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

Re: Jesus Dynasty and the Ending of Mark

Expand Messages
  • James Snapp, Jr.
    Dear Mark Thunderson, Your claim that There are actually many endings to Mark other than vv. 9-20 is false. I welcome you to read my lengthy essay on the
    Message 1 of 26 , Jan 2, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear Mark Thunderson,

      Your claim that "There are actually many endings to Mark other than
      vv. 9-20" is false. I welcome you to read my lengthy essay on the
      subject, which corrects a lot of misinformation about the passage in
      the course of offering a reasonable theory of its origin and textual
      history. (If you don't have time to read 100+ pages, you can still
      get a pretty good idea of my take on the Ending of Mark, and why Most
      Of What You've Been Told About the Ending of Mark Is Wrong, by
      reading the four-part essay "The Authenticity of Mark 16:9-20" which
      is online -- see the link at the end of this post.)

      Regarding your "X is taken from Y" statements: the verbal parallels
      between I Cor. 11:23-25 and the Gospels' descriptions of the Lord's
      Supper are quite a bit closer than any verbal parallels between Mark
      16:9-20 and any of the passages/books to which you refer. That's
      evidence of a shared tradition. It does not imply a relationship of
      dependence of one book upon another. In the essay, I have included a
      phrase-by-phrase analysis of Mark 16:9-20, showing why the "pastiche"
      theory simply doesn't fly (besides the obvious reason that an ending-
      inventor would describe something happening IN GALILEE, rather than
      events which he knew that his readers already knew of as happening in
      and around Jerusalem). Some of the same information was already
      covered back in 1974 by William Farmer. It shouldn't be news.

      As far as the "Messianic Secret" thing is concerned, I draw your
      attention to the curious phrase at the end of Mark 9:9 ~ "They should
      tell no one the things they had seen, until the Son of Man had risen
      from the dead." The commend for silence about Jesus' identity as the
      Messiah was made obsolete by His resurrection. So it would not be
      inconsistent of Mark to intend to describe how, after the
      resurrection, Jesus commissioned His apostles to spread the gospel.

      Yours in Christ,

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


      --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, Mark Thunderson
      <mark.thunderson@...> wrote:
      >
      > Dear James,
      >
      > With the greatest respect, Mark 16: 9-20 sure looks like someone
      made it up (at least to me). Moreover, as you probably already know,
      there are actually many endings to Mark other than vv.9-20. A sure
      sign of textual anxiety. I realize that there are those "out
      > there" who for one reason or another prefer those other endings,
      and probably because they suppose they are being pious in doing so.
      But let wisdom prevail.
      > This is how I see it:
      > Mark 16: 9-11 are taken from the Gospel of John
      > Mark 16: 12-13 are taken from the Gospel of Luke.
      > Mark 16: 14 is taken from the Gospel of Matthew.
      > Mark 16: 15-20 is taken from Matthew and Acts.
      > (I suspect you probably are already aware of this).
      > One more thing, vv 9-20 appear inconsistent with the Gospel of Mark
      as a whole. As you recall, Jesus continually forbids people to make
      him know (what Bultmann referred to as the Messianic Secret), yet
      > they in fact do just the opposite. Ironically, in the end, after
      the resurrection, "they say nothing to anyone."
      >
      > So, it does seem that Manuscripts - even very early ones - are not
      always reliable.
      >
      > Sincerely,
      > Mark Thunderson.
    • James Snapp, Jr.
      Dear David R. Palmer, DRP: I just insist that your use of the words deceptive and deceiver are not accurate. Deception requires an intention and
      Message 2 of 26 , Jan 2, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        Dear David R. Palmer,

        DRP: "I just insist that your use of the words "deceptive" and
        "deceiver" are not accurate. Deception requires an intention and
        motive to deceive, by any definition I am aware of."

        I think you must be thinking of the word "deceitful." In my big blue
        dictionary, the first definition of the word "deceive" is, "to make
        (a person) believe what is not true; to mislead; to cause to err; to
        impose on; to delude; to cheat."

        DRP: "There are many contrary opinions in the world, and if someone
        persuades someone over to an opinion with which you strongly
        disagree, even an opinion which you are convinced is false, that does
        not make that person deceptive or a deceiver."

        But I am not challenging Dr. Tabor's opinions. I am challenging what
        he says about tangible evidence. His statement that the Long Ending
        of Mark was composed in the fourth century A.D. is no more of an
        opinion than a statement that the Magna Carta was written in the
        1500's is an opinion.

        DRP: (regarding Tabor's statement that the Long Ending "is not found
        in any of our older more reliable copies of Mark.") "Again, you
        disagree with him as to just which manuscripts are more reliable.
        That is a matter of opinion, not deception."

        I don't think you really believe that the reliability is just a
        matter of opinion, as if a MS becomes more reliable the more highly
        it is esteemed. Suppose that a professor told his students, "Mark
        16:9-20 is found in all of the older and more reliable Greek copies
        of Mark." Wouldn't you say that his statement is incorrect,
        regardless of whether or not he holds the opinion that Vaticanus and
        Sinaiticus are unreliable? In order for Dr. Tabor's statement to be
        true, the ONLY older, more reliable copies of Mark are those copies
        which do not contain 16:9-20. If you believe that the ONLY reliable
        copies of Mark are those copies which do not contain 16:9-20, then
        you agree with Dr. Tabor's statement, but if you /don't/ believe that
        the ONLY reliable copies of Mark are those copies that do not contain
        Mark 16:9-20, then you cannot agree with Dr. Tabor's statement.

        DRP: (about Dr. Tabor's non-mention of Vaticanus' blank space after
        Mark 16:8, and Sinaiticus' blank page after the Gospels.) "These
        arguments are totally unconvincing to me. I disagree that these are
        significant, and at any rate, the fact that Mr. Tabor disagrees does
        not make him a deceiver."

        Nevertheless, these features are significant. The blank space after
        Mk. 16:8 in B clearly indicates that the copyist knew of text beyond
        16:8. The blank page at the end of the Gospels may be a filler-page,
        but it may be there to provide a means by which the copyist(s) made
        available, to the eventual owner of the MS, the option of including
        passages which the scribes had not included.

        Had Dr. Tabor mentioned the blank space in B, his readers would tend
        to doubt his statement that "pious scribes who copied Mark made up an
        ending for him and added it to his text sometime in the 4th century
        A.D." If Dr. Tabor had informed his readers about the contents of
        Irenaeus' "Against Heresies," Book III:10:5-6, and about Aphrahat's
        statements in "Demonstration One: On Faith," or about Tatian's use
        of the Long Ending, his readers would do more than just doubt his
        statement; they would laugh at it. Only by failing to mention
        significant pieces of evidence -- pieces of evidence readily
        available to him (and which it is difficult to imagine that he did
        not encounter in the course of teaching about the Gospel of Mark for
        25 years) -- can Dr. Tabor maintain the appearance of plausibility to
        the readers of his book. If he told his readers the whole story,
        they would not believe the statement which I just quoted in the first
        sentence of this paragraph. And what do you call it when someone
        only tells you part of the story, in a way that gives you a false
        impression? The person might be lying. Or he might be incompetent.
        But, inasmuch as that person has deceived you, it's fair to call him
        a deceiver.

        DRP: (regarding Tabor's statement that "copies of Mark that contain
        the ending often include notes from the scribe pointing out that it
        is not in the oldest manuscripts") "Perhaps this is a mis-use of the
        word often on his part. But look at another perspective; how many
        truly IMPORTANT manuscripts of Mark are there?"

        No; let's not use a perspective conjured out of thin air. (I'm not
        saying that your perspective about some MSS being more important than
        others is wrong -- just that it's not relevant; it's not Dr. Tabor's
        statement.) Let's use the actual statement that Dr. Tabor stated.
        He told his readers that copies that contain the ending "often"
        include notes from the scribe pointing out that it is not in the
        oldest manuscripts. And that is not true. Readers who believe Dr.
        Tabor about this will be deceived.

        DRP: "I think that your use of the words "deceiver" and "deception"
        is unnecessarily inflammatory, and does not serve your cause, since
        such words will simply cause people to tune out when you speak."

        Perhaps. (I'm not used to addressing people who would rather hear
        polite falsehoods than frank truth.) On the other hand, I find Dr.
        Tabor's false statements inflammatory. It's sort of gratifying to
        observe that Dr. Tabor seems to need to resort to false statements to
        prop up his ideas. It may say something about the weakness of those
        ideas. When a boxer cheats, it says something about his ability
        (i.e., his inability) to win fairly. Still, when a boxer cheats,
        it's hardly sufficient that the referee just notices that the cheater
        has cheated. A decent referee would penalize cheating.

