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

Re: [textualcriticism] Update: The Gap After Tobit in Vaticanus - New Detail

Expand Messages
  • George F Somsel
    As I noted earlier, I am inclined to view the space as due to such considerations.  Since, however, the order in א is clearly Mt-Mk-Lk-Jn the blank space
    Message 1 of 23 , Sep 4, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      As I noted earlier, I am inclined to view the space as due to such considerations.  Since, however, the order in א is clearly Mt-Mk-Lk-Jn the "blank" space is not due to the ending of the section of the gospels.  Mk is followed in the succeeding column by Lk.  The remainder of the column is filled by some decorative scribbles and a notation that it is the Gospel according to Mark.  The same pattern is followed in other books as well -- the remainder of the column is filled by indicating the work concerned and some decorative scribbles.  It was no accident that Mark ends where it does in א, but the scribe indicates that this is the end.  Unfortunately, I do not have access to photos of B to see how its treatement compares to א, but it may have been similar there.  A new work did not begin the same column.  If the transcription of B at
      http://www.archive.org/stream/novumtestamentum00tisc#page/68/mode/2up is correct, this is the pattern followed there as well. 
       
      george
      gfsomsel

      … search for truth, hear truth,
      learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
      defend the truth till death.


      - Jan Hus
      _________
      From: Bill Warren <WFWarren@...>
      To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Saturday, September 3, 2011 8:30 AM
      Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] Update: The Gap After Tobit in Vaticanus - New Detail

       
      Sounds like a great argument for seeing the space in Vaticanus as indicative of a Western order for the Gospels in the exemplar with Mark as the last of the Gospels (or at least the Western order in the tradition behind B in the 4 Gospel canon formation).  

      paz y gracia, 

      Bill Warren, Ph.D.
      Director of the Center for New Testament Textual Studies
      Landrum P. Leavell, II, Professor of New Testament and Greek
      New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary



      On Sep 2, 2011, at 10:14 PM, james_snapp_jr wrote:

       
      In the 2008 "Perspectives on the Ending of Mark: Four Views" book, Dr. Daniel Wallace and J. K. Elliott both seemed to not see the reason for the blank space that occurs in B after the book of Tobit.

      Dr. Wallace affirmed that the two other gaps in the OT-portion are formatting seams: after the end of II Esdras, the text switches to 2-column pages; after Daniel, the NT begins. "But," he wrote, "this argument does not work for Tobit," and, "The gap at the end of Tobit lacks sufficient explanation."

      Dr. Elliott similarly stated that "the gap after Nehemiah is explicable" because of the format-shift, and so is the gap after Daniel; "Only the gap of one column following Tobit is comparable to that after Mark."

      But as I was reading Dirk Jongkind's Scribal Habits of Codex Sinaiticus," I noticed the following statement on page 31; after describing places in Sinaiticus where superfluous folios have been cut out, Jongkind states:

      "In Vaticanus the same phenomenon occurs only in the transition from Tobit to Hosea, which is the transition from the Wisdom books to the Prophetic books. There the last page of quire 49 has been cut out. A different scribe continues with Hosea on quire 50."

      It was already clear, from the information that Wieland has provided about which scribes of B made which books, that the gap at the end of Tobit was simply a production-seam, leftover space between the work of two copyists. But the news from Dirk Jongkind that there is a cut-out page after the end of Tobit should make it clear to everyone that a change of copyists (i.e., the end of one copyist's assigned portion of text) is what elicited the blank space after Tobit in B.

      If only D.J.'s book wasn't $100! I wonder if there is any chance that there will be a Kindle edition.

      Yours in Christ,

      James Snapp, Jr.




    • james_snapp_jr
      Bill, Your large paragraph on the larger issue deserves a response, but I think I will have to use all the time I can spare today to focus on the smaller
      Message 2 of 23 , Sep 4, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        Bill,

        Your large paragraph on the larger issue deserves a response, but I think I will have to use all the time I can spare today to focus on the smaller issue.

        First, here, again, are the questions I asked, concisely worded:

        (1) Do you seriously think that a copyist, copying from an exemplar of the Gospels in which the arrangement was Mt-Jn-Lk-Mk, would view leftover space at the end of the exemplar as a feature that should be preserved in a copy of the Gospels that he was making, in which the Gospels were in a different order? Particularly if this copyist did not even deliberately leave spaces between genres of books in the NT?

        (2) Do you have any evidence that in Gospels-MSS in the 300's containing the Alexandrian Text, the Gospels were arranged Mt-Jn-Lk-Mk?

        (Here are my answers: No; the idea is absurd, and, No; no such evidence exists.)

        Now about the other things you said.

        BW: You note that two of the four blank spaces are due to format shifts, with a third due to a shift from one collection of books to another, namely the case of the Tobit/Hosea space."

        It looks as if we need to walk through this all again. Here are the three gaps in the OT-portion of B:

        (1) After II Esdras, the gap is due to a format-shift from 3-column pages to 2-column pages. Obviously this gap-causing mechanism is not in play at the end of Mark. Right?

        (2) After Tobit, the gap is due to a change of copyists (one copyist's assigned portion of text being completed at the end of Tobit, and another copyist's assigned portion beginning in Hosea, the next book). This really stands out when it is noticed that a leftover folio was clipped away from Tobit. This is not merely a shift "from one collection of books to another;" it is a complete change of copyists. This is not congruent at all to the situation at the end of Mark. Right?

        (3) After Daniel (the Bel & the Dragon portion), the gap is due to the completion of the OT-portion itself; as a matter of course Matthew would be started on a fresh page. Right?

        In every one of these three cases, the mechanism that elicited the blank space is obvious and there is no mystery whatsoever about the cause of the blank space.

        BW: "So since there is no format shift explanation for the space at the end of Mark, your own evidence would seem to indicate that the other explanation with precedence in the MS would be a shift from one collection of books to another."

        It indicates no such thing, because whatever elicited the gap at the end of Mark, it was not a format-change and it was not a change of copyists and it was not the beginning of the New Testament. Those are the mechanisms that have precedence in the OT-portion. None of them are in play at the end of Mark.

        Now, the space from the end of Mk. 16:8 to the end of the page is just four lines too short to contain verses 9-20; a competent copyist could fit the passage into that space, using the same lettering-compression technique that was used in Vaticanus by Scribe D to fit Luke 1:1-56 into six columns. Hort observed that the copyist left this blank space "evidently because one or other of the two subsequent endings was known to him personally, while he found neither of them in the exemplar which he was copying."

        I agree with Hort about this, and would go a bit further by noting a couple of things: First, B and Aleph were both very probably made at Caesarea, and Eusebius, in Ad Marinum, makes no mention whatsoever of copies with the Shorter Ending. So if B was made at Caesarea then the Shorter Ending is not likely to have been in the copyist's mind. Second, if the Shorter Ending is written in column 2 beginning at the end of verse 8, it all fits snugly into column 2, so if the copyist had accurately recollected the Shorter Ending, he would have had no reason to leave column 3 blank because the remainder of column 2 would have been sufficient. (Having the subscription in the lower margin was unobjectionable; this occurs in B at the end of Luke and at the end of Philippians.)

        BW: "Aside from the shift in collections of books (i.e. the Western order being assumed in the background of the MS, which of course is not "that" likely but is the only argument with a precedent)," --

        Two thoughts in response:

        (1) No; it has no precedent in B, because the gap at the end of Tobit is due to a change of *copyists,* not just book-sets.

        (2) Hmm. Just like that, you've gone from saying that the data from Jongkind about the extra folio at the end of Tobit "Sounds like a great argument for seeing the space in Vaticanus as indicative of a Western order for the Gospels in the exemplar with Mark as the last of the Gospels," etc., to conceding that the idea that the copyist of B was using an exemplar with the Gospels in the Alexandrian Text but in the order Mt-Jn-Lk-Mk "of course is not 'that' likely." Why not take the next logical step and just grant that the idea that the copyist of B replicated leftover space from an exemplar with the Gospels in order Mt-Jn-Lk-Mk, but without replicating the order of books itself, is rather absurd?

        BW: "Your conjecture that the space in these two MSS is due to the textual variant is fine as a conjecture, but you have no evidence based on prior occurrences in the MSS per se to back up your conjecture."

        It would be illogical to ask or expect that a theory be supported by prior occurrences in the MSS when dealing with a feature in the earliest extant MS of Mark 16. Is that not essentially what you are doing?

        Meanwhile, there is manuscript-evidence *against* the idea that the copyist of B was using an exemplar of the Gospels in the order Mt-Jn-Lk-Mk. B's closest substantial ally, P75, places the Gospel of Luke immediately before the Gospel of John. Unless one wants to propose that P75 came from a locale where the Gospels were arranged Lk-Jn-Mt-Mk, this means that B's closest and most ancient relative arranged the Gospels in the order Mt-Mk-Lk-Jn.

        BW: "Your conjecture does not deal adequately with the lack of the long ending in 01 and 03."

