Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

The Reliability of Justin, Tatian, and Irenaeus

Expand Messages
  • voxverax
    Malcolm Robertson, I can appreciate the limited time your schedule allows for TC- discussion. Nevertheless it seemed worthwhile to respond to some things in
    Message 1 of 11 , Mar 14, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Malcolm Robertson,

      I can appreciate the limited time your schedule allows for TC-
      discussion. Nevertheless it seemed worthwhile to respond to some
      things in your post.

      MalR: "While Hort may have surmised that vss 9-20 had their origin
      incipiently in the apostolic age the heterodox/docetic nature (as I
      view it) and understanding of the themes indicated in vss 9-20 may
      possibly put it well into the third century - but more probably much
      later."

      Probably much later than the year 300??? That is impossible.

      MalR: "The fact that Mark ends his narrative with FOBOUNTO GAR
      should send the reader - like it doubtless did the eye-witnesses to
      these things - back to the words found in Mark 8:30."

      Somehow I don't think such a recollection of 8:30 sprang to the minds
      of first-century readers of Mark 16:8, or anyone else, until after
      1881.

      MalR: "I have also noticed in the discussion that the Patristic
      evidence has not been critically weighed. Justin, Tatian and
      Irenaeus are presupposed historically correct in their present extant
      forms although no critical appraisal has been given or indicated that
      the Greek text of Irenaeus is prior to it's Latin translation nor has
      the probability that Justin's remarks may be from another NT source."

      The text of Justin's First Apology, ch. 45, is not in doubt.

      Irenaeus' quotation in "Against Heresies," Book III, 10:5-6 is so
      extensive, and so precisely identified, that it cannot be explained
      as a case of a Latin translator's use of a different (later) form of
      text. Also, Irenaeus' statement is mentioned in a Greek scholium
      alongside Mark 16:19 in MS 1582.

      Plus, on p. 270 of "Miracle and Mission," Dr. James Kelhoffer quotes
      from pp. 137-138 of A. Rosseau's book "Irenee de Lyon," in which the
      author provides a quotation from Theodoret of Cyrrhus (a prominent
      clergyman of the 400's) in which Theodoret quotes Irenaeus' "Against
      Heresies" at this very spot. I haven't been able to verify this, but
      if anyone is interested in a more thorough look at the patristic
      texts, this might be a good place to start.

      The incorporation of Mark 16:9-20 into the Diatessaron is indicated
      by its reflection in Ephrem's commentary. It's included in the
      Arabic Diatessaron (which has been shown to be quite more useful than
      was once thought, a la Head & McFall). Also, there's a Diatessaronic
      variant ("them" instead of "her") in 16:11 that is echoed in both
      Western witnesses (the Wessex Gospels, Codex Fuldensis, and the Old
      High German) and an Eastern witness (the Arabic Diatessaron). See
      Tjitze Baarda's brief article in NTS, Vol. 41, #3 (July 1995), pp.
      458-465.

      So, while a skeptical approach to patristic texts will always be
      possible (just as it is always going to be possible to accuse a text
      of being docetic even though centuries of orthodox Christians never
      discerned such docetism), as far as evidence is concerned, these
      three texts are secure.

      Yours in Christ,

      James Snapp, Jr.
      Curtisville Christian Church
      Elwood, Indiana (USA)
      www.curtisvillechristian.org/BasicTC.html
    • Stephen C. Carlson
      ... I have not been able to verify this either. Though Kelhoffer claims that the Greek text is attested by Theodoret of Cyrrhus, he cites no specific place in
      Message 2 of 11 , Mar 14, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        Jim Snapp wrote:
        >Plus, on p. 270 of "Miracle and Mission," Dr. James Kelhoffer quotes
        >from pp. 137-138 of A. Rosseau's book "Irenee de Lyon," in which the
        >author provides a quotation from Theodoret of Cyrrhus (a prominent
        >clergyman of the 400's) in which Theodoret quotes Irenaeus' "Against
        >Heresies" at this very spot. I haven't been able to verify this, but
        >if anyone is interested in a more thorough look at the patristic
        >texts, this might be a good place to start.

