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

Re: [textualcriticism] Re: Critique of Robinson in Perspectives on the Ending of Mark

Expand Messages
  • Jonathan C. Borland
    ... There is one (singular?) textual variant (D/05) that has the two, instead of the eleven, saying that Jesus has risen. Is it possible that the indirect
    Message 1 of 11 , Oct 7, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      On Oct 7, 2009, at 8:57 AM, David Robert Palmer wrote:

      > << He then begins to discuss two possible reasons for scribal
      > omission of Mk. 16:9-20: scribes' dislike for the apparent
      > discrepancies between the LE and the other Gospels,...>>
      >
      > There is indeed one serious discrepancy between the LE of Mark, and
      > the gospel of Luke. I consider the discrepancy so clear and blatant
      > that I am forced to consider the LE un-inspired, if I take a
      > theological point of view. (It is clear in the Greek, and not as
      > clear in most English translations.)

      There is one (singular?) textual variant (D/05) that has the two,
      instead of the eleven, saying that Jesus has risen. Is it possible
      that the indirect discourse in Luke 24:34 was meant to be
      interrogative and not declarative? The Byzantine tradition places the
      verb first.

      Jonathan C. Borland
    • james_snapp_jr
      David Robert Palmer, DRP: There is indeed one serious discrepancy between the LE of Mark, and the gospel of Luke. And, regarding the Gospel of Matthew, the
      Message 2 of 11 , Oct 9, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        David Robert Palmer,

        DRP: "There is indeed one serious discrepancy between the LE of Mark, and the gospel of Luke."

        And, regarding the Gospel of Matthew, the natural understanding of Matthew's account is that the disciples believed the women's report and went to Galilee accordingly, whereas in Mk. 16:11-14 it looks as if they did not believe the women's report. (Which is one reason why nobody with an awareness of the contents of Matthew 28 would have composed Mark 16:9-20.)

        DRP: "I consider the discrepancy so clear and blatant that I am forced to consider the LE un-inspired, if I take a theological point of view."

        Hmm. So, if you were, say, a copyist in the early 100's, and you noticed this clear and blatant discrepancy, and you were aware of a tradition that Peter (or Mark) had not authorized the inclusion of the pericope known as 16:9-20 -- would you be tempted to excise the pericope?

        DRP: "Testimony of early church fathers to the existence of a text, is not a strong argument to me."

        Nor to me. The testimonies of writers in the 100's -- Justin, Tatian, Irenaeus, and the author of Epistula Apostolorum (and feasibly, as a recent discussion here indicated, Clement of Alexandria) -- are not arguments. They are evidence.

        DRP: "I have also heard from people, responding to my arguments . . . and not a one of those arguments [of theirs] are the least bit convincing."

        I was unable to download your comments, but I intuit that you see a difficulty between Mk. 16:13-14 and Lk. 24:33-43. There is more than one way to resolve this difficulty.

        (1) The LEGONTES option. Usually Lk. 24:34 says LEGONTAS, conveying that the disciples told the two travelers that the Lord is risen indeed and has appeared to Simon. But Codex D says LEGONTES, which has the effect of picturing the two travelers as the speakers; they inform the main group that the Lord is risen and has appeared to Simon. With LEGONTES, the scene in Luke 24 poses no obstacle to the veracity of the account in Mk. 16:13-14.

        Origen seems to have used a text which read LEGONTES, because at one point in Against Celsus, iirc, he identifies Cleopas' fellow-traveler as Simon. Possibly the person who made Origen's copy made a careless interchange of letters; it is also possible that he made this change deliberately to avoid the very discrepancy which you perceive -- in which case he must have known Mk. 16:13-14.

        (2) The Chime-in option. Lk. 24:33 says that the group to which the two travelers returned consisted of the eleven gathered together, plus those who were with them. The statement, "The Lord is risen indeed, and has appeared to Simon" does not, therefore, necessarily proceed from the eleven; it may proceed from their companions, chiming in before the eleven can say anything. In which case, the statement says nothing about the belief or disbelief of the eleven, and thus does not oppose Mk. 16:13-14.

        (3) The Long Discussion option. In this scenario, by the time the two travelers reach the eleven and their companions, the eleven and their companions are convinced that Jesus has risen from the dead and has appeared to Simon; a post-resurrection appearance to Simon has happened somewhere off the narrative stage. As soon as the two travelers arrive, the eleven and their companions announce, "The Lord is risen indeed, and has appeared unto Simon!" -- and then the two travelers claim that Jesus appeared to them, on the road. The eleven do not believe them, simply because it seems to them that for both accounts to be true, Jesus would need to be in two places at the same time. The eleven and their companions, skeptical of the two travelers' story, begin to discuss the matter with them, and the discussion is still ongoing -- with the eleven disciples still disbelieving the two travelers, a la Mk. 16:13 -- when, as the disciples sit at table, Jesus appears in 24:36.

