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

[JoeWallack]

The argument that an ECW silence such as that of Origen (if he were silent) is == to ECW use of a verse or section is totally specious. A flunk of Logic 101. Especially in the Ante-Nicene period, where even the most prolific writers only touched a small % of verses. A silence of any small number of ECW is as minor an evidence as possible.

JW:
The beating I inflicted on Snapp regarding Origen was one of the worst I've ever given to anyone (has he posted in public since than?). Fortunately the Adrian Peterson investigators are currently busy with Dwight Howard so I think it's safe for me to continue here and as Samuel Jackson said allow me to retort:

There is no evidence that Origen considered GMark any less authoritative than the other Canonical Gospels. The LE is 12 verses, the same as GMatthew’s post resurrection story (I’m surprised Snapp has not inventoried this as support for LE). Most of the LE is unique and the Christology is high. So there are no general reasons for Origen to avoid the LE. Specifically, the post resurrection stories are easily the most important assertion of Christianity in general and specifically to Origen so it is exponentially more likely that he would refer to them compared to the rest of the Gospels. And that is exactly what we see. At least for GMatthew, GLuke and GJohn.

Specifically here, Celsus’ The True Doctrine is c. 177. As filtered by Origen it appears that Celsus was not aware of the Canonical names and instead thought of the Gospels as a group, the same as Justin and presumably the same as Tatian. Tatian also never names the Canonical Gospels which apparently gave him the freedom to try and harmonize them into the Diatessaron. Irenaeus looks like the first to attribute names to the Gospels and is also (not coincidentally I think) possibly the first to identify the LE. More on that later. The distinction of which Gospel is being referred to than, normally comes from Origen, since he, unlike Celsus, thinks of the Gospels individually.

Per E-Catena we see that Origen refers to every Chapter of GMark except Chapters 2 and 16. So in general Chapter 16 already stands out as not being referred to. Mark 16:1-8 is closely paralleled by the other Gospels and does not contain much useful information for Origen, women come to an empty tomb expecting Jesus to be dead, compared to what follows, so there shouldn’t be much expectation of Origen specifically referring to it. Specifically in Against Celsus, Origen seems to have no problem referring to GMark when it is useful to him as it is part of his opening quote:

http://earlychristianwritings.com/text/origen161.html

BOOK I.
PREFACE.
1. … Now, with respect to our Lord's silence when false witness was borne against Him, it is sufficient at present to quote the words of Matthew, for the testimony of Mark is to the same effect.

I accept than that in general Origen is less likely to refer to GMark than the other Gospels but I do not accept that he would neglect GMark if it had information which was useful to him. So on to more specifics of Against Celsus:

Book II is where Origen defends against specific problems pointed out by Celsus in the Gospels and especially problems with the post resurrection narratives.

CHAP. I.
. … Wherefore also in the Acts of the Apostles it is related that he even brought an offering to the altar, that he might satisfy the Jews that he was no apostate from their law. Now, if Celsus had been acquainted with all these circumstances, he would not have represented the Jew holding such language as this to the converts from Judaism:

Note that based on what Origen has presented Celsus seems unaware of Acts. As far as we know Irenaeus is the first to identify Acts. Those who have been reading carefully may remember that Irenaeus is also the first to identify the Canonical Gospels by name. He is also apparently the first to claim the LE. This concentration (and there are a lot more) of assertional firsts is going to be a weakness in the critical criterion of credibility.

CHAP. IV.
…Nay, even one of the evangelists--Mark--says: "The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as it is written in the prophet Isaiah, Behold, I send My messenger before Thy face, who shall prepare Thy way before Thee," which shows that the beginning of the Gospel is connected with the Jewish writings.

Celsus correctly observes that the Jewish Bible with its emphasis on the Law is generally contradictory to the Gospels which do not emphasize the Law. Origen disputes Celsus’ observation here by invoking the beginning of GMark showing that per GMark Jesus’ history was the Jewish Bible. This demonstrates early on in Book II Origen is perfectly willing to refer to GMark if he thinks it helps him.

CHAP. XLII.
… Jesus, however, performed all that He promised to do, and by which He conferred benefits upon his adherents. And we, continually seeing fulfilled all that was predicted by Him before it happened, viz., that this Gospel of His should be preached throughout the whole world,

Here the subject is Jesus’ prophecies and specifically regarding the benefits to his followers. The claimed fulfillment is from the little apocalypse. There is however a better potential claim of prophecy fulfillment here. The LE is the only post resurrection story where Jesus predicts benefits for his adherents, power over demons, speaking in tongues, protection from serpents, protection from poison and healing the sick. Unlike the little apocalypse, these are supernatural predictions. Why no mention by Origen?

