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

Re: [textualcriticism] Philostorgius and Early Testimony for Mark 16:9-20

Expand Messages
  • George F Somsel
    You are rather liberal in your judgment regarding what constitutes a reference to the added ending to Mark.  The reference in Irenaeus is only similar to the
    Message 1 of 21 , Oct 31, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      You are rather liberal in your judgment regarding what constitutes a reference to the added ending to Mark.  The reference in Irenaeus is only similar to the LE in its mention of snakes.  The LE doesn't mention "treading on" snakes but picking them up.  Scorpions are not mentioned at all.  It would seem that the LE of Mk was built upon the story of Paul being bitten when shipwrecked in the late book of Acts.
       
      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: james_snapp_jr <voxverax@...>
      To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Monday, October 31, 2011 6:55 AM
      Subject: [textualcriticism] Philostorgius and Early Testimony for Mark 16:9-20

       
      Dear George:

      Photius is indeed a relatively late patristic witness (later, at least, than oodles of witnesses that support the inclusion of Mark 16:9-20), but the real centerpiece, once Bidez's text is arranged and organized, is apparently an early witness, from the late 300's -- a composition used by Philostorgius, in which Mark 16:17-18 was used (with the reading "And in their hands").

      Philostorgius was a contemporary of Jerome, and the testimony of Jerome is routinely mentioned (however fuzzily and misleadingly) in discussions about the evidence pertaining to Mark 16:9-20. The testimony of Armenian and Georgian copies (not one of which was produced before 800) is also routinely mentioned. Even minuscule 304 gets mentioned.

      The date of Philostorgius' source-material (if it turns out to be a solid reference, as it currently appears to be) does not render it trivial at all; this is testimony from the late 300's – earlier than the production-date of Codex Alexandrinus, and within a century of the production-dates of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.

      In addition, you wrote: "It would seem to be a logical conclusion that if such support for a LE of Mark only appears at a LATE time that it is present at a LATE time for a reason, viz because it was at a LATE time that certain elements were lobbying for acceptance of the LE. This is in contrast to a total silence regarding the LE at an earlier time."

      Have you not encountered the early support for Mark 16:9-20 from Justin, Tatian, and Irenaeus (and probably Epistula Apostolorum) from the 100's? That early support for Mk. 16:9-20 is earlier than Vaticanus and Sinaiticus – over a century earlier. Hippolytus is earlier too, as was the text used by the early author of the early composition De Rebaptismate. The use of Mk. 16:18 by Hierocles (who was probably using material from Porphyry) is also earlier. The text that was being used by Marinus is just as early as Vaticanus, and so are "some copies of Mark" mentioned by Eusebius (at a point in his composition where he is writing his own remarks, and is not framing what someone could say). Aphrahat's testimony, from the 330's, is virtually as early as Vaticanus and earlier than Sinaiticus.

      In addition, one should consider not only the dates of these early witnesses, but the early transmission-history that they imply. Philostorgius' early source's text of Mk. 16 apparently included "And in their hands," so when we observe this reading in a text used in the 300's by someone from Constantinople, and in the text of Codex L & other witnesses from Egypt, this implies that the line of descent anterior to those two local texts must go back further.

      Meanwhile: what exactly are those "certain elements" to which you refer, stating that they were lobbying for the acceptance of Mk. 16:9-20? What is the historic basis for your reference?

      Yours in Christ,

      James Snapp, Jr.

      Early!



    • james_snapp_jr
      Dear George: I have attempted to make distinctions among references to Mark 16:9-20: some are secure; some are very probable; some are possible; some are
      Message 2 of 21 , Nov 1, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        Dear George:

        I have attempted to make distinctions among references to Mark 16:9-20: some are secure; some are very probable; some are possible; some are merely conceivable. See my video lecture "Mark 16:9-20 - Some Patristic Evidence" for more about that. (Compared to how the incidental silence of Clement and Origen has been abused, as if their non-use of Mk. 16:9-20 shows that their copies of Mark ended at 16:8, I consider my handling of the evidence downright miserly.)

        Irenaeus' statement in Against Heresies, Book Three, chapter 10, is definitely a secure reference.

        You wrote: "The reference in Irenaeus is only similar to the LE in its mention of snakes. The LE doesn't mention "treading on" snakes but picking them up. Scorpions are not mentioned at all."

        Perhaps you have recollected some other statement. The statement of Irenaeus that I have in mind, from "Against Heresies" Book Three, runs as follows: "Also, towards the conclusion of his Gospel, Mark says: `So then, after the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven, and sits on the right hand of God.'"

        That is a use of Mark 16:19, not of the phrase in 16:18 about serpents. Figuring that Irenaeus wrote Book Three of "Against Heresies" around 184, the copy of Mark in which Irenaeus read Mark 16:19 was about 140 years older than Codex Vaticanus.

        Further comments about Irenaeus' statement, and about the margin-note in MS 1582 and MS 72 that mentions it, can be found in my book, "Authentic: The Case for Mark 16:9-20." If you do not have a recent copy you are welcome to e-mail me for a free digital copy.

        On a related note: the marginalia that appears in 1582 and in 72 mentioning that Irenaeus quotes Mark 16:19 in his third book of "Against Heresies" also appears in a manuscript in Craiova, Romania, as Jeff Hargis reported last year at the CSNTM blog –
        http://www.csntm.org/News/Archive/2010/7/7/UncataloguedGospelsMinusculeattheMuseumofOlteniainCraiovaRomania . Hopefully there will be an opportunity to photograph and collate that manuscript, since the probability seems high (or, at least, higher than normal) that its text will be akin to the text of 72 or 1582.

        And, regarding the idea that "It would seem that the LE of Mk was built upon the story of Paul being bitten when shipwrecked in the late book of Acts" -- this seems unlikely to me (whether the composition-date for Acts is placed in the 60's or later) for several reasons:
        first, the prediction in Mark 16:18 describes a volitional act, whereas Paul's encounter with a viper is incidental – the viper took hold of Paul; Paul did not take hold of the viper.
        Second, the terms are different – /ofeis/ in Mk. 16:18; /echidna/ in Acts.
        And, third, Acts includes reports of the disciples doing some pretty impressive things – such as *raising the dead.* The theory that Mark 16:18 includes an after-the-fact prediction of events known from the book of Acts requires a rather rare sort of author, specifically, the kind of author who would settle for making Jesus predict a minor act, using wording that does not really match the act itself, although much more impressive acts, and more specific wording, could have been used.

        Also, I repeat my earlier question: what exactly are those "certain elements" to which you refer, stating that they were lobbying for the acceptance of Mk. 16:9-20? What is the historic basis for your reference?

        Yours in Christ,

        James Snapp, Jr.
      • George F Somsel
        My apologies for the misunderstanding.  I found a passage in the ANF-1 text of Adv. Haer. in which the mention of treading on serpents and scorpions was
        Message 3 of 21 , Nov 2, 2011
        • 0 Attachment
          My apologies for the misunderstanding.  I found a passage in the ANF-1 text of Adv. Haer. in which the mention of treading on serpents and scorpions was footnoted noting Mk 16.17-18 [Adv. Haer. 2.20.3] and thought that was your reference rather than the passage you mention below.  One problem with Adv. Haer. is that we lack much of the original which is only retained in Eusebius (your passage is not included in Eusebius).  I hesitate to rely on a translation which apparently was not well done in the first place when I don't know what the translator's practice might have been.  Did he do a straight-forward translation or did he perhaps make some modifications in the process?  The practice of modifying a work in the process of translating it is not unknown by any means.
           
          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: james_snapp_jr <voxverax@...>
          To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
          Sent: Tuesday, November 1, 2011 8:14 PM
          Subject: [textualcriticism] Irenaeus and Mark 16:19

           
          Dear George:

          I have attempted to make distinctions among references to Mark 16:9-20: some are secure; some are very probable; some are possible; some are merely conceivable. See my video lecture "Mark 16:9-20 - Some Patristic Evidence" for more about that. (Compared to how the incidental silence of Clement and Origen has been abused, as if their non-use of Mk. 16:9-20 shows that their copies of Mark ended at 16:8, I consider my handling of the evidence downright miserly.)

          Irenaeus' statement in Against Heresies, Book Three, chapter 10, is definitely a secure reference.

          You wrote: "The reference in Irenaeus is only similar to the LE in its mention of snakes. The LE doesn't mention "treading on" snakes but picking them up. Scorpions are not mentioned at all."

          Perhaps you have recollected some other statement. The statement of Irenaeus that I have in mind, from "Against Heresies" Book Three, runs as follows: "Also, towards the conclusion of his Gospel, Mark says: `So then, after the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven, and sits on the right hand of God.'"

          That is a use of Mark 16:19, not of the phrase in 16:18 about serpents. Figuring that Irenaeus wrote Book Three of "Against Heresies" around 184, the copy of Mark in which Irenaeus read Mark 16:19 was about 140 years older than Codex Vaticanus.

          Further comments about Irenaeus' statement, and about the margin-note in MS 1582 and MS 72 that mentions it, can be found in my book, "Authentic: The Case for Mark 16:9-20." If you do not have a recent copy you are welcome to e-mail me for a free digital copy.

          On a related note: the marginalia that appears in 1582 and in 72 mentioning that Irenaeus quotes Mark 16:19 in his third book of "Against Heresies" also appears in a manuscript in Craiova, Romania, as Jeff Hargis reported last year at the CSNTM blog –
          http://www.csntm.org/News/Archive/2010/7/7/UncataloguedGospelsMinusculeattheMuseumofOlteniainCraiovaRomania . Hopefully there will be an opportunity to photograph and collate that manuscript, since the probability seems high (or, at least, higher than normal) that its text will be akin to the text of 72 or 1582.

          And, regarding the idea that "It would seem that the LE of Mk was built upon the story of Paul being bitten when shipwrecked in the late book of Acts" -- this seems unlikely to me (whether the composition-date for Acts is placed in the 60's or later) for several reasons:
          first, the prediction in Mark 16:18 describes a volitional act, whereas Paul's encounter with a viper is incidental – the viper took hold of Paul; Paul did not take hold of the viper.
          Second, the terms are different – /ofeis/ in Mk. 16:18; /echidna/ in Acts.
          And, third, Acts includes reports of the disciples doing some pretty impressive things – such as *raising the dead.* The theory that Mark 16:18 includes an after-the-fact prediction of events known from the book of Acts requires a rather rare sort of author, specifically, the kind of author who would settle for making Jesus predict a minor act, using wording that does not really match the act itself, although much more impressive acts, and more specific wording, could have been used.

