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

Re: [textualcriticism] The End of Mark in the Second Century

Expand Messages
  • P.M. Head
    Jim wrote: each of these 18 pieces of evidence, whether heavy or light, ought to be on the scales when one is evaluating how much evidence there is for the
    Message 1 of 6 , Jun 2, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Jim wrote: "each of these 18 pieces of evidence, whether heavy or light,
      ought to be on the scales when one is evaluating how much evidence there is
      for the existence of the Long Ending as part of the Gospel of Mark in the
      second century."

      It seems clear to me that Irenaeus is the earliest explicit evidence for
      "the existence of the Long Ending as part of the Gospel of Mark in the
      second century".

      The earlier material (Papias, Justin, other possible allusions to LE
      material) is not sufficiently explicit in proving that the LE was known as
      part of the Gospel of Mark (without another set of assumptions about the
      nature of the LE material).

      Cheers

      Peter

      On Jun 2 2005, voxverax wrote:

      > Dear Wieland, Malcolm, and Andrew,
      >
      > Before this post really gets underway I want to make sure that a
      > couple of things are cleared up: first, I do not believe that mss of
      > the Arabic Diatessaron "contain the original Diatessaron;" it is a
      > translation, and possibly a translation of a translation. The
      > greatest value of the Arabic Diatessaron, I think, is not its Arabic
      > contents per se but its role as evidence of the original
      > Diatessaron's underlying content and arrangement. Second, Codex
      > Fuldensis displays not only textual tampering but something more like
      > textual /replacement/. This does not, however, silence the MS as far
      > as the underlying arrangement is concerned, and it makes features
      > like the one in 16:11 all the more interesting. (And since the
      > Vulgate does not say "did not believe *them*" this reading in 16:11
      > in Fuldensis cannot be called a case of conformation to the Vulgate.)
      >
      > About Aphrahat --
      > I agree that Aphrahat should be classified as a Diatessaronic
      > witness, and that he demonstrates plainly a knowledge of the Long
      > Ending, in paragraph 17 of Demonstration One: Of Faith (written in
      > 345). (For an English translation of Aphrahat's composition, see
      > http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-13/Npnf2-13-38.htm#TopOfPage or
      > http://www.synaxis.org/ecf/volume36 ).
      >
      > About Justin Martyr --
      >
      > AC, I agree that the case for the idea that Justin knew the Long
      > Ending is stronger than the alternative. Here's an English
      > translation from First Apology 45 (from
      > http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-46.htm#P3821_705110 with
      > slight modifications). To make it easier to see what I'm talking
      > about farther down in this post, I've cut up the text into numbered
      > phrases:
      >
      > 1. And that God the Father of all would bring Christ to heaven after
      > He had raised Him from the dead
      > 2. and would keep Him there until He has subdued His enemies the
      > devils,
      > 3. and until the number of those who are foreknown by Him as good
      > and virtuous is complete,
      > 4. on whose account He has still delayed the consummation -
      > 5. hear what was said by the prophet David.
      > 6. These are his words [from Psalm 110:1-3]. "The Lord said unto my
      > Lord,
      > 7. Sit at My right hand, until I make Thine enemies Thy footstool.
      > 8. The Lord shall send to Thee the rod of power out of Jerusalem;
      > 9. and rule Thou in the midst of Thine enemies.
      > 10. With Thee is the government in the day of Thy power,
      > 11. in the beauties of Thy saints:
      > 12. from the womb of morning have I begotten Thee."
      > 13. That which he says, "He shall send to Thee the rod of power out
      > of Jerusalem,"
      > 14. is predictive of the mighty word, which His apostles,
      > 15. going forth from Jerusalem, preached everywhere.
      > 16. And though death is decreed against those who teach or at all
      > confess the name of Christ,
      > 17. we everywhere both embrace and teach it.
      > 18. And if you also read these words in a hostile spirit,
      > 19. you can do no more, as I said before, than kill us; which indeed
      > does no harm to us,
      > 20. but to you and all who unjustly hate us, and do not repent,
      > brings eternal punishment by fire."
      >
      > Besides the verbal parallels in lines 14-15 ~ I point out
      > particularly the use of the word pantachou ~ there are some other
      > things that indicate that Justin had the Long Ending on his mind.
      > Consider the overlapping subject-matter involved:
      > Line 1 -- the ascension (cf. 16:19).
      > Line 2 -- victory over devils (cf. 16:9, 16:17).
      > Line 14-15 -- the proclamation of the word everywhere (cf. 16:20).
      > Line 16 -- the name of Christ (cf. 16:17).
      > Line 19 -- a lack of true harm done to believers (cf. 16:18).
      >
      > Also, in Line 15, Justin adds the phrase "from Jerusalem" to
      > emphasize the fulfillment of Psalm 110 in the form which he provided
      > in Line 13; without this feature the parallel with 16:20 is