        I'm not sure what conjecture you are referring to. In the current discussion, my initial point was not to directly promote any conjecture, but to show that the blank spaces in the OT-portion of B are fully explained (*more* fully, with Jongkind's information).

        But I suspect that you are referring to the theory that the blank space in B after Mark 16:8 was placed there by the copyist because he recollected verses 9-20 and attempted to leave space for them. Now, granting that this cannot be empirically proven (such proof would require reading the mind of the copyist!), how does this not account for the blank space in B?

        BW: "We don't know why the space was left there if we work on the bases on prior examples in the MSS."

        But why work exclusively on such a basis (a non-existent basis, at that), as if there is nothing else to consider?? It is clear that Mk. 16:9-20 was a disputed text in the 300's at Caesarea, when (and probably where) B and Aleph were produced. Eusebius regarded it as dubious and excluded it from his Canons, but nevertheless he explained to Marinus how to harmonize (and thus retain) the passage. Why, when we see that sort of ambivalence at work, should we resist the theory that scribal ambivalence is the cause of the blank space in B after Mark 16:8, when it accounts for the evidence? The effect fits such a cause hand-in-glove. Is it reasonable to dismiss this and to prefer some theory which has evidence *against* it, and which is of course not that likely, just because it is the first case of its kind?

        Perhaps after working through these small points we can engage the larger issue about the ending of Mark. My answer to your observation that not only B and Aleph, but also the Sinaitic Syriac and Bobiensis omit verses 9-20, is too long to present here in detail today, but its components are:

        (1) All four (and the Sahidic MS at Barcelona) descend from a text that originated in Egypt. That B and Aleph descend from an Egyptian text is indisputable considering the affinities between B and P75 and T and the earliest recoverable Sahidic version of Mark. That k was made in Egypt is virtually demonstrated by the presence of the SE.

        (2) Neither Sin-Syr nor k represents *the* Western Text; they are both anomalous and echo a shared line of descent in Mk., illustrated by their agreement in Mk. 8:31-32.

        (3) Bobbiensis is so messed up in Mark 16 that it is manifestly not trustworthy. Also, it is hazardous to assume, when k is the earliest witness for any variant in Mark, that the variant echoes the mid-200's. The Shorter Ending in k has "adparuit," the equivalent of "efanh," indicating that its text of the Shorter Ending is later than the text of the Shorter Ending that is displayed in L (which has both endings).

        (4) Seeing that you, using a reasoned eclectic approach, as you put it, view a semi-agreement between three witnesses from the 300's and one from the early 400's as especially weighty on account of the textual diversity of the witnesses, why isn't the agreement of over 30 diverse early witnesses weightier? If diversity of testimony is the touchstone of genuineness to you, then how can the four witnesses you listed, from the 300's and early 400's (two of which, B and Aleph, are closely connected historically), be more persuasive than the diverse testimony of Augustine's Greek manuscripts (in Hippo, as old as k), Irenaeus' MS (in France, over a century older than B), Hierocles' MS (in Turkey, about 50 years older than Aleph), and Wulfilas' exemplars (in Romania, older than Sin-Syr)? Plus, there's A, and C, and W, and the Peshitta. It looks to me like you are oversimplifying when you make only two categories, "Western" here and "Alexandrian" there, and put everything early into one basket or the other. A more historically justifiable picture involves multiple transmission-streams, and thus multiple ways to display diversity -- even without the Alexandrian transmission-stream in the equation.

        BW: "You don't explain how these two divergent textual streams both end up with the omission."

        B and Aleph represent a textual stream. The Sinaitic Syriac and k do not; they are both anomalous. Sin-Syr does not have a typical Syriac text; nor is it our oldest Syriac witness; (Aphrahat is older (330's) and Aphrahat used the contents of Mk. 16:9-20). Bobbiensis, likewise, is not a typical Old Latin MS of Mark 16; it is the only Latin MS of any kind to clearly attest to anything other than verses 9-20. One might as well reconstruct flocks of sparrows from two feathers, as posit whole textual streams on the basis of these two particular witnesses. I explain the agreement of the Sinaitic Syriac and k with the Alexandrian transmission-stream by locating their youngest shared ancestor in the same place (Egypt) at the same time (100's or early 200's).

        BW: "You have to explain with evidence (that does not exist as far as I know) as to how the long ending can be traced to a period prior to when these two divergent textual streams as evidenced by some of their most important witnesses joined together in omitting the long ending."

        Well that's easy enough: Justin, Tatian, Irenaeus, and probably the author Epistula Apostolorum used Mark 16:9-20. What hard evidence do you have -- none exists, as far as I know -- that the abruptly-ending Egyptian text of Mark 16 which dominated the early Alexandrian text-stream, and which was adopted, in part, into the Sinaitic Syriac and Codex Bobbiensis, existed as early as that?

        BW: "The explanation most of us find quite convincing is that in the earliest stages that we can trace of the textual transmission of the text, the long ending was not being copied as part of Mark."

        That might say more about this "most of us" than about the evidence. Most of you, like George here, are still saying that some Ethiopic MSS lack Mark 16:9-20, just because the statement has been entrenched in the materials for so long. (Even after Metzger annihilated the claim in 1980 in NT Tools & Studies, Vol. 10, it still continues to circulate in his own TotNT!) Plus, the statement is simply not accurate. No manuscript, version, or patristic reference is earlier than the evidence from Justin, Tatian, and Irenaeus, and that evidence shows that in the earliest detectable text of Mark 16, verses 9-20 were included as part of Mark.

        (Sorry this is so long; I didn't have time to shorten it.)

        Yours in Christ,

        James Snapp, Jr.
      • james_snapp_jr
        Dear Bill Warren, It s been a week since Post #6593 and I haven t seen any response. So, although I would be glad to see replies to everything in that post, I
        Message 3 of 23 , Sep 14, 2011
        • 0 Attachment
          Dear Bill Warren,

          It's been a week since Post #6593 and I haven't seen any response. So, although I would be glad to see replies to everything in that post, I appreciate that your responsibilities are many; as an alternative to the Texan tradition of forfeiture-by-silence of the points addressed, I offer these time-conserving Yes/No questions:

          (1) There is evidence (P75) that the Alexandrian Text of the Gospels circulated in the 200's in the order Mt-Mk-Lk-Jn. Is there any evidence that the Alexandrian Text of the Gospels circulated in the order Mt-Jn-Lk-Mk before the time when B was produced?

          (2) Considering that the Gospels in B are not in the order Mt-Jn-Lk-Mk, and considering that it would be unnatural and extremely strange for any copyist, using an exemplar in which the Gospels were arranged Mt-Jn-Lk-Mk, to regard whatever space was at the end of that copy as a feature that should be replicated, the theory that this is the cause of the blank space after Mark in B is absurd. Do you agree?

          (3) Can any of the factors which elicited the blank spaces in B after Second Esdras (the switch to a two-column format) Tobit (a change of copyists), and after Daniel/Bel & the Dragon (the end of the OT) account for the blank space after Mark 16:8?

          (4) Is it reasonable to object to an explanation of something in the earliest manuscript of a particular passage on the grounds that earlier MSS do not support the explanation?

          (5) Is an agreement between the Sinaitic Syriac and Bobbiensis more likely to represent the earliest stratum of the Western Text (if "the" Western Text is assumed to be a distinct thing) than an agreement between Justin, Tatian, Irenaeus, Ambrose, Patrick, Aphrahat, Codex D, and the Curetonian Syriac?

          (6) Do the Sinaitic Syriac and k actually agree at the end of Mark?

          Thanks.

          Yours in Christ,

          James Snapp, Jr.
          Minister, Curtisville Christian Church
          Indiana
        • Bill Warren
          Jim, sorry for the delay on responding. To be honest, between time demands and interest level on this specific topic, it s just not high on the priority list.
          Message 4 of 23 , Sep 19, 2011
          • 0 Attachment
            Jim, sorry for the delay on responding.  To be honest, between time demands and interest level on this specific topic, it's just not high on the priority list. Here are a few thoughts on your two posts.  First, the idea of the gospel order was my response to your post, with me saying that "you" seem to have presented a good argument for that based on an example of precedence in the OT in B.  I did not say that it was my view although you seem to have taken it in that way (note my other post where I said "James, I'm simply pointing out your logic on this").  So I really don't know why you are pushing this as if it is my view--I never said that so don't make a straw man of it.  