        I have not been able to verify this either. Though Kelhoffer claims that
        the Greek text is attested by Theodoret of Cyrrhus, he cites no specific
        place in Theodoret that supports his claim. Furtherfore, the only citation
        he did give (to A. Rosseau (sic), pp. 137-138) does not check out. My
        search of the TLG database could not find any place in Theodoret for the
        supposed Greek text of Irenaeus 3.10.6 or, in fact, any other possible
        Greek witness to Irenaeus here. I can only assume that Kelhoffer got
        his notes messed up, somehow.

        Stephen Carlson

        --
        Stephen C. Carlson,
        mailto:scarlson@...
        "Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35
      • malcolm robertson
        Hello Jim, In brief while I am still at the computer I will respond only this once. You are the one that I am convinced is having the most trouble with the
        Message 3 of 11 , Mar 14, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          Hello Jim,
           
          In brief while I am still at the computer I will respond only this once.  You are the one that I am convinced is having the most trouble with the appraisal of the evidence.  The objective Patristic evidence as it now stands can not nor should be "on first blust" regarded as sound or representing it's original state. 
           
          Your opinions are not the only slant on the topic; yet you dismiss the reasonings of others as if they are impertinent and curious.  Your historical reconstruction and understandings are what are to be questioned as highly suspect and methodically unsound.
           
          I hardly can understand what you mean by:
           
          "Somehow I don't think such a recollection of 8:30 sprang to the minds of first-century readers of Mark 16:8, or anyone else, until after 1881."
           
          Are you denying the reality of historic Christianity and the real human encounter of God with man in first century Judea?  Is Mark's composition a mere literary artifice, a hoax, a farce?  Did historical understanding begin in 1881?
           
          Or further you remark:
           
          "So, while a skeptical approach to patristic texts will always be
          possible (just as it is always going to be possible to accuse a text
          of being docetic even though centuries of orthodox Christians never
          discerned such docetism), as far as evidence is concerned, these
          three texts are secure."
           
          Did the spuriousness of vss 9-20 just now of late come under review?  In fact the "skeptical approach" as you term it is both mandatory and warranted by virtue of the fact that these texts were copied too.  There is a real tangible difference between the Greek and Latin texts of Irenaeus just as there is a real tangible difference between the extant copies of Tatian.  Nevertheless the historical and theological accuracy of these writings must be weighed and assessed along the same lines as the New Testament.
           
          Again you remark:
           
          "The text of Justin's First Apology, ch. 45, is not in doubt."
           
          Again only according to you and because you are not willing to admit other viable source options.

          I will leave off here but your remarks just reaffirm what I said previously so I will give them again below for the sake of those who may profit from them.
           
          Because He lives,
           
          Malcolm
           
           
          jmleonardfamily@...> wrote:

          "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not
          believe will be condemned."  Does this really sound like Mark?  It
          sounds more like Luke's Acts mixed with John."
           
          John Wagner wrote:
           
          "This was my point when I introduced this topic. Aside from the longer
          ending of Mark, there is nothing in the gospels or letters of
          Matthew, Mark, John, Jude, Peter, or James to confirm or elaborate
          upon ANY of the events or theology mentioned in the Acts or in Paul's
          epistles. Mark 16:9-20 creates the ONLY link between the Paul/Lukan
          school and the rest of the NT authors."
           
          ____________________________________
           
          While I think Mr. Leonard has hit on the glaring disparity at a literary level between vss 9-20 with the rest of Mark 1:1 - 16:8,  I also think that John has undervalued the real theological and thematic continuity that the New Testament authors share.  Consequently I would strongly - though respectfully -disagree that vss 9-20 offer any - much less the "ONLY" - link between the biblical canonical authors.  In fact, while Hort may have surmised that vss 9-20 had their origin incipiently in the apostolic age the heterodox/docetic nature (as I view it) and understanding of the themes indicated in vss 9-20 may possibly put it well into the third century - but more probably much later. 
           
