On the Longer Ending

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 3412
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: On the Longer Ending

Post by DCHindley »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Fri Sep 22, 2017 6:43 am
perseusomega9 wrote: Fri Sep 22, 2017 6:32 am
Ben C. Smith wrote: Thu Sep 21, 2017 6:55 pm That is exactly as I understand it. Poison and venom are not the same thing. Venom requires entry into the bloodstream.
Boyscout to Troop leader: Sir is that snake poisonous

TL: No it is not.

BS: grabs snake, gets bitten and starts howling in pain

BS: I thought you said it wasn't poisonous.

TL: It's not poisonous, however, it is extremely venomous
Pretty sadistic Troop Leader, I would say....
Adding to the immortal words of Woody Allen:
Those who can't do, teach
Those who can't teach, teach gym
Those who can't teach gym, lead scout troops.

There is definitely a correlation between order in this list and degree of Sadistic behaviors exhibited.

But I paint with a wide brush, do I not?

DCH
Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 2110
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: On the Longer Ending

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Thu Sep 21, 2017 11:34 am A few random potential parallels to the longer ending:
Ben C. Smith wrote: Thu Sep 21, 2017 11:45 amSpeaking of Aristion, I might point out that a certain church order lists an Aristion as the first bishop of Smyrna:
...
Smyrna is in Asia Minor, of course, just like Hierapolis (home to Papias) and Ephesus (possible home to John the Elder). It has been suggested, therefore, that Aristion is the originator of the long ending, and that Papias quoted him, and that an Armenian scribe compared what Papias had quoted from Aristion to the contents of the longer ending. Such a suggestion must probably remain a suggestion.
Thanks. Very interesting. I found here a dissertation (pdf) "Not this rather than that: Eusebius' reception of Mark 16:9–20 in the Ad Marinum" by Clayton Coombs (the base of his later book "A Dual Reception: Eusebius and the Gospel of Mark"). There are some interesting points. Unlike Carrier, he accepts the allusions in the writings of Justin, Tatian, Irenaeus and Hippolytus as a reception of the LE; partially against the background of Psalm 110.
This Chapter has traced the second-century reception of Mark 16:9–20. The discussion of Tatian’s (or Justin’s) reception in the Diatessaron concerned the problem of harmony that this passage evidently raised. In particular, two main problems were identified. The first was the problem of the timing of the resurrection which arises from putting Mark 16:9 (and 16:2) alongside Matthew 28:1. This Tatian solves by equating Matthew’s “late on the Sabbath” with Mark’s “early on the first day” (16:9) and by apparently ignoring the “after the sun had risen” in Mark 16:2. The second problem was that the giving of the Holy Spirit apparently occurred in two “installments,” the first before the Savior’s passion (John 20:22–23), and the second, at Pentecost. Tatian’s solution splits Luke 24:49 allowing him to place the first reception as a fulfillment of Luke 24:29a in Jerusalem, while 24:49b is placed with the other commissioning sayings in Galilee, in which Jesus also promises the signs (Mark 16:17–18). This has the effect of equating Jesus’ promise of the signs in Mark 16:17–18 with his promise of power in Luke 24:49b, both being fulfilled at Pentecost. The possibility that Tatian inherited this part of the solution from Justin was also discussed.

The second part of the Chapter treated Irenaeus and Hippolytus’ reception of the passage with particular emphasis on Mark 16:17–18. While Irenaeus makes an argument for true miracles vindicating the true Church and its proper authority, Hippolytus addresses the problem that the fulfillment of the promise of the signs among the laity created. The discussion in the Apostolic Constitutions equates the signs of Mark 16:17–18 with the gifts of 1 Cor 12, a move which is perhaps also implicit in Irenaeus.