            As for evidence of the order for the Gospels, Martin Hengel has a solid discussion of this in the work edited by Horton on "The Earliest Gospels," with the conclusion that the historical order promoted by Irenaeus (Hebrew Mt, Mk, Lk, Jn) is the older order, with the "Western Order" being a bit later.  Of course, the whole point is that you don't have a precedent in 03 for seeing the space at the ending of Mk. as definitely due to the textual variant.  It may have been due to knowledge of other endings whether long or short, but we don't know for sure.  If is was, then obviously the scribe decided it was not to be included.  If that is the line of thought that one takes, then it should be remembered that the "B" form of the text goes back in a substantially pure form to the late 2nd century as per P4 (& P64-67?) and P75, with these being from the same "root" as 03 but not directly linked as copies of each other, thus a common source even earlier than P4 & P75 for 03 as well. So the ending in 03 would most likely derive from this earlier period, although of course that is not a definite (simply based on the probability due to how well the text in Lk. and Jn. are preserved from this earlier period).  In other words, this early text is faithfully copied in 03 at least in Luke and John and generally held to be elsewhere, but that is a different discussion. So there is good reason for thinking that the scribe had that same professional level of copying here at the end of Mark as well based on the evidence elsewhere that the overwhelming characteristic of the scribe was that he/she only copied what was in the exemplar regardless of any possible knowledge here or elsewhere of other textual traditions/readings.  That is the mark of a professional scribe, a level that obviously the scribe of 03 attains.  So the evidence of 03 is that a professional scribe does not see the long ending of Mark as a text that should be included.  This perhaps is an even stronger piece of evidence based on your viewpoint of the scribe knowing the ending of Mark since if the ending was known to the scribe, it was obviously rejected due to not being in the exemplar that represented a text most likely from the late 2nd century (so the long ending de facto was rejected by the scribe).

            As for the evidence on the ending of Mark, I think Tim Finney stated it well that although the external evidence is not determinative, the internal evidence is.  I may be a bit more positive than Tim on the strength of the external evidence, but regardless he stated the case very well.  As for the evidence from Church Fathers, my view is that first level preference should be given to actual readings in Greek manuscripts, then to actual running texts like the early versions or running texts in Church Fathers, with allusions and non "running text" citations in Church Fathers being key for giving a reading a "date and location" for existing as a tradition but not necessarily giving evidence of the reading being within a running text since it might have been known via oral tradition, church liturgy adaptations, or other writings (not via the NT book where our focus is at on the variants).  

            As for Mark 16:8 and the textual problem here, the question is not whether the long ending is early--of course it is! (as is most likely the short ending, but perhaps not as early as the long ending) But is the long ending original to the draft of Mark that was first released?  I would say the probability is against that (if I understand correctly, you also don't think it was part of the original release of Mark, but rather added later by Mark).  So how did the long and short endings come to be written?  We don't know for sure (Aristion? Mark? Unknown author?), so we have to admit the limits of our knowledge on this point.  We simply don't know who wrote these endings even if we have multiple suggestions/conjectures being made.  While we don't have enough evidence to weigh these very well, at least we can appreciate them being made because who knows, maybe one day we'll be able to sort this one out better when some more evidence comes to light.  But we should remember that they are only suggestions, and not able to be tested as we'd wish due to the lack of more evidence, so we ought to hold such views lightly (even my own on this ending of Mark, since we may even all be wrong on how Mark originally ended and why). :-) So thanks for your research, Jim, even if sometimes perhaps we talk past each other.   

            paz y gracia, 

            Bill Warren, Ph.D.
            Director of the Center for New Testament Textual Studies
            Landrum P. Leavell, II, Professor of New Testament and Greek
            New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary



            On Sep 14, 2011, at 10:43 AM, james_snapp_jr wrote:

             

            Dear Bill Warren,

            It's been a week since Post #6593 and I haven't seen any response. So, although I would be glad to see replies to everything in that post, I appreciate that your responsibilities are many; as an alternative to the Texan tradition of forfeiture-by-silence of the points addressed, I offer these time-conserving Yes/No questions:

            (1) There is evidence (P75) that the Alexandrian Text of the Gospels circulated in the 200's in the order Mt-Mk-Lk-Jn. Is there any evidence that the Alexandrian Text of the Gospels circulated in the order Mt-Jn-Lk-Mk before the time when B was produced?

            (2) Considering that the Gospels in B are not in the order Mt-Jn-Lk-Mk, and considering that it would be unnatural and extremely strange for any copyist, using an exemplar in which the Gospels were arranged Mt-Jn-Lk-Mk, to regard whatever space was at the end of that copy as a feature that should be replicated, the theory that this is the cause of the blank space after Mark in B is absurd. Do you agree?

            (3) Can any of the factors which elicited the blank spaces in B after Second Esdras (the switch to a two-column format) Tobit (a change of copyists), and after Daniel/Bel & the Dragon (the end of the OT) account for the blank space after Mark 16:8?

            (4) Is it reasonable to object to an explanation of something in the earliest manuscript of a particular passage on the grounds that earlier MSS do not support the explanation?

            (5) Is an agreement between the Sinaitic Syriac and Bobbiensis more likely to represent the earliest stratum of the Western Text (if "the" Western Text is assumed to be a distinct thing) than an agreement between Justin, Tatian, Irenaeus, Ambrose, Patrick, Aphrahat, Codex D, and the Curetonian Syriac?

            (6) Do the Sinaitic Syriac and k actually agree at the end of Mark?

            Thanks.

            Yours in Christ,

            James Snapp, Jr.
            Minister, Curtisville Christian Church
            Indiana


          • Jonathan C. Borland
            Dear Bill (and List), Although Eberhard Nestle indeed rejected Mark 16:9-20 as a conclusion emanating from Papias teacher Aristion in the second century, his
            Message 5 of 23 , Sep 20, 2011
            • 0 Attachment
              Dear Bill (and List),

              Although Eberhard Nestle indeed rejected Mark 16:9-20 as a conclusion emanating from Papias' teacher Aristion in the second century, his view of the B-Aleph textual trajectory is substantially different from that of Dr. Warren, namely, considering errors like the manifest addition in Matt 27:49, that the ancestors of B-Aleph were were "considerably polluted" (ziemlich verunreinigt) before their descendants parted company. In fact, the _Greek_ manuscript support for the addition in Matt 27:49 is far stronger than that for the omission of Mark 16:9-20, but I don't see many critics racing each other to defend the "substantial purity" of the Alexandrian text in that place. The circumstance that all Alexandrian Greek mss except B-Aleph contain the long ending of Mark suggests, perhaps, that B Aleph represent a later deviation from the earliest Alexandrian archetype at the end of Mark, but one which probably Origen and later the extremely influential Eusebius and Jerome preferred, probably for obvious theological reasons.

              Jonathan C. Borland







              On Sep 19, 2011, at 11:12 PM, Bill Warren wrote:

               

              If that is the line of thought that one takes, then it should be remembered that the "B" form of the text goes back in a substantially pure form to the late 2nd century as per P4 (& P64-67?) and P75, 


            • james_snapp_jr
              Bill, Yes; I realize your spare time is scarce; that s why I composed those six Yes/No questions. But I am glad to see your more detailed response, to which
              Message 6 of 23 , Sep 20, 2011
              • 0 Attachment
                Bill,

                Yes; I realize your spare time is scarce; that's why I composed those six Yes/No questions. But I am glad to see your more detailed response, to which I'll reply point-by-point:

                (1) Usually, to say that someone is building a "straw man" means that they are only addressing an imitation of the actual opposing argumentation. I haven't done that; the theory that the blank space in B is a replication of blank space that the copyist saw at the end of his Alexandrian-Text exemplar of the Gospels in the order Mt-Jn-Lk-Mk looks absurd because it /is/ absurd. It looks like you do not subscribe to that theory. (And since the only other person who, afaik, has suggested it (as a desperate alternative, I suspect, to admitting that the blank space in B after Mk 16:8 indicates scribal awareness of additional text) has declined to speak up for it, I deduce that he, too, has probably realized its absurdity by now.)

                (2) BW: "The whole point is that you don't have a precedent in 03 for seeing the space at the ending of Mk. as definitely due to the textual variant."

                Nobody ever said that the three other blank spaces in B are, like the blank space after Mark 16:8, indicative of copyists' awareness of variants at those places. I explicitly stated just the opposite! I was just blowing away the smokescreen that was used by Dr. Wallace and Dr. Bock (and which was introduced by Ezra Abbott and Philip Schaff, back in the 1800's). (There are other examples of the use of blank space to express awareness of absent passages, as Hort mentioned -- in Delta, for example -- but those are not precedents because they postdate B.)

                (3) BW: the blank space in B after Mk 16:8 "may have been due to knowledge of other endings whether long or short, but we don't know for sure."

                If B was made at Caesarea in the early 300's, then, figuring that Eusebius' non-mention of the Shorter Ending in "Ad Marinum" (where, contrary to Metzger's claim in his first edition of Text of the NT, Eusebius mentions MSS with 16:9-20) shows that the Shorter Ending was unknown there, verses 9-20 are the remaining option. And, of course "we don't know for sure," inasmuch as we cannot read the mind of the copyist or watch over his shoulder, but we can still gauge probabilities and test rival theories; that is textual criticism.

                Considering that the blank space after Mk. 16:8 is the only deliberately introduced blank space in the entire codex – because the other three are production-seams, as I already explained – and considering that verses 9-20 snugly fit into that blank space when written compactly (the space is four lines too short for all 12 verses when written in the copyist's normal lettering), it seems obvious that this blank space was reserved for verses 9-20, like an empty seat for a guest who might show up later.