          Also, I repeat my earlier question: what exactly are those "certain elements" to which you refer, stating that they were lobbying for the acceptance of Mk. 16:9-20? What is the historic basis for your reference?

          Yours in Christ,

          James Snapp, Jr.



        • james_snapp_jr
          Some of your questions, as well as coverage of the passage in Book II:20:3, are already addressed in my book. He is an excerpt, from the part where I review
          Message 4 of 21 , Nov 4, 2011
          • 0 Attachment
            Some of your questions, as well as coverage of the passage in Book II:20:3, are already addressed in my book. He is an excerpt, from the part where I review the evidence from Irenaeus:

            *****

            ". . . in the Latin translation of Against Heresies, a large composition written by Irenaeus bishop of Lyons, in about A.D. 184, the author makes an explicit quotation from Mark 16:19 in Book Three, chapter 10: "Also, towards the conclusion of his Gospel, Mark says: `So then, after the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven, and sits on the right hand of God.'" The Latin text is, "In fine autem euangelii ait Marcus: Et quidem Dominus Iesus, postquam locutus est eis, receptus est in caelos, et sedet ad dexteram Dei."

            Irenaeus served as a bishop in Gaul, but in his childhood he had lived in Asia Minor. In the 170's he visited Rome. He experienced Christian life in Asia Minor, in Gaul, and in Rome, apparently without seeing anything that would cause him to have reservations about quoting Mark 16:19 as part of the Gospel of Mark.

            The Greek text of Against Heresies Book Three, chapter 10, like most of the composition, is not extant. However, there is no basis to suppose that this statement was absent from the genuine Greek text of Against Heresies. It is mentioned in a Greek marginal note, written in the shape of an upside-down triangle, which appears next to Mark 16:19 in the important minuscule manuscript 1582, which was produced in 948:

            EIRHNAIOS O TWN
            APOSTOLWN PLH
            SION EN TW PROS
            TAS AIRESEIS TRI
            TWI LOGWI TOUTO
            ANHNEGKEN
            TO RHTON
            WS MARKW
            EIRHME
            N
            ON.

            This means, in English, "Irenaeus, who lived near the time of the apostles, cites this from Mark in the third book of his work Against Heresies." Ordinarily a margin-note in a medieval manuscript would not be so decisive, but the copyist of minuscule 1582, whose name was Ephraim, was exceptional; he replicated his exemplars, including their margin-notes. Minuscule 1582 is one of a group of manuscripts which share a collection of textual variants, and which also share some other features. A virtually identical margin-note is displayed in minuscule 72. This note did not originate with the copyist of 1582, or the copyist of 72. It was in an ancestor of the family of manuscripts of which 1582 is a member.

            Manuscript 1582 and some other manuscripts in its family (called family-1, f-1, because minuscule 1 is another important member of the group) contain marginalia which include citations of patristic writers. None of these citations post-date the mid-400's (the most recent citation was of Cyril of Alexandria, who died in 444). This strongly suggests that the ancestor-manuscript was made shortly thereafter. The implication of this is that the triangular note about Irenaeus is as old as f-1's ancestor-manuscript. Its legitimacy as an ancient report about the Greek text of Against Heresies, Book Three, is unquestionable.

            Additional evidence of Irenaeus' familiarity with Mark 16:9 to 20 may be found in Book Two, chapter 32, paragraphs 3 through 4 of Against Heresies, which was quoted by Eusebius in Church History 5:7. There, after mentioning that "the Lord rose from the dead on the third day, and manifested himself to his disciples, and was in their sight received up into heaven," Irenaeus describes how the true disciples – unlike the false prophets he refutes – "in His name perform miracles." He states, "Some do certainly and truly drive out devils," and "Others have foreknowledge of future events, seeing visions and uttering prophetic expressions," and others "heal the sick by laying their hands upon them, and they are made whole" (see Mark 16:18). Although there are no strong verbal parallels between this passage and Mark 16:9 to 20, the subject-matter is very similar.

            *****

            That is not to say that no interesting questions can be asked about the accuracy of the Latin translation of "Against Heresies," about which, see some earlier posts on the subject. (It is, generally, a woodenly literal translation.) In at least one place, the Latin translator apparently conformed Irenaeus' text to something else. (Either that, or an extremely early papyrus fragment of "Against Heresies" had /its/ text conformed to a local standard.) But that sort of thing is *conformation,* whereas, if one were to question the genuineness of the quotation of Mark 16:19 in Against Heresies Book Three Chapter 10, one would not be alleging that a translator merely conformed the text, but that someone interpolated the entire sentence. Not only is there no evidence for such a thing, but the evidence from 1582 and 72 (and, I would add, from Chromatius, who seems to have been very aware of this part of "Against Heresies") opposes it.

            And, again: what exactly are those "certain elements" to which you refer, stating that they were lobbying for the acceptance of Mk. 16:9-20? What is the historic basis for your reference?

            Yours in Christ,

            James Snapp, Jr.
          • George F Somsel
            James Snapp wrote:  And, again: what exactly are those certain elements to which you refer, stating that they were lobbying for the acceptance of Mk.
            Message 5 of 21 , Nov 4, 2011
            • 0 Attachment
              James Snapp wrote:  "And, again: what exactly are those "certain elements" to which you refer, stating that they were lobbying for the acceptance of Mk. 16:9-20? What is the historic basis for your reference?"
               
              I think a good candidate would be Jerome.  Note what Metzger states:
               
              Four endings of the Gospel according to Mark are current in the manuscripts. (1) The last twelve verses of the commonly received text of Mark are absent from the two oldest Greek manuscripts (א and B), from the Old Latin codex Bobiensis (it), the Sinaitic Syriac manuscript, about one hundred Armenian manuscripts,2 and the two oldest Georgian manuscripts (written a.d. 897 and a.d. 913).     Clement of Alexandria and Origen show no knowledge of the existence of these verses; furthermore Eusebius and Jerome attest that the passage was absent from almost all Greek copies of Mark known to them. The original form of the Eusebian sections (drawn up by Ammonius) makes no provision for numbering sections of the text after 16:8. Not a few manuscripts that contain the passage have scribal notes stating that older Greek copies lack it, and in other witnesses the passage is marked with asterisks or obeli, the conventional signs used by copyists to indicate a spurious addition to a document.
              It appears that Jerome was in part responsible for the furtherance of the idea of the perpetual virginity of Mary so he seems to be partly responsible for the development of dogma and his translation became standard in the west despite his attestation that the verses were not present in most Greek mss.
               
              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: james_snapp_jr <voxverax@...>
              To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
              Sent: Friday, November 4, 2011 12:11 PM
              Subject: [textualcriticism] Re: Irenaeus and Mark 16:19

               
              Some of your questions, as well as coverage of the passage in Book II:20:3, are already addressed in my book. He is an excerpt, from the part where I review the evidence from Irenaeus:

              *****

              ". . . in the Latin translation of Against Heresies, a large composition written by Irenaeus bishop of Lyons, in about A.D. 184, the author makes an explicit quotation from Mark 16:19 in Book Three, chapter 10: "Also, towards the conclusion of his Gospel, Mark says: `So then, after the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven, and sits on the right hand of God.'" The Latin text is, "In fine autem euangelii ait Marcus: Et quidem Dominus Iesus, postquam locutus est eis, receptus est in caelos, et sedet ad dexteram Dei."

              Irenaeus served as a bishop in Gaul, but in his childhood he had lived in Asia Minor. In the 170's he visited Rome. He experienced Christian life in Asia Minor, in Gaul, and in Rome, apparently without seeing anything that would cause him to have reservations about quoting Mark 16:19 as part of the Gospel of Mark.

              The Greek text of Against Heresies Book Three, chapter 10, like most of the composition, is not extant. However, there is no basis to suppose that this statement was absent from the genuine Greek text of Against Heresies. It is mentioned in a Greek marginal note, written in the shape of an upside-down triangle, which appears next to Mark 16:19 in the important minuscule manuscript 1582, which was produced in 948:

              EIRHNAIOS O TWN
              APOSTOLWN PLH
              SION EN TW PROS
              TAS AIRESEIS TRI
              TWI LOGWI TOUTO
              ANHNEGKEN
              TO RHTON
              WS MARKW
              EIRHME
              N
              ON.

              This means, in English, "Irenaeus, who lived near the time of the apostles, cites this from Mark in the third book of his work Against Heresies." Ordinarily a margin-note in a medieval manuscript would not be so decisive, but the copyist of minuscule 1582, whose name was Ephraim, was exceptional; he replicated his exemplars, including their margin-notes. Minuscule 1582 is one of a group of manuscripts which share a collection of textual variants, and which also share some other features. A virtually identical margin-note is displayed in minuscule 72. This note did not originate with the copyist of 1582, or the copyist of 72. It was in an ancestor of the family of manuscripts of which 1582 is a member.

              Manuscript 1582 and some other manuscripts in its family (called family-1, f-1, because minuscule 1 is another important member of the group) contain marginalia which include citations of patristic writers. None of these citations post-date the mid-400's (the most recent citation was of Cyril of Alexandria, who died in 444). This strongly suggests that the ancestor-manuscript was made shortly thereafter. The implication of this is that the triangular note about Irenaeus is as old as f-1's ancestor-manuscript. Its legitimacy as an ancient report about the Greek text of Against Heresies, Book Three, is unquestionable.

              Additional evidence of Irenaeus' familiarity with Mark 16:9 to 20 may be found in Book Two, chapter 32, paragraphs 3 through 4 of Against Heresies, which was quoted by Eusebius in Church History 5:7. There, after mentioning that "the Lord rose from the dead on the third day, and manifested himself to his disciples, and was in their sight received up into heaven," Irenaeus describes how the true disciples – unlike the false prophets he refutes – "in His name perform miracles." He states, "Some do certainly and truly drive out devils," and "Others have foreknowledge of future events, seeing visions and uttering prophetic expressions," and others "heal the sick by laying their hands upon them, and they are made whole" (see Mark 16:18). Although there are no strong verbal parallels between this passage and Mark 16:9 to 20, the subject-matter is very similar.