          In addition the continuity that Mr. Leonard speaks of at the literary thematic structure level (not to mention historical) can be adequately seen in comparing Mark 8:29-33 with 16:1-8.  The fact that Mark ends his narrative with FOBOUNTO GAR should send the reader - like it doubtless did the eye-witnesses to these things - back to the words found in Mark 8:30.  In fact vss 7-8 make it abundantly clear that the resurrection has indeed taken place as previously indicated in 8:31.  The startling realization and psychological readjustment and reappraisal that such an occurrence would warrant is abundantly testified in the other canonical resurrection accounts (i.e Matthew and Luke and John) not just here in Mark 16:1-8.  
           
          I have also noticed in the discussion that the Patristic evidence has not been critically weighed.  Justin, Tatian and Irenaeus are presupposed historically correct in their present extant forms although no critical appraisal has been given or indicated that the Greek text of Irenaeus is prior to it's Latin translation nor has the probability that Justin's remarks may be from another NT source.  Also the Diatessaron of Tatian in its present state is quite late and shows a text-type quite similar to the Vulgate or even the Byzantine.  In fact the extant mss from which the translations are made are Syriac and Arabic (the integrity of these two sources is manifestly suspect as to being a faithful representation of Tatian's 2nd Century Diatessaron).  I would suggest a more critical source-critical assessment.
           
          I offer these observations not for discussion but for further reflection and study.  I am quite busy during this Lenten-tide and will not be following nor interacting with the list discussions.
           
          Because He lives,
           
          Malcolm
           
          _________________________________
           
          Jim Snapp wrote:
           
           
          Malcolm Robertson,

          I can appreciate the limited time your schedule allows for TC-
          discussion.  Nevertheless it seemed worthwhile to respond to some
          things in your post.

          MalR:  "While Hort may have surmised that vss 9-20 had their origin
          incipiently in the apostolic age the heterodox/docetic nature (as I
          view it) and understanding of the themes indicated in vss 9-20 may
          possibly put it well into the third century - but more probably much
          later."

          Probably much later than the year 300???  That is impossible.

          MalR:  "The fact that Mark ends his narrative with FOBOUNTO GAR
          should send the reader - like it doubtless did the eye-witnesses to
          these things - back to the words found in Mark 8:30."

          Somehow I don't think such a recollection of 8:30 sprang to the minds
          of first-century readers of Mark 16:8, or anyone else, until after
          1881.

          MalR:  "I have also noticed in the discussion that the Patristic
          evidence has not been critically weighed.  Justin, Tatian and
          Irenaeus are presupposed historically correct in their present extant
          forms although no critical appraisal has been given or indicated that
          the Greek text of Irenaeus is prior to it's Latin translation nor has
          the probability that Justin's remarks may be from another NT source."

          The text of Justin's First Apology, ch. 45, is not in doubt.

          Irenaeus' quotation in "Against Heresies," Book III, 10:5-6 is so
          extensive, and so precisely identified, that it cannot be explained
          as a case of a Latin translator's use of a different (later) form of
          text.  Also, Irenaeus' statement is mentioned in a Greek scholium
          alongside Mark 16:19 in MS 1582.

          Plus, on p. 270 of "Miracle and Mission," Dr. James Kelhoffer quotes
          from pp. 137-138 of A. Rosseau's book "Irenee de Lyon," in which the
          author provides a quotation from Theodoret of Cyrrhus (a prominent
          clergyman of the 400's) in which Theodoret quotes Irenaeus' "Against
          Heresies" at this very spot.  I haven't been able to verify this, but
          if anyone is interested in a more thorough look at the patristic
          texts, this might be a good place to start.