                (4) BW: if the blank space was reserved for the Longer Ending, "Then obviously the scribe decided it was not to be included."

                Not necessarily. If the copyist did not have an exemplar that contained verses 9-20, then the decision was already made for him; he was not going to attempt to write down 1 and 1/3 column of text from memory! His approach was far more reasonable: he attempted to reserve space for the missing passage, so that the owner of the codex would have the option, if he possessed an exemplar with a fuller text of Mk 16, of adding the missing verses.

                (5) BW: "It should be remembered that the "B" form of the text goes back in a substantially pure form to the late 2nd century as per P4 (& P64-67?) and P75," etc.

                That does not pertain to the text of Mark (of which P4+64+67 and P75 display not a word). Expectations are not evidence. (If expectations are to be treated as if they are evidence, then let's treat P45's text of Mark 16, and the text of Mark 16 used by Justin in the Synoptics-Harmony that he used in Dialogue With Trypho, the same way, and see what /their/ common ancestor looks like. Deal?)

                (6) BW: "The ending in 03 would most likely derive from this earlier period, although of course that is not a definite."

                I place the origin of the abrupt reading in Egypt no later than the early 200's, and probably considerably earlier. The exemplar that was used by the copyist of B, in the early 300's, was either a MS made in the early 200's, or descended from such a MS. So when he stopped copying the text of Mark where the text stopped in his exemplar, that was no prodigious feat of professionalism; as an underling-copyist who did not select the exemplar, he had no other choice.

                (7) BW: "So the evidence of 03 is that a professional scribe does not see the long ending of Mark as a text that should be included."

                If the copyist had rival exemplars (one with verses 9-20 and one that concluded at the end of v. 8), or if he had only an exemplar in which the text stopped at v. 8, but he recollected verses 9-20 from a copy that was, at the time, unavailable to him, then the evidence in B displays a decision to be indecisive. He stopped writing at the end of verse 8 but left room where verses 9-20 could be included. So it would be more accurate to say that the evidence in B shows that the copyist was not sure whether the text should end with verse 8 or not. Right?

                (8) BW: "If the ending was known to the scribe, it was obviously rejected due to not being in the exemplar that represented a text most likely from the late 2nd century (so the long ending de facto was rejected by the scribe)."

                The copyist's failure to write down a 12-verse passage from memory is not congruent to rejecting the passage.

                (9) BW: "As for the evidence from Church Fathers, my view is that first level preference should be given to actual readings in Greek manuscripts, then to actual running texts like the early versions or running texts in Church Fathers."

                I am not sure what you mean. Are you saying that you give more weight to a reading in a MS from the 300's than you give to a quotation made by Irenaeus in the 180's, at a point where Irenaeus says that he is quoting from the Gospel of Mark, just because Irenaeus is not a manuscript?

                (10) BW: "Is the long ending original to the draft of Mark that was first released? I would say the probability is against that (if I understand correctly, you also don't think it was part of the original release of Mark, but rather added later by Mark)."

                You don't understand correctly: I think that Mark did not finish his account, and left it, unfinished, in the hands of colleagues at Rome; they completed it by attaching a short text which had already been composed – a short freestanding text about Christ's post-resurrection appearances (= 16:9-20). Only after that was done was the text of Mark released for church-use, so by the usual definition of "original text," Mark 16:9-20 is part of the original text: the text as it existed when its production-stage ended and its transmission-stage began. Later on, in Egypt, probably in the 100's, someone read the Gospel of Mark and recognized the segment at the end as something that did not qualify as the Petrine Memoirs ( -- possibly this person had seen a copy of the passage in its form as a freestanding text -- ), and either obelized or removed it, which resulted in the abruptly-ending Egyptian form of the text (which, in turn, provoked the composition of the Shorter Ending in Egypt).

                (11) You asked/said, "So how did the long and short endings come to be written? We don't know for sure (Aristion? Mark? Unknown author?), so we have to admit the limits of our knowledge on this point." I think we can do a bit more than that. The Shorter Ending was added to the abrupt ending in Egypt (a very safe deduction, since all early evidence for the Shorter Ending comes from Egypt). As for verses 9-20, it is plain they were not initially composed to conclude the Gospel of Mark (contra Kelhoffer): a second-century copyist would have wrapped up the scene in verse 8 instead of restating the day and time and reintroducing Mary Magdalene without mentioning what happened to her companions. And, a second-century copyist with access to the Gospel of Matthew would not have said that the apostles did not believe Mary Magdalene (because in Matthew 28, the disciples respond to the women's report by going to Galilee). A second-century copyist with access to Luke would not have presented the report of the two travelers, and the subsequent appearance of Christ to the eleven, as two scenes (because in Luke 24, the events occur in one scene). And a second-century copyist with access to John 21 would almost certainly have used it, since it includes just what the doctor ordered -- a Galilean post-resurrection appearance in which Peter is specifically restored -- but all that is missing in Mk. 16:9-20. And a second-century copyist depending on Matthew, Luke, and John as his sources would not have added 16:17-18. And do you really think that a second-century pastiche-maker would have neglected to include the truine formula in Mt. 28:19? [It occurs to me that one might ask, "Ah; but did his copy of Matthew contain that phrase in 28:19?? And did his copy of John contain chapter 21?".]

                (12) You wrote, "We simply don't know who wrote these endings even if we have multiple suggestions/conjectures being made." Of course we don't know this the way we know that fire is hot. But we can see that the Shorter Ending was made in Egypt, and we can see that verses 9-20 were not composed to continue the narrative in 16:1-8. Yet those 12 verses were attached to the main part anyway. Why? The question practically answers itself: because the person or persons who attached it perceived that the Gospel of Mark was unfinished. And why attach this text, particularly, even though it does not neatly interlock with what precedes it? Because it was already recognized as an authoritative text written by, or used by, the same author as the rest of the Gospel. This is all more likely to have happened during the production-stage of the Gospel of Mark, than at some later point.

                Now, obviously we can't cover every aspect of the question in this discussion – that's why I wrote "Authentic: The Case for Mark 16:9-20," and that's why I made the two YouTube videos – "Mark 16:9-20 – Some Patristic Evidence" (in three parts) and "Mark 16:9-20 and the Abrupt Ending" (in four parts). (There's also a three-part lecture at YouTube, "The Fitting End to Some False Claims About Mark 16:9-20," in which I answer some remarks that John MacArthur made in a sermon; this, too, can be profitably mined, particularly the third part, in which I address some questions about the internal evidence.)

                But to return to the smaller and more specific question about the implications of the blank space in Codex B: do you agree that this blank space indicates the copyist's awareness of verses 9-20?

                Yours in Christ,

                James Snapp, Jr.
                Minister, Curtisville Christian Church
                Indiana (USA)

                P.S. Here again are the links to the video-lectures:

                Mark 16:9-20 and Patristic Evidence (in three parts):
                Part 1 – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzJVTDi7SGs
                Part 2 – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2y2KQaLyARw
                Part 3 – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CEo1tWlUta4

                Mark 16:9-20 & the Abrupt Ending (in four parts):
                Part 1 (Vaticanus, Codex L, Bobbiensis) –
                http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKCMduynjNE
                Part 2 (Sinaiticus) –
                http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUz3XK2nYmY
                Part 3 (Eusebius and Jerome) –
                http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CeMV6N7kxvE
                Part 4 (Sinaitic Syriac, Victor, Annotated Copies)–
                http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUwW4Bd6i-0

                (John MacArthur's sermon on the ending of Mark is at
                http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NmudwnVPQ7A )

                My Response to John MacArthur's Sermon:
                Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bx2Q1X0_r5g
                Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0s7ZxsBjtaw
                Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GU4JNBCckxI
              • Jack Kilmon
                ... From: james_snapp_jr Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 9:27 AM To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com Subject: [textualcriticism] The Gap in B after Mk 16:8
                Message 7 of 23 , Sep 20, 2011
                • 0 Attachment
                  -----Original Message-----
                  From: james_snapp_jr
                  Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 9:27 AM
                  To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
                  Subject: [textualcriticism] The Gap in B after Mk 16:8 and Other
                  Considerations - Twelve Observations



                  (10) BW: "Is the long ending original to the draft of Mark that was first
                  released? I would say the probability is against that (if I understand
                  correctly, you also don't think it was part of the original release of Mark,
                  but rather added later by Mark)."

                  JS: You don't understand correctly: I think that Mark did not finish his
                  account, and left it, unfinished, in the hands of colleagues at Rome; they
                  completed it by attaching a short text which had already been composed – a
                  short freestanding text about Christ's post-resurrection appearances (=
                  16:9-20). Only after that was done was the text of Mark released for
                  church-use, so by the usual definition of "original text," Mark 16:9-20 is
                  part of the original text: the text as it existed when its production-stage
                  ended and its transmission-stage began. Later on, in Egypt, probably in the
                  100's, someone read the Gospel of Mark and recognized the segment at the end
                  as something that did not qualify as the Petrine Memoirs ( -- possibly this
                  person had seen a copy of the passage in its form as a freestanding
                  text -- ), and either obelized or removed it, which resulted in the
                  abruptly-ending Egyptian form of the text (which, in turn, provoked the
                  composition of the Shorter Ending in Egypt).