              *****

              That is not to say that no interesting questions can be asked about the accuracy of the Latin translation of "Against Heresies," about which, see some earlier posts on the subject. (It is, generally, a woodenly literal translation.) In at least one place, the Latin translator apparently conformed Irenaeus' text to something else. (Either that, or an extremely early papyrus fragment of "Against Heresies" had /its/ text conformed to a local standard.) But that sort of thing is *conformation,* whereas, if one were to question the genuineness of the quotation of Mark 16:19 in Against Heresies Book Three Chapter 10, one would not be alleging that a translator merely conformed the text, but that someone interpolated the entire sentence. Not only is there no evidence for such a thing, but the evidence from 1582 and 72 (and, I would add, from Chromatius, who seems to have been very aware of this part of "Against Heresies") opposes it.

              And, again: what exactly are those "certain elements" to which you refer, stating that they were lobbying for the acceptance of Mk. 16:9-20? What is the historic basis for your reference?

              Yours in Christ,

              James Snapp, Jr.



            • james_snapp_jr
              Dear George: Metzger doesn t really say much about Jerome, except for the statement that Eusebius and Jerome attest that the passage was absent from almost all
              Message 6 of 21 , Nov 7, 2011
              • 0 Attachment
                Dear George:

                Metzger doesn't really say much about Jerome, except for the statement that Eusebius and Jerome attest that the passage was absent from almost all Greek copies of Mark known to them. What historical basis do you claim as support for the idea that Jerome was "lobbying for the acceptance of Mk. 16:9-20"? Bear in mind that Hedibia, to whom Jerome was writing when he repeated Eusebius' framed statement about the absence of Mk. 16:9-20 in almost all copies, was not a particularly influential person as far as shaping the NT text was concerned.

                Do you have any evidence that Jerome lobbied for the inclusion of Mk. 16:9-20 in any special way (say, beyond the way he lobbied for the recognition of Mt, Mk, Lk, and Jn as the four canonical Gospels)?

                Also, since you presented that snippet from Metzger, this may be an opportune time to review its accuracy.

                Metzger: "The last twelve verses of the commonly received text of Mark are absent from the two oldest Greek manuscripts (Aleph and B)," –

                No mention of B's blank space, or of Aleph's cancel-sheet and emphatic arabesque. Also, while Metzger rightly mentions in a footnote that 2386 is only a phantom witness for the Abrupt Ending [and is actually a witness for the usual 12 verses], he does not provide a focused view of 304, in which the subscription of the Gospel of Mark does *not* appear after 16:8; 304 is almost certainly just another damaged MS (as Hort had figured back in 1881).

                Metzger: "from the Old Latin codex Bobiensis (it-k)," –

                No mention is made of the weirdness of Bobbiensis' text of Mark 16 (although he did, at least, mention the interpolation between 16:3 and 16:4 separately in his Textual Commentary). Plus, Bobbiensis is in the equation later, as a witness for the Shorter Ending, so effectively it takes the stand twice: in the list of witnesses for the Abrupt Ending, and later in Metzger's comments where he covers the Shorter Ending.

                Metzger: "about one hundred Armenian manuscripts," –

                In his presentation of evidence for 16:9-20, Metzger did not mention the hundreds of Armenian copies that include verses 9-20. That is unbalanced. Also, there is no mention of Eznik of Golb, whose use of Mk. 16:17-18 predates the earliest Armenian copy of Mark by hundreds of years. Also, something should be noticed here: Metzger is (as he selectively samples text-types) counting manuscripts! Somehow, it seems, counting manuscripts becomes fine and dandy if the quantities begin to tilt toward a favored variant.

                Metzger: "and the two oldest Georgian manuscripts (written a.d. 897 and a.d. 913)." –

                That's pretty late, isn't it. Even John of Damascus is earlier than that! And yet the battalion of widespread witnesses that pre-date the Adysh MS somehow doesn't rate this kind of prominent mention. Also unmentioned by Metzger is the evidence from the sixth-century Georgian composition "The Martyrdom of Saint Eustathius of Mzketha." (Birdsall acknowledged that this Old Georgian text was linked not only to the text of Matthew, and to some bits and pieces from the Gospel of John, but also to Mk. 16:9-20.)

                Also, Metzger's brief review does not allow readers to see that the earliest Georgian evidence of a text-form supportive of the inclusion of Mk. 16:9-20 is as old as the Adysh Codex and the Opiza Codex is contemporary with them – because, if the research of Akaki Shanidze is correct, that evidence is embedded in the Adysh Codex itself: in the Adysh Codex, the text of Luke 3:9 to 15:7 and Luke 17:25 to 23:2 seems to have been based on a different exemplar from the surrounding text. There, in that portion of Luke, the text of the Adysh Codex resembles the text found in the Dzruci Codex (produced in 936) and the Parhal Codex (made in 973). So although the Adysh Codex and the Opiza Codex are older, their Gospels-texts are not necessarily older than the text of (slightly) later Georgian copies. Metzger's readers are only allowed to see the Georgian evidence against Mk. 16:9-20: he does not mention any supportive Georgian evidence, and he gives the impression that the two oldest Georgian manuscripts have the oldest Georgian Gospels-text.

                Metzger: "Clement of Alexandria and Origen show no knowledge of the existence of these verses" –

                The apparent silence of Clement and Origen is a side-effect of their tendency not to use the Gospel of Mark very much. For details see my analysis of their testimony in "Authentic: the Case for Mark 16:9-20," and in the video-lecture about patristic evidence pertaining to Mark 16:9-20. Clement, in his major works, does not explicitly quote from Mark 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 15, and 16, so it would not be surprising to find that he did not quote from 16:9-20. But it is possible that Clement does, after all, use Mark 16:19, in a statement on Jude verse 24 preserved by Cassiodorus, as was discussed here a while ago. Origen, too, might conceivably have had Mark 16:20 in mind when he wrote Philocalia 5:5 (after alluding to Lk. 10:19), but if Origen really does not use Mk. 16:9-20, then all that this admits is that Origen used Mk. 16:9-20 as much as he used most 12-verse portions of the Gospel of Mark; Origen does not use 34 of the approximately 56 or 57 twelve-verse portions of Mark.

                Metzger: "furthermore Eusebius and Jerome attest that the passage was absent from almost all Greek copies of Mark known to them." –

                Now that Roger Pearse's "Eusebius of Caesarea: Gospel Problems and Solutions" is published, the full extent of the actual statements made by Eusebius will be able to be realized, and as a result, Metzger's oft-repeated claim will be almost buried underneath qualifications, which include:
                (1) Eusebius' statements about "the accurate copies" and about "almost all the copies" were both framed by Eusebius as something that someone who wanted to dismiss the harmonization-difficulty could say.
                (2) Eusebius recommended to Marinus that 16:9-20 be harmonized (and thus retained) via the introduction of a comma in 16:9.
                (3) Eusebius, further along in "Ad Marinum," mentions that "some copies" of Mark state that Jesus cast out seven demons from Mary Magdalene; this is as specific as Eusebius' own description of the evidence gets; his framed claims – what he says as he presents what someone might say to resolve a perceived difficulty – include different ratios of manuscripts (from "not all manuscripts include" to "almost all omit"); Eusebius' own claim is that "some copies" include 16:9.

                In addition, Metzger gave his readers no clue that the pertinent statement from Jerome appears in an abridgement of "Ad Marinum" that he provided for Hedibia. The impression from Metzger is that Jerome's testimony is entirely independent of Eusebius! Whereas in real life, a comparison of "Ad Hedibiam" to "Ad Marinus" will show that Jerome's statement is embedded in his Latin abridgement of "Ad Marinum."

                Metzger: "The original form of the Eusebian sections (drawn up by Ammonius) makes no provision for numbering sections of the text after 16:8." -

                Since the Ammonian Sections are actually the work of Eusebius, not Ammonius, Metzger has simply double-counted the testimony of Eusebius. It is interesting to see how Eusebius, when writing to Marinus, recommended that 16:9-20 be harmonized and retained, but, when constructing his cross-reference system (inspired by a Matthew-centered scheme that Ammonius developed, but which Eusebius describes in Ad Carpianus as something different from the Canons and Sections that he himself presents), did not include 16:9-20. But this is still the testimony of one witness, Eusebius of Caesarea.

                Metzger: "Not a few manuscripts that contain the passage have scribal notes stating that older Greek copies lack it," –

                If counting manuscripts is bad, then ambiguously estimating a count is also bad. The wording that Metzger used here is so vague that it has misled numerous commentators, who proceeded to turn "Not a few" into "many." The actual number of Greek MSS with scribal notes about Mark 16:9-20 (not part of the Commentary of Victor of Antioch, but a distinct n annotation) is, I believe, fourteen. And, as I explain in "Authentic: The Case for Mark 16:9-20," these are not 14 distinct lines of evidence; most of them are related to f-1 and/or to the Jerusalem Colophon in one way or another. In addition, flatly contradicting Metzger's claim that the scribal notes say that "older Greek copies lack" the passage," one form of the annotation explicitly states that the older copies contain the passage." (Again, see "Authentic: The Case for Mark 16:9-20" for details.) Metzger's descriptions of the copies with annotations falls leaves much to be desired, and gives a rather misleading impression to most readers (including some Metzger-dependent commentators who have distorted Metzger's misrepresentations to absurd proportions).

                Metzger: "and in other witnesses the passage is marked with asterisks or obeli, the conventional signs used by copyists to indicate a spurious addition to a document." -

                Although I have not traveled to the National Library of Spain to examine a manuscript (a manuscript with commentary) there that is said to be among the MSS that have these asterisks or obeli, I invite anyone and everyone to disprove the following categorical statements: Metzger's statement about unannotated MSS of Mark with asterisks and obeli is false. The marks in question signify lectionary-divisions and they recur in the manuscripts in which they appear, serving that purpose.

                Yours in Christ,

                James Snapp, Jr.


