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.
Steven Avery
Posts: 609
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

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

Post by Steven Avery » Sat Jun 06, 2020 3:58 pm

Here are examples.

Maurice Robinson believes that Mark wrote the last twelve verses as part of the Gospel.

James Snapp claims that the original Mark did not have the last 12 verses, Markus Interruptus, and they were attached to the book in the first century, using some other floating pericope written by Mark, or perhaps someone connected to Mark. (FOM, friends of Mark)

Joe Wallack asserts ..... __________________________________________________________

User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1285
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Apologists Now! God I Love The Sound Of Psalms In The Morning.

Post by JoeWallack » Sun Jun 07, 2020 7:49 am

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xsa_dy0w84Y

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.
Significant Textual Variation, especially after the above =
16:14 ὕστερον
16:17 ταῦτα παρακολουθήσει
16:17 λαλήσουσιν καιναῖς
16:18 ὄφεις
16:19 κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς
16:20 σημείων. ἀμήν

Western order = Matthew, John, Luke, Mark. After Eusebius not so famously commented that "Mark" and "Luke" did not write any post resurrection sightings leaving that to the superior witnesses "Matthew" and "John".

Text type eclectic (harmonistic). Supporting eclectic ending.

Caesarean/Westen text type for "Mark" as a whole. But textual variation for LE tends to agree with the inferior (later) Byzantine.
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"?

Washingtoniensis specifically and the following witnesses for LE generally, show significantly more Textual Variation after 16:15. This suggests that in the development of the LE 16:15 was a natural stopping point =
And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to the whole creation.
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?
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.
Codex Bezae (D) c. 450 Original Missing 16:15-20 16:15-20 was added much later and the accompanying Latin version likewise originally was missing 16:15-20 which was also added much later. 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). The added
16:15-20 is the standard LE text. The Text-type is Western which is inferior to Alexandrian. D contains the Ammonian Sections. This is consistent with the original Eusebian Canons which did not include the LE.
We have the following reasons to think that 16:15-20 was either not original to D or had significant variation compared to the standard wording:
  • 16:15-20 is missing in the original Greek and Latin.

    16:9-14 has significant variation from the standard wording which makes it likely that if it originally had 16:15-20 there would also be significant variation.

    It has the Ammonian Sections which means it was aware of the earlier tradition of 16:8 being the ending.

    The Text type is Western.

    Two of the three so far extant Manuscripts of the time period, c. 450, Washingtoniensis (Freer Logion), Alexandrinus (space between 16:14 and 16:15) also evidence significant variation at this point.
It's possible that 16:14 was an ending to GMark or that there was a significant variation to 16:15-20 after 16:14.
P069 c. 450 10:50-51; 11:11-12 - -
P0274 c. 450 6:56- 7:4,6-9,13-17, 19-23, 28-29, 34-35; 8:3-4,8-11; 9:20-22,26-41; 9:43- 10:1, 17-22 - -
P0313 c. 450 4:9, 15 - -
072 c. 500 2:23- 3:5 - -
0213 c. 500 3:2-3,5 - -
P84 c. 550 2:2-5, 8-9, 6:30-31, 33-34, 36-37, 39-41 - -

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: 1285
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Apologist 13 Mission Control

Post by JoeWallack » Sun Jun 07, 2020 1:24 pm

JW:
This Forum is based on Science and Logic so Steven has no credibility here. He always reminds me of that scene from the Wizard of Oz where The Wicked Witch of the West is told to get lost because she has no power in Oz. Steven you have no power here. Begone! Before someone drops a first century of "Mark" manuscript on you.

Steven's only value here is as a textbook case for Apologetics. On defense, keep requiring a progressively higher standard of evidence against you and when you reach one that can't be met, posture that there is therefore no evidence against. On the offensive, keep requiring a lower standard of evidence until you can meet it and then posture that it helps prove your conclusion.

