Missing Endings

[Secret Alias]

Theodotion was more influential.

[Secret Alias]

Believe it or not the Marcionite in Adamantius cites Theodotion's Daniel. Theodotion was even identified as a Marcionite. https://www.biblicalcyclopedia.com/T/theodotion.html

[Secret Alias]

I think the empty tomb was at the core of the Jesus story. The implications of the Hebrew text may have been known to the originator of the story.

[JoeWallack]

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1353&hilit=In+Search+Of

I recently reread Streeter on the hypothesis of a lost ending (not the 16:9-20 "longer ending") of Mark.

https://archive.org/details/fourgospels ... 4/mode/2up

Streeter suggests this long ending resembled the John 21 story of Jesus appearing to the disciples fishing in Galilee as one unknown. Certainly aspects of the story make more sense in the context of Mark, where the women say nothing to anyone, than they do in other gospels.

This modern story shows how a text can be so compelling that people will copy it even if the ending is lost:

https://lostmanuscripts.com/2014/08/31/ ... -34-years/

On analogy, there's not that much difficulty in supposing that the ending of Mark was lost early on. Mark was still too good to ignore.

JW:
It's possible that it was lost but there's no evidence for that. As I've indicated in this unholy Forum, if it was lost, then it's more likely it further discredited the disciples than credited them (something the legendary Ben Smith agreed with).

(2) Since Mark was made use of in the Diatessaron of Tatian, c. 170

[Street (discred) 338]

It's generally thought that the original Diatessaron lacked the genealogies even though the extant include them because of Patristic evidence and it looks like the original Diatessaron likewise lacked all the post resurrection stories:

A Dual Reception: Eusebius and the Gospel of Mark (Emerging Scholars) Kindle Edition by Clayton Coombs

Coombs presents the following Patristic evidence that the Diatessaron did not have the LE:

Page 42

Baarda begins by introducing a largely neglected statement of the twelfth-century Dionysios bar Salībī. Commenting on Eusebius’s letter to Ammonius, as part of a larger section introducing the Eusebian Canons, Dionysios adds the following concerning Ammonius: Ammonius—(indeed) Titianus too—had written a “Diatessaron”-gospel that is: of the four, as we said previously. And when they came to the telling of the resurrection and saw that (this) varied, they gave up their work.[8]

Jacob Bar-Salibi

Jacob Bar-Salibi also known as Dionysius Bar-Salibi was the best-known and most prolific writer in the Syriac Orthodox Church of the twelfth century.

Note that Bar-Salibi is quite late but boy does he have the credentials to the Syriac tradition. As my ancestor Caiphais famously said "What more evidence do we need?" (that Tatian is not a witness to LE):

Page 43

later anonymous marginal addition to a manuscript containing the work of the eighth-century Georgios of Beceltan, which reads as follows: Titianus, the heretic, is—say some people—the one who has made this. And when he came to the narrative of the resurrection and saw that it varied, he gave up his work.[10]

Joseph

Skeptical Textual Criticism

[Peter Kirby]

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1353&hilit=In+Search+Of

I recently reread Streeter on the hypothesis of a lost ending (not the 16:9-20 "longer ending") of Mark.

https://archive.org/details/fourgospels ... 4/mode/2up

Streeter suggests this long ending resembled the John 21 story of Jesus appearing to the disciples fishing in Galilee as one unknown. Certainly aspects of the story make more sense in the context of Mark, where the women say nothing to anyone, than they do in other gospels.

This modern story shows how a text can be so compelling that people will copy it even if the ending is lost:

https://lostmanuscripts.com/2014/08/31/ ... -34-years/

On analogy, there's not that much difficulty in supposing that the ending of Mark was lost early on. Mark was still too good to ignore.

JW:
It's possible that it was lost but there's no evidence for that. As I've indicated in this unholy Forum, if it was lost, then it's more likely it further discredited the disciples than credited them (something the legendary Ben Smith agreed with).

It looks like the most persuasive objections, then, are a bit circular, based on readings of Mark making use of the 16:8 ending.

It's generally thought that the original Diatessaron lacked the genealogies even though the extant include them because of Patristic evidence and it looks like the original Diatessaron likewise lacked all the post resurrection stories:

Good to know!

[andrewcriddle]

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1353&hilit=In+Search+Of

I recently reread Streeter on the hypothesis of a lost ending (not the 16:9-20 "longer ending") of Mark.

https://archive.org/details/fourgospels ... 4/mode/2up

Streeter suggests this long ending resembled the John 21 story of Jesus appearing to the disciples fishing in Galilee as one unknown. Certainly aspects of the story make more sense in the context of Mark, where the women say nothing to anyone, than they do in other gospels.

This modern story shows how a text can be so compelling that people will copy it even if the ending is lost:

https://lostmanuscripts.com/2014/08/31/ ... -34-years/

On analogy, there's not that much difficulty in supposing that the ending of Mark was lost early on. Mark was still too good to ignore.