        Yours in Christ,

        James Snapp, Jr.
        Curtisville Christian Church
        Indiana (USA)
        www.curtisvillechristian.org/BasicTC.html
      • Marion Fox
        Marion Fox here, With regard to the question of Mark 16:9-20, I have a couple of questions. First, what are good sources of materials that give arguments pro
        Message 3 of 26 , Jan 2, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          Marion Fox here,
           
          With regard to the question of Mark 16:9-20, I have a couple of questions.
           
          First, what are good sources of materials that give arguments pro and con on this passage.
           
          Second, is there not a blank space in one of the manuscripts (Codex B) where there is enough space to insert the text of the disputed verses?
           
          Yours in His service,
           
           
          Marion R. Fox
           
          On 12/30/06, David Robert Palmer <watutman@...> wrote:


          Since you charge that Dr. Tabor's material is deceptive, it is up to you, I think, to demonstrate how he is being deceptive.

          It would be deception if he was presenting data that he knew to be false, as true.  But, that is probably not the case.  I'm assuming he is presenting claims he believes to be true.

          Furthermore, many people agree generally with what you say he said, including myself.  I believe "Mark" 16:9-20 is a concocted ending.  I don't agree with him, however, that it was made 400 years after Christ; it clearly was composed much earlier than that.  Is this the fact which you are saying he must surely know better about, and is being deceptive about?

          David Robert Palmer

          James Snapp, Jr. wrote:

           
          Any thoughts? My thought is that
          Dr. Tabor, the Chair of Religious Studies at UNC-Charlotte, doesn't
          know what he's talking about. I don't mean to sound belligerent, but
          at some point, the writers of deceptive material should be treated as
          deceivers, and they should be held accountable for the false and
          misleading statements that they write.







          --
          Marion Fox

          http://www.fivefpublishing.com
        • James Snapp
          Greetings Marion, I can t think of a better resource to acquaint you with the relevant data than my own four-part online presentation, the first part of which
          Message 4 of 26 , Jan 3, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            Greetings Marion,
             
            I can't think of a better resource to acquaint you with the relevant data than my own four-part online presentation, the first part of which is at www.curtisvillechristian.org/MarkOne.html .   William Farmer's 1974 book "The Last Twelve Verses of Mark" is also a good resource (even though Farmer was uninformed about the Sahidic evidence).  James Edwards' commentary on Mark (in the Pillar commentary series) presents the data accurately. 
             
            Regarding your question about a blank space in one of the manuscripts that lacks Mark 16:9-20 ~ Vaticanus has a prolonged blank space which seems to have been placed there to give the eventual owner of the manuscript the option of adding the Long Ending or the Short Ending.  In the course of my online presentation I present a replica of the page of Vaticanus which has the blank space.
             
            Yours in Christ,
             
            James Snapp, Jr.


            Marion Fox <mrfox1@...> wrote:
            Marion Fox here,
             
            With regard to the question of Mark 16:9-20, I have a couple of questions.
             
            First, what are good sources of materials that give arguments pro and con on this passage.
             
            Second, is there not a blank space in one of the manuscripts (Codex B) where there is enough space to insert the text of the disputed verses?
             
            Yours in His service,
             
             
            Marion R. Fox
             
            On 12/30/06, David Robert Palmer <watutman@sbcglobal. net> wrote:

            Since you charge that Dr. Tabor's material is deceptive, it is up to you, I think, to demonstrate how he is being deceptive.

            It would be deception if he was presenting data that he knew to be false, as true.  But, that is probably not the case.  I'm assuming he is presenting claims he believes to be true.

            Furthermore, many people agree generally with what you say he said, including myself.  I believe "Mark" 16:9-20 is a concocted ending.  I don't agree with him, however, that it was made 400 years after Christ; it clearly was composed much earlier than that.  Is this the fact which you are saying he must surely know better about, and is being deceptive about?

            David Robert Palmer

            James Snapp, Jr. wrote:

            Any thoughts? My thought is that
            Dr. Tabor, the Chair of Religious Studies at UNC-Charlotte, doesn't
            know what he's talking about. I don't mean to sound belligerent, but
            at some point, the writers of deceptive material should be treated as
            deceivers, and they should be held accountable for the false and
            misleading statements that they write.







            --
            Marion Fox

            http://www.fivefpub lishing.com

            __________________________________________________
            Do You Yahoo!?
            Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
            http://mail.yahoo.com

          • williampenawells@aol.com
            In most cases, the word deceptive even if used in a narrow technical sense does not stray far (through Old French and Middle English) from its Latin root
            Message 5 of 26 , Jan 4, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              In most cases,  the word "deceptive"  even if used in a narrow technical sense does not stray far (through Old French and Middle English) from its Latin root decipere -- to ensnare. It is not a content neutral word and implies in the common understanding some unfairness.  Clearly, a scholar of Dr. Tabor's background was aware of the controversial nature of his statement and made it by accident of poor writing or poor scholarship. I think that the underlying tone of this discussion has more to do with the other conclusions in the book which are more substantial and disliked by some.
               
              Taken as a whole, Dr. Tabor's book is written in a general audience conversational tone and to apply rigorous standards of academic debate to one passage is unfair to the text and its goals.
               
              It is really quite irrelevant as one commentator added in a response that he disagrees with the conclusion of the book and supports the resurrection of Jesus. That is totally irrelevant to the core issue and I would urge everyone not to stand on faith based soapboxes.  After the 18th Dynasty (1551-1310 B.C.), everyone who worshiped Osiris was promised the possibility of life after death. It was as god of the Underworld that he enjoyed his greatest popularity, for he gave those who worshipped him the hope of an eternally happy life in another world ruled over by a just and good king.  It would be as necessary to the discussion to bring in Osiris as it is to bring in the factual question of the resurrection of Jesus.
               
               
            • David Robert Palmer
              Jim, I don t understand why you use the blank space in Vaticanus as anything that supports your position.  I don t see that it supports it at all. 1. 
              Message 6 of 26 , Jan 4, 2007
              • 0 Attachment

                Jim, I don't understand why you use the "blank space" in Vaticanus as anything that supports your position.  I don't see that it supports it at all.

                1.  Codex Vaticanus lacks the longer ending of Mark.

                2.  What is remarkable about a blank space between books?

                3.  You yourself phrase your assertion about the blank space in Vaticanus as follows: "which SEEMS to have been placed there..."

                4.  I am more impressed by the fact that the scribe did not include vv. 9-20, as evidence that it was not Markan, than by any possibility that he wanted someone to be able to add it.

                5. I think it would take a greater conviction and sureness to impel of a scribe to OMIT something from Mark deliberately, than the conviction required to cause a scribe to ADD something deliberately.

                6.  I have done a harmony / continuous blend of the gospels, which only made sense when I omitted the longer ending of Mark.  My harmony blends perfectly without vv. 9-20, and the harmony would have been impossible when including that passage.  I have looked at other harmonies, how they deal with the ending of the gospels, and they are all erroneous, and show that the authors did not spend near the amount of time pondering the various possible solutions that I did, like playing chess, and analyzing, if I worded it this way, what would that part then have to be, etc.

                7.  For what it is worth to anyone, I am 99% convinced that Mark 16:9-20 was not originally part of the gospel of Mark.  If I did not believe, as I do, that the gospels agree with each other, then I could allow that Mark 16:9-20 is authentic, since it contradicts Luke and John.

                David Robert Palmer

                James Snapp wrote:
                Regarding your question about a blank space in one of the manuscripts that lacks Mark 16:9-20 ~ Vaticanus has a prolonged blank space which seems to have been placed there to give the eventual owner of the manuscript the option of adding the Long Ending or the Short Ending.  In the course of my online presentation I present a replica of the page of Vaticanus which has the blank space.

              • Daniel J. Mount
                David, You said: 2.  What is remarkable about a blank space between books? The answer is typically nothing, but it becomes remarkable when it is to my
                Message 7 of 26 , Jan 4, 2007
                • 0 Attachment
                  David,

                  You said: "2.  What is remarkable about a blank space between books?"

                  The answer is typically "nothing," but it becomes remarkable when it is to my knowledge the only such blank space in the manuscript.

                  Sincerely,
                  Daniel J. Mount
                  Mansfield, Ohio


                  David Robert Palmer wrote:


                  Jim, I don't understand why you use the "blank space" in Vaticanus as anything that supports your position.  I don't see that it supports it at all.

                  1.  Codex Vaticanus lacks the longer ending of Mark.

                  2.  What is remarkable about a blank space between books?

                  3.  You yourself phrase your assertion about the blank space in Vaticanus as follows: "which SEEMS to have been placed there..."

