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: 1249
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Removal of Tatian As Witness To LE

Post by JoeWallack » Fri May 15, 2020 10:50 am

Secret Alias wrote:
Wed May 13, 2020 10:42 am
Yes to sum up - the Arabic Diatessaron is not Tatian or his gospel.
JW:
Coombs relies on a reconstruction of the Diatessaron based on the following:

Eastern:
11th-century Arabic harmony

Western:
6th century Latin Codex Fuldensis
13th century Middle Dutch Liege
14th century Middle English Pepsyian

Amazingly Coombs says that where the order of the Arabic (considered the best witness and evidence of the weakness of the reconstructed text) LE agrees with the Western we can be certain that it is original. Note how the above coordinates with the conclusion/speculation that the LE is not original to the Diatessaron:
  • 1) Patristics is unsure whether Tatian wrote the Diatessaron in Greek or Syriac. It's more likely it was Greek and Patristics did not want the Greek tradition because it lacked the LE and genealogies.

    2) Patristics translate everything of interest into Latin and versions are more likely to include additions.

    3) The Diatessaron is a harmony anyway so it would be more likely to include non-Gospel information as opposed to a Gospel.

    4) Note that none of the main sources are Syriac. This coordinates with the 12th century Patristic observation that the Syriac tradition did not have the LE.

    5) All of the main sources, except the Latin, are around or after 4).

    6) Regarding the Latin, we know that the LE was added to the Latin tradition since Jerome confesses that in his time it was rare in the Greek and Latin but based on his and Eusebius authority it was acceptable to add the LE and that is exactly what Jerome did in his Vulgate which became the standard for the Latin.
To try and explain the evidence that Tatian did not include the post resurrection stories Coombs writes:
Another eighth-century tradition provides more context and perhaps also offers clarification. In a scholion, Theodōrōs bar Kōnī writes of Tatian as follows: And finally there came the Greek Tatian, and he saw that in the Evangelion da-Mepharreshe [lit., Gospel of the separated ones = the four separate Gospels] events were described two and three times, and he began to write them down one by one and (thus) compiled from all four one book, and called it Diatessaron. And when he reached the pericope of the resurrection, he saw that the testimonies of all four differed, because each one described that He was risen from the dead at the time that our Lord appeared to him. And so as not to have to choose one testimony and omit three, he spoke thus—to take account of the testimony of all four—: ‘In the night—(I quote)—when the first day of the week dawned our Lord rose from the dead’. For the four are analogous to the four rivers and to the four elements and the four winds.[11]
Coombs implies that this is somehow an explanation for the contradictory Syrian tradition but it seems more likely that the relationship goes the other way. Theodoros confirms the tradition that the post resurrection contradictions were a serious issue for Tatian and were not harmonized. Theodoros adds to the tradition of Tatian that Tatian simply included the contradictory post resurrection stories. Doesn't really work as the whole point of the Diatessaron was to harmonize. Eliminating the problem at the source would solve the contradictions. Interestingly, Theodoros invokes Irenaeus of Lyons (yes, "Lyons") ridiculous "four" solution.


Joseph

Skeptical Textual Criticism

User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1249
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Codex Alexandrinus Qualifications

Post by JoeWallack » Sun May 17, 2020 7:13 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 - -
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!

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: 1249
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Qualifications Ephraemi Rescriptus

Post by JoeWallack » Sun May 24, 2020 8:11 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 - -
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.

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