CHAP. XLVIII.
.… And these lame who have been healed, receive from Jesus power to trample, with those feet in which they were formerly lame, upon the serpents and scorpions of wickedness, and generally upon all the power of the enemy; and though they tread upon it, they sustain no injury, for they also have become stronger than the poison of all evil and of demons.

The topic here are the supposed miracles of Jesus. Origen than refers to Jesus’ prediction that his disciples would perform even greater miracles. Origen describes these miracles in figurative terms and uses many of the same key words or at least synonyms in the LE, “demons”, “serpents”, “poison” and “healing the sick”. So why no mention of the LE?

CHAP. LV.
… A half-frantic woman, as you state, and some other one, perhaps, of those who were engaged in the same system of delusion, who had either dreamed so, owing to a peculiar state of mind, or under the influence of a wandering imagination bad formed to himself an appearance according to his own wishes, which has been the case with numberless individuals; or, which is most probable, one who desired to impress others with this portent, and by such a falsehood to furnish an occasion to impostors like himself.

Here Celsus is specifically critiquing the post resurrection story. Note that there is nothing above unique to the LE.

CHAP. LXII.
And truly, after His resurrection, He existed in a body intermediate, … And in the Gospel of Luke also, while Simon and Cleopas were conversing with each other respecting all that had happened to them, Jesus "drew near, and went with them. And their eyes were holden, that they should not know Him. And He said unto them, What manner of communications are these that ye have one to another, as ye walk?" And when their eyes were opened, and they knew Him, then the Scripture says, in express words, "And He vanished out of their sight.

Here Origen continues with an explanation that Jesus’ appearance is now different after the resurrection. He still uses GJohn as an unnamed base but now explicitly identifies GLuke as additional support that Jesus’ appearance has changed and that is why he is not immediately recognized. GMatthew has no support for Jesus having a different appearance but the LE does:

12 And after these things he was manifested in another form unto two of them, as they walked, on their way into the country.

Why doesn’t Origen appeal to this?

CHAP. LXVIII
But let us observe how this Jew of Celsus asserts that, "if this at least would have helped to manifest his divinity, he ought accordingly to have at once disappeared from the cross." …For it is related in St. Luke's Gospel, that Jesus after His resurrection took bread, and blessed it, and breaking it, distributed it to Simon and Cleopas; and when they had received the bread, "their eyes were opened, and they knew Him, and He vanished out of their sight,

Here Origen deals with Celsus' complaint that if Jesus was divine he should be able to disappear. Note that Origen has to explicitly identify GLuke to refer to Jesus’ disappearing. He could also have referred to the LE:

19 So then the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken unto them, was received up into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of God..

Why didn’t he?

CHAP. LXX.
… Now it is not true that He showed Himself only to one woman; for it is stated in the Gospel according to Matthew, that "in the end of the Sabbath, as it began to dawn towards the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene, and the other Mary, to see the sepulchre.

Celsus makes the point that the resurrected Jesus’ only shows himself to believers, specifically one woman and his disciples. In GJohn and the LE Jesus only appears to one woman yet Origen, as always regarding the post resurrection, never mentions GMark. Origen explicitly identifies GMatthew as contradicting Celsus.

In summary, we have the following reasons to think that Origen either was not familiar with the LE or did not think it original:

1) The post resurrection sightings in the Gospels would be the best potential historical evidence available to Origen. He refers to GMatthew’s 7 times (4 in AC), GLuke’s 6 times (2 in AC), GJohn’s 13 times (5 in AC) and GMark’s -0-. Amazingly similar to what we would expect if he thought GMark had no post resurrection sighting. The LE is also one of the few sections of GMark that is unique to GMark. Why not invoke its material if Origen thought it original?

2) In all of Origen’s writings he only fails to refer to Chapters 2 and 16 of GMark.

3) In Against Celsus, Origen refers to Chapters 1, 3, 6, 10 and 13. Against Celsus specifically deals at length with the post resurrection story.

4) Origen misses several opportunities to invoke the LE as support for his position when specifically discussing the post resurrections story:

• 1 – Fulfillment of Jesus’ prediction of benefits to his followers.
  
  2- While claiming that Jesus’ followers performed even greater miracles than Jesus, Origen uses many key words from the LE but does not refer to the LE.
  