          The incorporation of Mark 16:9-20 into the Diatessaron is indicated
          by its reflection in Ephrem's commentary.  It's included in the
          Arabic Diatessaron (which has been shown to be quite more useful than
          was once thought, a la Head & McFall).  Also, there's a Diatessaronic
          variant ("them" instead of "her") in 16:11 that is echoed in both
          Western witnesses (the Wessex Gospels, Codex Fuldensis, and the Old
          High German) and an Eastern witness (the Arabic Diatessaron).  See
          Tjitze Baarda's brief article in NTS, Vol. 41, #3 (July 1995), pp.
          458-465.

          So, while a skeptical approach to patristic texts will always be
          possible (just as it is always going to be possible to accuse a text
          of being docetic even though centuries of orthodox Christians never
          discerned such docetism), as far as evidence is concerned, these
          three texts are secure.

          Yours in Christ,

          James Snapp, Jr.
          Curtisville Christian Church
          Elwood, Indiana (USA)
          www.curtisvillechristian.org/BasicTC.html





          Yahoo! Mail
          Bring photos to life! New PhotoMail makes sharing a breeze.
        • Peter M. Head
          ... 1. The works of Justin: the Dialogue, the two Apologies, are based on two manuscripts: Codex Regius Parisinus CDL (Paris, Bibl. Nat. graec. 450; Greek
          Message 4 of 11 , Mar 15, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            At 18:43 14/03/2006, Jim wrote:

            >The text of Justin's First Apology, ch. 45, is not in doubt.
            >

            1. The works of Justin: the Dialogue, the two Apologies, are based on
            two manuscripts: Codex Regius Parisinus CDL (Paris, Bibl. Nat. graec.
            450; Greek colophon: completed on 11th Sept. 1363) and (apparently a
            later copy of the earlier manuscript) Codex Claromontanus LXXXII (AD
            1541, written in Venice, present location uncertain).
            With only two late mss there are surely reasonable grounds for
            caution on some points of Justin's text.

            2. Even if the text of 1. Apol. 45 is regarded as certain, it is not
            certain that he quotes/knows the text of Mark 16.9-20 at all, let
            alone that he quotes/knows it as part of Mark.

            Pete



            Peter M. Head, PhD
            Sir Kirby Laing Senior Lecturer in New Testament
            Tyndale House
            36 Selwyn Gardens
            Cambridge CB3 9BA
            01223 566601
          • voxverax
            Malcolm Robertson, MalR: ... You dismiss the reasonings of others as if they are impertinent and curious. I have not dismissed your objections. I have
            Message 5 of 11 , Mar 15, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              Malcolm Robertson,

              MalR: ... "You dismiss the reasonings of others as if they are
              impertinent and curious."

              I have not dismissed your objections. I have answered them, and
              shown that they do not reduce the impact and importance of Justin,
              Tatian, and Irenaeus, as second-century evidence for the LE.

              MalR: I hardly can understand what you mean by: "Somehow I don't
              think such a recollection of 8:30 sprang to the minds of first-
              century readers of Mark 16:8, or anyone else, until after 1881.""

              I mean that it seems highly unlikely that anyone before the year
              1881 read Mark 16:8 and immediately thought, "Oh, well, this is
              obviously where the author expected us to recollect 8:30." If you
              have any evidence of anyone, anywhere, making some comment to that
              effect before 1881, I'd be happy to see it.

              MalR: "Are you denying the reality of historic Christianity ..."

              No; I'm simply saying that there is no evidence for the idea that
              anyone before 1881 interpreted 16:8 through the lens of 8:30 as you
              have proposed.

              MalR: "Did the spuriousness of vss 9-20 just now of late come under
              review?"

              No; it's the aspersions upon the genuineness of the relevant parts
              of the texts of Justin, Tatian, and Irenaeus that have just now of
              late appeared (as of your posts). That is what I was addressing.