                  JK: Others (Jeremias, Pesch, Casey) have convincingly shown an Aramaic
                  source behind Mark's gospel. Casey discusses this in his "Aramaic Sources of
                  Mark's Gospel" and even reconstructs the Aramaic of Ch. 14:12-26 as the
                  "Semitic original" but does not address Ch. 16 in his book. Neither does
                  Fitzmyer. The Aramaic behind Mark is obvious but I differ by not accepting
                  an "Aramaic autograph" of Mark. I think Mark wrote the gospel in Greek but
                  I think he used an Aramaic "notebook" (actually two) that he compiled during
                  his years with Peter/Kefa. If Mark left the unfinished gospel (and his
                  notebooks) with Roman friends and left for Alexandria it may have been
                  around 66 CE when Rome may not have been a safe place for Judeans and we
                  have the Coptic tradition that he was killed there in 68 CE. Perhaps none
                  of those Roman colleagues read Aramaic but sometime later 16:9-20 was
                  translated from the notebook and added to the text. Although neither Casey
                  or Fitzmyer highlight the Aramaic stratum of the long ending, it is very
                  obvious, particularly the Aramaic idioms at 16:17-18. The copy of Mark used
                  by Luke must have had the long ending because Luke expands on Mark 16:12
                  beginning at Luke 24:13 which Fitzmyer assigns to "Special L" (The Gospel
                  According to Luke, Vol II, Pg 1554) but he defined Special L as material in
                  Luke that was not in Mark or Matthew. Of course it would be intriguing if
                  Luke, an Aramaic speaker, had Mark's notebooks and added the long ending.
                  I'll paste some of what I posted to you in a similar discuss on TC-Alt a
                  couple weeks ago:

                  Having accepted that 16:9-20 was not part of the
                  original text, it is the product of an Aramaic speaker who knew Aramaic
                  idiom. A source upstream from Mark could have been Peter/Kefa quoting
                  Jesus/Yeshua.
                  The idiom in Greek translation at 16:18 is the best proof text for this.
                  ὄφεις ἀροῦσιν κἂν θανάσιμόν τι πίωσιν οὐ μὴ αὐτοὺς βλάψει "They shall take
                  up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them" In
                  Aramaic:
                  וחוותא נשׁקלון ואן סמא דמותא נשׁתון לא נהר אנון
                  Phonetically (Judean Aramaic)
                  wa'xawawatha nashqlun win samma d'mawtha yishtun, la yahhar innon

                  Jesus frequently used the Aramaic eating/drinking idiom for
                  "hearing/learning" a teachers discourse and "bread/wine" for the teaching
                  itself.
                  "Picking up snakes" was an idiom for a risky or dangerous undertaking.
                  Normally idiom is a cultural nuance to language which rarely crosses
                  cultural barriers. But some idioms seem to be universal. In 1st century
                  Aramaic "lachma" (bread) and "hamara" (wine) were idioms for a teaching or
                  instruction. Drinking and eating, in Aramaic, are idioms for learning from a
                  teacher whose teachings are "bread and wine." I always think it is
                  important, first, to have an idea what the feet-on-the-ground historical
                  Jesus was saying, in those logia that may have genuinely came from him and
                  are related to this Markan pericope. He was saying that what you hear/learn
                  (what goes into your mouth) will not defile you but what YOU teach (what
                  comes out of your mouth) can defile you (or poison you). The food and
                  drink=wisdom/ and the eating/drinking=learning imagery is found as one of
                  the most frequently used idioms in the fabric of Jesus' teachings. I
                  conclude, therefore, that 16:18 goes back to Judea and to the historical
                  Jesus into whose mouth this pericope is placed.

                  Regards,
                  Jack Kilmon
                • Bill Warren
                  Jim, on this last matter, it s possible that the blank space indicates this, but we don t know for sure. My suspicion is that it might, but the evidence is
                  Message 8 of 23 , Sep 20, 2011
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Jim, on this last matter, it's possible that the blank space indicates this, but we don't know for sure.  My suspicion is that it might, but the evidence is simply not enough in my mind for us to do more than guess or have hunches. You are somewhat right that we have to do that (have guesses and extrapolated from limited data at times), with the caveat that we realize that such guesses are not as solid as any of us would like (that's why they are guesses or conjectures or whatever), although we sure hope we're right.  :-)    

                    I think, as I mentioned in the e-mail to Jonathan, that our views of the transmission history of the NT text differ so much, that we need to simply agree to disagree since we each see that key time in the transmission of the text in the late first through second centuries (and even third century) quite differently.  I appreciate your work on the ending of Mark (you're clarified some of the data by examining many of the mss) and can only hope that some new mss are found from the earlier period of the second and third centuries that might clarify this transmission history more for all of us.  Of course, finding some early second century or even late first century mss would really be great for clarifying this!!!  Blessings, 

                    paz y gracia, 

                    Bill Warren, Ph.D.
                    Director of the Center for New Testament Textual Studies
                    Landrum P. Leavell, II, Professor of New Testament and Greek
                    New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary



                    On Sep 20, 2011, at 9:27 AM, james_snapp_jr wrote:

                    But to return to the smaller and more specific question about the implications of the blank space in Codex B: do you agree that this blank space indicates the copyist's awareness of verses 9-20? 

                  • David Palmer
                    Here s what I believe: Set aside textual criticism concerning the Long Ending of Mark, and let s have another Canonical Council, and in that council reject the
                    Message 9 of 23 , Sep 21, 2011
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Here's what I believe: Set aside textual criticism concerning the Long Ending of Mark, and let's have another Canonical Council, and in that council reject the Long Ending of Mark for "obvious theological reasons."

                      What reasons? 

                      1.) Obvious contradictions in the passage to other known accepted scripture.
                      2.) Uncertain authorship: it is far from certain that any apostle or even protege of an apostle wrote this passage.
                       
                      David Robert Palmer
                      http://bibletranslation.ws/palmer-translation/
                    • james_snapp_jr
                      Dear Bill, (There are a lot of points that somehow got completely skipped! But anyway . . .) So is this what you are saying: (a) The idea that the copyist of
                      Message 10 of 23 , Sep 21, 2011
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Dear Bill,

                        (There are a lot of points that somehow got completely skipped! But anyway . . .)

                        So is this what you are saying:

                        (a) The idea that the copyist of B left blank space after Mark because he was using an exemplar in which the Gospels were arranged Mt-Jn-Lk-Mk, and somehow figured that the space at the end of the book ought to be replicated, doesn't really make any sense. And,

                        (b) The copyist of B, who did not deliberately leave a blank column between books elsewhere, left a blank column at a specific point where a major textual variant is known to occur. And the blank space is approximately the same size as the contents of that variant. And, much later on in the same text-stream, "This Seat Is Taken" blank space is used (as described by Hort). But it would be hasty to draw a conclusion about why the copyist of B left that blank space there.

                        ?

                        ---

                        Regarding the hope that some new MSS might be found that might clarify the transmission-history of the text of Mark:

                        Hengel seems to have accepted Horschuh's case that the author of Epistula Apostolorum knew Mk. 16:9-20. If that is the case, then Epistula Apostolorum echoes the existence of a copy with Mk. 16:9-20 from the mid-100's -- feasibly as early as P52! And yet the discovery of Epistula Apostolorum seems to have had hardly any impact on your model of the transmission-history of this part of the text of Mark.

                        This leads me to wonder: what sort of new discoveries would be enough to change your mind about the genuineness of Mark 16:9-20? In just the past month or so, I have presented evidence of Mk. 16:9-20 in the transmission-stream used by Chromatius, and in the transmission-stream used by the author of the Coptic "Book of the Enthronement of the Archangel Michael." Pretty diverse witnesses, I'd say; their agreement must echo a much more ancient ancestral text. And, not very long ago, I noted that Augustine appealed to "Greek codices" when discussing a feature in Mk. 16:12. And of course, Augustine's Greek copies were just one of over 30 patristic witnesses reviewed in the video-lecture about some of the pertinent patristic evidence. But obviously you need more: strong echoes of the copies of Mark used by Justin, Tatian, and Irenaeus aren't enough; the echoes of copies used by Hippolytus (or a similarly ancient author of "Apostolic Tradition") and Hierocles aren't enough; at least two Greek copies known to Augustine in 400 aren't enough. 99.9% of the Greek manuscripts, plus 30+ patristic references before the fall of Rome, plus the Gothic version, plus all extant Old Latin copies of Mark 16 except k, plus the Vulgate, the Peshitta, an Armenian reference from 440, a Georgian reference from the 500's, and the Ethiopic Garima Gospels (recently redated so as to imply their production in 430-540) aren't enough.

