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

Re: [textualcriticism] Jesus Dynasty and the Ending of Mark

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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 13 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.