              MalR: "In fact the "skeptical approach" as you term it is both
              mandatory and warranted by virtue of the fact that these texts were
              copied too."

              It is no news that they are copied. The question is, /Is there
              evidence that the texts were materially altered in the copying
              process so drastically that the parts in which material from the LE
              appears to be used can be shown to have originally been absent or
              materially different?/ In other words, where is the alternative
              text?

              MalR: "There is a real tangible difference between the Greek and
              Latin texts of Irenaeus just as there is a real tangible difference
              between the extant copies of Tatian."

              I already pointed out that Irenaeus' description of, and quotation
              of, Mark 16:19 cannot be explained as a Latin translator's
              substitution of a different text. You can't validly use one sort of
              difference that occurs in some places as evidence for another sort
              of difference (i.e., conspiratorial insertion) in another place.
              Plus, I already noted the Greek scholium in 1582.

              I wrote: "The text of Justin's First Apology, ch. 45, is not in
              doubt."
              MalR: "Again only according to you and because you are not willing
              to admit other viable source options."

              Does anyone here have some alternative text of Justin's First
              Apology? We have evidence that Justin wrote the text of First
              Apology, ch. 45, using several words in close proximity that also
              occur in close proximity in Mark 16:20, while developing a theme
              that interlocks with the ascension and enthronement of Christ and
              the spread of the gospel (which is described in Mark 16:19-20).
              Meanwhile, we have no evidence to support the idea that Justin did
              not write First Apology, ch. 45. The reason I am not willing to
              admit "other viable source options" is that, as far as I can tell,
              no such alternative sources exist on which one can base the text of
              Justin's writings, except imaginary ones.

              Similar, the Diatessaron-text that does not incorporate the Long
              Ending is imaginary (versus the real support in Western and Eastern
              witnesses for a Diatessaronic variant in 16:11). And similarly, the
              text of "Against Heresies" Book III that does not describe and quote
              from Mark 16:19 is imaginary. Meanwhile, the texts that I am citing
              are real.

              In other news: maybe Kelhoffer's source was making an extrapolation
              based on Theodoret of Cyrrhus' reference to all four Gospels'
              account of how Mary Magdalene reported to the disciples. That would
              seem to confirm that Theodoret of Cyrrhus used the LE as part of the
              Gospel of Mark. But it's not the same as evidence that Theodoret
              cited "Against Heresies" Book III:10:5-6.

              Yours in Christ,

              James Snapp, Jr.
              Curtisville Christian Church
              Elwood, Indiana (USA)
              www.curtisvillechristian.org/BasicTC.html
            • voxverax
              Peter M. Head, Even if Justin s First Apology is extant in only one located manuscript, that s one more than any copy of First Apology in which First Apology
              Message 6 of 11 , Mar 15, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                Peter M. Head,

                Even if Justin's First Apology is extant in only one located
                manuscript, that's one more than any copy of First Apology in which
                First Apology ch. 45 does not contain a theme and verbage
                reminiscent of Mark 16:19-20. Caution in light of the late date of
                the extant copy is fine; however mere caution does not justify
                denial (denial, I mean, of a particular passage's genuineness), and
                I don't see any feature in First Apology ch. 45 that is capable of
                justifying such a denial. Do you?

                I agree that it is not *certain* that Justin knows the text of the
                LE (not to the degree that "2+2=4" is certain), but considering all
                that seems to be on Justin's mind in ch. 45, and his use
                of "pantachou" and a few other words in 16:19-20, in close
                proximity, it seems more likely that he did than that such
                overlapping verbage is fortuitous. I think Streeter put it more
                forcefully than that; Metzger has stated it less forcefully; other
                pretty competent researchers have agreed that First Apology ch. 45
                is evidence that Justin probably used the LE.