                        So, what exactly *would* elicit a change of mind regarding the ending of Mark? Suppose that tomorrow, a third-century copy of the "Apology of Aristides" is discovered in which the statement is found, in the opening chapter, "the apostles went everywhere, preaching the word which the Lord confirmed through the signs that accompanied them." Would that non-explicit reference be enough? What if this third-century copy's text prefaced that statement by the words, "As Mark has written"?

                        Or, suppose that tomorrow some wealthy manuscript-collector announces that he owns a page of P45 that contain Mark 16:2-13, and 16:9 begins a new line immediately after the end of 16:8. If his claim turns out to be completely true, would that be enough? Or would that be dismissed as a localized form of the text that tells us nothing we didn't already know from Irenaeus?

                        Or suppose that such a copy of "Apology of Aristides" *and* Mark 16:2-13 from P45 were discovered tomorrow. Combined, would that be enough? *Then* would you stop giving NPR interviewers the impression that "in the original manuscripts for Mark, the story of Jesus visiting the disciples is nowhere to be found"? If not, what would be enough?

                        Yours in Christ,

                        James Snapp, Jr.
                        Minister, Curtisville Christian Church
                        Indiana (USA)
                      • james_snapp_jr
                        Dear David, It almost looks as if you consider the inclusion of Mark 16:9-20 to be, compared to the abrupt ending, the more problematic, and the more
                        Message 11 of 23 , Sep 21, 2011
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Dear David,

                          It almost looks as if you consider the inclusion of Mark 16:9-20 to be, compared to the abrupt ending, the more problematic, and the more difficult, reading. I wonder if, in the 300's, Eusebius -- having some difficulties composing his Canon-tables, and feeling the sting of Porphyry/Hierocles' challenge about poison-drinking -- felt the same way.

                          Yours in Christ,

                          James Snapp, Jr.


                          --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, David Palmer <kanakawatut@...> wrote:
                          >
                          > Here's what I believe: Set aside textual criticism concerning the Long Ending of Mark, and let's have another Canonical Council, and in that council reject the Long Ending of Mark for "obvious theological reasons."
                          >
                          > What reasons? 
                          >
                          >
                          > 1.) Obvious contradictions in the passage to other known accepted scripture.
                          > 2.) Uncertain authorship: it is far from certain that any apostle or even protege of an apostle wrote this passage.
                          >  
                          > David Robert Palmer
                          > http://bibletranslation.ws/palmer-translation/
                          >
                        • james_snapp_jr
                          Dear Jonathan, Contrary to the impression given by Metzger s brief mention of Jerome in TCotGNT, and contrary to the presence of Jerome s name in the apparatus
                          Message 12 of 23 , Sep 22, 2011
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Dear Jonathan,

                            Contrary to the impression given by Metzger's brief mention of Jerome in TCotGNT, and contrary to the presence of Jerome's name in the apparatus as a witness against Mk. 16:9-20, I don't think it can credibly be said that Jerome preferred the non-inclusion of those verses.

                            As you know, he included 16:9-20 in the Vulgate, which he said that he had compiled on the basis of old Greek MSS. That was in 383. Later, around 415 or 417, in Dialogue Against the Pelagians, he mentioned the Freer Logion and cited Mk. 16:14 to identify its location: "In certain exemplars, and especially in Greek codices, near the end of the Gospel of Mark the same thing is written: After they reclined at table . . . . [Here Jerome cites almost all of Mark 16:14.] And there, making this point, they say, This age of iniquity and unbelief is under Satan, who [or, "is of a substance which" -- there's a variant here in the copies of Jerome's composition] does not allow, by unclean spirits, the truth and power of God to be understood properly. Therefore right now reveal your righteousness."

                            The only statement in the writings of Jerome that could possibly be interpreted as *against* Mk. 16:9-20 is his statement in Ad Hedibiam (Epistle 120) -- but, as I demonstrate in part 3 of the YouTube video-lecture "Mark 16:9-20 & the Abrupt Ending," Jerome was, in that composition, spontaneously condensing and translating the contents of Eusebius' "Ad Marinum." Jerome routinely repeats the statements of earlier writers; sometimes he notifies his readers that he has borrowed what he presents, and sometimes, he does not. And sometimes he mixed together his own thoughts with things that he had read, without notifying his readers about where his own thoughts end, and the borrowed statements begin.

                            In the case of "Ad Hedibiam," when Jerome he encountered a broad question about why the Evangelists speak differently about the events pertaining to Christ's resurrection and afterwards, he saved himself some effort by reproducing, in a condensed and modified Latin form, some of what Eusebius had written in "Ad Marinum." Jerome divided Hedibia's large question into a series of sub-questions – and if you compare the first three of those sub-questions are compared to the first three questions that Marinus asked Eusebius, you will see that they are the same three questions. This can be done, by the way, by reading Roger Pearse's translation of "Ad Marinum" in "Eusebius of Caesarea – Gospel Problems and Solutions," and comparing that to the pseudo-translation of "Ad Hebidiam" that I made a while ago and which Roger has made available at the Tertullian website. (The pseudo-translation no doubt has many faults, but it is better than nothing.) Here is what Jerome says, answering the question of how Mt. 28:1 does not contradict Mk. 16:9:

                            "There are two ways to solve this problem. Either we do not accept the testimony of Mark, on the grounds that this final portion is not contained in most of the Gospels that bear his name – almost all the Greek codices lacking it – or else we must affirm that Matthew and Mark have both told the truth, that our Lord rose on the evening of the Sabbath, and that He was seen by Mary Magdalene in the morning of the first day of the following week. So this is how this passage of Saint Mark should be read: "Jesus arising" – place a little pause here – and then add, "on the first day of the week in the morning appeared to Mary Magdalene," so that, being raised, according to Saint Matthew, in the evening of the last day of the week, He appeared to Mary Magdalene, according to Saint Mark, "the morning of the first day of the week," which is how John also represents the events, stating that He was seen on the morning of the next day."

                            That this is a restatement of what Eusebius wrote to Marinus will be obvious to everyone who reads "Ad Marinum." But then a new point is proposed, a la Hort: it is likely that Jerome agreed with this statement; after all, he repeated it.

                            But *what* he repeated must be noticed. Jerome did not just repeat one of Eusebius' statements about manuscripts; Jerome repeated the gist of the entire response. If the proposal is granted, "Jerome agrees with the things that he repeats," then one must conclude that Jerome accepted the passage and wanted others to accept it, because Jerome proceeds to commend that the passage be harmonized via the insertion of a comma, and thus be retained. The only reasonable conclusion that any reader of "Ad Hedibiam" can reach is that Jerome expected Mk. 16:9-20 to be retained and harmonized. So, at the most, if one assumes that Jerome believed whatever material he repeated, then "Manuscripts according to Jerome" may be validly listed as a witness for non-inclusion, but *not* Jerome himself. Jerome never steps back from the inclusion of 16:9-20. And >poof< there goes another listing for the omission of Mk. 16:9-20 in the UBS apparatus.

                            But I do not even grant that Jerome only repeated statements that he had personally verified. In his Letter 75, to Augustine, Jerome explained how he had written his commentary on Galatians: after mentioning compositions by Origen, Didymus the Blind, and other writers, he said, "Let me therefore frankly say that I have read all these; and storing up in my mind very many things which they contain, I have dictated to my amanuensis sometimes what was borrowed from other writers, sometimes what was my own, without distinctly remembering the method, or the words, or the opinions which belonged to each."

                            Now, it would be a real project to show all the places where Jerome says two different things – one thing when he is writing original material, and another thing when he is repeating or paraphrasing what an earlier writer has written. But if you can find Thomas P. Scheck's new English translation of Jerome's Commentaries on Galatians, Titus, and Philemon (composed in 386-388), I think it will become clear that Jerome depended immensely on earlier authors and even said "I" when the "I" was the earlier author. The thing to see is that Jerome sometimes wrote with speed – as he affirms in Epistle 117, faster than his secretary could fling down the words – and when this is factored into the equation, nothing stands in the way of the conclusion that his condensed paraphrase of Eusebius' remark to Marinus about manuscripts was entirely off-hand, rather like the way one briefly describes to a fellow-traveler a road which one has no intention of taking or of guiding others to take.

                            Jerome did not uncritically repeat /everything/ Eusebius wrote to Marinus; he veered away from Eusebius' proposal (which appears in "Ad Marinum") that there were two Mary Magdalenes, for example. But such exceptions are exceptions; in general, Jerome repeated his sources casually (and thus gave himself a loophole in the event of objections against his/their statements).