                  4.  I am more impressed by the fact that the scribe did not include vv. 9-20, as evidence that it was not Markan, than by any possibility that he wanted someone to be able to add it.

                  5. I think it would take a greater conviction and sureness to impel of a scribe to OMIT something from Mark deliberately, than the conviction required to cause a scribe to ADD something deliberately.

                  6.  I have done a harmony / continuous blend of the gospels, which only made sense when I omitted the longer ending of Mark.  My harmony blends perfectly without vv. 9-20, and the harmony would have been impossible when including that passage.  I have looked at other harmonies, how they deal with the ending of the gospels, and they are all erroneous, and show that the authors did not spend near the amount of time pondering the various possible solutions that I did, like playing chess, and analyzing, if I worded it this way, what would that part then have to be, etc.

                  7.  For what it is worth to anyone, I am 99% convinced that Mark 16:9-20 was not originally part of the gospel of Mark.  If I did not believe, as I do, that the gospels agree with each other, then I could allow that Mark 16:9-20 is authentic, since it contradicts Luke and John.

                  David Robert Palmer

                  James Snapp wrote:

                  Regarding your question about a blank space in one of the manuscripts that lacks Mark 16:9-20 ~ Vaticanus has a prolonged blank space which seems to have been placed there to give the eventual owner of the manuscript the option of adding the Long Ending or the Short Ending.  In the course of my online presentation I present a replica of the page of Vaticanus which has the blank space.

                • James Snapp, Jr.
                  (We re drifting away from the subject of Dr. Tabor s misleading statements about the ending of Mark in Jesus Dynasty, but let s follow the conversation where
                  Message 8 of 26 , Jan 4, 2007
                  • 0 Attachment
                    (We're drifting away from the subject of Dr. Tabor's misleading
                    statements about the ending of Mark in "Jesus Dynasty," but let's
                    follow the conversation where it goes anyway.)

                    DRP asked (pertaining to the long space after Mark 16:8 in
                    Vaticanus), "What is remarkable about a blank space between books?"

                    A blank space consisting of merely the leftover space underneath the
                    final text of a book, preceding the start of the next book at the top
                    of the immediately-following column, would be nothing unusual.
                    Partly-blank columns are not unusual. But that is not what we
                    observe in B at the end of Mark. At the end of Mark in B, we have a
                    partly blank column. (To be precise, the text ends in the 31st out
                    of 42 lines, followed by the subscription.) Then we have, instead of
                    the beginning of Luke in the next column, a completely blank column.
                    And that's unusual. In two other places, the end of a book is
                    followed by a lengthy blank space that includes at least one blank
                    column: after the end of Nehemiah, and after the end of Tobit. But
                    the blank spaces in those two instances exist because at each of
                    those two points, a new scribe took up the following material. At
                    the end of Mark, though, the same scribe who was writing Mark 16
                    continues -- on the other side of the same page -- writing.

                    So it should be obvious here, at the end of Mark, there is a
                    deviation from normal practice. Instead of proceeding to write Luke
                    in the following column after Mark 16:8, the scribe left a blank
                    column. This is the only occurrence of such a deliberately-placed
                    blank column in the entire codex. That is why it is remarkable.

                    It's remarkable, and it's suggestive. Hort stated that the copyist
                    of B did this "evidently because one or the other of two subsequent
                    endings was known to him personally, while he found neither of them
                    in the exemplar which he was copying" (p. 29-30, Notes). I agree
                    (with the qualification that the copyist may have known of *both*
                    endings). Don't you?

                    But which ending -- the Short Ending or the Long Ending -- did the
                    copyist have in mind? It's hard to tell. But if he intended to
                    leave space for the Short Ending, he could have started Luke at the
                    top of the column immediately after Mk. 16:8. The Short Ending would
                    rather neatly fit the space at the bottom of the column following the
                    end of Mk. 16:8, as I show at
                    www.curtisvillechristian.org/Vaticanus.html . The subscription would
                    thus need to be placed in the lower margin, but elsewhere this
                    doesn't seem to be a concern of the copyist: the lower margin is
                    where we find the subscription to Philippians, as you can see at
                    http://www1.uni-bremen.de/~wie/Vaticanus/ends.html . So, if the
                    copyist had only intended to leave space for the Short Ending, he had
                    no reason to leave an entire blank column.

                    However, the answer to the question, "Which ending did the copyist of
                    B have in mind?" might be "Both." In the Greek MSS of Mark which are
                    textually most aligned with B -- L and Psi -- the Double-Ending
                    appears. B's format can be interpreted as the insightful resolution
                    of a problem by a smart copyist: if his exemplar looked like L and
                    Psi, with the Short Ending and the Long Ending both displayed, a
                    smart copyist could think to himself, "They can't both be right.
                    But I don't want to decide between them. Let the diorthotes, or the
                    eventual owner of the MS, decide." He formatted the page so that a
                    subsequent copyist could add the Short Ending by stretching the
                    lettering, so that the text extended into the top of the next column
                    AND so that a subsequent copyist could add the Short Ending by
                    compacting the lettering and extending each light a bit farther into
                    the margin than usual. (It wouldn't do to leave two blank columns,
                    even though the Long Ending could be easily written into two columns
                    with plenty of room to spare, because if the subsequent copyist chose
                    to adopt the Short Ending, a completely blank column would
                    unavoidably remain.)

                    In other words, the format of the text at the end of Mark in B is
                    consistent with a scenario in which the copyist of B knew the Short
                    Ending and the Long Ending, and expected the eventual owner of the MS
                    to adopt either the Short Ending or the Long Ending (but not both!).
                    B's format may be the result of a copyist's clever reaction to the
                    Double-Ending in his exemplar.

                    If that's NOT what the format of B means, then of all possible
                    alternatives, the most likely is that the copyist's exemplar ended at
                    16:8 and the copyist wanted to leave room for the Long Ending, with
                    which he was familiar.

                    DRP: "You yourself phrase your assertion about the blank space in
                    Vaticanus as follows: "which SEEMS to have been placed there...""

                    Yes; to complete that sentence: "Vaticanus has a prolonged blank
                    space which seems to have been placed there to give the eventual
                    owner of the manuscript the option of adding the Long Ending or the
                    Short Ending." I cannot read the mind of the copyist of B to verify
                    that he was thinking about both endings, or to verify that he was
                    just thinking about the Long Ending. But those are the only two
                    reasonable options. It is much, much, much, much more probable that
                    the copyist of B skipped an entire column after Mark 16:8
                    thoughtfully than that the copyist of B skipped an entire column
                    after Mark 16:8 accidentally. Don't you agree?

                    DRP: "I am more impressed by the fact that the scribe did not
                    include vv. 9-20, as evidence that it was not Markan, than by any
                    possibility that he wanted someone to be able to add it."

                    But there are more facts to consider that the fact that the scribe of
                    B did not include vv. 9-20. There is the fact that the blank column
                    after 16:8 is unique in B. There is the fact that B's closest Greek
                    allies have the Double-Ending (with a feature that Byzantine MSS
                    don't have -- "And in their hands" in 16:18). There is the fact that
                    we're dealing with the last (vulnerable-to-accident) portion of a
                    book. All these facts should be taken into consideration. When they
                    are, the *reasons,* or possible reasons, for the facts can become
                    just as pivotal as the facts themselves, and help us realize what the
                    facts are capable of implying.

                    DRP: "I think it would take a greater conviction and sureness to
                    impel of a scribe to OMIT something from Mark deliberately, than the
                    conviction required to cause a scribe to ADD something deliberately."

                    Why? Are accidental omissions, or omissions based on
                    misunderstandings, or omissions which are actually merely expressions
                    of indecision, impossible?

                    DRP: "I have done a harmony / continuous blend of the gospels, which
                    only made sense when I omitted the longer ending of Mark. My harmony
                    blends perfectly without vv. 9-20, and the harmony would have been
                    impossible when including that passage."

                    Are you suggesting that a second-century author of the Long Ending
                    depended on Matthew, Luke, and John, and still managed to write an
                    ending for the Gospel of Mark which was impossible to harmonize with
                    Matthew, Luke and John? Are you saying that for an individual
                    concerned about being able to harmonize the Gospels, the Long Ending
                    is the more difficult reading?