                If it is granted that Justin used the LE, that doesn't solve the
                question of whether he used it as part of the Gospel of Mark, or as
                a freestanding composition. More could be said about this, and
                about how Justin's use of the Apostolic Memoirs may imply his
                dependence upon a Gospels-harmony, and about other things, but for
                the purposes of this discussion I'm content to merely use Justin as
                evidence (not the strongest conceivable evidence, but still
                evidence) for the existence of the LE in the second century (versus
                Mr. Robertson's idea that it was not composed until long after the
                year 300!).

                Yours in Christ,

                James Snapp, Jr.
                Curtisville Christian Church
                Elwood, Indiana (USA)
                www.curtisvillechristian.org/BasicTC.html
              • James M. Leonard
                I m persuaded by a majority of scholars that Mark s Gospel was a literary innovation; as the first gospel account, the Gospel of Mark was unique. As a
                Message 7 of 11 , Mar 16, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  I'm persuaded by a majority of scholars that Mark's Gospel was a
                  literary innovation; as the first "gospel" account, the Gospel of Mark
                  was unique.

                  As a literary innovation, Mark had nothing to which it could be
                  compared. His readership did not have built in expectations of a
                  lengthy account of Jesus' resurrection appearances. Only when we
                  compare the later accounts of Matt and Luke do we conclude that Mark's
                  ending at 16:8 is lacking. As it stood to its earliest readers who were
                  otherwise not privy to Matt and Luke, the ending was quite appropriate,
                  leaving them with the on-going task consigned to the women at the tomb.

                  As such, I surmise that Mark's Gospel was completed at 16:8 and enjoyed
                  good success in its early circulation. The theory then, is that after
                  Matt and Luke circulated with their much fuller endings, there arose
                  some dissatisfaction with Mark's relatively muted triumphal ending.
                  Considering Matt and Luke, the short ending of Mark drew longer endings
                  like a magnet.

                  This magnetic pull would have been irresistible, as is reflected in the
                  widespread acceptance of the alternative endings through Mark's
                  transmissional history. The wonder is that any mss have survived
                  without the fuller alternatives.

                  Thus, I'm pretty sure that if Mark really did end at 16:8, a revised
                  ending was nearly inevitable, in light of the extremely successful Matt
                  and Luke.



                  James M. Leonard

                  Southwest Pennsylvania
                • Kent Clarke
                  Dear List Members: I¹m inclined to agree with Jim. One could counter the traditional argument that the Markan gospel is the ³basest² Greek in its lack of
                  Message 8 of 11 , Mar 16, 2006
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Re: [textualcriticism] Re: Incongruity in the Long Ending of Mark Dear List Members:

                    I’m inclined to agree with Jim. One could counter the traditional argument that the Markan gospel is the “basest” Greek in its lack of deeper literary thought and structure. While certainly not resembling the Greek style of the other later Gospels (and especially the Lukan author who archaizes his Greek), the author of Mark is actually fairly stylistic on a number of grounds. His narrative progression (often marked by “kia euthus” or simply just “kia,” as well as his employment of the imperative tense as the story draws to a close) is fast-paced and direct. It lacks the extra detail of the other Gospels—two of which likely employed Mark directly, or at least its underlying oral tradition (cf. Westcott on the Gospels for this latter oral theory of gospel development). However, it engages the reader or hearer in a rapid succession of events and pericopes. It is “dramatic” and “action-packed,” if you will. More recent considerations of discourse analysis mark out many of these structures in the Markan gospel (many of which go back to the ground-breaking work of Rhodes and Michie).

                    It could also be argued that the author of Mark employs (at least loosely) a genre akin to Greco-Roman comedy. This genre often employs “tragic” elements throughout the narrative; only to finish with a comedic (or “happy ending”). Numerous comic elements are clear in the Markan gospel (the naked young man in Gethsemane; the “bumbling” actions of the disciples; their neglect to do as Jesus asks of them etc.). Given the absence of a longer ending in the textual tradition, and taken together with the more literary or internal considerations, one could argue as below.