Case in point here. Evidence to identify who wrote the LE. There is evidence that "Mark" wrote it even though the evidence is better that "Mark" did not. There is no better evidence that any other identified person wrote it. So Apologetic Steven claims this is support that "Mark" wrote the LE.

Advice to fellow Truth-speakers here. If he won't answer the important questions, ignore him. If he insists on asking/repeating unimportant questions, ignore him. Homily don't play that game.


Joseph

The Strange Chapter of Dr. Jewkyll and Mr. Hymn

Steven Avery
Posts: 609
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

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

Post by Steven Avery » Mon Jun 08, 2020 10:08 am

Joe, no reason to make a fool of yourself.

=========

The question is real simple.
It is actually the basic question on the Mark ending.

=========

Joe, what is your theory for the creation of the last 12 verses of Mark?

When? Where?

And, if your position is that it is not original Mark, is your theory that the original ending was lost, or that Mark ended his text at verse 8?


By whom? What language? Why?

Was the author familiar with primary sources?

==========

Stuart
Posts: 578
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 12:24 am
Location: Sunnyvale, CA

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

Post by Stuart » Mon Jun 08, 2020 11:39 pm

I think one has to consider Mark 14:50, 14:72 in context to Mark 16:7-8. Mark is denying the disciples, including Peter, witnessing the death and resurrection, as they all fall away (predicted in 14:27-30). The women are at the crucifixion, albeit from afar (15:40), and see where Joseph laid the body (15:47), then are at the tomb in 16:1ff, speaking to the one who tells them to tell Peter and the disciples. But they don't. Instead Mark has given the authority of first hand account to the women (Mary Magdalene, the other Mary, and Salome), not to Peter or the disciples. Note, we see a reference to this other authority than the disciples, approved by Jesus himself in the story of the unknown exorcist (9:38-41)

The LE attempts to reverse that picture, bring the disciples back in the picture, to restore their authority. In doing so the LE immediately betrays itself as secondary in 16:9 by referencing Luke 8:2, which is drawn from a healing story not part of Mark. Then Mary Magdalene reverses verse 16:8 in verse 16:10, telling "those who were with him", that is the apostles or twelve and the others or seventy, the Jesus was alive. But knowing there is a story of them not believing or knowing the resurrection, the LE acquiesces somewhat in 16:11 by saying they did not believe her. But then in 16:12 we get a reference to the Emmaus road story in Luke 24:13ff, where Jesus appears to two of the followers who are not among the named twelve (in Luke Cleopas is named, the other not). And again 16:14 draws from Luke 24:33 ("the eleven"), but also John 20:19-23 with Jesus appearing at their dinner table. He upbraids them, then all is honky dory. The mission statement draws from what looks like a harmony of Matthew, Luke and Acts; but the point is the disciples do see the risen Jesus and they are given direct authority from him to preach to the world, which the women are not. Thus they were restored to authority.

That is my quick take for Steven Avery's question. The motivation for writing it is pretty clear, the women are not authority, the disciples are in teh doctrine of the winning sects.
“’That was excellently observed’, say I, when I read a passage in an author, where his opinion agrees with mine. When we differ, there I pronounce him to be mistaken.” - Jonathan Swift

Steven Avery
Posts: 609
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

Mark is dependent on Luke - Mary Magdalene - cast out seven devils

Post by Steven Avery » Tue Jun 09, 2020 12:42 pm

Stuart wrote:
Mon Jun 08, 2020 11:39 pm
the LE immediately betrays itself as secondary in 16:9 by referencing Luke 8:2, which is drawn from a healing story not part of Mark.
This has a much more Ockham-friendly explanation.

PBF
Mary Magdalene - cast out seven devils
https://purebibleforum.com/index.php?th ... #post-5259

Mary Magdalene - cast out seven devils

Mark 16:9 (AV)
Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week,
he appeared first to Mary Magdalene,
out of whom he had cast seven devils.