      > practically a quotation. It would seem that either Justin, or, if he
      > was using a Synoptics-Harmony, the producer of that composition, had
      > posited an unmentioned change of scenery in the Long Ending either
      > between 16:14 and 16:15 or between 16:18 and 16:19, or both.
      >
      > It occurs to me that if Justin was using a Synoptics-Harmony, and
      > that if its maker was someone other than Justin, then this would sort
      > of imply that the Long Ending was regarded as part of the Gospel of
      > Mark two links earlier in the transmission-chain: Justin used a
      > Synoptics-Harmony, and the Synoptics-Harmony-producer used a text of
      > Mark with the Long Ending.
      >
      > About Irenaeus --
      > The Latin text of Irenaeus is more than adequate, especially when
      > combined with the attestation of the margin-note in MS 1572. One
      > would have to call upon the services of a Diabolical Interpolator to
      > make Irenaeus' statement something less than solid evidence that the
      > Long Ending was regarded as part of the Gospel of Mark in the second
      > century. (I mean, one would have to suppose that the Latin
      > translator, whose translating-technique tends to be rigid and literal
      > most of the time, not only conformed Irenaeus' text to a later
      > standard, but creatively wrote and inserted a full sentence in which
      > he presented Irenaeus citing 16:19 as part of the end of Mark's
      > Gospel, into his translation of this popular book.)
      >
      > There's also the contents of Book Two, 32:4, of Against Heresies to
      > consider, where Irenaeus mentions that some disciples "drive out
      > demons" (cf. 16:17) and "heal the sick by the laying on of hands, and
      > restore them to health" (cf. 16:18), performing such works "in His
      > name" (cf. 16:17). This is quoted by Eusebius in Ecclesiastical
      > History, Book Five, ch. 7.
      >
      > Besides Justin and Irenaeus, one should also put in the equation
      > (1) Papias
      > (2) Epistula Apostolorum
      > (3) Shepherd of Hermas
      > (4) the author of the Freer Logion
      > (5) Acts of John. (Excerpt from M.R. James' translation:
      > "Aristodemus said, `If thou wilt have me believe in thy God, I will
      > give thee poison to drink, and if thou drink it, and die not, it will
      > appear that thy God is true.' The apostle answered, `If thou give me
      > poison to drink, when I call on the name of my Lord, it will not be
      > able to harm me.'" Cf. 16:18.)
      >
      > Papias' statement about Justus is a possible allusion to Mark 16:18.
      > (Eusebius' statement: "We must now point out how Papias, who lived
      > at the same time, relates that he had received a wonderful narrative
      > from the daughters of Philip. For he relates that a dead man was
      > raised to life in his day. He also mentions another miracle relating
      > to Justus, surnamed Barsabas, how he swallowed a deadly poison, and
      > received no harm, on account of the grace of the Lord.") But a piece
      > of evidence at least equally important is Papias' statement that Mark
      > took special care not to omit anything he heard, and not to put
      > anything false in the accounts. Such a description seems hard to
      > figure if Papias' copy of Mark ended at the end of 16:8. The lack of
      > post-resurrection appearances of Christ, and the lack of any mention
      > of Christ's ascension, stressed repeatedly in Peter's preaching in
      > the book of Acts, would seem to be a glaring omission.
      >
      > The evidence from Shepherd of Hermas seems flimsy, since the author
      > could have gotten the idea of baptism for salvation from other
      > sources besides 16:16.
      >
      > The Freer Logion may have been written in the third, rather than
      > second, century. (Metzger in TCGNT, p. 125: "It [the Freer Logion]
      > probably is the work of a second or third century scribe who wished
      > to soften the severe condemnation of the Eleven in 16.14.")
      >
      > And, although, according to Martin Hengel, M. Mornschuh concluded
      > that the pattern of the resurrection-account in Epistula Apolstolorum
      > is derived from the Long Ending, such a pattern is not enough to lock
      > down a literary relationship between the two texts.
      >
      > Nevertheless, if one is to cite the silence of Clement and Origen as
      > evidence of the Abrupt Ending (as the UBS apparatus used to do, and
      > as quite a few commentators still do), then these three witnesses'
      > testimony to the Long Ending in the second century, however whispery,
      > should be in the equation.
      >
      > Plus, there's P-45 to consider. It's dated to c. 225, and is damaged
      > toward the end of Mark; no text from chapter 16 has survived. But in
      > the parts of Mark that have survived, where there are notable
      > variants, it agrees with W 68.9% of the time, according to a study by
      > Dr. L. Hurtado. Hurtado observed, "Of all the MSS studied, P45 is
      > the closest ally of W in the sample where P45 is extant." So, if one
      > assumes the existence of a text-type "P45-W," it seems a small step
      > to say that second-century ancestors of P45 and W had the Long
      > Ending, in a line of descent not shared by any other known mss.
      >
      > So, re-stating things a bit:
      > When it comes to evidence of Mark 16:9-20 in the second century, we
      > have the following:
      > (1) An anecdote mentioned by Papias which is possibly an
      > illustration of 16:18.
      > (2) A statement by Papias that Mark did not omit, or falsely
      > supplement, what he heard Peter proclaim. This is difficult to
      > account for if Papias' copy of the Gospel of Mark stopped at the end
      > of 16:8, since Peter's preaching was known to have emphasized
      > Christ's post-resurrection appearances (as in Acts 2:32-33, 3:15,
      > 10:40-41 et al) and/or His resurrection.
      > (3) A statement in Shepherd of Hermas to the effect that if one is
      > baptized and remains faithfully sinless, one shall be saved, possibly
      > based on 16:16.
      > (4) A pattern in Epistula Apostolorum that resembles the arrangement
      > of events in the Long Ending, along with a reference to people
      > mourning and weeping (though in Epistula Apostolorum the ones doing
      > the weeping and mourning are Mary Magdalene and the other women,
      > while in 16:10 it is the disciples), and a parting command to "Go and
      > preach" (which gets repeated) and a statement that the Lord saved the
      > disciples so that they "might preach unto them that are worthy to be
      > saved," (cf. 16:15-16) and a nearby statement, presented as a word
      > from Christ to the apostles, that "Ye shall be called servants,
      > because they shall receive the baptism of life and the remission of
      > their sins at my hand through you. And ye shall be called masters,
      > because ye have given them the word without grudging" (Cf. 16:16 &
      > 16:20).
      > (5) A copy of Mark which incorporated the Long Ending, accepted and
      > used by
      > (6) the maker of a Synoptics-Harmony which was accepted and
      > recollected by
      > (7) Justin Martyr in his First Apology.
      > (8) The text of Mark used by Tatian when making
      > (9) the Diatessaron.
      > (10) The copy of Mark used by the author of the Freer Logion, in the
      > second or third century.
      > (11) Copies of Mark which embodied the stream of transmission from
      > the point of the creation of the Freer Logion to the time of its
      > preservation in Codex W (and in some copies known to Jerome), which
      > included either the second or third centuries as well as the fourth
      > century. (If W is a direct descendant of damaged copies which had
      > semi-survived Diocletian's persecution, W is an echo from the very
      > early fourth century.)
      > (12) The copy of the Gospel of Mark used by Irenaeus in "Against
      > Heresies."
      > (13) Irenaeus, as he wrote "Against Heresies" III: 10:5-6.
      > (14) The Greek copy of "Against Heresies" used by the author of the
      > margin-note in MS 1582 (a note which mentions that Irenaeus, who
      > lived close to apostolic times, attributes 16:19 to Mark's in the
      > Third Book of "Against Heresies").
      > (15) The Greek copy of "Against Heresies" used by Theodoret of
      > Cyrrhus sometime before 466. (See Kelhoffer, Miracle & Mission, p.
      > 270 for details.)
      > (16) Oxyrhynchus Papyrus 405, which is a fragment from "Against
      > Heresies" Book III, 9:2-3, and which is assigned a date in the early
      > third century, while not preserving Irenaeus' statement about the end
      > of Mark, shows that "Against Heresies" Book III was widely
      > distributed nearly as soon as the ink was dry. Where it went, so
      > went Irenaeus' statement about the contents of the end of the Gospel
      > of Mark.
      > (17) Copies of Mark made in the second century, used by Hippolytus
      > in the early third century.
      > (18) Copies of Mark recollected by the author of the "Acts of John."
      > (If the LE existed in the second century as a freestanding text, then
      > the author of "Acts of John" may have used that freestanding text, so
      > this witness (and some others) would thus not testify to the
      > existence of the Long Ending /as part of the Gospel of Mark./
      > However, to accept this idea would mean rejecting the [inexplicably
      > popular] idea that the LE was created specially to conclude the
      > Gospel of Mark, since in that case it would have never been
      > freestanding.)
      >
      > Is this a maximized list? Most definitely. Still, each of these 18
      > pieces of evidence, whether heavy or light, ought to be on the scales
      > when one is evaluating how much evidence there is for the existence
      > of the Long Ending as part of the Gospel of Mark in the second
      > century. . . . Meanwhile, how much evidence is there for the
      > existence of the Abrupt Ending in the second century?
      >
      > Yours in Christ,
      >
      > Jim Snapp II
      > Curtisville Christian Church
      > Indiana, USA
      > www.curtisvillechristian.org
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
    • voxverax
      Dr. Head wrote: It seems clear to me that Irenaeus is the earliest explicit evidence for the existence of the Long Ending as part of the Gospel of Mark in
      Message 2 of 6 , Jun 2, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        Dr. Head wrote: "It seems clear to me that Irenaeus is the earliest
        explicit evidence for the existence of the Long Ending as part of the
        Gospel of Mark in the second century."