                    The author of Mark takes his audience through a fast-paced and exciting narrative—akin to Greco-Roman comedy. And this happened... And this happened... And this happened (quick narrative after quick narrative). So that by the time the author comes to the end of his story, the readers or hearers, who are now drawn into its telling, are inclined to think this really a “tragedy” (in the literary sense). That is, until the author provides what could be perceived as the ultimate climax, or even a narrative “cliff hanger”--the empty tomb and the women leaving in fear! The reader or listener is left on the brink with numerous questions. However, rather than actually being a “tragedy,” the thoughtful reader already knows why the tomb is empty and where the body of Jesus is. The tragedy turns to comedy with the reader or listener’s informed conclusion that “the real ‘Son of God’ who came to serve--rather than the ‘Son of God’ as embodied by the Roman Emperor—has risen! The audience plays a vital part in bringing a resolution to the narrative.

                    One would need to work this out in more detail obviously, but I think this line of “attack” may have some merit.

                    Kind Regards;

                    Kent


                    Kent D. Clarke (Ph.D. Bristol)
                    Associate Professor of Religious Studies
                    Department of Religious Studies
                    Seal-Kap House
                    Trinity Western University
                    7600 Glover Road
                    Langley, BC
                    V2Y 1Y1
                    Canada

                      


                    On 3/16/06 6:33 AM, "James M. Leonard" <jmleonardfamily@...> wrote:


                    I'm persuaded by a majority of scholars that Mark's Gospel was a
                    literary innovation; as the first "gospel" account, the Gospel of Mark
                    was unique.

                    As a literary innovation, Mark had nothing to which it could be
                    compared.  His readership did not have built in expectations of a
                    lengthy account of Jesus' resurrection appearances.  Only when we
                    compare the later accounts of Matt and Luke do we conclude that Mark's
                    ending at 16:8 is lacking.  As it stood to its earliest readers who were
                    otherwise not privy to Matt and Luke, the ending was quite appropriate,
                    leaving them with the on-going task consigned to the women at the tomb.

                    As such, I surmise that Mark's Gospel was completed at 16:8 and enjoyed
                    good success in its early circulation.  The theory then, is that after
                    Matt and Luke circulated with their much fuller endings, there arose
                    some dissatisfaction with Mark's relatively muted triumphal ending.
                    Considering Matt and Luke, the short ending of Mark drew longer endings
                    like a magnet.

                    This magnetic pull would have been irresistible, as is reflected in the
                    widespread acceptance of the alternative endings through Mark's
                    transmissional history.  The wonder is that any mss have survived
                    without the fuller alternatives.

                    Thus, I'm pretty sure that if Mark really did end at 16:8, a revised
                    ending was nearly inevitable, in light of the extremely successful Matt
                    and Luke.



                    James M. Leonard

                    Southwest Pennsylvania







                     

                     
                     
                    SPONSORED LINKS
                              
                      
                    Bible theology <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Bible+theology&w1=Bible+theology&w2=Theology&w3=Christianity&c=3&s=52&.sig=VIJWEgOJIQxjK4RuQV0lZw>   Theology <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Theology&w1=Bible+theology&w2=Theology&w3=Christianity&c=3&s=52&.sig=Q4HFwwSGBk1rlIk1OJzUZA>   Christianity <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Christianity&w1=Bible+theology&w2=Theology&w3=Christianity&c=3&s=52&.sig=ttgSRj1aqMxrmMPKKFzQHg>          
                     
                     

                    YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS


                     



                  • James M. Leonard
                    I m sure others have developed this more fully, but I am so impressed with Larry Hurtado s Lord Jesus Christ. His discussion of Mark s purpose is instructive.
                    Message 9 of 11 , Mar 16, 2006
                    • 0 Attachment

                      I'm sure others have developed this more fully, but I am so impressed with Larry Hurtado's Lord Jesus Christ.  His discussion of Mark's purpose is instructive.  He brings to the discussion both an expertise on Mark's Gospel and in textual criticism, and some fodder for understanding the internal evidence for the shorter ending.

