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
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