JW:
It's possible that it was lost but there's no evidence for that. As I've indicated in this unholy Forum, if it was lost, then it's more likely it further discredited the disciples than credited them (something the legendary Ben Smith agreed with).

(2) Since Mark was made use of in the Diatessaron of Tatian, c. 170

[Street (discred) 338]

It's generally thought that the original Diatessaron lacked the genealogies even though the extant include them because of Patristic evidence and it looks like the original Diatessaron likewise lacked all the post resurrection stories:

A Dual Reception: Eusebius and the Gospel of Mark (Emerging Scholars) Kindle Edition by Clayton Coombs

Coombs presents the following Patristic evidence that the Diatessaron did not have the LE:

Page 42

Baarda begins by introducing a largely neglected statement of the twelfth-century Dionysios bar Salībī. Commenting on Eusebius’s letter to Ammonius, as part of a larger section introducing the Eusebian Canons, Dionysios adds the following concerning Ammonius: Ammonius—(indeed) Titianus too—had written a “Diatessaron”-gospel that is: of the four, as we said previously. And when they came to the telling of the resurrection and saw that (this) varied, they gave up their work.[8]

Jacob Bar-Salibi

Jacob Bar-Salibi also known as Dionysius Bar-Salibi was the best-known and most prolific writer in the Syriac Orthodox Church of the twelfth century.

Note that Bar-Salibi is quite late but boy does he have the credentials to the Syriac tradition. As my ancestor Caiphais famously said "What more evidence do we need?" (that Tatian is not a witness to LE):

Page 43

later anonymous marginal addition to a manuscript containing the work of the eighth-century Georgios of Beceltan, which reads as follows: Titianus, the heretic, is—say some people—the one who has made this. And when he came to the narrative of the resurrection and saw that it varied, he gave up his work.[10]

Joseph

Skeptical Textual Criticism

The reference to "gave up his work" may mean that Tatian gave up harmonizing and just presented the various resurrection narratives one after the other. See Tatian's Diatessaron

Andrew Criddle

[Paul the Uncertain]

It's possible that it was lost but there's no evidence for that. As I've indicated in this unholy Forum, if it was lost, then it's more likely it further discredited the disciples than credited them (something the legendary Ben Smith agreed with).

It looks like the most persuasive objections, then, are a bit circular, based on readings of Mark making use of the 16:8 ending.

We do have some evidence on point beyond 16:8. That is, canonical verses 16:9-14. Although there is no extant ancient manuscript where these verses appear without 16:15-20, those last 6 verses can scarcely be reconciled in form or content with undisputed Mark. In contrast, there are no conflicts in content in verses 9-14, and a mixed bag of formal congruences and contrasts.

Assuming verses 9-14 are not authentic (whatever that term means in this context), nevertheless they are ancient, they are the work of an expert dramaturg (as modern academics call "play doctors"), and on their face they continue the performance past the alleged "ending" at 16:8. We can regard them, therefore, as an expert near-contemporaneous estimate of a proper ending for the performance. If we assume further that something after 16:8 had been "lost," then 9-14 would be a relevant expert estimate of what was lost (or how the lost portion might have begun).

Although Joe and I disagree about whether 16:8 was the earliest published ending of Mark, 16:9-14 comport with Joe's estimate of what would happen in a hypothetical lost portion, "it's more likely it further discredited the disciples than credited them." This is a fair reading of 9-14. Jesus rebuked (ōneidisen) the eleven "because they didn’t believe those who had seen him after he had risen," as indeed they failed to credit two such reports despite the corporeal Jesus having told them three times what to expect.

The matter remains uncertain, not least because the assumptions are uncertain. Nevertheless, bald circularity can be escaped, IMO, when estimating how an authentic Mark might have continued past 16:8.

[Peter Kirby]

It's possible that it was lost but there's no evidence for that. As I've indicated in this unholy Forum, if it was lost, then it's more likely it further discredited the disciples than credited them (something the legendary Ben Smith agreed with).

It looks like the most persuasive objections, then, are a bit circular, based on readings of Mark making use of the 16:8 ending.

We do have some evidence on point beyond 16:8. That is, canonical verses 16:9-14. Although there is no extant ancient manuscript where these verses appear without 16:15-20, those last 6 verses can scarcely be reconciled in form or content with undisputed Mark. In contrast, there are no conflicts in content in verses 9-14, and a mixed bag of formal congruences and contrasts.

Assuming verses 9-14 are not authentic (whatever that term means in this context), nevertheless they are ancient, they are the work of an expert dramaturg (as modern academics call "play doctors"), and on their face they continue the performance past the alleged "ending" at 16:8. We can regard them, therefore, as an expert near-contemporaneous estimate of a proper ending for the performance. If we assume further that something after 16:8 had been "lost," then 9-14 would be a relevant expert estimate of what was lost (or how the lost portion might have begun).