Luke 8:2 (AV)
And certain women,
which had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities,
Mary called Magdalene, out of whom went seven devils,

Another one that shows the same type of relationship from the traditional ending and Luke. So now it is becoming a corroborative evidence for the traditional ending! Since you are totally right on the Markan connection to earlier writings.

And the death-knell to Marcan priority. An interesting question, how many of these have been mentioned in earlier "synoptic/priority" writings, of any stripe? Who, where, and what did they say. Please note, I have been mentioning the Galilee one for some years as an evidence for non-Markan priority and the authenticity of the traditional ending.

Stuart
Posts: 578
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 12:24 am
Location: Sunnyvale, CA

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

Post by Stuart » Tue Jun 09, 2020 1:52 pm

Steven,

While I do not subscribe to Markan priority to a large extent (long explanation), I do not accept the LE as original. So arguing that the LE is dependent upon other gospel, especially Luke, is not a valid argument against Markan priority.

My argument against the LE is two-fold
1) it seeks to reverse the original author's sectarian position of denying the Apostles authority with Christ's death and resurrection
// they are not present for the rest of the gospel after they fall away, and after Peter's denial
// downplaying the role of women as witnesses is a proto-orthodox trait
2) the LE, unlike the rest of Mark, is dependent upon elements, including very late layers of Luke and also Acts for it's story line. In short the LE is dependent upon a harmony account otherwise absent in Mark. A lot of pastiche here.

So there is both theological and political motivation for wanting to change the ending. And the LE is full of contradictions to the rest of Mark, while borrowing elements from outside the Markan tradition, some of them very late.
“’That was excellently observed’, say I, when I read a passage in an author, where his opinion agrees with mine. When we differ, there I pronounce him to be mistaken.” - Jonathan Swift

Steven Avery
Posts: 609
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

non-arguments against the authenticity of the traditional Mark ending

Post by Steven Avery » Wed Jun 10, 2020 3:12 am

Stuart wrote:
Tue Jun 09, 2020 1:52 pm
2) the LE, unlike the rest of Mark, is dependent upon elements, including very late layers of Luke and also Acts for it's story line.
We just had a thread showing how "the rest of Mark" was in fact dependent on elements of Luke. So you are actually arguing in favor of the traditional ending here.

If you actually have something substantive in Acts, that would be another story. You are welcome to give it a try.

perseusomega9
Posts: 626
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 7:19 am
Contact:

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

Post by perseusomega9 » Wed Jun 10, 2020 4:29 am

well that was definitely a non-response

Stuart
Posts: 578
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 12:24 am
Location: Sunnyvale, CA

Re: non-arguments against the authenticity of the traditional Mark ending

Post by Stuart » Wed Jun 10, 2020 8:07 am

Steven Avery wrote:
Wed Jun 10, 2020 3:12 am
Stuart wrote:
Tue Jun 09, 2020 1:52 pm
2) the LE, unlike the rest of Mark, is dependent upon elements, including very late layers of Luke and also Acts for it's story line.
We just had a thread showing how "the rest of Mark" was in fact dependent on elements of Luke. So you are actually arguing in favor of the traditional ending here.

If you actually have something substantive in Acts, that would be another story. You are welcome to give it a try.
I don't accept that Mark is dependent upon Luke. Neither in canonical form nor the earlier Marcionite. It is not necessary. And it it does not respond to the theological differences in either Marcion or Luke.

For me that is critical. I can show point by point refutations of Marcion by Matthew; point by point refutations of Matthew by John; "Corrections" of Marcion and Matthew, and borrowing from Mark by Luke; and in the final version of John, harmonizing with the Synoptics. Mark is absent of those responses. So I cannot accept that model. It also requires placing Marcion's gospel after Luke, which means ignoring all the vocabulary evidence that points the other way.
“’That was excellently observed’, say I, when I read a passage in an author, where his opinion agrees with mine. When we differ, there I pronounce him to be mistaken.” - Jonathan Swift

Post Reply