  3 – Origen describes Celsus as hyper-critical, especially regarding the post resurrection, yet never says that Celsus criticized the LE prediction that followers could safely handle serpents and drink poison. Another argument from silence but I think we can safely hand Celsus, c. 177, over to evidence that the LE is not original.
  
  4 – Origen is supporting his assertion that Jesus’ post resurrection appearance was different and cites GJohn and GLuke as support. GMatthew has no related support but the LE does.
  
  5 – Origen needs support for his assertion that Jesus could disappear and cites GLuke but does not refer to the available support in the LE.

Is it safe (to list Origen as a witness for 16:8 (as original))?:

Dr. Christian Szell/Wieland Willker: It's safe.

This is the favorite part of my job. When the Messies who think of Steven as some type of authority eagerly anticipate his response and than realize he has nothing. The look on their faces makes it all worthwhile.


Joseph

ErrancyWiki

[Steven Avery]

Rarely have I seen so much written saying so little about the most minor theorized issues. Ironically the two Celsus allusions are omitted, making the minor evidence from silence screed that much more worthless.

Even if Origen is considered a silence evidence, it would evaluate to a tiny element in the massive ECW referencing of the traditional Mark ending, which was deceptively omitted in the bogus and flawed 3 vs. 3 absurd Carrier-Wallack attempt.

[JoeWallack]

Rarely have I seen so much written saying so little about the most minor theorized issues. Ironically the two Celsus allusions are omitted, making the minor evidence from silence screed that much more worthless.

Even if Origen is considered a silence evidence, it would evaluate to a tiny element in the massive ECW referencing of the traditional Mark ending, which was deceptively omitted in the bogus and flawed 3 vs. 3 absurd Carrier-Wallack attempt.

JW:
So it would appear that evil (arguments) retreats when forcibly confronted by good (arguments). This is why famous Apologists do not post here (JP Holding would not be caught crucified here).

I'll point out the irony here that Steven makes amazing extrapolations to desired conclusions such as the God-awful Sinaiticus Threads but is unwilling to concede that Origen is any type of evidence against unless I find an original statement from Origen saying "I am unaware of any evidence for the LE".

For the serious student, here is Dr. Carrier's abbreviated related comments on Origen:

Origen, Clement, and Other 3rd Century Authors

There are a large number of Christian authors from 100-300 A.D. who never mention the LE, which taken together is significant but not compelling (since many NT verses are likewise unattested but still certainly authentic). But most telling is the silence of Origen and Clement (c. 200-230 A.D.), who each left us a huge corpus erudite with discussions and quotations of the Gospels. Similarly other copious authors, like Tertullian and Cyprian, erroneously believed to have attested the LE, in fact very curiously did not. Likewise Lactantius, despite his having written extensive treatises on Christian abilities and beliefs. Though it is always possible they just never happened to strike upon an occasion to reference the LE, given the vast extent of their respective writings this at least approaches the improbable, the more so when combined with the silence of all other authors before the 4th century (apart from, at most, Irenaeus, per section 5.3.5).

Clement actually had credible occasions to quote the LE yet didn't (e.g. Stromata 4.6; On the Rich Man 34; Comments on the Epistle of Jude; etc.). So his silence is notable, even if still not conclusive. Tertullian might likewise be expected to cite the LE in several passages yet doesn't (e.g. Against Marcion 5.8; Exhortation to Chastity 4; and the passages noted in section 5.3.4). Cyprian, too (see section 5.3.8). Origen also had occasion to quote or address the LE in his extensive treatise Against Celsus (e.g. 1.6, 1.67, 2.48, 2.56-70, etc.), but most especially where he had to rebut Celsus' claim that Mary was insane. Some now claim Celsus was there referring to Mary having once been possessed by demons (and hence he must be referring to Mark 16:9), but the context disproves this. In Against Celsus 2.55 Origen tells us Celsus said only two people saw the wounds Jesus had suffered, one woman who was paroistros ("driven frantic; beside herself" or "half-mad; practically insane") and one other man ("from among those engaged in the same charlatanry"). This is clearly the scene in John (the one man being Thomas), not the LE, which contains no reference to seeing wounds, nor any appearance to a single man. Origen assumes nothing else in his rebuttal (in 2.59-62). In fact, Origen's most direct rebuttal (in 2.60) is that Celsus' claim that Mary was insane is "a statement which is not made by the history recording the fact" but a calumny entirely made up by Celsus. That suggests neither Celsus nor Origen knew of Mark 16:9, which would be a historical record of the fact (directly declaring her an ex-demoniac). Moreover, Celsus would surely have lambasted the Gospel of Mark for including other material in the LE (such as its claim of immunity to poisons and snakes), compelling Origen to make a rebuttal. Yet instead all Celsus attacks is the account in John. So the silence here argues the LE was not known to Celsus, and it supports (though does not prove) the LE was not known to Origen.65