Although Joe and I disagree about whether 16:8 was the earliest published ending of Mark, 16:9-14 comport with Joe's estimate of what would happen in a hypothetical lost portion, "it's more likely it further discredited the disciples than credited them." This is a fair reading of 9-14. Jesus rebuked (ōneidisen) the eleven "because they didn’t believe those who had seen him after he had risen," as indeed they failed to credit two such reports despite the corporeal Jesus having told them three times what to expect.

The matter remains uncertain, not least because the assumptions are uncertain. Nevertheless, bald circularity can be escaped, IMO, when estimating how an authentic Mark might have continued past 16:8.

Thanks for this. You're right about verses 9-14 having a character that reflects one estimate of the content of Mark, which is roughly equal to what Joe reports (of Ben's estimate) of what would happen in a hypothetical lost portion. There is a threefold repetition of nonbelief.

There are a few reasons why I don't believe the longer ending, even in truncated form (verses 9-14), is likely to have been original to Mark. I may elaborate on them at some point. But I do agree that the threefold repetition of nonbelief doesn't argue for inauthenticity, and do have a certain similitude for an ending to Mark (not that I think, as Joe reports of Ben, that an ending would have to written in this manner).

[Paul the Uncertain]

Thanks for this. You're right about verses 9-14 having a character that reflects one estimate of the content of Mark, which is roughly equal to what Joe reports (of Ben's estimate) of what would happen in a hypothetical lost portion. There is a threefold repetition of nonbelief.

There are a few reasons why I don't believe the longer ending, even in truncated form (verses 9-14), is likely to have been original to Mark. I may elaborate on them at some point. But I do agree that the threefold repetition of nonbelief doesn't argue for inauthenticity, and do have a certain similitude for an ending to Mark (not that I think, as Joe reports of Ben, that an ending would have to written in this manner).

It's a hard-to-defend criterion, and IMO something peculiar to Jesus studies, that an entirely hypothetical "autograph" would be offered as the sole and determining standard of "authenticity."

It would be bizarre for theater historians to debate whether or not the 2011 Broadway revival was an "authentic" performance of Godspell. Among other non-issues, the song "Beautiful City" was not part of the earliest (1970 Carnegie-Mellon) production, nor even of the first version of the show to have a fixed musical score (1971 Off Broadway). The song itself did not exist in any published form until the 1973 film. The 2011 revival used a later version composed in 1993.

Organic development is typical of secular literature, why should canonized literature be assumed to be different? One reason comes to mind, the lingering hypothesis that God is a co-author, even though that really doesn't work in a secular scholarly framework. There is plenty of gainful employment opportunity for "text critics" in reconstructing the trajectory of organic development without their appointing themselves the arbiters of authenticity.

Based on your earlier post, I conclude that the Facebook group moderator misbehaved in shutting down discussion of possible trajectories for Mark during the many decades that separate the likely time of its composition from the manufacture of its earliest and best extant manuscripts.

Just for the record, and because it is a great song, here is the 2011 cast recording of Beautiful City:

In the spirit of equal time for Joe's POV, one of the many interesting arguments for 16:8 being the intended ending comes from Stephen Schwartz, composer of most of Godspell's score. Like Mark through 16:8, Godspell has no scripted resurrection appearance by Jesus. Schwartz explained in his Notes,

GODSPELL is about the formation of a community which carries on JESUS' teachings after he has gone. In other words, it is the effect JESUS has on the OTHERS which is the story of the show, not whether or not he himself is resurrected.

https://www.stephenschwartz.com/wp-cont ... icians.pdf

I think the effect that Jesus has on others is a chief focus of Mark, too. However, these are two different works. About Godspell Scwartz goes on to say:

Therefore, it is very important at the end of the show that it be clear that the OTHERS have come through the violence and pain of the crucifixion sequence and leave with a joyful determination to carry on the ideas and feelings they have learned during the course of the show.

If 16:8 is the curtain, then apparently Mark preferred less clarity about that.

[Peter Kirby]

Thanks for this. You're right about verses 9-14 having a character that reflects one estimate of the content of Mark, which is roughly equal to what Joe reports (of Ben's estimate) of what would happen in a hypothetical lost portion. There is a threefold repetition of nonbelief.

There are a few reasons why I don't believe the longer ending, even in truncated form (verses 9-14), is likely to have been original to Mark. I may elaborate on them at some point. But I do agree that the threefold repetition of nonbelief doesn't argue for inauthenticity, and do have a certain similitude for an ending to Mark (not that I think, as Joe reports of Ben, that an ending would have to written in this manner).

It's a hard-to-defend criterion, and IMO something peculiar to Jesus studies, that an entirely hypothetical "autograph" would be offered as the sole and determining standard of "authenticity."

Alright, but I didn't mean much by it. What I meant is equivalent to referring to the content of an entirely hypothetical autograph.

It isn't peculiar to Jesus studies. That seems contradicted by the use of this kind of language elsewhere in text criticism.