                P.S. – In related news: a month ago I found a webpage about the Gospel of Mark that featured the claim, "Many early manuscripts of the gospel end with the story of the empty tomb (Mark 16:1-8)." The webpage was written by someone who, it seems, was a seminary graduate who was assisting a seminary professor, who supervises the website. The lessons in textual criticism at those places must be pretty lousy to allow the promotion of such a bad misrepresentation of the evidence (in an introductory essay!) about this major textual variant. Maybe some folks here could suggest to the professor that this sort of error should be immediately corrected? I tried, but a month later the false statement is still there at
                http://www.ntgateway.com/gospel-and-acts/gospel-of-mark/introduction-to-marks-gospel/

                The professor's name is Dr. Mark Goodacre, at a school called Duke University. Somewhere out east, I think.
              • Stephen Carlson
                ... This is a rather uncharitable reading of the statement. You re assuming he s talking about surviving manuscripts, but we know that there were many early
                Message 7 of 21 , Nov 7, 2011
                • 0 Attachment
                  On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 10:23 AM, james_snapp_jr <voxverax@...> wrote:

                  P.S. – In related news: a month ago I found a webpage about the Gospel of Mark that featured the claim, "Many early manuscripts of the gospel end with the story of the empty tomb (Mark 16:1-8)." The webpage was written by someone who, it seems, was a seminary graduate who was assisting a seminary professor, who supervises the website. The lessons in textual criticism at those places must be pretty lousy to allow the promotion of such a bad misrepresentation of the evidence (in an introductory essay!) about this major textual variant. Maybe some folks here could suggest to the professor that this sort of error should be immediately corrected? I tried, but a month later the false statement is still there at
                  http://www.ntgateway.com/gospel-and-acts/gospel-of-mark/introduction-to-marks-gospel/

                  The professor's name is Dr. Mark Goodacre, at a school called Duke University. Somewhere out east, I think.

                  This is a rather uncharitable reading of the statement.  You're assuming he's talking about surviving manuscripts, but we know that there were many early manuscripts of Mark that lack the longer ending because Eusebius tells us so.  Now, you may wish to minimize the value of that testimony, but your efforts to show that Eusebius somehow actually preferred the longer ending merely strengthen the value of his statement as an admission against interest.

                  Stephen Carlson

                  While we're picking nits, you should be aware that Maxim Cardew is not a "seminary graduate" but a graduate of Oxford, and Mark Goodacre is not a "seminary professor."  Though Duke has a divinity school, Dr. Goodacre's appointment is in the Department of Religion, not the Divinity School.  Your inattention to this fact (which only people within Duke care about) clearly condemns anything and everything you have to say about any topic whatsoever. ;-)
                  -- 
                  Stephen C. Carlson
                  Graduate Program in Religion
                  Duke University
                • George F Somsel
                  The fact that Jerome acknowledges that the Greek manuscripts lack the text of the LE and yet chose to include it in his translation speaks volumes.  I hardly
                  Message 8 of 21 , Nov 7, 2011
                  • 0 Attachment
                    The fact that Jerome acknowledges that the Greek manuscripts lack the text of the LE and yet chose to include it in his translation speaks volumes.  I hardly think that in light of this fact we need letters from him advocating its acceptance — he simply accomplishes that by including it in the translation ("There it is, it's part of the text"). 
                     
                    As regards the age of the Georgian texts, are you contending that if we had earlier texts they would include the LE?  I would presume (rightly, I think) that if we had earlier texts they would read substantially the same as this "late" text.  So, yes, it's late, but it is a witness to earlier texts.  A late date for the absence of the LE is not significant; what is needed is an EARLY date for the inclusion of the LE. 
                     
                    Armenian texts?  Note what Tischendorff states:
                     
                    Primum omittunt אB k armcdd antiq et quidemven aethm eta arvat (vide post quibus k et aethedd m eta evglium Marci claudant Notant asterisco 137. 138. G
                     
                    Note  B's space? — not worth the vellum it ISN'T written on for evidence. 
                     
                    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: james_snapp_jr <voxverax@...>
                    To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
                    Sent: Monday, November 7, 2011 8:23 AM
                    Subject: [textualcriticism] Metzger's Comments on Mark 16:9-20

                     
                    Dear George:

                    Metzger doesn't really say much about Jerome, except for the statement that Eusebius and Jerome attest that the passage was absent from almost all Greek copies of Mark known to them. What historical basis do you claim as support for the idea that Jerome was "lobbying for the acceptance of Mk. 16:9-20"? Bear in mind that Hedibia, to whom Jerome was writing when he repeated Eusebius' framed statement about the absence of Mk. 16:9-20 in almost all copies, was not a particularly influential person as far as shaping the NT text was concerned.

                    Do you have any evidence that Jerome lobbied for the inclusion of Mk. 16:9-20 in any special way (say, beyond the way he lobbied for the recognition of Mt, Mk, Lk, and Jn as the four canonical Gospels)?

                    Also, since you presented that snippet from Metzger, this may be an opportune time to review its accuracy.

                    Metzger: "The last twelve verses of the commonly received text of Mark are absent from the two oldest Greek manuscripts (Aleph and B)," –

                    No mention of B's blank space, or of Aleph's cancel-sheet and emphatic arabesque. Also, while Metzger rightly mentions in a footnote that 2386 is only a phantom witness for the Abrupt Ending [and is actually a witness for the usual 12 verses], he does not provide a focused view of 304, in which the subscription of the Gospel of Mark does *not* appear after 16:8; 304 is almost certainly just another damaged MS (as Hort had figured back in 1881).

                    Metzger: "from the Old Latin codex Bobiensis (it-k)," –

                    No mention is made of the weirdness of Bobbiensis' text of Mark 16 (although he did, at least, mention the interpolation between 16:3 and 16:4 separately in his Textual Commentary). Plus, Bobbiensis is in the equation later, as a witness for the Shorter Ending, so effectively it takes the stand twice: in the list of witnesses for the Abrupt Ending, and later in Metzger's comments where he covers the Shorter Ending.

                    Metzger: "about one hundred Armenian manuscripts," –

                    In his presentation of evidence for 16:9-20, Metzger did not mention the hundreds of Armenian copies that include verses 9-20. That is unbalanced. Also, there is no mention of Eznik of Golb, whose use of Mk. 16:17-18 predates the earliest Armenian copy of Mark by hundreds of years. Also, something should be noticed here: Metzger is (as he selectively samples text-types) counting manuscripts! Somehow, it seems, counting manuscripts becomes fine and dandy if the quantities begin to tilt toward a favored variant.

                    Metzger: "and the two oldest Georgian manuscripts (written a.d. 897 and a.d. 913)." –

                    That's pretty late, isn't it. Even John of Damascus is earlier than that! And yet the battalion of widespread witnesses that pre-date the Adysh MS somehow doesn't rate this kind of prominent mention. Also unmentioned by Metzger is the evidence from the sixth-century Georgian composition "The Martyrdom of Saint Eustathius of Mzketha." (Birdsall acknowledged that this Old Georgian text was linked not only to the text of Matthew, and to some bits and pieces from the Gospel of John, but also to Mk. 16:9-20.)

                    Also, Metzger's brief review does not allow readers to see that the earliest Georgian evidence of a text-form supportive of the inclusion of Mk. 16:9-20 is as old as the Adysh Codex and the Opiza Codex is contemporary with them – because, if the research of Akaki Shanidze is correct, that evidence is embedded in the Adysh Codex itself: in the Adysh Codex, the text of Luke 3:9 to 15:7 and Luke 17:25 to 23:2 seems to have been based on a different exemplar from the surrounding text. There, in that portion of Luke, the text of the Adysh Codex resembles the text found in the Dzruci Codex (produced in 936) and the Parhal Codex (made in 973). So although the Adysh Codex and the Opiza Codex are older, their Gospels-texts are not necessarily older than the text of (slightly) later Georgian copies. Metzger's readers are only allowed to see the Georgian evidence against Mk. 16:9-20: he does not mention any supportive Georgian evidence, and he gives the impression that the two oldest Georgian manuscripts have the oldest Georgian Gospels-text.

                    Metzger: "Clement of Alexandria and Origen show no knowledge of the existence of these verses" –

                    The apparent silence of Clement and Origen is a side-effect of their tendency not to use the Gospel of Mark very much. For details see my analysis of their testimony in "Authentic: the Case for Mark 16:9-20," and in the video-lecture about patristic evidence pertaining to Mark 16:9-20. Clement, in his major works, does not explicitly quote from Mark 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 15, and 16, so it would not be surprising to find that he did not quote from 16:9-20. But it is possible that Clement does, after all, use Mark 16:19, in a statement on Jude verse 24 preserved by Cassiodorus, as was discussed here a while ago. Origen, too, might conceivably have had Mark 16:20 in mind when he wrote Philocalia 5:5 (after alluding to Lk. 10:19), but if Origen really does not use Mk. 16:9-20, then all that this admits is that Origen used Mk. 16:9-20 as much as he used most 12-verse portions of the Gospel of Mark; Origen does not use 34 of the approximately 56 or 57 twelve-verse portions of Mark.

                    Metzger: "furthermore Eusebius and Jerome attest that the passage was absent from almost all Greek copies of Mark known to them." –

                    Now that Roger Pearse's "Eusebius of Caesarea: Gospel Problems and Solutions" is published, the full extent of the actual statements made by Eusebius will be able to be realized, and as a result, Metzger's oft-repeated claim will be almost buried underneath qualifications, which include:
                    (1) Eusebius' statements about "the accurate copies" and about "almost all the copies" were both framed by Eusebius as something that someone who wanted to dismiss the harmonization-difficulty could say.
                    (2) Eusebius recommended to Marinus that 16:9-20 be harmonized (and thus retained) via the introduction of a comma in 16:9.
                    (3) Eusebius, further along in "Ad Marinum," mentions that "some copies" of Mark state that Jesus cast out seven demons from Mary Magdalene; this is as specific as Eusebius' own description of the evidence gets; his framed claims – what he says as he presents what someone might say to resolve a perceived difficulty – include different ratios of manuscripts (from "not all manuscripts include" to "almost all omit"); Eusebius' own claim is that "some copies" include 16:9.

                    In addition, Metzger gave his readers no clue that the pertinent statement from Jerome appears in an abridgement of "Ad Marinum" that he provided for Hedibia. The impression from Metzger is that Jerome's testimony is entirely independent of Eusebius! Whereas in real life, a comparison of "Ad Hedibiam" to "Ad Marinus" will show that Jerome's statement is embedded in his Latin abridgement of "Ad Marinum."