        Agreed, but ...

        (1) Irenaeus is pretty early! Is there any reason why such an
        explicit quotation should not be assigned virtually the same weight
        as the MS Irenaeus used -- a papyrus made before 184?
        (2) Non-explicit evidence is still evidence.
        (3) If one holds the yardstick of "explicit evidence" alongside the
        Short Ending and the Abrupt Ending, there is no explicit evidence for
        either of them in the second century, or in the third. The earliest
        explicit evidence for the Abrupt Ending = the "accurate copies"
        mentioned by Eusebius in "Ad Marinum" in the fourth century.

        Yours in Christ,

        Jim Snapp II
        Curtisville Christian Church
        Indiana, USA
        www.curtisvillechristian.org
      • sarban
        ... From: voxverax To: Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 9:05 AM Subject: [textualcriticism] The End of
        Message 3 of 6 , Jun 2, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          ----- Original Message -----
          From: "voxverax" <snapp@...>
          To: <textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com>
          Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 9:05 AM
          Subject: [textualcriticism] The End of Mark in the Second Century


          <SNIP>
          >
          > Plus, there's P-45 to consider. It's dated to c. 225, and is damaged
          > toward the end of Mark; no text from chapter 16 has survived. But in
          > the parts of Mark that have survived, where there are notable
          > variants, it agrees with W 68.9% of the time, according to a study by
          > Dr. L. Hurtado. Hurtado observed, "Of all the MSS studied, P45 is
          > the closest ally of W in the sample where P45 is extant." So, if one
          > assumes the existence of a text-type "P45-W," it seems a small step
          > to say that second-century ancestors of P45 and W had the Long
          > Ending, in a line of descent not shared by any other known mss.
          >
          W is obviously much later than P45 and we know that the long
          ending was added to the later representatives of text types that
          originally did not contain it.

          Also both W and P45 are probably members of the Caesarean text
          family which from the evidence of other members likely did not
          originally have the long ending of Mark.