        Any one of these options can be adopted to resolve the perceived discrepancy.

        Yours in Christ,

        James Snapp, Jr.
      • David Robert Palmer
        DRP: I have also heard from people, responding to my arguments . . . and not a one of those arguments [of theirs] are the least bit convincing. Snapp:
        Message 3 of 11 , Oct 24, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
           DRP: "I have also heard from people, responding to my arguments . . . and not a one of those arguments [of theirs] are the least bit convincing."
           
          Snapp:  <<  I was unable to download your comments, but I intuit that you see a difficulty between Mk. 16:13-14 and Lk. 24:33-43. There is more than one way to resolve this difficulty. >>
           
          DRP: Why were not able to download my comments?  Did my web site not work?  Does your browser not work?
           
          Here is the discrepancy.  The statement is found in Mark 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.
           
          Snapp:
           
          (1) The LEGONTES option. Usually Lk. 24:34 says LEGONTAS, conveying that the disciples told the two travelers that the Lord is risen indeed and has appeared to Simon. But Codex D says LEGONTES, which has the effect of picturing the two travelers as the speakers; they inform the main group that the Lord is risen and has appeared to Simon. With LEGONTES, the scene in Luke 24 poses no obstacle to the veracity of the account in Mk. 16:13-14.
           
          Origen seems to have used a text which read LEGONTES, because at one point in Against Celsus, iirc, he identifies Cleopas' fellow-traveler as Simon. Possibly the person who made Origen's copy made a careless interchange of letters; it is also possible that he made this change deliberately to avoid the very discrepancy which you perceive -- in which case he must have known Mk. 16:13-14.
           
          DRP:  Perhaps those textual variants were scribes' attempts to solve the discrepancy.  But it is settled that the correct reading is LEGONTAS.  So I don't see why you brought this up as a possible solution.  It is not.  They are interesting variants, yes, but not a solution resolving the discrepancy, clearly.
           
          Or are you seriously proposing that the text of Codex D is the original text?
           
          Snapp: (2) The Chime-in option. Lk. 24:33 says that the group to which the two travelers returned consisted of the eleven gathered together, plus those who were with them. The statement, "The Lord is risen indeed, and has appeared to Simon" does not, therefore, necessarily proceed from the eleven; it may proceed from their companions, chiming in before the eleven can say anything. In which case, the statement says nothing about the belief or disbelief of the eleven, and thus does not oppose Mk. 16:13-14.
           
          DRP:  This does not address the actual words of the passages.  The Mark wording is "reported to the rest."  It doesn't say "to the eleven," or, "to the apostles."  The wording in Mark 16:13, "the rest," includes both the apostles and any chime-iners.  Thus this does not even address the actual contradition.  Even with your scenario, it is still a contradition.  Solves nothing.
           
          Snapp: (3) The Long Discussion option. In this scenario, by the time the two travelers reach the eleven and their companions, the eleven and their companions are convinced that Jesus has risen from the dead and has appeared to Simon; a post-resurrection appearance to Simon has happened somewhere off the narrative stage. As soon as the two travelers arrive, the eleven and their companions announce, "The Lord is risen indeed, and has appeared unto Simon!" -- and then the two travelers claim that Jesus appeared to them, on the road. The eleven do not believe them, simply because it seems to them that for both accounts to be true, Jesus would need to be in two places at the same time. The eleven and their companions, skeptical of the two travelers' story, begin to discuss the matter with them, and the discussion is still ongoing -- with the eleven disciples still disbelieving the two travelers, a la Mk. 16:13 -- when, as the disciples sit at table, Jesus appears in 24:36.
           
          DRP  That is a long paragraph.  Let me address it in pieces.  First,
           
          Snapp: "(3) The Long Discussion option. In this scenario, by the time the two travelers reach the eleven and their companions, the eleven and their companions are convinced that Jesus has risen from the dead and has appeared to Simon; a post-resurrection appearance to Simon has happened somewhere off the narrative stage. As soon as the two travelers arrive, the eleven and their companions announce, "The Lord is risen indeed, and has appeared unto Simon!" -- and then the two travelers claim that Jesus appeared to them, on the road."
           
          This is admitted by all as true, because it is what the scripture says.  Fine.
           
          Next,
           
          Snapp:  "The eleven do not believe them, simply because it seems to them that for both accounts to be true, Jesus would need to be in two places at the same time. The eleven and their companions, skeptical of the two travelers' story, begin to discuss the matter with them, and the discussion is still ongoing -- with the eleven disciples still disbelieving the two travelers, a la Mk. 16:13 -- when, as the disciples sit at table, Jesus appears in 24:36."
           
