Textual Criticism. Manuscript Quantity vs. Patristic Scope

[JoeWallack]

Textual Healing's Good For You

JW:
In Textual Criticism an important category of external evidence is Manuscript. The Manuscript category is valuable due to the qualities of:

• 1) Directness
  
  2) Age
  
  3) Quantity
  
  4) Geographical variety

In Textual Criticism arguments the Manuscript category is always an important one and often the most important one, at least for one side. For example, regarding the most important Textual Criticism question, the original ending of GMark, those arguing for the Longer Ending of GMark such as James Snapp, the foremost proponent of The Long Ending that the world has ever known, present the Manuscript Category in general and specifically the quantity of manuscripts as one of the most important parts of their argument:

The Authenticity of Mark 16:9-20

Mark 16:9-20 is supported by over 1,700 Greek manuscripts

Regarding the dating of most of these manuscripts:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_ ... anuscripts

Most are after the fifth century. The patristic evidence here though, regarding the state of the Manuscript evidence before the sixth century, negates and than some this manuscript evidence for the original ending of GMark:

On to our own Ben Smith's most excellent site:

The endings of the gospel of Mark.

and the first extant Patristic to directly comment on this textual criticism issue:

Eusebius of Caesarea (early century IV)...
When Eusebius roughly tallies the manuscripts without the longer ending, his approach is telling. He gives the following informational tidbits, in order:
Mark 16.9-20 is not extant in all copies.
The accurate copies end at Mark 16.8.
Nearly all copies, in fact, end at Mark 16.8.
Mark 16.9-20 is extant in some, but not in all, copies, and may be spurious.

Thus Eusebius testifies that before the bulk of extant manuscripts, in his time the LE was in the minority. The unknown is the extent of the geographical area Eusebius had knowledge of. Of related interest is that even though Eusebius' evidence supports 16:8 as the original ending, Eusebius is okay with letting the user decide which ending to use.

The next such patristic commentary is Jerome, (Jesse, now Jerome, yes!):

From Jerome...Century V...
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 Jerome's time, Eusebius' observation still stands, most Greek manuscripts still end at 16:8. Regarding choice though, unlike Eusebius, Jerome chooses the LE for his Vulgate.

Next,

Victor of Antioch...Century V-VI...
Victor, then, at least acquiesces to the first of the following two points and asserts the second:
The majority (παρα πλειστοις) of the copies of Mark end at 16.8.
The accurate (ακριβων) copies of Mark contain 16.9-20.
Number one agrees with Eusebius. Number two does not.

But it is very important to pay attention to the last line of our quotation from Victor of Antioch. He explicitly tells us that he has appended (συντεθεικαμεν) the longer ending to copies that lacked it. If he and others of the same mind were actively engaged in adding the longer ending to copies of Mark that lacked it, then the present state of the manuscripts stands explained; by far the majority contains the longer ending, but certain key manuscripts lack it.

Of special interest here:

• 1) Victor confirms Eusebius and Jerome that in his time most manuscripts still end at 16:8.
  2) Victor continues the trend of commentary regarding accurate manuscripts. Eusebius says accurate ones end at 16:8. Jerome is silent on accuracy. Now Victor says the accurate ones have the LE.
  3) Victor is actively adding the LE to manuscripts that lack it.
  4) The three main centers of Christianity at this time were Rome, Alexandria and Antioch. Most would accept that Eusebius/Jerome were familiar with the Alexandrian textual tradition. Here with have a patristic in Antioch who testifies that 16:8 likewise dominated there.
  5) Regarding the criterion of Coordination, the patristic awareness of the textual problem and active effort to change it occurs right before the bulk of extant manuscripts.

Ben, if you have nothing better to do, regarding Victor, James Snapp has gone the full Montanist on it translating/using a translation that Victor's famous surviving marginalia comment says that not just most accurate manuscripts but many manuscripts had the LE:

http://www.thetextofthegospels.com/2016 ... spels.html

The author of the note had found the passage in many copies, and in accurate copies,

Comment?

Next,

Severus of Antioch...century VI
Severus, who also seems to have read Eusebius, agrees with Eusebius, and against Victor, on which copies are the more accurate. Severus does not explicitly tally the manuscripts, but that he mentions some (τισι) that contain Mark 16.9-20 may imply that most still lack it.

Of especial interest here:

• 1) Severus is in the exact same geographical area as Victor.
  2) The quantitative is no longer the main issue/difference as patristic before and in the same location have been actively adding the LE.
  3) The qualitative is now the issue as Severus observes that the qualitative still favors 16:8.
  4) The patristic commentary word now stops as presumably after Severus and century VI, in the patristic mind there is no longer a quantitative or qualitative issue regarding the LE which again coordinates with the extant manuscripts.
  5) Some scribes subsequently inventory Victor's comment as explanation/reason for the LE.

The related broader textual criticism lesson here is that significant and even overwhelming manuscript evidence for a candidate for originality does not necessarily have that much weight especially if:

• 1) Earlier patristic evidence goes against it.
  
  2) It has similarities to the LE issue here such as earlier evidence for change in direction and of course the Difficult Reading Principle.

Joseph

The New Porphyry

[MrMacSon]

Textual Healing's Good For You

JW:
In Textual Criticism an important category of external evidence is Manuscript. The Manuscript category is valuable due to the qualities of:

• 1) Directness
  
  2) Age
  
  3) Quantity
  
  4) Geographical variety

As an aside to the specific focus of the OP on the end of Mark, this more general point is interesting -

The New Testament has been preserved in more than 5,800 Greek manuscripts, 10,000 Latin manuscripts and 9,300 manuscripts in various other ancient languages including Syriac, Slavic, Ethiopic and Armenian. There are approximately 300,000 textual variants among the manuscripts, most of them being the changes of word order and other comparative trivialities.[85][86] Nonetheless, for over 250 years, New Testament scholars have argued that no textual variant affects any doctrine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textual_c ... _Testament

- although the accompanying table clarifies that, saying

• "95% of all manuscripts, the majority of which are comparatively very late in the tradition" are "The Byzantine text-type; also, Koinē text-type (also called Majority Text) dated 5th–16th centuries CE"

and

• "It had become dominant at Constantinople from the 5th century on and was used throughout the Byzantine church. It contains the most harmonistic readings, paraphrasing and significant additions, most of which are believed to be secondary readings. It underlies the Textus Receptus used for most Reformation-era translations of the New Testament."