                            Yours in Christ,

                            James Snapp, Jr.
                            Minister, Curtisville Christian Church
                            Indiana (USA)
                          • Bill Warren
                            Jim, I did not say it did not make any sense that the blank space was due to Gospel arrangement, but that such was from you, not me as a derivative of your
                            Message 13 of 23 , Sep 22, 2011
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Jim, I did not say it did not make any sense that the blank space was due to Gospel arrangement, but that such was from you, not me as a derivative of your post.  Of course, such a blank space is found prior to Rev. in 02 (a full blank page in fact plus some blank space at the end of the prior book that was part of a separate "collection" in the history of the development of the canon).  But regardless, you're convinced of your view of the textual history of the text, so it simply doesn't make sense to use time on this any longer.  Blessings, 

                              paz y gracia, 

                              Bill Warren, Ph.D.
                              Director of the Center for New Testament Textual Studies
                              Landrum P. Leavell, II, Professor of New Testament and Greek
                              New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary



                              On Sep 21, 2011, at 2:51 PM, james_snapp_jr wrote:

                               

                              Dear Bill,

                              (There are a lot of points that somehow got completely skipped! But anyway . . .)

                              So is this what you are saying:

                              (a) The idea that the copyist of B left blank space after Mark because he was using an exemplar in which the Gospels were arranged Mt-Jn-Lk-Mk, and somehow figured that the space at the end of the book ought to be replicated, doesn't really make any sense. And,

                              (b) The copyist of B, who did not deliberately leave a blank column between books elsewhere, left a blank column at a specific point where a major textual variant is known to occur. And the blank space is approximately the same size as the contents of that variant. And, much later on in the same text-stream, "This Seat Is Taken" blank space is used (as described by Hort). But it would be hasty to draw a conclusion about why the copyist of B left that blank space there.

                              ?

                              ---

                              Regarding the hope that some new MSS might be found that might clarify the transmission-history of the text of Mark:

                              Hengel seems to have accepted Horschuh's case that the author of Epistula Apostolorum knew Mk. 16:9-20. If that is the case, then Epistula Apostolorum echoes the existence of a copy with Mk. 16:9-20 from the mid-100's -- feasibly as early as P52! And yet the discovery of Epistula Apostolorum seems to have had hardly any impact on your model of the transmission-history of this part of the text of Mark.

                              This leads me to wonder: what sort of new discoveries would be enough to change your mind about the genuineness of Mark 16:9-20? In just the past month or so, I have presented evidence of Mk. 16:9-20 in the transmission-stream used by Chromatius, and in the transmission-stream used by the author of the Coptic "Book of the Enthronement of the Archangel Michael." Pretty diverse witnesses, I'd say; their agreement must echo a much more ancient ancestral text. And, not very long ago, I noted that Augustine appealed to "Greek codices" when discussing a feature in Mk. 16:12. And of course, Augustine's Greek copies were just one of over 30 patristic witnesses reviewed in the video-lecture about some of the pertinent patristic evidence. But obviously you need more: strong echoes of the copies of Mark used by Justin, Tatian, and Irenaeus aren't enough; the echoes of copies used by Hippolytus (or a similarly ancient author of "Apostolic Tradition") and Hierocles aren't enough; at least two Greek copies known to Augustine in 400 aren't enough. 99.9% of the Greek manuscripts, plus 30+ patristic references before the fall of Rome, plus the Gothic version, plus all extant Old Latin copies of Mark 16 except k, plus the Vulgate, the Peshitta, an Armenian reference from 440, a Georgian reference from the 500's, and the Ethiopic Garima Gospels (recently redated so as to imply their production in 430-540) aren't enough.

                              So, what exactly *would* elicit a change of mind regarding the ending of Mark? Suppose that tomorrow, a third-century copy of the "Apology of Aristides" is discovered in which the statement is found, in the opening chapter, "the apostles went everywhere, preaching the word which the Lord confirmed through the signs that accompanied them." Would that non-explicit reference be enough? What if this third-century copy's text prefaced that statement by the words, "As Mark has written"?

                              Or, suppose that tomorrow some wealthy manuscript-collector announces that he owns a page of P45 that contain Mark 16:2-13, and 16:9 begins a new line immediately after the end of 16:8. If his claim turns out to be completely true, would that be enough? Or would that be dismissed as a localized form of the text that tells us nothing we didn't already know from Irenaeus?

                              Or suppose that such a copy of "Apology of Aristides" *and* Mark 16:2-13 from P45 were discovered tomorrow. Combined, would that be enough? *Then* would you stop giving NPR interviewers the impression that "in the original manuscripts for Mark, the story of Jesus visiting the disciples is nowhere to be found"? If not, what would be enough?

                              Yours in Christ,

                              James Snapp, Jr.
                              Minister, Curtisville Christian Church
                              Indiana (USA)


                            • Daniel Buck
                              ...   ...   What reasons?  1.) Obvious contradictions in the passage to other known accepted scripture. 2.) Uncertain authorship: it is far from certain
                              Message 14 of 23 , Sep 22, 2011
                              • 0 Attachment
                                --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, David Palmer wrote:
                                 
                                >> Here's what I believe: Set aside textual criticism concerning the Long Ending of Mark, and let's have another Canonical Council, and in that council reject the Long Ending of Mark for "obvious theological reasons."
                                 
                                What reasons? 
                                1.) Obvious contradictions in the passage to other known accepted scripture.
                                2.) Uncertain authorship: it is far from certain that any apostle or even protege of an apostle wrote this passage.<<
                                 
                                Daniel responds:
                                 
                                I'm interested in hearing your specific charges on #1; on #2, it is far too late for that; the book of Hebrews was eventually accepted in the canon despite such difficulties, when all that was known about the author was that he considered Timotheus a contemporary in the common faith.
                                 
                                A far better case could be made for the excision of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35.
                                 
                                1. It doesn't match Pauline doctrine.
                                a) Locally, it clashes with the immediate context of speaking freely in the assembly as long as there is good order.
                                b) Remotely, it clashes with chapter 11 of the same epistle.
                                c) Other eccesiastical epistles speak very highly of women; here, the tone is distinctly negative.
                                d) The stipulations in 1 Timothy seem totally superfluous were women forbidden to speak at all.
                                 
                                2. There are all kinds of problems with the OT allusion.
                                a) Nowhere else does Paul speak of the law as backing up any of his instructions for Christian living; references are typically negatory.
                                b) KATHOS KAI O NOMOS LEGEI is used nowhere else in the NT.
                                c) There's no verse in the entire OT that backs up the allusion.
                                d) hUPOTASSO in the imperative without any direct or indirect object is used nowhere else in the NT.
                                 
                                3. Verse 35 has obvious contradictions to all other known accepted scripture.
                                a) The reference to 'shame' stands in contrast to the exalted position of women in the NT.
                                b) AISCRON is nowhere else used in relation to  the agent of speech--only in relation to the content of speech in Eph 5:12.
                                c) It sets up any woman's husband as a spiritual authority over the leader of the assembly, who is thus forbidden to dialog with her on spiritual matters unless present at a discussion between the woman and her husband at home, and only with his consent. Nowhere else is a generic husband given any such authority.
                                 
                                Daniel Buck
                                 
                              • james_snapp_jr
                                Dear Bill, I may be having trouble understanding what you are saying. You acknowledged that Dr. Wallace s theory is not all that likely. What I want to know
                                Message 15 of 23 , Sep 22, 2011
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Dear Bill,

                                  I may be having trouble understanding what you are saying. You acknowledged that Dr. Wallace's theory is not all that likely. What I want to know is why you would not consider it downright absurd, considering that (a) the Alexandrian Text can be shown to have circulated in no other form than Mt-Mk-Lk-Jn before the production of Vaticanus, and (b) blank space at the end of a codex of the Gospels would be no more remarkable, and no more replication-worthy, than the blank space at the end of every codex that the copyist had ever encountered.

                                  If you think that the blank page in Codex A before Revelation that you mentioned is somehow pertinent, please explain the reasons why. Otherwise, this reluctance to acknowledge that the prolonged blank space in B between Mk. 16:8 and Lk. 1:1 displays the copyist's awareness of additional text will continue to appear to be groundless.

                                  Your last sentence was illuminating. Are you stepping away?

                                  I hope not. When someone essentially says, "I won't discuss this subject with people who confidently disagree with my position," what answer can be given? Have you considered that the other person might have good reasons to be confident? How will you find out if you just withdraw from the conversation?! And, when someone even refuses to say what sort of evidence it would take to convince him to change his mind, what good is more evidence-presentation?

                                  But it sure looks like you are stepping away. Perhaps this is a microcosm of a bigger problem. I have noticed that some Baptist seminaries' faculty have seemed to not be particularly bothered that their graduates are writing books and preaching sermons that contain slies about Mark 16:9-20. (I hereby coin the term "slie" to refer to a false claim that is rooted in sloth, especially involving superficial research, rather than in guile). Perhaps that is the inevitable legacy that results from avoiding text-critical conversations in which other participants confidently disagree.

                                  Go ahead; continue to keep your text-critical conversations isolated among minds with similar backgrounds and similar views, and someday, a preacher with two graduate degrees from Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary will stand up behind the pulpit where Landrum P. Leavell II used to preach, and he will open his Bible to Mark 16:9-20 and in the course of his sermon he will tell his congregation, with complete confidence, that Mark 16:9-20 does not appear in any manuscripts until 800 or 900 A.D. That's the sort of text-critical scholarship y'all are going to be producing.

