντος καὶ τὸν λόγον βεβαιοῦντος διὰ τῶν ἐπακολουθούντων σημείων.

If you find any mistakes, I will correct them.

Hansell marks up most of the variants in the column. For example, I can see that the dagger symbol indicates a word missing in C which other versions have. I did not include his markings in the text above.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1298
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

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

Post by JoeWallack » Tue Dec 05, 2017 7:37 am

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Sun Dec 03, 2017 7:31 pm
I just took the standard NA27 text of the longer ending, compared it word by word to Ephraemi rescriptus, made the necessary changes, and created a digital version for you. I changed only the words themselves, not the punctuation or the capitalization:

Mark 16.9-20 (apud Ephraemi rescriptus): 9 Ἀναστὰς δὲ πρωῒ πρώτῃ σαββάτου ἐφάνη πρῶτον Μαριὰμ τῇ Μαγδαληνῇ, παρ᾿ ἧς ἐκβεβλήκει ἑπτὰ δαιμόνια. 10 ἐκείνη πορευθεῖσα ἀπήγγειλεν τοῖς μετ᾿ αὐτοῦ γενομένοις πενθοῦσι καὶ κλαίουσιν· 11 ἐκεῖνοι δὲ ἀκούσαντες ὅτι ζῇ καὶ ἐθεάθη ὑπ᾿ αὐτῆς ἠπίστησαν. 12 μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα δυσὶν ἐξ αὐτῶν περιπατοῦσιν ἐφανερώθη ἐν ἑτέρᾳ μορφῇ πορευομένοις εἰς ἀγρόν· 13 κἀκεῖνοι ἀπελθόντες ἀπήγγειλαν τοῖς λοιποῖς· οὐδὲ ἐκείνοις ἐπίστευσαν. 14 ὕστερον ἀνακειμένοις αὐτοῖς τοῖς ἕνδεκα ἐφανερώθη, καὶ ὠνείδισεν τὴν ἀπιστίαν αὐτῶν καὶ σκληροκαρδίαν ὅτι τοῖς θεασαμένοις αὐτὸν ἐγηγερμένον ἐκ νεκρῶν οὐκ ἐπίστευσαν. 15 καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς· Πορευθέντες εἰς τὸν κόσμον ἅπαντα κηρύξατε τὸ εὐαγγέλιον πάσῃ τῇ κτίσει. 16 ὁ πιστεύσας καὶ βαπτισθεὶς σωθήσεται, ὁ δὲ ἀπιστήσας κατακριθήσεται. 17 σημεῖα δὲ τοῖς πιστεύσασιν ἀκολουθήσει ταῦτα· ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί μου δαιμόνια ἐκβαλοῦσιν, γλώσσαις λαλήσουσιν καιναῖς, 18 καὶ ἐν ταῖς χερσὶν ὄφεις ἀροῦσιν, κἂν θανάσιμόν τι πίωσιν οὐδὲν αὐτοὺς βλάψῃ, ἐπὶ ἀρρώστους χεῖρας ἐπιθήσουσιν καὶ καλῶς ἕξουσιν. 19 ὁ μὲν κύριος Ἰησοῦς μετὰ τὸ λαλῆσαι αὐτοῖς ἀνελήμφθη εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ ἐκάθισεν ἐν δεξιᾷ τοῦ θεοῦ. 20 ἐκεῖνοι δὲ ἐξελθόντες ἐκήρυξαν πανταχοῦ, τοῦ κυρίου συνεργοῦντος καὶ τὸν λόγον βεβαιοῦντος διὰ τῶν ἐπακολουθούντων σημείων.

If you find any mistakes, I will correct them.

Hansell marks up most of the variants in the column. For example, I can see that the dagger symbol indicates a word missing in C which other versions have. I did not include his markings in the text above.
JW:
Thanks Ben.

User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1298
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Codex Bezae

Post by JoeWallack » Tue Dec 05, 2017 8:03 am

JW:
Codex Bezae:
The Codex Bezae Cantabrigensis, designated by siglum Dea or 05 (in the Gregory-Aland numbering), δ 5 (von Soden), is a codex of the New Testament dating from the 5th century written in an uncial hand on vellum. It contains, in both Greek and Latin, most of the four Gospels and Acts, with a small fragment of 3 John. Written one column per page, the codex contains 406 extant parchment leaves (from perhaps an original 534) measuring 26 x 21.5 cm, with the Greek text on the left face and the Latin text on the right.[1] A digital facsimile of the codex[2] is available from Cambridge University Library, which holds the manuscript.
Related commentary from Snapp's related book:
The last Greek page of Mark contains the text of Mark 16:6 to 15, but its original Latin brother-page is not extant.  The manuscript was damaged, and someone long after the initial production of the manuscript has attempted to repair the codex by providing the text of Mark 16:6 to 15 in Latin, but in what is essentially the Vulgate text.  The lettering on this inserted page is smaller and neater than the lettering of the primary copyist.  On the following page, the text of Mark 16:16 to 20 is supplied in Greek and Latin, in two columns, both on the same page; the Greek text is written in vivid blue ink in small, neat, uncials.
JW:
We have the following qualifications regarding Bezae as witness to the LE:
  • 1) The original Greek after 16:15 is missing, possibly exorcised.