                    Yours in Christ,

                    James Snapp, Jr.
                    Curtisville Christian Church
                    Indiana (USA)
                    www.curtisvillechristian.org/MarkOne.html
                  • James Snapp, Jr.
                    In the sentence He formatted the page so that a subsequent copyist could add the Short Ending by stretching the lettering, so that the text extended into the
                    Message 9 of 26 , Jan 5, 2007
                    • 0 Attachment
                      In the sentence "He formatted the page so that a subsequent copyist
                      could add the Short Ending by stretching the lettering, so that the
                      text extended into the top of the next column AND so that a
                      subsequent copyist could add the /// Short Ending /// by compacting
                      the lettering and extending each light a bit farther into the margin
                      than usual," the second occurrence of "Short Ending" (between the ///
                      marks, which I threw in there) should be replaced by "Long Ending."

                      Yours in Christ,

                      James Snapp, Jr.
                      Curtisville Christian Church
                      Indiana (USA)
                      www.curtisvillechristian.org/Vaticanus.html
                    • malcolm robertson
                      Dear Daniel, This statement of yours is not correct. Because He lives, Malcolm ________________ Re: [textualcriticism] Jesus Dynasty and the Ending of Mark
                      Message 10 of 26 , Jan 5, 2007
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Dear Daniel,
                         
                        This statement of yours is not correct. 
                         
                        Because He lives,
                         
                        Malcolm
                        ________________
                         
                         
                        Re: [textualcriticism] Jesus Dynasty and the Ending of Mark

                         
                        David,

                        You said: "2.  What is remarkable about a blank space between books?"

                        The answer is typically "nothing," but it becomes remarkable when it is to my knowledge the only such blank space in the manuscript.

                        Sincerely,
                        Daniel J. Mount
                        Mansfield, Ohio



                        __________________________________________________
                        Do You Yahoo!?
                        Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                        http://mail.yahoo.com

                      • George F Somsel
                        Malcom, You should be a bit less cryptic. To which statement are you referring? (1) That there is typically nothing remarkable about a blank space or (2)
                        Message 11 of 26 , Jan 5, 2007
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Malcom,
                           
                          You should be a bit less cryptic.  To which statement are you referring?  (1) That there is typically nothing remarkable about a blank space or (2) that this is the only blank space in the MSS.
                           
                          george
                          gfsomsel
                          _________


                          ----- Original Message ----
                          From: malcolm robertson <mjriii2003@...>
                          To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
                          Sent: Friday, January 5, 2007 11:19:51 AM
                          Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] Jesus Dynasty and the Ending of Mark

                          Dear Daniel,
                           
                          This statement of yours is not correct. 
                           
                          Because He lives,
                           
                          Malcolm
                          ____________ ____
                           
                           
                          Re: [textualcriticism] Jesus Dynasty and the Ending of Mark

                           
                          David,

                          You said: "2.  What is remarkable about a blank space between books?"

                          The answer is typically "nothing," but it becomes remarkable when it is to my knowledge the only such blank space in the manuscript.

                          Sincerely,
                          Daniel J. Mount
                          Mansfield, Ohio



                          ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ __
                          Do You Yahoo!?
                          Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                          http://mail. yahoo.com



                          __________________________________________________
                          Do You Yahoo!?
                          Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                          http://mail.yahoo.com
                        • David Robert Palmer
                          James Snapp, Jr. wrote: Are you suggesting that a second-century author of the Long Ending depended on Matthew, Luke, and John, and still managed to write an
                          Message 12 of 26 , Jan 20, 2007
                          • 0 Attachment
                            James Snapp, Jr. wrote:

                            Are you suggesting that a second-century author of the Long Ending
                            depended on Matthew, Luke, and John, and still managed to write an
                            ending for the Gospel of Mark which was impossible to harmonize with
                            Matthew, Luke and John? Are you saying that for an individual
                            concerned about being able to harmonize the Gospels, the Long Ending
                            is the more difficult reading?
                            _,___

                            I'm saying that an author around the second century used Matthew, Luke and John, plus Acts, to write an ending impossible to harmonize with Matthew, Luke and John.

                            I'm saying the gospels are in harmony without the Long Ending, and not in harmony when it is included.

                            How long has it been since you read my endnotes on Mark?  They still have your original addendum you sent me years ago.  I emailed you several months back asking for an update to it, but you did not answer.  I need to update my translation of the gospel of Mark, as well, since I did it in 1997-1998, and have changed a few opinions since then.  Why don't you check all that out, by downloading Mark from here: http://www.bibletranslation.ws/trans/markwgrk.zip This is a 368kb .zip file, a Unicode Word 2000 for Windows document.

                            I have been meaning to finish my harmony of the gospels based on my own translations.  I did one based on the NIV, and filed it with the copyright office in 1991.  I have much to change and have learned much, obviously, since 1991.  And I don't know if I need permission from NIV copyright holders to send it to individuals.  I think I might need their permission to publish it.  But I don't intend to publish it anyway, since I have been slowly revising it toward my own translations of the gospels.

                            Thanks for all your work studying Jim.

                            David Robert Palmer
                          • James Snapp, Jr.
                            David R. Palmer, DRP: I m saying that an author around the second century used Matthew, Luke and John, plus Acts, to write an ending impossible to harmonize
                            Message 13 of 26 , Jan 20, 2007
                            • 0 Attachment
                              David R. Palmer,

                              DRP: "I'm saying that an author around the second century used
                              Matthew, Luke and John, plus Acts, to write an ending impossible to
                              harmonize with Matthew, Luke and John."

                              I don't think the LE is impossible to harmonize with the other
                              material in the Gospels. But suppose that some folks in the second
                              or third century thought that was the case. To them, wouldn't
                              Gospels-codices without this impossible-to-harmonize ending be
                              preferable to Gospels-codices that contained it?

                              A few more questions:

                              (1) Why would a copyist bold enough to compose new material not be
                              bold enough to clean up the transition from v. 8 to v. 9? (The
                              scribe of Old Latin k (or the scribe of an ancestor of k), after all,
                              was bold enough to make a smooth transition to the SE).
                              (2) Why would a copyist, attempting to tie up the thread of Mark's
                              narrative which anticipates an appearance in Galilee, summarize
                              events that he knew his own readers would know took place in
                              Jerusalem?
                              (3) Why would a copyist with the goal that you described, and the
                              material you listed, not make good use of John 21?

                              DRP: "How long has it been since you read my endnotes on Mark?"

                              I don't know; God willing, I'll try to do so using a library-computer
                              soon.

                              DRP: ... "I emailed you several months back asking for an update to
                              it, but you did not answer."

                              E-mail me again using the e-mail button at the Curtisville Christian
                              Church homepage (see the link below) and, God willing, I will send
                              the latest edition of the lengthy essay right away. Apparently I
                              lost your earlier e-mail.

                              DRP: "Why don't you check all that out, by downloading Mark from
                              here: http://www.bibletranslation.ws/trans/markwgrk.zip " ...

                              I'll try to, once I get to a less obsolete computer. Thanks for
                              reminding me of these resources.

                              Yours in Christ,

                              James Snapp, Jr.
                              Curtisville Christian Church
                              Indiana (USA)
                              www.curtisvillechristian.org
                            • David Robert Palmer
                              Jim, I can only speculate about what a scribe did and why.  I m sure there are scholars that can do that much better than I can. Here is why I consider the
                              Message 14 of 26 , Jan 21, 2007
                              • 0 Attachment

                                Jim, I can only speculate about what a scribe did and why.  I'm sure there are scholars that can do that much better than I can.

                                Here is why I consider the Long Ending of Mark impossible to harmonize:


                                1.) The passage contains a statement that is contrary to the gospel of Luke.

                                The statement is found in verses 12 and 13 about the two walking to Emmaus:

                                12 And after these things he was manifested in a different form to two of them who were walking along in the country.
                                13 And those went and reported to the rest; neither did they believe those.

                                This is contrary to Luke 24:13, 33-35 where we read:

                                13  And behold, two of them during that same day were making their way toward a village sixty furlongs from Jerusalem, which was called Emmaus...
                                33  And they got up and returned that same hour to Jerusalem, and found the Eleven and those with them assembled together,
                                34  saying, 'The Lord really has risen, and he appeared to Simon.'
                                35  And the two told what things happened on the way, and how Jesus was recognized by them when he broke the bread.

                                Luke says the rest responded "The Lord really has risen," thus agreeing with the two.  The others agreed that Jesus was alive, because Simon Peter had already come back and told them the same thing as the two were telling them.  But "Mark" 16:13 says the rest disbelieved the two.  Thus, Mark 16:12-13 contradicts what Luke 24:33-35 says.  So then, we either have to believe that the scriptures contain an error, or else believe that one of these passages is not scripture.  The problem of the contradiction is solved, by concluding from the objective external evidence that the longer ending of Mark is not scripture, therefore we do not have a case here of scripture contradicting other scripture.