          (Originally absent from the Armenian and Georgian, preceded by
          critical note doubtful of authenticity in family 1)

          Andrew Criddle
        • Peter Head
          Dear Jim, ... I m not quite sure what you are getting at here. Irenaeus is early. It seems clear to me that he new Mark in the long form. It is fantastic
          Message 4 of 6 , Jun 3, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            Dear Jim,

            >(1) Irenaeus is pretty early! Is there any reason why such an
            >explicit quotation should not be assigned virtually the same weight
            >as the MS Irenaeus used -- a papyrus made before 184?

            I'm not quite sure what you are getting at here. Irenaeus is early. It
            seems clear to me that he new Mark in the long form. It is fantastic
            evidence. Yippeeee.

            >
            >(2) Non-explicit evidence is still evidence.

            Yes indeed, only it is not explicit. Especially it may not provide evidence
            that the material of the LE was known as the LE of Mark. This is an issue
            for me with Justin (and esp. Papias). I see you've made a case in support
            of the fact that Justin knew these (few) words from a copy of Mark; but
            however good this argument is, it is not completely conclusive.

            >(3) If one holds the yardstick of "explicit evidence" alongside the
            >Short Ending and the Abrupt Ending, there is no explicit evidence for
            >either of them in the second century, or in the third. The earliest
            >explicit evidence for the Abrupt Ending = the "accurate copies"
            >mentioned by Eusebius in "Ad Marinum" in the fourth century.

            Yes. I think I agree with this. Of course it is difficult to establish
            definite absence (very often Clement and Origen are cited as supporting the
            absence of the LE, but this is not explicit evidence). So I presume that
            this means that we can agree that the explicit evidence for the existence
            of the LE as part of Mark (in Irenaeus) is 150 years earlier than the
            explicit evidence for the short form of Mark (in Eusebius).

            By the way, what is the status of Clement and Origen on this question?

            Peter



            Peter M. Head, PhD
            Sir Kirby Laing Senior Lecturer in New Testament
            Tyndale House
            36 Selwyn Gardens Phone: (UK) 01223
            566607
            Cambridge, CB3 9BA Fax: (UK) 01223 566608
            http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/Tyndale/staff/Head/Staff.htm
          • Peter Head
            ... Dear Jim, This small step is quite a big one to me. Only 6 leaves of Mark survive in P45 (Mark 12.28 is the last verse attested). There is no evidence as
            Message 5 of 6 , Jun 3, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              At 05:43 PM 6/2/05, Jim wrote:

              > > Plus, there's P-45 to consider. It's dated to c. 225, and is damaged
              > > toward the end of Mark; no text from chapter 16 has survived. But in
              > > the parts of Mark that have survived, where there are notable
              > > variants, it agrees with W 68.9% of the time, according to a study by
              > > Dr. L. Hurtado. Hurtado observed, "Of all the MSS studied, P45 is
              > > the closest ally of W in the sample where P45 is extant." So, if one
              > > assumes the existence of a text-type "P45-W," it seems a small step
              > > to say that second-century ancestors of P45 and W had the Long
              > > Ending, in a line of descent not shared by any other known mss.

              Dear Jim,

              This 'small step' is quite a big one to me.

              Only 6 leaves of Mark survive in P45 (Mark 12.28 is the last verse
              attested). There is no evidence as to the ending of Mark (even Skeat demurs
              from reconstructing the codex to this detail). Maybe it had the long ending
              (LE); maybe the short ending (SE); maybe the abrupt ending (AE); maybe the
              Freer Logion (FL); maybe it had the different ending (DE). We don't know.
              Is that so hard to say?

              68.9% agreement is hardly enough to establish text-type P45-W at the level
              of detail you require. Indeed no % of agreement would be sufficient to
              prove which ending P45 had.

              Pete







              Peter M. Head, PhD
              Sir Kirby Laing Senior Lecturer in New Testament
              Tyndale House
              36 Selwyn Gardens Phone: (UK) 01223
              566607
              Cambridge, CB3 9BA Fax: (UK) 01223 566608
              http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/Tyndale/staff/Head/Staff.htm
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.