                                  That day was two months ago.

                                  Yours in Christ,

                                  James Snapp, Jr.


                                  --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, Bill Warren <WFWarren@...> wrote:
                                  >
                                  > Jim, I did not say it did not make any sense that the blank space was due to Gospel arrangement, but that such was from you, not me as a derivative of your post. Of course, such a blank space is found prior to Rev. in 02 (a full blank page in fact plus some blank space at the end of the prior book that was part of a separate "collection" in the history of the development of the canon). But regardless, you're convinced of your view of the textual history of the text, so it simply doesn't make sense to use time on this any longer. Blessings,
                                  >
                                  > paz y gracia,
                                  >
                                  > Bill Warren, Ph.D.
                                  > Director of the Center for New Testament Textual Studies
                                  > Landrum P. Leavell, II, Professor of New Testament and Greek
                                  > New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > On Sep 21, 2011, at 2:51 PM, james_snapp_jr wrote:
                                  >
                                  > > Dear Bill,
                                  > >
                                  > > (There are a lot of points that somehow got completely skipped! But anyway . . .)
                                  > >
                                  > > So is this what you are saying:
                                  > >
                                  > > (a) The idea that the copyist of B left blank space after Mark because he was using an exemplar in which the Gospels were arranged Mt-Jn-Lk-Mk, and somehow figured that the space at the end of the book ought to be replicated, doesn't really make any sense. And,
                                  > >
                                  > > (b) The copyist of B, who did not deliberately leave a blank column between books elsewhere, left a blank column at a specific point where a major textual variant is known to occur. And the blank space is approximately the same size as the contents of that variant. And, much later on in the same text-stream, "This Seat Is Taken" blank space is used (as described by Hort). But it would be hasty to draw a conclusion about why the copyist of B left that blank space there.
                                  > >
                                  > > ?
                                  > > Regarding the hope that some new MSS might be found that might clarify the transmission-history of the text of Mark:
                                  > >
                                  > > Hengel seems to have accepted Horschuh's case that the author of Epistula Apostolorum knew Mk. 16:9-20. If that is the case, then Epistula Apostolorum echoes the existence of a copy with Mk. 16:9-20 from the mid-100's -- feasibly as early as P52! And yet the discovery of Epistula Apostolorum seems to have had hardly any impact on your model of the transmission-history of this part of the text of Mark.
                                  > >
                                  > > This leads me to wonder: what sort of new discoveries would be enough to change your mind about the genuineness of Mark 16:9-20? In just the past month or so, I have presented evidence of Mk. 16:9-20 in the transmission-stream used by Chromatius, and in the transmission-stream used by the author of the Coptic "Book of the Enthronement of the Archangel Michael." Pretty diverse witnesses, I'd say; their agreement must echo a much more ancient ancestral text. And, not very long ago, I noted that Augustine appealed to "Greek codices" when discussing a feature in Mk. 16:12. And of course, Augustine's Greek copies were just one of over 30 patristic witnesses reviewed in the video-lecture about some of the pertinent patristic evidence. But obviously you need more: strong echoes of the copies of Mark used by Justin, Tatian, and Irenaeus aren't enough; the echoes of copies used by Hippolytus (or a similarly ancient author of "Apostolic Tradition") and Hierocles aren't enough; at least two Greek copies known to Augustine in 400 aren't enough. 99.9% of the Greek manuscripts, plus 30+ patristic references before the fall of Rome, plus the Gothic version, plus all extant Old Latin copies of Mark 16 except k, plus the Vulgate, the Peshitta, an Armenian reference from 440, a Georgian reference from the 500's, and the Ethiopic Garima Gospels (recently redated so as to imply their production in 430-540) aren't enough.
                                  > >
                                  > > So, what exactly *would* elicit a change of mind regarding the ending of Mark? Suppose that tomorrow, a third-century copy of the "Apology of Aristides" is discovered in which the statement is found, in the opening chapter, "the apostles went everywhere, preaching the word which the Lord confirmed through the signs that accompanied them." Would that non-explicit reference be enough? What if this third-century copy's text prefaced that statement by the words, "As Mark has written"?
                                  > >
                                  > > Or, suppose that tomorrow some wealthy manuscript-collector announces that he owns a page of P45 that contain Mark 16:2-13, and 16:9 begins a new line immediately after the end of 16:8. If his claim turns out to be completely true, would that be enough? Or would that be dismissed as a localized form of the text that tells us nothing we didn't already know from Irenaeus?
                                  > >
                                  > > Or suppose that such a copy of "Apology of Aristides" *and* Mark 16:2-13 from P45 were discovered tomorrow. Combined, would that be enough? *Then* would you stop giving NPR interviewers the impression that "in the original manuscripts for Mark, the story of Jesus visiting the disciples is nowhere to be found"? If not, what would be enough?
                                  > >
                                  > > Yours in Christ,
                                  > >
                                  > > James Snapp, Jr.
                                  > > Minister, Curtisville Christian Church
                                  > > Indiana (USA)
                                • Jack Kilmon
                                  Hi James: In spite of the non-Aramaic background of Aristodemus supposedly talking to the Elder John (which had to be late 1st century in Ephesus) and
                                  Message 16 of 23 , Sep 23, 2011
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Hi James:

                                    In spite of the non-Aramaic background of Aristodemus supposedly talking to
                                    the Elder John (which had to be late 1st century in Ephesus) and Hierocles
                                    in early 4th century, wouldn't you think Eusebius knew of the Yeshuine
                                    metaphors "Handling snakes" as a difficult/dangerous mission and "drinking
                                    poison" as bad teachings? When did these Aramaisms of mistranslation and
                                    misunderstood literal meanings enter both the Christian and pagan
                                    colloquium? Did this happen when Christianity shifted from Aramaic speaking
                                    Palestinian Jews to Asian and North African Gentiles?

                                    Jack Kilmon

                                    -----Original Message-----
                                    From: james_snapp_jr
                                    Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 3:01 PM
                                    To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
                                    Subject: [textualcriticism] Mark 16:9-20 as the More Difficult Reading

                                    Dear David,

                                    It almost looks as if you consider the inclusion of Mark 16:9-20 to be,
                                    compared to the abrupt ending, the more problematic, and the more difficult,
                                    reading. I wonder if, in the 300's, Eusebius -- having some difficulties
                                    composing his Canon-tables, and feeling the sting of Porphyry/Hierocles'
                                    challenge about poison-drinking -- felt the same way.

                                    Yours in Christ,

                                    James Snapp, Jr.


                                    --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, David Palmer <kanakawatut@...>
                                    wrote:
                                    >
                                    > Here's what I believe: Set aside textual criticism concerning the Long
                                    > Ending of Mark, and let's have another Canonical Council, and in that
                                    > council reject the Long Ending of Mark for "obvious theological reasons."
                                    >
                                    > What reasons?
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > 1.) Obvious contradictions in the passage to other known accepted
                                    > scripture.
                                    > 2.) Uncertain authorship: it is far from certain that any apostle or even
                                    > protege of an apostle wrote this passage.
                                    >
                                    > David Robert Palmer
                                    > http://bibletranslation.ws/palmer-translation/
                                    >




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

                                    Yahoo! Groups Links
                                  • james_snapp_jr
                                    Hi Jack, I m not convinced at all that Mk. 16:18 involves Aramaic idioms, at least not the ones that you proposed. The meaning of taking up serpents in their
                                    Message 17 of 23 , Sep 25, 2011
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Hi Jack,

                                      I'm not convinced at all that Mk. 16:18 involves Aramaic idioms, at least not the ones that you proposed. The meaning of "taking up serpents in their hands" is more in sync with the reference to "trampling on serpents and scorpions," an expression used in Lk. 10:19; that is, it refers to the believers' spiritual authority over demonic powers and over the agencies of evil in general. As for the statement about believers going unharmed in the event that they happened to drink something deadly, this appears to me to have been meant in a primarily literal sense. Augustine applied it as justification for reading heretical writings without being influenced by them -- without being a bit aware, it would seem, of the idiom you mentioned -- but whether that idea is solid or not, I don't think Mark 16:18 was intended to be its pedestal.

                                      Yours in Christ,

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

                                      --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "Jack Kilmon" <jkilmon@...> wrote:
                                      >
                                      > Hi James:
                                      >
                                      > In spite of the non-Aramaic background of Aristodemus supposedly talking to
                                      > the Elder John (which had to be late 1st century in Ephesus) and Hierocles
                                      > in early 4th century, wouldn't you think Eusebius knew of the Yeshuine
                                      > metaphors "Handling snakes" as a difficult/dangerous mission and "drinking
                                      > poison" as bad teachings? When did these Aramaisms of mistranslation and
                                      > misunderstood literal meanings enter both the Christian and pagan
                                      > colloquium? Did this happen when Christianity shifted from Aramaic speaking
                                      > Palestinian Jews to Asian and North African Gentiles?
                                      >
                                      > Jack Kilmon
                                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.