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

[Steven Avery]

The main point is very simple. A couple of questionable silences in the ECW is only a fraction of the evidentiary value of the massive evidences in the ECW for inclusion. The humorous Carrier-Wallack charade is all a smoke and mirrors game hoping to turn attention away from the massive ECW evidences. Even in their own bailiwick they simply ignore references like the multiple Tertullian and Clement and Celsus allusions.

Similar charade on the manuscripts where the whole game is to avoid acknowledging that 999 out of every 1,000 ms support the tradional ending and 1 out of 1000 have the woman afraid ending.

And thank you Joe for staying out of the Sinaiticus threads. Your non-participation is very much appreciated.

[Steven Avery]

Dup

[Steven Avery]

Btw, there was one important part of the Snapp-Wallack dialogue where JW made good points. That was because of James taking a false position relating to the 12 verses being in some way a Markan or friends of Mark add-on. Floating periscope, production stage, and all that late-dating jazz. JW was astute enough to nail that Snappian error to the wall.

Plus, unlike this thread, that is actually a legitimate fundamental part of the discussion. A major.

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

And thank you Joe for staying out of the Sinaiticus threads. Your non-participation is very much appreciated.

I would also like to thank all members who stay away from this threads

[Steven Avery]

Yep. A thread is helped when the contributions are substantive and the questions are helpful and the participants are all trying to share and learn, iron sharpeneth. Real dialogue. If important new issues are researched, so much the better.

My thanks to all the fine contributions on those threads.

[Sheshbazzar]

Material (straw) cribbed from Origen's Contra Celsum provided redactors the unique fodder that subsequently appeared within the late and fabricated appended LE of gMark.
LE terminus a quo_ +248 CE

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

It seems to me that one of the clearest internal indications of the falsity of the verses Ps-Mark 16.9-20 is the use of the word σημεῖον (sémeion – sign) in Ps-Mark 16:17 and 16:20 in an anti-Markan way.

1) σημεῖον (sémeion – sign) has a negative sense in Mark und stand in contrast to the word δυνάμεις (dynameis – power, ability, might, strength, mighty work), which has a positive sense. The word σημεῖον (sémeion – sign) is used in the Gospel of Mark in two contexts:

- the Pharisees demand a sign (Mark 8:11-12)
- the so called „Little Apocalypse“ (Mark 13:3-6 and Mark 13:22)

note: According to Mark signs are performed to lead astray the elect – Mark 13:22. When the disciples ask for a sign in Mark 13:4, Jesus warns them: See that no one leads you astray.

Mark 8:11-12
The Pharisees came and began to argue with him, seeking from him a sign (σημεῖον – sēmeion) from heaven to test him. And he sighed deeply in his spirit and said, “Why does this generation seek a sign (σημεῖον - sēmeion)? Truly, I say to you, no sign (σημεῖον - sēmeion) will be given to this generation.”

Mark 13:3-6
„And as he sat on the Mount of Olives opposite the temple, Peter and James and John and Andrew asked him privately, “Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign (σημεῖον - sēmeion) when all these things are about to be accomplished?” And Jesus began to say to them, “See that no one leads you astray (πλανήσῃ - planēsē). Many will come in my name, saying, ‘I am he!’ and they will lead many astray.“

Mark 13:22
For false christs and false prophets will arise and perform signs (σημεῖα - sēmeia) and wonders (τέρατα - terata), to lead astray (ἀποπλανᾶν - apoplanan), if possible, the elect.


2) Ironically, the editor has not understood this specific use of the word σημεῖον in GMark. Because of the use of the word σημεῖον (sémeion – sign) in a positive sense in Ps-Mark 16:17.20 the believers und disciples now appear as the false prophets, against which Jesus warned in Mk 13:22.

Ps-Mark 16:17-20
„And these signs (σημεῖα - sēmeia) will accompany those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up serpents with their hands; and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover.” So then the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken to them, was taken up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of God. And they went out and preached everywhere, while the Lord worked with them and confirmed the message by accompanying signs (σημείων - sēmeiōn).“