                                Some say that there is not a contradiction between Mark in the TR and Luke, because later in Luke, in 24:40-41, it says

                                "40And when he had said this, he showed them his hands and his feet.  41But, since they were still not believing, out of joy and astonishment, he said to them, "What do you have to eat in this place?"

                                But I say this is another event.  The passages I already compared, are talking about the same event.  That is the more legitamate comparison.

                                There are other contradictions involving the ending of Mark also, that do not show themselves until you do a harmonization of the gospels, as I have.  My harmonization, called Palmer’s Diatessaron, will come out when I have finished translating all four gospels.

                                2.) The passage contains another statement that is impossible harmonize.  "Mark" 16:9 says, "he appeared first to Mary of Magdala"...  This statement is impossible to reconcile with the other accounts.  It appears that Jesus first appeared to the other women as they were returning to report to the apostles, and then to Mary of Magdala later, since she stayed behind weeping at the tomb longer than the other women.


                                The Alexandrian text stream certainly contains some corruptions.  But the Byzantine stream contains this whopper of a corruption.  And a whopper of a corruption it certainly is.

                                David Robert Palmer


                                James Snapp, Jr. wrote:

                                David R. Palmer,

                                DRP: "I'm saying that an author around the second century used
                                Matthew, Luke and John, plus Acts, to write an ending impossible to
                                harmonize with Matthew, Luke and John."

                                I don't think the LE is impossible to harmonize with the other
                                material in the Gospels. But suppose that some folks in the second
                                or third century thought that was the case. To them, wouldn't
                                Gospels-codices without this impossible-to- harmonize ending be
                                preferable to Gospels-codices that contained it?

                                A few more questions:

                                (1) Why would a copyist bold enough to compose new material not be
                                bold enough to clean up the transition from v. 8 to v. 9? (The
                                scribe of Old Latin k (or the scribe of an ancestor of k), after all,
                                was bold enough to make a smooth transition to the SE).
                                (2) Why would a copyist, attempting to tie up the thread of Mark's
                                narrative which anticipates an appearance in Galilee, summarize
                                events that he knew his own readers would know took place in
                                Jerusalem?
                                (3) Why would a copyist with the goal that you described, and the
                                material you listed, not make good use of John 21?

                                DRP: "How long has it been since you read my endnotes on Mark?"

                                I don't know; God willing, I'll try to do so using a library-computer
                                soon.

                                DRP: ... "I emailed you several months back asking for an update to
                                it, but you did not answer."

                                E-mail me again using the e-mail button at the Curtisville Christian
                                Church homepage (see the link below) and, God willing, I will send
                                the latest edition of the lengthy essay right away. Apparently I
                                lost your earlier e-mail.

                                DRP: "Why don't you check all that out, by downloading Mark from
                                here: http://www.bibletra nslation. ws/trans/ markwgrk. zip " ...

                                I'll try to, once I get to a less obsolete computer. Thanks for
                                reminding me of these resources.

                                Yours in Christ,

                                James Snapp, Jr.
                                Curtisville Christian Church
                                Indiana (USA)
                                www.curtisvillechri stian.org


                              • James Snapp, Jr.
                                David R Palmer, DRP: I can only speculate about what a scribe did and why. So speculate. When proposing a hypothesis which would require a copyist to act
                                Message 15 of 26 , Jan 22, 2007
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  David R Palmer,

                                  DRP: "I can only speculate about what a scribe did and why."

                                  So speculate. When proposing a hypothesis which would require a
                                  copyist to act in an apparently unreasonable way -- by creating an
                                  ending for the Gospel of Mark about events in Jerusalem instead of
                                  Galilee, and by deciding not to use available material which would
                                  have perfectly fit his purposes, and by devising an ending which made
                                  the accounts harder, rather than easier, to harmonize (or, you claim,
                                  impossible to harmonize!) -- a bit more is needed to keep the
                                  hypothesis alive besides saying that we can only guess why the
                                  copyist did these things. Without explanations, you're positing a
                                  miracle of irrationality.

                                  It looks like one reason why you reject Mk. 16:9-20 is because you
                                  think it's "impossible to harmonize" with the other Gospels. It
                                  almost seems as if you are rejecting the LE on theological or
                                  apologetical grounds. That is, it looks like you are saying that one
                                  reason the LE can't be original is that it poses a problem for
                                  harmonization. That is, you are saying that from an apologetic
                                  perspective -- from the perspective of a believer who has intensely
                                  pursued the harmonization of the Gospels (a description which fits
                                  not only you but also some patristic writers, not the least of whom
                                  was Eusebius) -- the LE is the harder, more difficult reading.

                                  Let's examine those two difficulties you mentioned.

                                  The first difficulty is that Mk. 16:13 says that the two disciples
                                  walking into the country told about their encounter to the others and
                                  the others did not believe them, but Lk. 24:33-35 says that after
                                  their encounter, they rose up that same hour and returned to
                                  Jerusalem, and found the Eleven gathered together with those that
                                  were with them. The group that those two found was saying, "The Lord
                                  is risen indeed, and has appeared to Simon." Then the two road-
                                  walkers told what had happened in the road, and how He was known to
                                  them in the breaking of bread.

                                  After this, while they were continuing to speak, Jesus Himself
                                  appeared in their midst; they were frightened; Jesus greeted them;
                                  they were terrified and thought He was a spirit; He spoke again,
                                  showing them His wounds and inviting them to touch Him -- all a la
                                  Lk. 24:36-39 -- and tried to settle them down. Their reaction at
                                  this point is described in Lk. 24:40 ~ "But yet while they were
                                  disbelieving (APISTOUNTWN) for joy and were wondering."

                                  You seemed to say that Mk. 16:13 says that the main group of
                                  disciples did not believe the two road-walkers, but Lk. 24 says that
                                  the main group *did* believe the two road-walkers. But Lk. 24 does
                                  not say that the main group believed the two road-walkers. Luke says
                                  that when the two road-walkers found the main group in Jerusalem, the
                                  main group was already saying, "The Lord is risen indeed, and
                                  appeared to Simon." *Then* the two road-walkers tell what happened
                                  to them.

                                  Luke does not say that the main group believed the two road-walkers.
                                  Whatever else Luke says, it is not a statement that the main group
                                  believed the two road-walkers. (The "APISTOUNTWN" in Lk. 24:40, if
                                  applied to the testimony of the two road-walkers, would be in harmony
                                  with Mk. 16:13, but it shouldn't be thus applied because it is
                                  plainly meant merely to describe the disciples' incredulity upon
                                  seeing and hearing the risen Jesus. It was not the testimony of the
                                  two road-walkers that they were unsure of at that point, but the
                                  testimony of their eyes and ears.)

                                  Again: contra your description, Luke does *not* say that the rest
                                  "responded" to the testimony of the road-walkers. In Lk. 24:33-35,
                                  the main group spoke first, and then the road-walkers spoke. Your
                                  claim that the main group "responded" to the road-walkers' testimony
                                  in Lk. 24:33-34 is unwarranted, and should be abandoned. Mark 16:12-
                                  13 does not contradict what Lk. 24:33-35 says, because Luke does not
                                  describe the main group's reaction to the testimony of the road-
                                  walkers one way or the other. Thus your first objection is answered.

                                  (I leave it to readers' imagination to picture the resultant thoughts
                                  and words of the disciples that commenced: "Jesus appeared to Simon
                                  -- so how could He have been with these two fellows on the road to
                                  Emmaus and stay with them most of the afternoon and evening??" It
                                  could've been a long discussion.)

                                  Just to be thorough: your objection -- what there is of it --
                                  involves the usual reading of Lk. 24:34, LEGONTAS. But in D, the
                                  word there is LEGONTES. In which case, it woud be the two road-
                                  walkers, not the disciples, who announce, "Truly the Lord is risen,
                                  and has appeared to Simon!" Which would be weird, even if one of the
                                  road-walkers was named Simon, because one would expect them to say,
                                  "Truly the Lord is risen, and has appeared to US." (This might be
                                  salvaged, though, by supposing that the road-walker not-named-Simon
                                  assumed that the main group would be more likely to believe Simon.)

                                  What would cause a copyist to change LEGONTAS into LEGONTES in Lk.
                                  24:34? Itacistic confusion, maybe -- or maybe a desire to bring the
                                  Lukan text into closer accord with Mk. 16:12-13. Which would imply
                                  that Mk. 16:12-13 was known to whoever created the LEGONTES
                                  reading.