                    Metzger: "The original form of the Eusebian sections (drawn up by Ammonius) makes no provision for numbering sections of the text after 16:8." -

                    Since the Ammonian Sections are actually the work of Eusebius, not Ammonius, Metzger has simply double-counted the testimony of Eusebius. It is interesting to see how Eusebius, when writing to Marinus, recommended that 16:9-20 be harmonized and retained, but, when constructing his cross-reference system (inspired by a Matthew-centered scheme that Ammonius developed, but which Eusebius describes in Ad Carpianus as something different from the Canons and Sections that he himself presents), did not include 16:9-20. But this is still the testimony of one witness, Eusebius of Caesarea.

                    Metzger: "Not a few manuscripts that contain the passage have scribal notes stating that older Greek copies lack it," –

                    If counting manuscripts is bad, then ambiguously estimating a count is also bad. The wording that Metzger used here is so vague that it has misled numerous commentators, who proceeded to turn "Not a few" into "many." The actual number of Greek MSS with scribal notes about Mark 16:9-20 (not part of the Commentary of Victor of Antioch, but a distinct n annotation) is, I believe, fourteen. And, as I explain in "Authentic: The Case for Mark 16:9-20," these are not 14 distinct lines of evidence; most of them are related to f-1 and/or to the Jerusalem Colophon in one way or another. In addition, flatly contradicting Metzger's claim that the scribal notes say that "older Greek copies lack" the passage," one form of the annotation explicitly states that the older copies contain the passage." (Again, see "Authentic: The Case for Mark 16:9-20" for details.) Metzger's descriptions of the copies with annotations falls leaves much to be desired, and gives a rather misleading impression to most readers (including some Metzger-dependent commentators who have distorted Metzger's misrepresentations to absurd proportions).

                    Metzger: "and in other witnesses the passage is marked with asterisks or obeli, the conventional signs used by copyists to indicate a spurious addition to a document." -

                    Although I have not traveled to the National Library of Spain to examine a manuscript (a manuscript with commentary) there that is said to be among the MSS that have these asterisks or obeli, I invite anyone and everyone to disprove the following categorical statements: Metzger's statement about unannotated MSS of Mark with asterisks and obeli is false. The marks in question signify lectionary-divisions and they recur in the manuscripts in which they appear, serving that purpose.

                    Yours in Christ,

                    James Snapp, Jr.

                    P.S. – In related news: a month ago I found a webpage about the Gospel of Mark that featured the claim, "Many early manuscripts of the gospel end with the story of the empty tomb (Mark 16:1-8)." The webpage was written by someone who, it seems, was a seminary graduate who was assisting a seminary professor, who supervises the website. The lessons in textual criticism at those places must be pretty lousy to allow the promotion of such a bad misrepresentation of the evidence (in an introductory essay!) about this major textual variant. Maybe some folks here could suggest to the professor that this sort of error should be immediately corrected? I tried, but a month later the false statement is still there at
                    http://www.ntgateway.com/gospel-and-acts/gospel-of-mark/introduction-to-marks-gospel/

                    The professor's name is Dr. Mark Goodacre, at a school called Duke University. Somewhere out east, I think.



                  • Daniel Buck
                    ________________________________ From: Stephen Carlson Sent: Monday, November 7, 2011 1:50 PM   On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 10:23 AM,
                    Message 9 of 21 , Nov 7, 2011
                    • 0 Attachment
                      From: Stephen Carlson <stemmatic@...>
                      Sent: Monday, November 7, 2011 1:50 PM
                       
                      On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 10:23 AM, james_snapp_jr <voxverax@...> wrote:
                      P.S. – In related news: a month ago I found a webpage about the Gospel of Mark that featured the claim, "Many early manuscripts of the gospel end with the story of the empty tomb (Mark 16:1-8)." The webpage was written by someone who, it seems, was a seminary graduate who was assisting a seminary professor, who supervises the website. The lessons in textual criticism at those places must be pretty lousy to allow the promotion of such a bad misrepresentation of the evidence (in an introductory essay!) about this major textual variant. Maybe some folks here could suggest to the professor that this sort of error should be immediately corrected? I tried, but a month later the false statement is still there at
                      http://www.ntgateway.com/gospel-and-acts/gospel-of-mark/introduction-to-marks-gospel/

                      The professor's name is Dr. Mark Goodacre, at a school called Duke University. Somewhere out east, I think.
                      This is a rather uncharitable reading of the statement.  You're assuming he's talking about surviving manuscripts, but we know that there were many early manuscripts of Mark that lack the longer ending because Eusebius tells us so.  Now, you may wish to minimize the value of that testimony, but your efforts to show that Eusebius somehow actually preferred the longer ending merely strengthen the value of his statement as an admission against interest.

                      Stephen Carlson
                      Graduate Program in Religion
                      Duke University
                      ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      It is worth pointing out that many manuscripts of Mark's gospel DID end at verse eight, based on the testimony of Eusebius. But that is quite a different thing than claiming that many manuscripts of Mark's gospel DO end at verse eight, which is an unfortunate tendency off those who bring up the validity of the Long Ending. And the word "early" is rather subjective, given that we don't have ANY manuscripts of the ending of Mark written within about three centuries of when Mark wrote the autograph.  What we do have is patristic testimony from that era to the existence of the Long Ending.
                       
                      Daniel Buck
                    • james_snapp_jr
                      Stephen, Now that I ve got your attention . . . SC: You re assuming he s talking about surviving manuscripts -- Of course I am assuming that! Are you
                      Message 10 of 21 , Nov 7, 2011
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Stephen,

                        Now that I've got your attention . . .

                        SC: "You're assuming he's talking about surviving manuscripts" --

                        Of course I am assuming that! Are you suggesting that when an author tells his readers about manuscripts, it is uncharitable for readers to assume that the author is talking about *real* manuscripts -- manuscripts that /actually exist/?? Are you saying that it's mere nit-picking to differentiate between MSS that exist and MSS that do not exist??

                        SC: "We know that there were many early manuscripts of Mark that lack the longer ending because Eusebius tells us so."

                        That is not exactly what Eusebius says. He says that someone could say that almost all the copies lack the passage. But he also says that someone could say that the passage appears to contradict the other accounts, and then he proceeds to explain why this is not actually the case! There is a very real possibility that as Eusebius offered the first option, including its MSS-descriptions, he was repeating a claim made by an earlier writer (in about the same way in which modern-day apologists sometimes offer other writers' proposals, without much critique, before presenting the solution that they prefer and advocate.

                        I don't doubt that Eusebius possessed some Gospels-copies in which Mark ended at 16:8 -- his statement that "some copies" of Mark mention that Jesus cast out seven demons from Mary Magdalene is enough to tell us that. But it is not scientific to detach Eusebius' series of descriptions of the manuscript-evidence from its context; the statement must be considered "in situ." The entire first solution is explicity framed, and it might all be a borrowed statement, not a direct statement originating with Eusebius. (If you haven't already read the whole thing, take the time to do so, and see if you don't agree.)

                        SC: "Now, you may wish to minimize the value of that testimony, but your efforts to show that Eusebius somehow actually preferred the longer ending merely strengthen the value of his statement as an admission against interest."

                        Let me repeat something just to make sure it's clear what I am saying about Eusebius' statement in "Ad Marinum." In my earlier analysis of the part of "Ad Marinum" where Eusebius answers Marinus' question about how to harmonize Mt. 28:1 and Mk. 16:9, I was content to conclude that Eusebius was presenting his own observations and his own approach, as he framed the first option -- that is, that Eusebius possessed, at Caesarea, numerous copies of Mark in which the text ended at 16:8, and that Eusebius, if he had his druthers, would have taken the option of rejecting verses 9-20. In that case, he wouldn't have been making an admission against interest; he would have been building his case.

                        It's only after seeing the whole text in Roger Pearse's book, and after seeing how verbosely Eusebius led Marinus to embrace the second option, and after seeing how this seems to fit a pattern in which Eusebius, when offering options about how to resolve perceived discrepancies, tends to endorse the last-mentioned option, that I find myself concluding that Eusebius, when he wrote "Ad Marinum," offered the first option because it was the approach of someone he admired (Maybe Origen? Maybe Pamphilus?) and recommended the second option because it was -- at that particular instance -- Eusebius' own approach. (So while this would be, I suppose, an admission against interest, it may also resemble hearsay evidence, the only direct evidence from Eusebius in "Ad Marinum" being his regard for his source as credible, and his statement that "some copies of Mark" say that Jesus cast out seven demons from Mary Magdalene.)

                        If you have a different explanation as to why Eusebius goes to such lengths to convince Marinus to punctuate Mk. 16:9 and thus retain the passage, when -- if copies that included 16:9-20 were indeed rarities -- it would have been easy for Bishop Eusebius to explicitly tell Marinus that even though Marinus had assumed that the passage was legitimate, it should be rejected, then I would enjoy reading it. Until then, though, it looks to me like Eusebius was inconsistent, endorsing one view when he made his Canon-tables, and adopting a different view when he wrote "Ad Marinum."

                        Yours in Christ,

                        James Snapp, Jr.
                      • james_snapp_jr
                        Dear George: Jerome s statement that almost all the Greek codices lack Mk. 16:9-20 is not Jerome s statement -- it is Jerome s abridgement of Eusebius
                        Message 11 of 21 , Nov 7, 2011
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Dear George:

                          Jerome's statement that "almost all the Greek codices lack Mk. 16:9-20" is not Jerome's statement -- it is Jerome's abridgement of Eusebius' statement, embedded in "Ad Hedibiam" (= Jerome's Epistle 120). The Latin text of this letter can be found in CSEL Volume 55, beginning on page 470. (My rough English tertiary translation of this letter can be found at Roger Pearse's Tertullian website.) Jerome repeats the statement, and offers no criticisms of it, but simply moves on to the same solution that Eusebius recommended to Marinus, namely, that 16:9 should be punctuated a certain way.