In the following Chapter I now move to complete the picture of the pre-Eusebian reception of Mark 16:9–20 by examining Origen, who, as I will argue, did not receive the passage as part of Mark’s Gospel. Origen’s non-reception is made especially striking against the backdrop of the reception of this passage in the second century. But as will be seen, his non-reception may reveal as much about how he interpreted its content as the reception of Irenaeus and Hippolytus reveals about their own interpretation.
Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 2110
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: On the Longer Ending

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin »

Paul the Uncertain wrote: Fri Sep 22, 2017 2:27 amThank you for the kind words. I am content that the blog series might raise an unpopular hypothesis to a level where it is taken seriously. Persuasion may be too much to hope for in a informal setting.
I think you made some interesting observations. Given the assumption that the LE is indeed a single coherent unit and the Freer logion a later addition, we might note that the author/compilator of the LE made a big mistake.

At the end it seems clear that he saw the 11 as true believers because the promised signs followed them.
17 And these signs will accompany those who believe
20 And they went out and preached everywhere, while the Lord worked with them and confirmed the message by accompanying signs.

But this goes against what he wrote about the 11.
11 But when they heard that he was alive and had been seen by her, they would not believe it.
13 And they went back and told the rest, but they did not believe them.

Luke solved that problem when Jesus „opened the minds“ of the disciples. There is a full conversion.
24:44 Then he said to them, “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” 45 Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, 46 and said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, 47 and that repentance for the forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem. 48 You are witnesses of these things.

If the Freer logion is a later addition to the LE, then the author of the logion might have seen this problem too.

Paul the Uncertain wrote: Fri Sep 22, 2017 2:27 am On signs, I think concern with that sort of thing is very early: Paul talks about the charisms that are available to believers (1 Corinthians 12:1-11 and 27-31 - even if the next line implies that love is better than powerz, foreign to the sense of 16:15-20). He also writes about the signs of apostleship (2 Corinthians 12:12), not specifying what those are.
I found it interesting that the LE did not mention the Holy Spirit. Furthermore, at first glance it seems that the disciples are not empowered and did not work the "signs". It is rather the Lord himself who worked and "confirmed the message by accompanying signs".
Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 2110
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: Dating the LE

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin »

JoeWallack wrote: Fri Sep 22, 2017 6:56 am There is no quality evidence that the LE even existed in the second century. Irenaeus of Lyons' (yes, "Lyons") supposed quote is suspect and it only exists in Latin (by an anonymous copyist), it's the earliest supposed evidence (out of place) and no subsequent Patristic defender of LE appeals to him. The Diatessaron is likewise suspect as Ephrem's related commentary is evidence the LE was not there, it is likewise out of place in time and since the purpose of the Diatessaron was to harmonize the Gospels, it would have already included the post-resurrection reunions of the other Gospels. So why add the LE which is itself a harmony of the post-resurrection reunions of the other Gospels.
It might be one question of this thread whether the LE is just a pieced-together compilation or a composition from sources with some special theological interests.

I agree that there is no evidence that the LE even existed in the second century, but I tend to accept this view as highly likely. Besides the possible allusions in Justin, Tatian, Irenaeus and Hippolytus, also Eusebius, the Freer logion and some variant readings in the LE (in most cases C. Regius agrees with C. Ephraemi against C. Alexandrinus, indicating an early split) might point to this.
Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 2110
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: On the Longer Ending

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin »

Charles Wilson wrote: Fri Sep 22, 2017 3:10 pm The LE appears intentional to me. It was grafted onto the Empty Tomb (itself a grafted story).
This seems to be a middle position. So far I know there is the view that the LE was compiled to add it to the end of Mark, but also the view that the LE was originally (part of) another text and from there added to Mark. Carrier wrote:
Kelhoffer argues (in MAM) that the LE was composed between 120-150 A.D. and possibly originated in a text other than Mark and was transferred. Other scholars have concluded the same. And I have presented considerable evidence supporting this conclusion. However, none of the evidence, even that Kelhoffer presents, establishes the conclusion that the LE had already been appended to Mark by the end of the 2nd century. As I have argued, even the testimony of Irenaeus and the Diatessaron are doubtful. However, it's certainly possible. The LE must have become appended to a copy of Mark at least by the end of the 3rd century, and there is no reason to suppose this can't have happened in the 2nd century.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: On the Longer Ending