                                  Your second objection was that Mk. 16:9 says that Jesus appeared
                                  first to Mary Magdalene, but "This statement is impossible to
                                  reconcile with the other accounts." Your grounds: "It appears that
                                  Jesus first appeared to the other women as they were returning to
                                  report to the apostles, and then to Mary of Magdala later, since she
                                  stayed behind weeping at the tomb longer than the other women."

                                  Matthew 28:1 relates that Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to
                                  the tomb, saw that it was open, and received the angel's message to
                                  go tell His disciples that He is risen from the dead, and so forth
                                  (Mt. 28:6-7). Then "they" departed from the tomb, in Mt. 28:8. In
                                  28:9, Jesus meets them. Now, if we were to only have Matthew in the
                                  equation, this would align just fine with Mk. 16:9, since Mk. 16:9
                                  says that Jesus appeared first to Mary Magdalene, and a Matthew-Only
                                  reader would assume that Mary Magdalene was right there, in Mt. 28:9,
                                  encountering Jesus.

                                  It's when we bring Luke and John into the equation that it becomes
                                  clear that Matthew left out some details about the number of women
                                  and other details. Luke doesn't help us out a lot -- he mentions
                                  more women in 24:10, but Luke only mentions their encounter with
                                  angels at the tomb; Luke says nothing about any women encountering
                                  Jesus. Which leaves us with John.

                                  In John, Mary Magdalene's first visit to the tomb is told in one
                                  verse (20:1) -- it's still dark; she comes and sees that the stone
                                  has been moved. That's it. John tells about no angelic messengers.
                                  Mary Magdalene leaves the scene, finds Peter and the beloved
                                  disciple, and by the time Peter and the beloved disciple finish
                                  investigating the empty tomb, Mary Magdalene has returned herself to
                                  a location just outside the tomb. Then Jesus appears to her, in Jn.
                                  20:11-18.

                                  So if we compare Mark 16:9 with Matthew 28, it's non-problematic.
                                  And if we compare Mark 16:9 with Luke 24, it's non-problematic (at
                                  least, no more problematic than Mt. 28). And if we compare Mark 16:9
                                  with John 20, it's non-problematic. The only problem that exists,
                                  exists when you harmonize Matthew and John in a certain way, so that
                                  Jesus appears to the other women, as they return from the tomb,
                                  before He appears to Mary Magdalene, who lingers at the tomb after
                                  returning to it (a la Jn. 20). But why insist that the appearance to
                                  the other women (in Mt. 28:9-10) occurs before, rather than after,
                                  Jesus' appearance to Mary Magdalene? Istm that it's just as possible
                                  for Jesus to appear to Mary Magdalene, at the tomb, and then appear
                                  to the rest of the women en route to the disciples, as it is for
                                  Jesus to appear to the rest of the women, and then to Mary
                                  Magdalene. So, the second difficulty that you describe emanates not
                                  from Mark 16:9, but from your arbitrarily arranged order of
                                  events.

                                  Now let me anticipate yet another supposed difficulty: Mark 16:14
                                  says that Jesus appeared to the main group of disciples "Later,"
                                  while Luke 24 presents Jesus appearing to the main group of disciples
                                  "As they were telling these things." But this objection is also
                                  superficial, inasmuch as 16:14's "later" does not require a long
                                  period of time, any more than Mk. 16:12's "And after these things"
                                  requires a long period of time. 16:14's "later" refers to a point
                                  later in the course of the discussion that the disciples were having
                                  as they considered the report of the two road-walkers.

                                  (I add that it's hard to explain why a second-century compiler would
                                  read Luke 24 -- where a Luke-Only reader could easily and naturally
                                  picture the road-walkers' report and the next appearance of Jesus as
                                  a single scene, and where a Luke-Only reader would have no reason to
                                  think that the main group of disciples rejected the road-walkers'
                                  report, as I explained above -- and proceed to describe the road-
                                  walkers' report and the next appearance of Jesus as two scenes.
                                  Meanwhile the staccato style of Mk. 16:9-14 is completely explained
                                  if it is an independent summary of Christ's appearances on Easter
                                  Sunday, composed by someone who had never read the Gospel of Luke.)

                                  Yours in Christ,

                                  James Snapp, Jr.
                                • Mark Thunderson
                                  ... wrote: I can only speculate about what a scribe did and why. I m sure there are scholars that can do that much better than I can. ... David, you have
                                  Message 16 of 26 , Jan 23, 2007
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    --- David Robert Palmer <watutman@...>
                                    wrote:

                                    I can only speculate about what a scribe did and why.
                                    I'm sure there are scholars that can do that much
                                    better than I can.

                                    -----------------------------------------

                                    David, you have answered very well, and I certainly
                                    agree with many of your conclusions. I would like to
                                    extrapolate on the "speculative side of things."
                                    Given the reasonable assumption that Mark 16:9ff. is a
                                    later addition to the the original ending to Mark's
                                    Gospel; and given that this assumption does have
                                    objective text-critical support; and given that this
                                    text-critical support is also supported by theological
                                    data; my own speculation as to why this later ending
                                    has come about is the following:

                                    Very early on in the history of Christianity (perhaps
                                    3rd or 4th generation), the original meaning to Mark's
                                    Gospel was quickly "lost". Mark's Gospel was just too
                                    difficult to understand for many believers. Moreover,
                                    since by this time the church had both Matthew and
                                    Luke and John, it seemed reasonable to "some" that
                                    Mark's Gospel must end. The seemingly paradoxical
                                    ending was too much for the Church (especially the
                                    institutional church) to swallow. Hence, the pressure
                                    to seal-up the GAP at the end of the Gospel was
                                    quickly remedied in the fashion you rightly
                                    recognized: basically a quick summary of the other
                                    three endings stuck at the end of Mark. However, the
                                    pressure to make the Gospel of Mark come to an end is
                                    still so strong, that its better for some to believe
                                    what is clearly redaction, than what is clearly an
                                    end.

                                    Mark Thunderson.



                                    ____________________________________________________________________________________
                                    No need to miss a message. Get email on-the-go
                                    with Yahoo! Mail for Mobile. Get started.
                                    http://mobile.yahoo.com/mail
                                  • James Snapp, Jr.
                                    Dear Mark T. and David P., Mark, you ve re-stated a typical view -- the view that Mark originally ended at the end of 16:8, and the Long Ending was composed
                                    Message 17 of 26 , Jan 25, 2007
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Dear Mark T. and David P.,

                                      Mark, you've re-stated a typical view -- the view that Mark
                                      originally ended at the end of 16:8, and the Long Ending was composed
                                      and added later -- but that's /all/ you've done. I was looking for a
                                      defense of that view, not just a magnification of it.

                                      There's a reasonable explanation why the Long Ending does not appear
                                      in some witnesses: in the second century, it was accidentally lost,
                                      or a copyist discerned that it was not attached by the main author of
                                      the book. The excisor's motive would have sprung from his interest
                                      in preserving the main author's work, separate from additions.

                                      On the surface of it, the motive of the later composer you posit
                                      seems reasonable: a copyist wanted Mark to end like the other
                                      Gospels, or, sort of like the other Gospels -- with post-resurrection
                                      appearances. So far, so good. But there are details in the Long
                                      Ending -- the things I have already mentioned -- that have to be
                                      countenanced to make that theory credible, or, more credible than the
                                      theory that it was not a second-century copyist, but an associate of
                                      Mark, who knew that Peter had talked about the post-resurrection
                                      appearances of Christ, and who knew that Mark had wanted to include a
                                      closing section about the post-resurrection apperances of Christ, and
                                      who himself wanted the Gospel of Mark to end with post-resurrection
                                      appearances of Christ.

                                      Regarding your statement that "This text-critical support is also
                                      supported by theological data" -- I'm not sure what "theological
                                      data" you mean. Maybe you mean the idea that there are
                                      contradictions between Mark 16:12-13 and Luke 24, regarding the main
                                      group of disciples' reaction to the report of the two road-walkers.
                                      But, as I've shown, that objection is not only doctrinally driven; it
                                      is a phantom. Maybe you mean the idea it's bad theology to handle
                                      snakes. But is it any better theology to walk on snakes and
                                      scorpions, a la Lk. 10:19? It looks like you've judged the text
                                      according to its abuse. By that kind of standard, oodles of passages
                                      can be excised.

                                      David,

                                      I managed to access your annotated translation of Mark. Here are
                                      solutions to the first three problems you pose there (which I'll
                                      summarize, so others will know what I'm writing about). (Problem
                                      Four = the theological concern I just addressed.)

                                      PROBLEM ONE: The connection between v. 8 and vv. 9-20 is abrupt and
                                      awkward.