                          One might ask why Jerome would advocate a reading -- especially such a significant reading -- if he only found it in a small minority of MSS. Before answering that, I would emphasize that I don't grant that Jerome's abridged repetition of Eusebius' statement should be interpreted as agreement with it. Jerome passes by the point very briefly, he treats it the way one treats a pre-rejected path -- not by slowing down to repair its potholes, but by accelerating to the path that one intends to take.

                          It is never easy to read a patristic author's mind, but considering that Jerome was writing by dictation, and considering that he was relying very heavily on "Ad Marinum" as a source, and considering that he states elsewhere that he just wanted to pass along to his own readers the things that he had read in the works of earlier writers, so that his readers would be informed of interpretative options, it seems to me unlikely that Jerome's statement in "Ad Hedibiam" reflects his own careful investigation on the subject, and it seems more likely that it merely reflects Jerome's determination to complete his letter to Hedibia in a reasonable amount of time, without getting sidetracked.

                          Bear in mind, by the way, that Jerome produced the Vulgate Gospels in 383 -- and stated at that time, in the Vulgate Gospels-Preface, and slightly later in a letter, that he had edited the Latin texts using the contents of old Greek manuscripts as his standard. (Notice the emphasis on age, not quantity.)

                          Back to the question of how Jerome could favor a minority reading: Jerome seems to have been under the impression that there were three competing texts in three regions (see Metzger's essay on Lucian of Antioch for details), and so he would tend not to regard quantity of copies as a hallmark of authenticity, but rather as a sign of the efficiency of scribes. The *age* of a manuscript seems to have been the trait which Jerome valued most highly, followed by the carefulness of the copyist.

                          GS: "I hardly think that in light of this fact we need letters from him advocating its acceptance ~ he simply accomplishes that by including it in the translation ("There it is, it's part of the text")."

                          Clearly, he accepted it, and he expected others to accept it. But, again: the same can be said for his acceptance of Mt-Mk-Lk-Jn as the four canonical Gospels. In what sense was Jerome "lobbying" for the acceptance of Mark 16:9-20?

                          GS: "As regards the age of the Georgian texts, are you contending that if we had earlier texts they would include the LE?"

                          I am contending that the Georgian Gospels-texts were translated from Armenian Gospels-texts, and that the Armenian Gospels-texts were diversified in the 400's: there was an Armenian transmission-line that included Mk. 16:9-20, and an Armenian transmission-line that did not include Mk. 16:9-20, from the 400's onward. (This could be accounted for if one were to picture the initial Armenian translation, under Meshrops' supervision, being based on a Syriac text, and then redone after 430 on the basis of esteemed codices taken to Armenia from Constantinople, and re-redone on the basis of research done by Armenian scholars in 430-450 -- and then have each stage pass on, a little or a lot, in Georgian.)

                          GS: "I would presume (rightly, I think) that if we had earlier texts they would read substantially the same as this "late" text."

                          Some would, and some would not. Both lines go back to the 400's. But Metzger only emphasized one of them; that's not fair treatment.

                          GS: "Yes, it's late, but it is a witness to earlier texts."

                          That's what I say about all the dozens of less-late witnesses that support Mark 16:9-20. So why aren't they listed in the apparatus? If the Adysh Codex is specially mentioned, then testimony older than the Adysh Codex should be specially mentioned too.

                          GS: "A late date for the absence of the LE is not significant; what is needed is an EARLY date for the inclusion of the LE.

                          An early date for the inclusion of Mk. 16:9-20 is what we have in the Armenian & Georgian transmission-streams, provided by Eznik of Golb (440) and the Martyrdom of St. Eustathius of Mzetha-whatzit (composition-date: 500's), much earlier than the earliest Armenian or Georgian testimony for the Abrupt Ending. Plus, there's the colophon of Matenadaran 2374 to consider; if correct (and the covers of the codex support the idea very much) then the implication is that this codex (the one with "Ariston eritzou" written interlinearly before 16:9) has a text that is, as Armenian texts go, especially early, echoing an exemplar from the 600's.

                          GS: "Armenian texts? Note what Tischendorf states" --

                          Yes; Tischendorf stated that some old Armenian codices omit Mark 16:9-20. This is not exactly news. Colwell's 1937 essay has a lot more detail, and that can be supplemented by a few JBL articles that appeared afterward, describing Armenian Gospels-codices in the Kurdian collection -- but now much more information is in store; we might soon see catalogues of hundreds of hitherto-obscure Armenian Gospels-MSS -- enough, potentially, to rewrite the history of the Armenian text of the Gospels to some extent.

                          Yours in Christ,

                          James Snapp, Jr.
                        • rslocc
                          ... [NOW IF? 1. critical text advocates would only read what Eusebius wrote on the subject for themselves intead of following the conclusions of others and 2.
                          Message 12 of 21 , Nov 11, 2011
                          • 0 Attachment
                            --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, Stephen Carlson <stemmatic@...> wrote:
                            >
                            > On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 10:23 AM, james_snapp_jr <voxverax@...> wrote:
                            >
                            > > **
                            > >
                            > > P.S. – In related news: a month ago I found a webpage about the Gospel of
                            > > Mark that featured the claim, "Many early manuscripts of the gospel end
                            > > with the story of the empty tomb (Mark 16:1-8)." The webpage was written by
                            > > someone who, it seems, was a seminary graduate who was assisting a seminary
                            > > professor, who supervises the website. The lessons in textual criticism at
                            > > those places must be pretty lousy to allow the promotion of such a bad
                            > > misrepresentation of the evidence (in an introductory essay!) about this
                            > > major textual variant. Maybe some folks here could suggest to the professor
                            > > that this sort of error should be immediately corrected? I tried, but a
                            > > month later the false statement is still there at
                            > >
                            > > http://www.ntgateway.com/gospel-and-acts/gospel-of-mark/introduction-to-marks-gospel/
                            > >
                            > > The professor's name is Dr. Mark Goodacre, at a school called Duke
                            > > University. Somewhere out east, I think.
                            > >
                            > This is a rather uncharitable reading of the statement. You're assuming
                            > he's talking about surviving manuscripts, but we know that there were many
                            > early manuscripts of Mark that lack the longer ending because Eusebius
                            > tells us so. Now, you may wish to minimize the value of that testimony,
                            > but your efforts to show that Eusebius somehow actually preferred the
                            > longer ending merely strengthen the value of his statement as an admission
                            > against interest.
                            >
                            > Stephen Carlson
                            >
                            >
                            [NOW IF? 1. critical text advocates would only read what Eusebius wrote on the subject for themselves intead of following the conclusions of others and 2. come to grips with the fact that the Master of the opposing school published a monograph which exhaustively examines the subject at hand, which (as it goes) was published while many of the greatest textual scholars were still living and not one ever deemed it fit to answer the man who has claimed to categorically destroy every foundation upon which they based their theories concerning Mark 16:9-20 in general and the testimony of Eusebius upon the question specifically.

                            Nor has any other critic since even attempted at a reply which would warrant the title of a "refutation" when the learned and altogether vastness of the original work is kept in mind! Where are the pens of Wescott and Hort, Ellicott and Coneybear, Nestle and Aland, Metzger and Black etc.etc....??? Nearly a century and a half has passed and yet no reply, only reiteration of what has been theorized before (and for the most part by greater men). These same theories which where claimed to be exploaded long ago...and the reason is simple...

                            "All opposition to the authenticity of the paragraph resolves itself into the allegations of Eusebius and the testimony of Aleph B."
                            -Dr. Scrivener Intro. Vol.II pg.3

                            Namely they have no place else to go! Even so, Burgon owns them and yet that fact has never crossed their minds.

                            If these two things were addressed and someone would find the backbone to refute Burgon, or attempt to (at the very least) then maybe we can all play ball.

                            3. Even if Eusebius said that every ms. he ever saw omitted the last 12 verses of Mark (which he does not) it would not outweigh every (save a few) greek ms. in the world. Is he Sir Oracle?** Im I to bow at his feet and only seek him for guidance? Especially when dozens of other fathers (many of which are contemporary and/or more ancient) are seen to testify to the existance and authenticity of these 12 verses. This has been deemed the un-scientific method for good reason, because the individual caprice of critics has over ridden the verdict of hard factual evidence.-M.M.R.]


                            ** Consider the ideas of Eusebius concerning the Roman empire of Constantine and it's coincidence with the Millennium (what a blunder of interpretation!).Or his double talk when speaking of Papias, on one hand warmly, on the other cold and unkind!

                            Eusebius, nor any father, version or manuscript is to be looked at as a plumb bob to the true reading!
                          • james_snapp_jr
                            Dear Rslocc, I m not sure I followed everything you said; nevertheless here is a response. First, yes; it is important to read Eusebius comments in full to
                            Message 13 of 21 , Nov 12, 2011
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Dear Rslocc,

                              I'm not sure I followed everything you said; nevertheless here is a response.

                              First, yes; it is important to read Eusebius' comments in full to see how his manuscript-descriptions are framed; the distant glimpse offered by Metzger and some other commentators is not adequate.

                              Second, Burgon's 1871 book received an almost immediate response from Hort, in the form of a review that appeared in the Nov. 15, 1871 issue of a journal called "The Academy." The volume can be found at Google Books. A review is not the same as a refutation -- and Hort made some claims in his review which themselves should be reviewed (because they are wrong!) -- but Hort outlined the shape of what a refutation would look like.

                              Burgon proposed two ways in which Mark 16:9-20 could be lost: (1) by a simple accident, in which the final page of a codex became detached from the rest, or (2) by a combination of accidents, in which, after "telos" (end) was written after 16:8 to designate the end of a lection, the next page was lost -- with the result that the damaged copy, after ending at 16:8, read "End," and the truncated text of such a copy gained an early foothold after it was taken to a locale where the text of Mark was not well known.

                              Hort replied to the effect that the idea that lection-divisions existed in MSS of the 200's is altogether a guess. Although some authors of that period, such as Origen, refer to lections, or readings, that does not mean that they had in mind a standard set of lection-divisions; nor does it mean that they marked their manuscripts with telos-marks.

                              Hort also pointed out that the opening words of 16:9 do not flow naturally from what precedes them, but are more soundly accounted for by the theory that the final portion (i.e., 16:9-20) was "transferred entire from another record, whether written or oral. The high antiquity of the narrative cannot reasonably be doubted, and almost as little its ultimate if not proximate Apostolic origin."

