Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Ben,

I was reading your page here, concerning the testimony of the early fathers as to their knowledge or otherwise of Mark 16:9-20.

http://www.textexcavation.com/marcanendings.html#jerome

You make the point that:

Jerome, then, as touches the Greek textual tradition at any rate, backs up the Eusebian claim that most of the (Greek) copies ended at 16.8.

I wanted to ask your opinion of the argument that Jerome here is not merely dependent upon Eusebius, but that his epistle to Hedibia is little more than an abbreviated translation of Eusebius' letter to Marinus that in no way represents Jerome's personal viewpoint.

gmx wrote: ↑Wed May 23, 2018 4:06 am Ben,

I was reading your page here, concerning the testimony of the early fathers as to their knowledge or otherwise of Mark 16:9-20.

http://www.textexcavation.com/marcanendings.html#jerome

You make the point that:

Jerome, then, as touches the Greek textual tradition at any rate, backs up the Eusebian claim that most of the (Greek) copies ended at 16.8.

I wanted to ask your opinion of the argument that Jerome here is not merely dependent upon Eusebius, but that his epistle to Hedibia is little more than an abbreviated translation of Eusebius' letter to Marinus that in no way represents Jerome's personal viewpoint.

All I can do is to stand by my other statement on that web page:


In other words, Jerome almost certainly had a handle on the state of the manuscripts of his day. He relays Eusebius' statement virtually unchanged; therefore that statement must not have raised red flags for him, which suggests to me that most manuscripts still lacked the longer ending. This conclusion is bolstered by the fact that Victor of Antioch, writing slightly later, still seems to agree with Eusebius' statement that most manuscripts lacked the ending, while simultaneously disagreeing with Eusebius' low esteem for the longer ending. Victor also attests that he has busied himself with appending the longer ending to the copies he has which lacks it.

Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Wed May 23, 2018 4:56 am

gmx wrote: ↑Wed May 23, 2018 4:06 am Ben,

I was reading your page here, concerning the testimony of the early fathers as to their knowledge or otherwise of Mark 16:9-20.

http://www.textexcavation.com/marcanendings.html#jerome

You make the point that:

Jerome, then, as touches the Greek textual tradition at any rate, backs up the Eusebian claim that most of the (Greek) copies ended at 16.8.

I wanted to ask your opinion of the argument that Jerome here is not merely dependent upon Eusebius, but that his epistle to Hedibia is little more than an abbreviated translation of Eusebius' letter to Marinus that in no way represents Jerome's personal viewpoint.

All I can do is to stand by my other statement on that web page:

It is rather apparent that Jerome is dependent here on Eusebius in To Marinus, cited above. Nevertheless, Jerome himself, the translator of the Bible into the Latin version called the Vulgate, must have personally known of many manuscripts, and the notion that almost all (omnibus... paene) of the Greek books lacked Mark 16.9-20 must not have seemed an incredible statement to him.

In other words, Jerome almost certainly had a handle on the state of the manuscripts of his day. He relays Eusebius' statement virtually unchanged; therefore that statement must not have raised red flags for him, which suggests to me that most manuscripts still lacked the longer ending. This conclusion is bolstered by the fact that Victor of Antioch, writing slightly later, still seems to agree with Eusebius' statement that most manuscripts lacked the ending, while simultaneously disagreeing with Eusebius' low esteem for the longer ending. Victor also attests that he has busied himself with appending the longer ending to the copies he has which lacks it.

Obviously, this is a difficulty. None of it adds up.

If Jerome believed that 16:9-20 were genuine, why would he not volunteer an explanation as to why the vast majority of accurate Mss lacked those verses? Basically, we are accusing Jerome of knowing that the verses were a later addition, yet passing them off as the traditional author's work in the Vulgate regardless. It's a serious charge.

Secondly, if we take the testimony at face value, even though the LE was poorly attested in the MSS record, both Marinon and Hedibia's copies of the NT happened to include the LE. And not only were they among the tiny minority whose copies contained the LE, but they both happened upon the contradiction in timing between resurrection accounts of Mk & Mt, and both decided to write letters to the orthodox authorities to have the matter clarified.

Something clearly fishy at play here.

gmx wrote: ↑Thu May 24, 2018 5:48 am

Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Wed May 23, 2018 4:56 am

gmx wrote: ↑Wed May 23, 2018 4:06 am Ben,

I was reading your page here, concerning the testimony of the early fathers as to their knowledge or otherwise of Mark 16:9-20.

http://www.textexcavation.com/marcanendings.html#jerome

You make the point that:

Jerome, then, as touches the Greek textual tradition at any rate, backs up the Eusebian claim that most of the (Greek) copies ended at 16.8.

I wanted to ask your opinion of the argument that Jerome here is not merely dependent upon Eusebius, but that his epistle to Hedibia is little more than an abbreviated translation of Eusebius' letter to Marinus that in no way represents Jerome's personal viewpoint.

All I can do is to stand by my other statement on that web page:

It is rather apparent that Jerome is dependent here on Eusebius in To Marinus, cited above. Nevertheless, Jerome himself, the translator of the Bible into the Latin version called the Vulgate, must have personally known of many manuscripts, and the notion that almost all (omnibus... paene) of the Greek books lacked Mark 16.9-20 must not have seemed an incredible statement to him.

In other words, Jerome almost certainly had a handle on the state of the manuscripts of his day. He relays Eusebius' statement virtually unchanged; therefore that statement must not have raised red flags for him, which suggests to me that most manuscripts still lacked the longer ending. This conclusion is bolstered by the fact that Victor of Antioch, writing slightly later, still seems to agree with Eusebius' statement that most manuscripts lacked the ending, while simultaneously disagreeing with Eusebius' low esteem for the longer ending. Victor also attests that he has busied himself with appending the longer ending to the copies he has which lacks it.

Obviously, this is a difficulty. None of it adds up.

If Jerome believed that 16:9-20 were genuine, why would he not volunteer an explanation as to why the vast majority of accurate Mss lacked those verses? Basically, we are accusing Jerome of knowing that the verses were a later addition, yet passing them off as the traditional author's work in the Vulgate regardless. It's a serious charge.

Secondly, if we take the testimony at face value, even though the LE was poorly attested in the MSS record, both Marinon and Hedibia's copies of the NT happened to include the LE. And not only were they among the tiny minority whose copies contained the LE, but they both happened upon the contradiction in timing between resurrection accounts of Mk & Mt, and both decided to write letters to the orthodox authorities to have the matter clarified.

Something clearly fishy at play here.

There are decent answers to all of your questions here, but Jerome, in truth, is a minor player in this game. Also, your characterization of the percentage of Greek manuscripts containing the Longer Ending as a "tiny minority" seems tendentious to me, suggesting to me that you really do not want to make sense of Jerome. So no problem. Drop Jerome from consideration. Chronologically he stands between Eusebius and Victor of Antioch, and he is dependent upon Eusebius for his comments to Hebidia on the ending of Mark. But Eusebius and Victor agree that most Greek copies lacked the Longer Ending. They disagree, however, on the merits of the Longer Ending (Eusebius rejected it, while Victor accepted it). If you wish to discount Jerome completely, feel free! You still have Eusebius and Victor to deal with.