          DRP: What?  You had just admitted already that "by the time the two travelers reach the eleven and their companions, the eleven and their companions are convinced that Jesus has risen from the dead and has appeared to Simon"!  Now in this second part you are saying they were not convinced.  But they WERE convinced, because Simon had already come back and told them Jesus was risen, BEFORE the two come back from EMMAUS.
           
          This argument of yours makes no sense, Jim.
           
          Snapp: Any one of these options can be adopted to resolve the perceived discrepancy.
           
          DRP:  I strongly disagree.  Not remotely do they solve anything.
           
          I have interwoven the words of all four gospels into one seamless narrative, and it is my firm testimony that it cannot be done if you include the longer ending of Mark.
        • David Robert Palmer
          Permit me please to offer an excerpt from my Diatessaron, of the burial and resurrection of Jesus. I completed this in 1991 based mostly on the text of the New
          Message 4 of 11 , Oct 24, 2009
          • 0 Attachment
             Permit me please to offer an excerpt from my Diatessaron, of the burial and resurrection of Jesus.
             
            I completed this in 1991 based mostly on the text of the New International Version, but am currently in the process of re-doing it based on my own translations of the gospels.
             
            This document is copyrighted by me.  It is a pdf, 100 KB in size, and can be downloaded from my site with this link:
             
             
            David Robert Palmer
          • james_snapp_jr
            David, My internet connection is not high-speed and I suspect that that is the sole reason why I could not download your comments. I ll try to remember to try
            Message 5 of 11 , Oct 24, 2009
            • 0 Attachment
              David,

              My internet connection is not high-speed and I suspect that that is the sole reason why I could not download your comments. I'll try to remember to try again the next time I visit the library.

              DRP: "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."

              Um – just a second. It looks like you're using a doctrinal premise – the Gospel-accounts cannot contradict one another (or look like they contradict one another) – as a text-critical tool, as if we should employ a new canon: the less contradictory-looking statement is more likely to be correct.

              DRP: . . . "It is settled that the correct reading is LEGONTAS. So I don't see why you brought this up as a possible solution. . . . Or are you seriously proposing that the text of Codex D is the original text?"

              I'm just observing that the adoption of LEGONTES is one option available. Some textual critics have argued for another nearly singular reading of D (in Mk. 1:41) and they were taken seriously enough that the reading ORGISQEIS was adopted in the TNIV. Such a thing is not an entirely non-serious option here in Luke, even though it's not the path that I take.

              DRP: [about the Chime-in option] . . . "The wording in Mark 16:13, "the rest," includes both the apostles and any chime-iners."

              That seems arbitrary; it's as if you are saying that when we read "the rest," we must interpret it to mean "each and every remaining disciple," even though Mark routinely uses "the disciples" to refer to the twelve disciples. We have a more specific term in Luke 24:33 – "the eleven" – and yet John 20 informs us that Thomas was not present that day. So if we interpret the term "the eleven" as something technically precise, we must conclude that Luke 24:33 contradicts John's statement that Thomas was not present! How is that little conundrum resolved? By figuring that Luke used the phrase "the eleven" in a titular sense. If one accepts the idea that a term like "the eleven" can thus be an imprecise reference to less than eleven people, wouldn't it be unreasonable to turn around and insist that the term "the rest" must include not only all the apostles but all their colleagues too? Especially considering that Mk. 16:12-13 is merely a summary?

              DRP: [about the Long Discussion option] . . . "What? You had just admitted already that "by the time the two travelers reach the eleven and their companions, the eleven and their companions are convinced that Jesus has risen from the dead and has appeared to Simon"!"

              Maybe, perhaps, the reason why you can't resolve the apparent discrepancies is because you have breezed too quickly through proposed explanations. There is no discord between the idea that the main group of disciples were convinced that Jesus was alive and had appeared to Simon (somewhere, somehow), and the idea that the main group of disciples did not believe the two travelers' report.

              DRP: "I have interwoven the words of all four gospels into one seamless narrative, and it is my firm testimony that it cannot be done if you include the longer ending of Mark."

              I've done the same sort of thing, without excluding Mark 16:9-20.

              Speaking of Mark 16:9-20, I recently found another patristic reference: Gildas, the British quasi-historian of the early 500's. In the preface to De Excidio et Conquestu Britanniae, in part of a large passage that is absent in some copies – probably because it is prolix and superfluous – Gildas introduces snippets from the Old and New Testaments. After a quotation from Matthew 25:12, Gildas quotes Mark 16:16: "I heard, forsooth, `Whoever shall believe and be baptized shall be saved, but whoever shall not believe shall be damned.'" The English text is online, on p. 297 of J.A. Giles' 1896 book Six Old English Chronicles.