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: Sun Sep 24, 2017 4:37 amThanks. Very interesting. I found here a dissertation (pdf) "Not this rather than that: Eusebius' reception of Mark 16:9–20 in the Ad Marinum" by Clayton Coombs (the base of his later book "A Dual Reception: Eusebius and the Gospel of Mark"). There are some interesting points.
Thanks for this. Good find.
Unlike Carrier, he accepts the allusions in the writings of Justin, Tatian, Irenaeus and Hippolytus as a reception of the LE; partially against the background of Psalm 110.

....

I agree that there is no evidence that the LE even existed in the second century....
Wait.... How is Irenaeus not solid evidence for the longer ending existing in century II? Unless we are dating Irenaeus himself far later than usual? Against Heresies 3.10.5:
At the end of the gospel, moreover, Mark says: "And so the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken to them, was received into the heavens, and sits at the right hand of God."
This feels like a slam dunk to me.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Paul the Uncertain
Posts: 994
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:25 am
Contact:

Re: On the Longer Ending

Post by Paul the Uncertain »

Kunigunde
But this goes against what he wrote about the 11.
If 16:9-20 is singly authored, then 16:14 reasonably changes everything. The eleven were unwilling to accept a miracle of this magnitude based solely on oral reports, but then they saw for themselves that the miracle had happened. Compare Carl Sagan in modern times, following David Hume on spoken testimony about miracles, or 15:32 in the text itself.
If the Freer logion is a later addition to the LE, then the author of the logion might have seen this problem too.
I think the Freer Logion chiefly solved a different problem, the abrupt transition between Jesus' exasperation with the disciples (a recurring motif in the main text) and his commissioning of them, as if they're now suddenly fully prepared to manage something complicated.

Just a breath before, they had failed to recognize two independent reports confirming something Jesus had told them three times was going to happen. That's a problem. As to Luke's approach, yes, brain surgery might also have been an option :) .
Furthermore, at first glance it seems that the disciples are not empowered and did not work the "signs". It is rather the Lord himself who worked and "confirmed the message by accompanying signs".
But then it's unclear in the main text whether the human Jesus worked his miracles, or simply presided at them. Belief seems to be the engine, anybody's belief, and it isn't even clear belief in what, if anything, besides the success of the attempt (an unaffiliated exorcist, for instance, apparently gets the job done).

What are your thoughts about the Holy Spirit issue?
Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 2110
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: On the Longer Ending

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Thu Sep 21, 2017 11:34 am A few random potential parallels to the longer ending:
...
Philip of Side: The aforesaid Papias reported as having received it from the daughters of Philip that Barsabas who is Justus, tested by the unbelievers, drank the venom of a viper in the name of the Christ and was protected unharmed.
...
Justin Martyr, Dialogue 76.6: And again in other words he said: I give you authority to tread down upon snakes and scorpions and scolopendras, and upon all the power of the enemy.

Luke 10.19: Behold, I have given you authority to tread upon snakes and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy, and nothing will injure you.[/box]
Back from a holiday trip to Crete. Not sure whether it should be called a similarity but I found it remarkable.

The younger snake goddess, from the palace of Knossos. Heraklion Archaeological Museum

Image
Ulan
Posts: 1505
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:58 am

Re: On the Longer Ending

Post by Ulan »

Heh, I think I took pictures of everything in that museum, except for a few things that were unpublished and therefore not allowed to be photographed. The presentation in there is simply awesome. It's a pity they didn't have a proper catalogue when I was there. /off-topic
Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 2110
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: On the Longer Ending

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin »

Ulan wrote: Fri Oct 13, 2017 3:48 am Heh, I think I took pictures of everything in that museum, except for a few things that were unpublished and therefore not allowed to be photographed. The presentation in there is simply awesome.
Yep, it was really great.
Post Reply