                              It is not as if Burgon's book has been totally ignored. Although it might seem that way, inasmuch as some mistakes which Burgon corrected in his 1871 book were still perpetuated later -- in the UBS-2 apparatus, for example.

                              Also, it is not the case that "All opposition to the authenticity of the paragraph resolves itself into the allegations of Eusebius and the testimony of Aleph B." Old Latin Codex Bobbiensis, and the Sinaitic Syriac, and the Sahidic copy at Barcelona, and the Armenian copies that lack these 12 verses also need to be explained; the rise of the Shorter Ending -- of which Eusebius, it appears, had no clue -- needs to be explained. Burgon did not do that; this is understandable in the case of the Sinaitic Syriac and the Sahidic copy at Barcelona, since they had not been discovered in 1871. But while Burgon's book is very informative, and should be read carefully by everyone who wants to teach others about Mark 16:9-20 (and don't skip the Appendices!), Burgon did not draw a genealogical history of the rival variants, and this is something that he should have done -- to explain not just how, but when and where the abrupt ending originated.

                              You (or someone you were citing) wrote, "Even if Eusebius said that every ms. he ever saw omitted the last 12 verses of Mark (which he does not) it would not outweigh every (save a few) greek ms. in the world."

                              Very true. But we have more than just Eusebius' testimony to consider. Eusebius' favorite MSS were probably descended from Pamphilus' MSS, which were descended from Origen's MSS, some of which were from Egypt. In Egypt, the earliest Sahidic MS of Mark ends at 16:8. Egypt is the place where the Shorter Ending originated, and the Shorter Ending would not have originated at all if 16:9-20 had followed 16:8. (Unless the Shorter Ending originated as a liturgical flourish, but let's stick to the main track.) And, considering that Mark 16 ends at verse 8 in Aleph and B, which both display the Alexandrian Text of Mark, all four of these witnesses (Eusebius, the Sahidic MS, Aleph, and B), plus 083 and 099 and Greek-Sahidic lectionary 1602 (and the Sahidic copies that have the Shorter Ending), thus affirm that in the earliest recoverable stratum of the Alexandrian Text, Mark ended at 16:8.

                              Yours in Christ,

                              James Snapp, Jr.
                              Minister, Curtisville Christian Church
                              Indiana


                              --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "rslocc" <rslocc@...> wrote:
                              > [NOW IF? 1. critical text advocates would only read what Eusebius wrote on the subject for themselves intead of following the conclusions of others and 2. come to grips with the fact that the Master of the opposing school published a monograph which exhaustively examines the subject at hand, which (as it goes) was published while many of the greatest textual scholars were still living and not one ever deemed it fit to answer the man who has claimed to categorically destroy every foundation upon which they based their theories concerning Mark 16:9-20 in general and the testimony of Eusebius upon the question specifically.
                              >
                              > Nor has any other critic since even attempted at a reply which would warrant the title of a "refutation" when the learned and altogether vastness of the original work is kept in mind! Where are the pens of Wescott and Hort, Ellicott and Coneybear, Nestle and Aland, Metzger and Black etc.etc....??? Nearly a century and a half has passed and yet no reply, only reiteration of what has been theorized before (and for the most part by greater men). These same theories which where claimed to be exploaded long ago...and the reason is simple...
                              >
                              > "All opposition to the authenticity of the paragraph resolves itself into the allegations of Eusebius and the testimony of Aleph B."
                              > -Dr. Scrivener Intro. Vol.II pg.3
                              >
                              > Namely they have no place else to go! Even so, Burgon owns them and yet that fact has never crossed their minds.
                              >
                              > If these two things were addressed and someone would find the backbone to refute Burgon, or attempt to (at the very least) then maybe we can all play ball.
                              >
                              > 3. Even if Eusebius said that every ms. he ever saw omitted the last 12 verses of Mark (which he does not) it would not outweigh every (save a few) greek ms. in the world. Is he Sir Oracle?** Im I to bow at his feet and only seek him for guidance? Especially when dozens of other fathers (many of which are contemporary and/or more ancient) are seen to testify to the existance and authenticity of these 12 verses. This has been deemed the un-scientific method for good reason, because the individual caprice of critics has over ridden the verdict of hard factual evidence.-M.M.R.]
                              >
                              >
                              > ** Consider the ideas of Eusebius concerning the Roman empire of Constantine and it's coincidence with the Millennium (what a blunder of interpretation!).Or his double talk when speaking of Papias, on one hand warmly, on the other cold and unkind!
                              >
                              > Eusebius, nor any father, version or manuscript is to be looked at as a plumb bob to the true reading!
                              >
                            • rslocc
                              ... [[I apologize for not directing my post towards any particular poster, statement,question or the like, it was just some general thoughts and observation
                              Message 14 of 21 , Nov 13, 2011
                              • 0 Attachment
                                --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "james_snapp_jr" <voxverax@...> wrote:
                                >
                                > Dear Rslocc,
                                >
                                > I'm not sure I followed everything you said;

                                [[I apologize for not directing my post towards any particular poster, statement,question or the like, it was just some general thoughts and observation which I think should be addressed.]]
                                >
                                >
                                Second, Burgon's 1871 book received an almost immediate response from Hort, in the form of a review that appeared in the Nov. 15, 1871 issue of a journal called "The Academy." The volume can be found at Google Books. A review is not the same as a refutation -- and Hort made some claims in his review which themselves should be reviewed (because they are wrong!) -- but Hort outlined the shape of what a refutation would look like.

                                [[Thank you for that tid-bit I will look into that review a.s.a.p.]]
                                >
                                > >
                                > Hort replied to the effect that the idea that lection-divisions existed in MSS of the 200's is altogether a guess.
                                [[ As is nearly everything Hort ever theorized! ****I also must point out that it is not the responsibility of any critic to absolutely sell himself out to a particular theory regarding the reason for variation. A man cannot be expected to answer how such and such passage came to be corrupt when no solid evidence (historival or otherwise) exist to point the critic an any safe direction. We cannot ask man to prove what only God knows. **]]
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > It is not as if Burgon's book has been totally ignored. Although it might seem that way, inasmuch as some mistakes which Burgon corrected in his 1871 book were still perpetuated later -- in the UBS-2 apparatus, for example. [[I noticed that also.]]
                                >
                                > Also, it is not the case that "All opposition to the authenticity of the paragraph resolves itself into the allegations of Eusebius and the testimony of Aleph B." Old Latin Codex Bobbiensis, and the Sinaitic Syriac, and the Sahidic copy at Barcelona, and the Armenian copies that lack these 12 verses also need to be explained;

                                [[ I agree that they need to be considered (like all evidence) but, they hardly warrant the weight of a formal explaination individually (save the Armenian). Italic(k)is contradicted by every other Old Latin witness (aur,c,ff2,l,n,o,q,etc.), making it's testimony next to nil. The Lewis Codex is the laughing stock of the Syriac versions (along with it's pair the "Curetonian"... and this would be commonly acknowledged if it didn't side with Aleph/B in so many places) and in lew of the fact that it is so clearly corrupted and in so many places it holds little weight. Especially, when one understands that the Peshitto and Palestinian,the Harklean and Curetonian (it's close ally) all set themselves in array against it!
                                Needless to say that a single Sahidic copy at Barcelona cannot be given much weight in the decision. For the Coptic testimony (Sah.,Boh. & Fay.) is against it. So the gist of Dr. Scrivener's statement has not been contradicted by any new findings, nor has his statement (as it stands) lost any truth or relevance and therefore it is fair as a general overview of the situation. Although I agree with your qualifying of his quote, I disagree that "...it is not the case", because (to me at least) it obviously is.]]


                                the rise of the Shorter Ending -- of which Eusebius, it appears, had no clue -- needs to be explained. Burgon did not do that;[****] this is understandable in the case of the Sinaitic Syriac and the Sahidic copy at Barcelona, since they had not been discovered in 1871. But while Burgon's book is very informative, and should be read carefully by everyone who wants to teach others about Mark 16:9-20 (and don't skip the Appendices!), Burgon did not draw a genealogical history of the rival variants, and this is something that he should have done -- to explain not just how, but when and where the abrupt ending originated.
                                [[**** see my comments above]]
                                [[** You ask of a man what only God knows! (For the most part.)]]
                                >
                                > >
                                >[[ James-Thank you for your informative post and I hope I have not offended you ( by disagreeing with you in some small particulars) in any way. M.M.R. ]]
                                >
                                > --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "rslocc" <rslocc@> wrote:
                                > > [NOW IF? 1. critical text advocates would only read what Eusebius wrote on the subject for themselves intead of following the conclusions of others and 2. come to grips with the fact that the Master of the opposing school published a monograph which exhaustively examines the subject at hand, which (as it goes) was published while many of the greatest textual scholars were still living and not one ever deemed it fit to answer the man who has claimed to categorically destroy every foundation upon which they based their theories concerning Mark 16:9-20 in general and the testimony of Eusebius upon the question specifically.
                                > >
                                > > Nor has any other critic since even attempted at a reply which would warrant the title of a "refutation" when the learned and altogether vastness of the original work is kept in mind! Where are the pens of Wescott and Hort, Ellicott and Coneybear, Nestle and Aland, Metzger and Black etc.etc....??? Nearly a century and a half has passed and yet no reply, only reiteration of what has been theorized before (and for the most part by greater men). These same theories which where claimed to be exploaded long ago...and the reason is simple...
                                > >
                                > > "All opposition to the authenticity of the paragraph resolves itself into the allegations of Eusebius and the testimony of Aleph B."
                                > > -Dr. Scrivener Intro. Vol.II pg.3
                                > >
                                > > Namely they have no place else to go! Even so, Burgon owns them and yet that fact has never crossed their minds.
                                > >
                                > > If these two things were addressed and someone would find the backbone to refute Burgon, or attempt to (at the very least) then maybe we can all play ball.
                                > >
                                > > 3. Even if Eusebius said that every ms. he ever saw omitted the last 12 verses of Mark (which he does not) it would not outweigh every (save a few) greek ms. in the world. Is he Sir Oracle?** Im I to bow at his feet and only seek him for guidance? Especially when dozens of other fathers (many of which are contemporary and/or more ancient) are seen to testify to the existance and authenticity of these 12 verses. This has been deemed the un-scientific method for good reason, because the individual caprice of critics has over ridden the verdict of hard factual evidence.-M.M.R.]
                                > >
                                > >
                                > > ** Consider the ideas of Eusebius concerning the Roman empire of Constantine and it's coincidence with the Millennium (what a blunder of interpretation!).Or his double talk when speaking of Papias, on one hand warmly, on the other cold and unkind!
                                > >
                                > > Eusebius, nor any father, version or manuscript is to be looked at as a plumb bob to the true reading!
                                > >
                                >
                              • schmuel
                                Hi Folks, James Burgon s 1871 book received an almost immediate response from Hort, in the form of a review that appeared in the Nov. 15, 1871 issue of a
                                Message 15 of 21 , Nov 14, 2011
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Hi Folks,

                                  James
                                  Burgon's 1871 book received an almost immediate response from Hort, in the form of a review that appeared in the Nov. 15, 1871 issue of a journal called "The Academy."  The volume can be found at Google Books.  A review is not the same as a refutation -- and Hort made some claims in his review which themselves should be reviewed (because they are wrong!) -- but Hort outlined the shape of what a refutation would look li

                                  > rslocc
                                  > Thank you for that tid-bit I will look into that review a.s.a.p.