              Yours in Christ,

              James Snapp, Jr.
            • bucksburg
              ... 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
              Message 6 of 11 , Oct 24, 2009
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "David Robert Palmer" wrote:

                >> Here is the discrepancy. The statement is found in Mark 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 24:33-35 where we read:

                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 . . .

                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.<<

                I believe there could be another solution, a very simple one.
                What is to say that these two records are of the same event? We know for a fact that the gospels do not record every post-resurrection appearance of Jesus, so why assume that Mark and Luke are talking about the same appearance, just because both accounts mention two people? Mark himself could have been one of the two for all we know.

                The scenario into which all hypotheses need to fit is something like:

                1. Jesus was publically executed and no one was in any doubt that he was dead.
                2. He was buried in a location generally known to his followers.
                3. His tomb was sealed and a guard set.
                4. An angel descended in an earthquake and broke the seal, opening the door of the tomb.
                5. The guards passed out from fright.
                6. Women coming to the tomb were told by angels that Jesus had risen.
                7. There followed a lot of running back and forth to the tomb and doubting that Jesus really had risen, mixed with believing that he had.
                8. Jesus himself began appearing, first to women, then to men. Most of those who hadn't seen him yet still doubted.
                9. Jesus appeared to ten of the disciples; Thomas still doubted.
                10. Jesus appeared to all eleven of the disciples, but some doubted.
                11. About the time everybody finally stopped doubting that Jesus was really alive and started asking him when he would restore the kingdom to Israel, he took off for heaven and hasn't been back yet.

                There is lots of time to fit in people alternately believing and doubting right up until the last 4 verses of Matthew, so I see no problem whatsoever in resolving the apparent discrepancy in a Gospel Harmony by inserting Mark 16:12-13 separately from Luke 24:33-35 somewhere between #7 and #9 on the timeline.

                Daniel Buck
              • Jovial
                [Moderator: This thread is now CLOSED!] There s no conflict. Mark 16:11-13 record that the first reports of the Resurrection were not believed. Luke 24:11
                Message 7 of 11 , Oct 24, 2009
                • 0 Attachment
                  [Note from Moderator: This thread is now CLOSED!]

                  There's no conflict.  Mark 16:11-13 record that the first reports of the Resurrection were not believed.  Luke 24:11 agrees with Mark 16:11-13 by saying this first report does not agree.  Luke 24:33-35 records a later report of His Resurrection, and this time, the report is believed.  So there's no conflict.  Mark 16:11-13 is not a cross-record of the events in Luke 24:33 but in Luke 24:11.
                   
                   
                  ----- Original Message -----
                  From: bucksburg
                  Sent: Saturday, October 24, 2009 11:40 AM
                  Subject: [textualcriticism] Re: Mark 16:9-20 and a Harmonization Difficulty

                   

                  --- In textualcriticism@ yahoogroups. com, "David Robert Palmer" wrote:

                  >> Here is the discrepancy. The statement is found in Mark 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 24:33-35 where we read:

                  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 . . .

                  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.<<

                  I believe there could be another solution, a very simple one.
                  What is to say that these two records are of the same event? We know for a fact that the gospels do not record every post-resurrection appearance of Jesus, so why assume that Mark and Luke are talking about the same appearance, just because both accounts mention two people? Mark himself could have been one of the two for all we know.

                  The scenario into which all hypotheses need to fit is something like:

                  1. Jesus was publically executed and no one was in any doubt that he was dead.
                  2. He was buried in a location generally known to his followers.
                  3. His tomb was sealed and a guard set.
                  4. An angel descended in an earthquake and broke the seal, opening the door of the tomb.
                  5. The guards passed out from fright.
                  6. Women coming to the tomb were told by angels that Jesus had risen.
                  7. There followed a lot of running back and forth to the tomb and doubting that Jesus really had risen, mixed with believing that he had.
                  8. Jesus himself began appearing, first to women, then to men. Most of those who hadn't seen him yet still doubted.
                  9. Jesus appeared to ten of the disciples; Thomas still doubted.
                  10. Jesus appeared to all eleven of the disciples, but some doubted.
                  11. About the time everybody finally stopped doubting that Jesus was really alive and started asking him when he would restore the kingdom to Israel, he took off for heaven and hasn't been back yet.

                  There is lots of time to fit in people alternately believing and doubting right up until the last 4 verses of Matthew, so I see no problem whatsoever in resolving the apparent discrepancy in a Gospel Harmony by inserting Mark 16:12-13 separately from Luke 24:33-35 somewhere between #7 and #9 on the timeline.

                  Daniel Buck

                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.