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

Re: [textualcriticism] Metzger's Comments on Mark 16:9-20

Expand Messages
  • Daniel Buck
    ________________________________ From: Stephen Carlson Sent: Monday, November 7, 2011 1:50 PM   On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 10:23 AM,
    Message 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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.