                                      On balance, this works in favor of the theory that the LE was added
                                      during the book's production, and not in the second century. Why
                                      wouldn't a second-century author, bold enough to write a new ending
                                      to the memoirs of Peter, not be bold enough to make the transition
                                      smoother? We see a copyist do exactly that in the case of Codex
                                      Bobbiensis, where the Short Ending is attached only after the closing
                                      phrase of 16:8 has been excised. And, if a copyist's goal was to
                                      compose a new ending for the Gospel of Mark, why would he decide not
                                      to use John 21 -- where Jesus appears in Galilee, just as one would
                                      expect? Why would he follow up a text which induces the reader to
                                      expect a report about Jesus' appearances in Galilee with summaries of
                                      appearances which he knew his readers would know had occurred in
                                      Jerusalem?

                                      PROBLEM TWO: Mark 16:12-13 contradicts Luke 24:33-35.

                                      No it does not. You stated, "Luke says the rest responded, "The Lord
                                      really has risen," thus agreeing with the two." But Luke does not
                                      present that statement as a response. It's an announcement, not a
                                      response to the report from the two road-walkers. Luke does not say
                                      that the main group of disciples believed the report of the two road-
                                      walkers, so your contradiction-claim is not true.

                                      PROBLEM THREE: External evidence, as presented in the UBS textual
                                      commentary.

                                      Here's how you described some external evidence: these verses "are
                                      absent from many of the oldest translations of Mark into other
                                      languages, for example, the Latin, Sinaitic Syriac, and Georgian
                                      translations."

                                      That's not quite right. As a whole, the Old Latin MSS support
                                      inclusion; only Codex Bobbiensis -- with its interpolation in Mk.
                                      16:3-4, and with the Short Ending -- plainly attests to an ending of
                                      Mark other than 16:9-20. Latin Codex "a" (Vercellensis) is unclear;
                                      it ends with replacement pages and the original format is hard to
                                      determine; C.H. Turner calculated that if the scribe maintained his
                                      usual format, and if the MS didn't have further pages, then it
                                      wouldn't have contained the Long Ending, but all in all,
                                      Vercellensis' testimony is not secure. How can you look at the Old
                                      Latin MSS aur, c, d, ff-22, l, n+o, and q, and the Vulgate, and tell
                                      your readers that Mark 16:9-20 is absent from the early Latin
                                      translation? And why didn't you mention the Curetonian Syriac and
                                      the Peshitta? Why didn't you mention the Gothic Version? Why didn't
                                      you mention Tatian and Irenaeus and Aphraates?

                                      I have already addressed the unbalanced treatment that Metzger gave,
                                      and which you repeated. To sum up:

                                      (1) The silence of Clement and Origen is not particularly
                                      suggestive.
                                      (2) Jerome was parroting Eusebius. Really. The questioner pictured
                                      by Jerome asks four of the same questions that Eusebius' questioner
                                      (Marinus) asks Eusebius. That is not the stuff of which independent
                                      opinions are made. Jerome included the LE in the Vulgate, and
                                      casually referred his readers to Mk. 16:14 when describing where the
                                      Freer Logion could be found.
                                      (3) Eusebius' observation should be understood to refer to a
                                      particular batch of MSS at Caesarea, probably Alexandrian MSS either
                                      from Egypt, or descended from Egyptian copies.
                                      (4) Metzger's statement about "the original form of the Eusebian
                                      sections (drawn up by Ammonius)" is another way of saying "Eusebius"
                                      again. As I've explained previously, Ammonius is essentially a
                                      phantom-witness.
                                      (5) A lot of the MSS in which the passage is accompanied by special
                                      marks are also accompanied by notes which sum up Eusebius' comment.
                                      They are genealogically related, and the margin-note was perpetuated
                                      along with the text. These notes are not independent testimony; they
                                      boil down very considerably. Some descend from Eusebius. Others
                                      descend from Victor of Antioch's Catena/Commentary, which
                                      enthusiastically defends the passage as ancient.
                                      (6) Regarding Metzger's "vocabulary and style" argument, see the
                                      online analysis which has been done by Dr. Bruce Terry. In another
                                      12-verse section of Mark -- 15:40-16:4 -- there are more once-used
                                      words than there are in Mark 16:9-20. So much for the "vocabulary"
                                      point. As for the "style" point, if, as I contend, the Long Ending
                                      existed as a freestanding summary of post-resurrection appearances
                                      before being attached to Mark 16:8, some stylistic differences would
                                      be expected, just as one would expect an author to write a summary in
                                      a different style than he would write a detailed report.

                                      David, you also told your readers, "Other manuscripts which do
                                      contain the passage place it in differing locations in Mark." Isn't
                                      that decept-- umm, misleading? To what "differing locations" do you
                                      refer?

                                      Yours in Christ,

                                      James Snapp, Jr.
                                      Curtisville Christian Church
                                      Indiana (USA)
                                      Go Colts!
                                    • Eric Rowe
                                      ... I suppose both of these are possible. But they involve their own problems. In the scenario of the Long Ending being accidentally lost, doesn t it strain
                                      Message 18 of 26 , Jan 27, 2007
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Jim:
                                        > There's a reasonable explanation why the Long Ending does not appear
                                        > in some witnesses: in the second century, it was accidentally lost,
                                        > or a copyist discerned that it was not attached by the main author of
                                        > the book. The excisor's motive would have sprung from his interest
                                        > in preserving the main author's work, separate from additions.

                                        I suppose both of these are possible. But they involve their own
                                        problems. In the scenario of the Long Ending being accidentally lost,
                                        doesn't it strain reason to suppose that the very part that would be
                                        accidentally lost would be a self-contained unit that happens not to
                                        fit the rest of the book? In the case of the second scenario, does a
                                        scribe excising what looks incongrous with the book fit what we know
                                        about scribal habits? It seems like scribes tended to follow the rule
                                        of when in doubt keep it in, and at the most marking it as questionable.

                                        I think that we agree on two givens:
                                        1) The LE was not the originally intended ending.
                                        2) In at least some places, early in its transmission, the Gospel of
                                        Mark circulated without the LE.

                                        Even if the LE was composed in a way something like what you propose
                                        (and I do think your proposal for its origin is well within the realm
                                        of possibility), wouldn't these two givens still support the
                                        likelihood that there was an early published edition of Mark without
                                        the LE? Couldn't it be that Mark was unable to complete the Gospel as
                                        he intended and that his cohorts determined first to publish it as it
                                        stood (a beta version) and then to compose an ending they thought
                                        proper for the final publication?

                                        > PROBLEM ONE: The connection between v. 8 and vv. 9-20 is abrupt and
                                        > awkward.
                                        >
                                        > On balance, this works in favor of the theory that the LE was added
                                        > during the book's production, and not in the second century. Why
                                        > wouldn't a second-century author, bold enough to write a new ending
                                        > to the memoirs of Peter, not be bold enough to make the transition
                                        > smoother?

                                        It seems to me that the motive of making a smooth connection between
                                        16:8 and 16:9-20 should mitigate equally against a theory of its being
                                        added by a later scribe and a theory of it being added
                                        pre-publication. The LE really looks like it was composed by someone
                                        who wasn't looking at Mark's Gospel when they did it.

                                        > I have already addressed the unbalanced treatment that Metzger gave,
                                        > and which you repeated.

                                        Metzger addresses this both in his Textual Commentary and in his book
                                        on the Text of the NT; so I can't quite recall exactly what he says in
                                        each. But I have found his treatment of this problem (as well as most
                                        others) quite balanced on the whole. He perhaps does overplay the
                                        significance of the claim made by Eusebius and repeated by others.
                                        But, even though I tend to think Eusebius' reference to "almost all
                                        the manuscripts" is an exageration or limited to manuscripts within a
                                        small segment of the Church or both, it is still a piece of external
                                        data that has to be taken seriously. And Metzger, on the other hand,
                                        really does not neglect to account for the early support for the LE
                                        honestly. As I recall he regards it as originating in the late first
                                        or early second century. He also accepts it as canonical, and holds it
                                        in high enough regard to say that, on account of it, we have not four
                                        but five evangelic accounts of the resurrection. This is pretty close
                                        to the assessment of Hort, who said that the LE was of the apostolic
                                        period. Incidentally, both of those scholars also agree with you, Jim,
                                        that the LE cannot be dependent on material from the other canonical
                                        Gospels, and thus must predate their being grouped together.

                                        In Christ,
                                        Eric
                                      • James Snapp, Jr.
                                        Eric, (This is a response to post #2891.) ER: ... In the scenario of the Long Ending being accidentally lost, doesn t it strain reason to suppose that the
                                        Message 19 of 26 , Jan 28, 2007
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          Eric,

                                          (This is a response to post #2891.)