    2) The entire Latin after 16:5 is missing, possibly exorcised.

    3) A much later editor supplied the LE in Greek and Latin.
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). 
JW:
Note the significant textual variation for the extant original Greek 16:9-15 and no textual variation for the later 16:16-20. If the original Greek 16:16-20 was exorcised the reason may have been significant textual variation/related commentary. And God knows (so to speak) what the related Latin looked like.

I will continue with this exercise but in summary we can already see that while Apologists like Snapp claim that the early witness for 16:8 has all the significant/reMarkable qualifications and has taken a vow of silence regarding the significance of qualifications for early evidence for LE, it is actually the other way around. The early evidence for 16:8, Sinaiticus/Vaticanus, have relatively little qualification compared to the early (but not as early) support for LE, Washingtonianus, Alexandrinus, Ephraemi Rescriptus, Regius and Bezae.


Joseph

The New Porphyry

User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1298
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

The Purple Gang

Post by JoeWallack » Fri Dec 08, 2017 8:57 am

The Purple Gang

JW:
A summary of The Purple Gang witness for the ending of GMark:

The Purple Uncials
The Purple Uncials or the Purple Codices is a well known group of these manuscripts, all 6th century New Testament Greek manuscripts:
Codex Purpureus Petropolitanus N (022)
Sinope Gospels O (023) (illuminated)
Rossano Gospels Σ (042) (illuminated)
Codex Beratinus Φ (043) (illuminated)

Manuscript Missing
Codex Petropolitanus Purpureus 15:42-end
Sinope Gospels -
Rossano Gospels 16:14-20
Codex Beratinus 14:62-end

Notable that all four lack a complete Markan ending and three lack any Markan ending (Sinope does not have any GMark). Based on silence I'm not going to say that it is likely that any of these had support for 16:8 as original but just that the silence here, combined omission and coordination with other contemporary Manuscripts that indicate qualified support for LE, make it possible that The Purple Gang, to some extent had qualified support for LE.

The point of the exercises here is that the early centuries Manuscript support for LE is more qualified than the early Manuscript support for 16:8 as original. This coordinates with the critical Direction of Change criteria that the evidence shows early unqualified support for 16:8, then for the next several centuries, qualified support for LE and then unqualified support for LE. Exactly what we would expect for an extremely difficult reading.

Word.


Joseph

Skeptical Textual Criticism

Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 1376
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin » Fri Dec 08, 2017 2:23 pm

JoeWallack wrote:
Sun Dec 03, 2017 6:44 pm
Another early witness for LE is Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus:
...
Everyone agrees that it contained the LE. In discussions of the ending of Mark its LE is never described as containing any textual variation. The original text though is very difficult to read due to most of it being written over. I have faith that its LE has significant textual variation but is not mentioned in LE discussions because the specifics of the variation are unclear. The online pictures look unreadable to me. Is anyone aware of an available scholarly attempt to recreate the specific wording of its LE?
I made a shot of Mark 16:8 and underlined the last word "γάρ". The text reads

(8) Καὶ ἐξελθοῦσαι ἔφυγον ἀπὸ τοῦ μνημείου εἶχεν δὲ αὐ-
τὰς τρόμος καὶ ἔκστασις · καὶ οὐδενὶ οὐδὲν εἶπον ἐφο-
βοῦντο γάρ (9) Ἀναστὰς δὲ πρωῒ πρώτῃ σαββάτου ἐφά-

Image

Steven Avery
Posts: 614
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

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

Post by Steven Avery » Sun Apr 01, 2018 12:38 am

Steven Avery wrote:We also have evidence that, even when a manuscript shows the LE, it was added later, which further proves what is the older text.
And this supposed evidence is what?

User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1298
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Snapp, CrackQ and Pope

Post by JoeWallack » Sat Apr 11, 2020 1:34 pm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRQ7ecvU56k

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.

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

User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1298
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Searching For Clues At The Scene Of The Crime

Post by JoeWallack » Sun Apr 12, 2020 8:01 am

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcPq9O96qpE

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.
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"?

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?
P059 c. 400 15:29-38 - -
P0214 c. 400 8:33-37 - -
P0315 c. 400 2:9, 21, 25; 3:1-2 - -

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