                      He says that Mark's Gospel was profoundly shaped by the contours made by his presentation of Jesus as both the basis of redemption and as the pattern for his followers, and that its content was also limited thereby (311).  Thus, the gospel "begins with a baptism and then issues in mission, opposition, and persecution involoving death, and ends with divine vindication by resurrection."

                      Dr. Hurtado goes on to explain that Mark may have known birth stories as elsewhere might be found in Matt and Luke, but that he had good reason for not including them "in a story of Jesus shaped to serve as a paradigm for his readers."  Then he explains,

                      As Christians, their life too began with their baptism, and Mark emphasizes that they too are called to follow Jesus in proclaiming the gospel and with a readiness to undergo persecution, trusting that if they lose their life for the sake of Jesus and the gospel, they shall receive eschatological vindication (e.g., 8:34-38).

                      More germane for the ending of Mark, Hurtado then concludes,

                      Likewise, no resurrection appearance was necessary or even appropriate.  For readers who are to live with trust in God for their own vindication, it was sufficient to affirm that God has raised Jesus, the paradigmatic figure for their own lives and hopes (16:5-6).

                      He adds in a footnote, "For the intended Christian readers of Mark, the ending was not nearly so doubtful in meaning as it has often made by modern scholars."

                       

                      Jim Leonard

                      Southwest Pennsylvania

                    • Peter M. Head
                      ... No. I was making a general point and providing some concrete information about the manuscript base for our knowledge of Justin s works. ... It is helpful
                      Message 10 of 11 , Mar 17, 2006
                      • 0 Attachment
                        At 20:44 15/03/2006, Jim wrote:
                        >Peter M. Head,
                        >
                        >Even if Justin's First Apology is extant in only one located
                        >manuscript, that's one more than any copy of First Apology in which
                        >First Apology ch. 45 does not contain a theme and verbage
                        >reminiscent of Mark 16:19-20. Caution in light of the late date of
                        >the extant copy is fine; however mere caution does not justify
                        >denial (denial, I mean, of a particular passage's genuineness), and
                        >I don't see any feature in First Apology ch. 45 that is capable of
                        >justifying such a denial. Do you?


                        No. I was making a general point and providing some concrete
                        information about the manuscript base for our knowledge of Justin's works.

                        >I agree that it is not *certain* that Justin knows the text of the
                        >LE (not to the degree that "2+2=4" is certain), but considering all
                        >that seems to be on Justin's mind in ch. 45, and his use
                        >of "pantachou" and a few other words in 16:19-20, in close
                        >proximity, it seems more likely that he did than that such
                        >overlapping verbage is fortuitous.

                        It is helpful to note our agreement that it is not certain that
                        Justin even knows the LE. It comes down, as you rightly noted, to a
                        judgement about probability. For me, I am not too convinced that
                        PANTAXOU is sufficient to prove a connection to Mark 16.20, even if a
                        few other common words are also found in both texts. The emphasis on
                        Jerusalem might suggest knowledge of Acts.

                        1 Apol 45: That which he says, "He shall send to Thee the rod of
                        power out of Jerusalem," is predictive of the mighty word, which His
                        apostles, going forth from Jerusalem, preached everywhere (tou logou
                        tou iscurou on apo ierousalhm oi apostoloi autou exelqonteV pantacou
                        ekhruxan); and though death is decreed against those who teach or at
                        all confess the name of Christ, we everywhere both embrace and teach it.

                        Cheers

                        Peter





                        >

                        Peter M. Head, PhD
                        Sir Kirby Laing Senior Lecturer in New Testament
                        Tyndale House
                        36 Selwyn Gardens
                        Cambridge CB3 9BA
                        01223 566601
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.