                                          ER: ... "In the scenario of the Long Ending being accidentally lost,
                                          doesn't it strain reason to suppose that the very part that would be
                                          accidentally lost would be a self-contained unit that happens not to
                                          fit the rest of the book."

                                          Not if the archetype itself was the document which was damaged. It
                                          would have been a two-piece document all along: Mark's scroll plus a
                                          one-page Resurrection Pericope, a.k.a. the Long Ending.

                                          ER: "In the case of the second scenario, does a scribe excising what
                                          looks incongruous with the book fit what we know about scribal
                                          habits? It seems like scribes tended to follow the rule of when in
                                          doubt keep it in, and at the most marking it as questionable."

                                          In the case of excision, I don't think the excisor thought, "Hmm;
                                          this just doesn't seem appropriate." In the case of excision, what I
                                          picture is more like a scenario in which the excisor thought, "Wait;
                                          I've read this before; this is a separate composition." Scribes
                                          weren't in the habit of encountering such situations, so it would be
                                          hazardous to guess what a particular copyist would do in such a
                                          situation based on what some scribes tended to do in other
                                          situations. (Btw, I don't grant that your last sentence there is
                                          true about early scribes. Royse presented some interesting data
                                          about early scribes' tendency to /omit/. Cf. David Miller's related
                                          "Long and Short" file here at TC-list, and the online Biblica article
                                          about scribal habits by Peter Head.)

                                          ER: "I think that we agree on two givens:
                                          1) The LE was not the originally intended ending.
                                          2) In at least some places, early in its transmission, the Gospel of
                                          Mark circulated without the LE."

                                          Yes (defining the second century as "early," and defining "some
                                          places" as "Egypt"). But in its original form, the Gospel of Mark
                                          contained the LE.

                                          ER: "Even if the LE was composed in a way something like what you
                                          propose (and I do think your proposal for its origin is well within
                                          the realm of possibility), wouldn't these two givens still support
                                          the likelihood that there was an early published edition of Mark
                                          without the LE?"

                                          No.

                                          ER: "Couldn't it be that Mark was unable to complete the Gospel as
                                          he intended and that his cohorts determined first to publish it as it
                                          stood (a beta version) and then to compose an ending they thought
                                          proper for the final publication?"

                                          No; it's unlikely that Mark's survivors would release the truncated
                                          text and then re-release it with the Long Ending. They would require
                                          two different motives. Knowing that Mark's intent was to tell
                                          Peter's story about Jesus, they would not release it in a form which
                                          they knew was incomplete if another option was open. And I don't
                                          think anyone would /compose/ Mark 16:9-20 as an ending for the Gospel
                                          of Mark.

                                          ER: [Addressing the question, "Why wouldn't a second-century author,
                                          bold enough to write a new ending to the memoirs of Peter, not be
                                          bold enough to make the transition smoother?"] "It seems to me that
                                          the motive of making a smooth connection between 16:8 and 16:9-20
                                          should mitigate equally against a theory of its being added by a
                                          later scribe and a theory of it being added pre-publication. The LE
                                          really looks like it was composed by someone who wasn't looking at
                                          Mark's Gospel when they did it."

                                          That's because Mark wasn't looking at the Gospel of Mark when he
                                          wrote it. But why do you think that mitigates against the theory
                                          that it was added at a pre-publication stage? The awkwardness, in
                                          that case, is a vestige of the hesitation of Mark's survivors to add
                                          or detract from what they considered authoritative texts. Meanwhile,
                                          those who say that the LE was composed in the second century have to
                                          explain why the same scribe who was bold enough to concoct a new
                                          ending (which *does* contain stuff that is not in the other Gospels
                                          or Acts!) was also timid enough to refrain from making a better
                                          transition from v. 8 to v. 9.

                                          ER: [about Metzger's comments on Mk. 16:9-20] ... "I have found his
                                          treatment of this problem (as well as most others) quite balanced on
                                          the whole."

                                          Metzger treats it a lot better than some other writers, such as James
                                          Tabor. But he left out a lot of significant details:
                                          (1) He mentions that the passage is absent from Vaticanus BUT he
                                          does not mention the long blank space in Vaticanus after Mk. 16:8.
                                          (2) He mentions that in it-k, the SE is attached to 16:8 BUT he does
                                          not mention that in it-k, the last part of 16:8 is absent.
                                          (3) He mentions that Clement of Alexandria and Origen "show no
                                          knowledge of the existence of these verses," BUT he does not mention
                                          (as Hort did) that their silence in this regard does not necessarily
                                          mean that they were unfamiliar with the passage. (Hort expressed a
                                          strong suspicion that Eusebius' comments about Mk. 16:9-20 in "Ad
                                          Marinum" were borrowed from Origen -- see "Notes," p. 32.)
                                          (4) He mentions that "Eusebius and Jerome attest that the passage
                                          was absent from almost all Greek copies of Mark known to them" BUT he
                                          does not mention that no reading other than the LE seems to be known
                                          to Marinus; nor does he mention that Jerome's comment is essentially
                                          an echo of Eusebius; Jerome's composition echoes four questions and
                                          four answers found in Eusebius' composition. That matters,
                                          especially when one notices that Jerome included the LE in the
                                          Vulgate, and casually used the contents of 16:14 to locate the Freer
                                          Logion for his readers, and once mentioned to someone in a letter
                                          that when pressed for time, he adapted the works of others.
                                          (5) He mentions that "The original form of the Eusebian sections
                                          (drawn up by Ammonius) makes no provision for numbering sections of
                                          the text after 16.8," BUT he does not convey that Eusebius is
                                          responsible for the "Ammonian Sections." (I invite whoever doubts
                                          this to consider the data in Appendix G of Burgon's "Last 12 Verses
                                          of Mark.")
                                          (6) He mentions that "Not a few manuscripts which contain the
                                          passage have scribal notes stating that older Greek copies lack it,"
                                          BUT he does not mention that not a few MSS have scribal notes
                                          (echoing the commentary-catena of Victor of Antioch) stating that
                                          older copies contain it. Nor does he mention that not a few of the
                                          MSS with the margin-note are relatives within a narrow transmission-
                                          channel.
                                          (7) He describes the vocabulary of 16:9-20 as "non-Markan" BUT he
                                          does not mention that a higher number of "non-Markan" words can be
                                          found in another 12 verses (namely, Mk. 15:40-16:4).
                                          (8) He states that "The external evidence for the shorter ending"
                                          "resolves itself into additional testimony supporting the omission of
                                          verses 9-20" BUT he does not mention that this evidence is as capable
                                          of echoing an earlier loss as it is of echoing the original text.
                                          (9) He does not mention the use of the LE in Macarius Magnes'
                                          "Apocritus," which preserves a citation of 16:18 in from material
                                          older than B.

                                          ER: ... "Even though I tend to think Eusebius' reference to "almost
                                          all the manuscripts" is an exaggeration or limited to manuscripts
                                          within a small segment of the Church or both, it is still a piece of
                                          external data that has to be taken seriously."

                                          I agree.

                                          ER: "Metzger ... really does not neglect to account for the early
                                          support for the LE honestly. As I recall he regards it as originating
                                          in the late first or early second century."

                                          Something like that. (And this is one reason why it is preposterous
                                          for James Tabor of UNC-Charlotte to claim that he is relying on
                                          Metzger when he, Tabor, claims that Mark 16:9-20 was not written
                                          until the fourth century!) Metzger wrote, in "Textual Commentary,"
                                          p. 125, "In view of the inconcinnities between verses 1-8 and 9-20,
                                          it is unlikely that the long ending was composed /ad hoc/ to fill up
                                          an obvious gap; it is more likely that the section was excerpted from
                                          another document, dating perhaps from the first half of the second
                                          century."

                                          However, in the appendix of the 3rd edition of "Text of the NT," (p.
                                          397) he described Joseph Hug's 1978 doctoral thesis and, referring to
                                          the Long Ending, he wrote, "Those who were responsible for adding the
                                          verses were intent, not only to provide a suitable ending for the
                                          Second Gospel, but also to provide missionary instruction to a
                                          Christian Hellenistic community," etc. That's different from the
                                          view he advocates in the "Textual Commentary." I'm not sure if this
                                          means that Metzger truly changed his mind, or if it just means that
                                          the problems with Hug's theory did not occur to him the day he wrote
                                          that appendix-note.

                                          Yours in Christ,

                                          James Snapp, Jr.
                                          Curtisville Christian Church
                                          Indiana (USA)
                                          Go Colts!
                                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.