                                  Here is the review.

                                  The Academy and literature, Volume 2 (1871)
                                  Fenton Hort Review.
                                  http://books.google.com/books?id=w63lAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA518

                                  Generally, Hort tries to accuse Burgon of misleading the reader.
                                  And, ironically, Hort's big accusation is that John William Burgon does not work with Hortian:

                                          "hidden genealogies
                                  and circumstances of transmission "
                                       ! :)

                                  ========================================================

                                  First on the Greek ECW

                                  Hort : "the one clear Greek ante-Nicene testimony (Mr. Burgon numbers six) is that of Irenaeus."

                                  Quite a difference in count, six to one. 
                                  There may be more now, and it is true that many of the references are allusions.

                                  The one agreed is Ireaneus, extremely powerful, considering his writing predates the earliest manuscripts by almost two centuries.

                                  Irenaeus (wrote c. 180) - Against Heresies, Book III, 10:5-6,
                                  http://books.google.com/books?id=9HO5ICFl1vsC&pg=PT1372
                                  http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iv.xi.html

                                  Also, towards the conclusion of his Gospel, Mark says:
                                  "So then, after the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God; "
                                  confirming what had been spoken by the prophet:
                                  "The Lord said to my Lord, Sit Thou on My right hand, until I make Thy foes Thy footstool."

                                  From Burgon, before the period of Eusebius and Nicea (which references are still before the earliest manuscripts).
                                  This may round out the six.

                                  Papias
                                  Justin Martyr
                                  Irenaeus
                                  Hippolytus
                                  Acts of Pilate
                                  Apostolic Constitutions

                                  Hort: "Tertullian and Cyprian never cite the section"

                                  This is misleading at best from Hort, since Burgon specifically points out that the Council of Carthage is written up by Cyprian.
                                  Granted, Burgon calls it both the seventh and eight Council :) .

                                  Last 12 Verses
                                  John William Burgon
                                  http://books.google.com/books?id=2gYQAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA25

                                   V. At the Seventh Council of Carthage held under Cyprian, a.d. 256, (on the baptizing of Heretics,) Vincentius, Bishop of Thibari, (a place not far from Carthage,) in
                                  the presence of the eighty-seven assembled African bishops, quoted two of the verses under consideration
                                  m
                                  m " In nomine meo manum imponite, daemonia expellite," (Cyprian Opp,p. 237 [Reliqq. Sacr. iii p. 124,] quoting S.Mark xvi. 17,18,)—"In nomine meo daemonia ejicient .... super egrotos manus imponent et bene habebunt."

                                  http://books.google.com/books?id=2gYQAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA249
                                  At the eighth Council of Carthage, (as Cyprian relates,) [a.d. 256] Vincentius a Thiberi, one of the eighty-seven  African Bishops there assembled, quoted the 17th verse in
                                  the presence of the Council.  (p. 249)

                                  Emacs! 
                                                                                                            
                                  =======================================================================

                                  Mark 16:17-18
                                  And these signs shall follow them that believe;
                                  In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
                                  They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing,
                                  it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

                                  Council of Carthage under Cyprian
                                  His divine precept commanded to His apostles, saying, "Go ye, lay on hands in my name, expel demons."
                                  And in another place: "Go ye and teach the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." 

                                  James Snapp
                                  At the seventh Council of Carthage in 256, a bishop named Vincentius of Thibaris said, "We have assuredly the rule of truth which the Lord by His divine precept commanded to His apostles, saying, 'Go ye, lay on hands in My name, expel demons.' And in another place: 'Go ye and teach the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.'" Vincentius' second quotation is from Matthew 28:19. Despite attempts by some interpreters to connect the first quotation to Matthew 10:8, the references to going, laying on hands, expelling demons, and doing so in My name add up to a reference to Mark 16:15-18, especially when placed side-by-side with the parallel passage from Matthew.

                                  =======================================================================

                                  Since Cyprian oversaw this council, it is more than a bit disingenuous for Hort to claim Cyprian against the section.
                                  There are other interesting tidbits in the review, especially the Old Latin evidence distortion attempt of Hort.

                                  Tertullian has a number of good allusions as well, however Burgon basically passed on those, so Hort can get a pass.
                                  And Burgon has an interesting comment about how the apparatuses can be totally off base.

                                  Shalom,
                                  Steven Avery
                                  Queens, NY
                                • George F Somsel
                                  Unless I ve totally overlooked it, I think you have the wrong link. george gfsomsel … search for truth, hear truth, learn truth, love truth, speak the truth,
                                  Message 16 of 21 , Nov 14, 2011
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Unless I've totally overlooked it, I think you have the wrong link.
                                     
                                    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: schmuel <schmuel@...>
                                    To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
                                    Sent: Monday, November 14, 2011 2:31 AM
                                    Subject: [textualcriticism] Hort's review of Burgon's Last 12 Verses

                                     
                                    Hi Folks,

                                    James
                                    Burgon's 1871 book received an almost immediate response from Hort, in the form of a review that appeared in the Nov. 15, 1871 issue of a journal called "The Academy."  The volume can be found at Google Books.  A review is not the same as a refutation -- and Hort made some claims in his review which themselves should be reviewed (because they are wrong!) -- but Hort outlined the shape of what a refutation would look li

                                    > rslocc
                                    > Thank you for that tid-bit I will look into that review a.s.a.p.

                                    Here is the review.

                                    The Academy and literature, Volume 2 (1871)
                                    Fenton Hort Review.
                                    http://books.google.com/books?id=w63lAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA518

                                    Generally, Hort tries to accuse Burgon of misleading the reader.
                                    And, ironically, Hort's big accusation is that John William Burgon does not work with Hortian:

                                            "hidden genealogies
                                    and circumstances of transmission "
                                         ! :)

                                    ========================================================

                                    First on the Greek ECW

                                    Hort : "the one clear Greek ante-Nicene testimony (Mr. Burgon numbers six) is that of Irenaeus."

                                    Quite a difference in count, six to one. 
                                    There may be more now, and it is true that many of the references are allusions.

                                    The one agreed is Ireaneus, extremely powerful, considering his writing predates the earliest manuscripts by almost two centuries.

                                    Irenaeus (wrote c. 180) - Against Heresies, Book III, 10:5-6,
                                    http://books.google.com/books?id=9HO5ICFl1vsC&pg=PT1372

                                    Also, towards the conclusion of his Gospel, Mark says:
                                    "So then, after the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God; "
                                    confirming what had been spoken by the prophet:
                                    "The Lord said to my Lord, Sit Thou on My right hand, until I make Thy foes Thy footstool."

                                    From Burgon, before the period of Eusebius and Nicea (which references are still before the earliest manuscripts).
                                    This may round out the six.

                                    Papias
                                    Justin Martyr
                                    Irenaeus
                                    Hippolytus
                                    Acts of Pilate
                                    Apostolic Constitutions

                                    Hort: "Tertullian and Cyprian never cite the section"

                                    This is misleading at best from Hort, since Burgon specifically points out that the Council of Carthage is written up by Cyprian.
                                    Granted, Burgon calls it both the seventh and eight Council :) .

                                    Last 12 Verses
                                    John William Burgon
                                    http://books.google.com/books?id=2gYQAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA25

                                     V. At the Seventh Council of Carthage held under Cyprian, a.d. 256, (on the baptizing of Heretics,) Vincentius, Bishop of Thibari, (a place not far from Carthage,) in
                                    the presence of the eighty-seven assembled African bishops, quoted two of the verses under consideration
                                    m
                                    m " In nomine meo manum imponite, daemonia expellite," (Cyprian Opp,p. 237 [Reliqq. Sacr. iii p. 124,] quoting S.Mark xvi. 17,18,)—"In nomine meo daemonia ejicient .... super egrotos manus imponent et bene habebunt."

                                    http://books.google.com/books?id=2gYQAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA249 | Reply to group | Reply via web post | Start a New Topic
                                    Messages in this topic (19)
                                    Recent Activity:
                                    MARKETPLACE
                                    .



                                  • schmuel
                                    Hi Folks, Steven Here is the review. The Academy and literature, Volume 2 (1871) Fenton Hort Review. http://books.google.com/books?id=w63lAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA518
                                    Message 17 of 21 , Nov 15, 2011
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Hi Folks,

                                      Steven
                                      Here is the review.

                                      The Academy and literature, Volume 2 (1871)
                                      Fenton Hort Review.
                                      http://books.google.com/books?id=w63lAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA518


                                      George
                                      Unless I've totally overlooked it, I think you have the wrong link.

                                      Steven
                                      You go to the very bottom of page 518. and then the bulk is in page 519.

                                      Shalom,
                                      Steven


                                      James
                                      Burgon's 1871 book received an almost immediate response from Hort, in the form of a review that appeared in the Nov. 15, 1871 issue of a journal called "The Academy."  The volume can be found at Google Books.  A review is not the same as a refutation -- and Hort made some claims in his review which themselves should be reviewed (because they are wrong!) -- but Hort outlined the shape of what a refutation would look li
                                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.