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

Mk. 16:9-20 in the 2nd Century & Indirect Evidence

Expand Messages
  • voxverax
    Dear Andrew and Peter, (My apologies for the delay.) Half of me wants to say, In the interest of not getting distracted, let s remove P45 from the equation
    Message 1 of 4 , Jun 8 10:44 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear Andrew and Peter,

      (My apologies for the delay.)

      Half of me wants to say, "In the interest of not getting distracted,
      let's remove P45 from the equation entirely and move on." The other
      half says ...

      Andrew Criddle wrote:
      "W is obviously much later than P45" --

      Obviously.

      "and we know that the long ending was added to the later
      representatives of text types that originally did not contain it."

      No we don't. Other than Victor of Antioch's statements from the
      fifth century, what evidence exists to support this? And from what
      sort of mss do you think it was added? (Sub-question: if "And in
      their hands" is an original part of the LE in 16:18, why is it in the
      Alexandrian witnesses and not the Byzantine ones?)

      "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."

      L. Hurtado, in his thorough comparison of variants in Mark, stated
      that "In Mark 5:31-16:8, W is usually described as a Caesarean
      witness, but the average quantitative relationship of W and Theta in
      Mark 6-16 is 39.7 percent." How can W and Theta be classified as
      members of the same family when they agree only 40% of the time?
      Meanwhile, according to Hurtado, W and P45 agree more closely to each
      other than either agrees with any other ms in Hurtado's comparison-
      tables. It looks to me like W and P45 should be regarded as the sole
      survivors of a separate textual tradition.

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

      If the Georgian was translated from Armenian (and I think there's
      widespread agreement that it was), then the Georgian version is just
      a strong echo. So the real question is about the Armenian. I think
      the Armenian version of the Gospels originally did /not/ contain the
      Long Ending. But the Armenian version was made in the early 400's.
      There was more than enough time for the Caesarean Text of Mark to
      undergo a revision (not necessarily an exhaustive cross-comparison of
      copies, but at least a thorough "correction" based on the expressed
      views of individuals whose opinions were cherished; individuals such
      as Eusebius of Caesarea) which included the rejection and excision of
      the Long Ending before the text was translated into Armenian.

      Peter Head wrote:
      [Non-explicit evidence] "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)."

      First, I just want to note that any theory involving the premise that
      the LE ever existed as a separate, floating text seems to exclude the
      theory that the LE was created intentionally to round off the AE by
      an author who harvested material from the other Gospels. Are you
      suggesting that that second theory (LE-is-a-pastiche) should be
      rejected?

      Second, it almost seems like when it comes to the LE, while some
      evidence is downgraded because it is too late, other evidence is
      downgraded because it's too early. Since we have no Greek copies of
      the LE as anything other than the ending of Mark -- i.e., in terms of
      explicit evidence, the evidence that it existed in the second century
      as anything other than the end of Mark is nil -- then saying "But
      Justin might have been quoting it when as a freestanding text, rather
      than as part of the Gospel of Mark" seems about as fair as saying,
      "But when Justin mentions that Jesus named James and John
      'Boanerges,' Justin might have been quoting Unknown Gospel Text Z
      rather than the Gospel of Mark."

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

      Neither one makes any explicit quotation from Mark 16:9-20 in their
      extant works. Hort (unlike quite a few later commentators) hinted
      that their silence is not a stable basis for any deduction about the
      texts they used. Burgon (echoed by Farmer) observed that Clement is
      just as silent about the last chapter of Matthew as he is about Mark
      16:9-20. And Metzger wrote a nice essay in NTTS VIII ("References in
      Origen to Variant Readings" is the short title) in which he provides
      some evidence that Origen was less familiar with the Gospel of Mark
      than with the other Gospels.

      Also, Clement was acquainted with a composition called the "Preaching
      of Peter" (or, "Kerygma of Peter") and seems to have had a high
      regard for it. In Stromata VI:6, he wrote that "In the Preaching of
      Peter, the Lord says, `I chose out you twelve, judging you to be
      disciples worthy of me, whom the Lord willed, and thinking you
      faithful apostles; sending you unto the world to preach the Gospel to
      men throughout the world, that they should know that there is one
      God; to declare by faith in me [the Christ] what shall be, that they
      that have heard and believed may be saved, and that they which have
      not believed may hear and bear witness, not having any defense so as
      to say "We did not hear."'" (See a translation and comments at
      www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/preachingpeter.html ).

      There are a couple of things that I perk up to here: first, if
      Clement cherished the "Preaching of Peter," and was aware that the
      Long Ending was in some way questionable, he might have rejected the
      LE if it contradicted the "Preaching of Peter." Second, this little
      snippet from "Preaching of Peter," with its call to preach the gospel
      throughout the world so that believers may be saved, sort of has the
      same structure as Mark 16:15-16. Hmm.

      Peter Head wrote (in Post 943):

      "This 'small step' [of positing second-century ancestors of P45 and W
      with the Long Ending] is quite a big one to me."

      I'm just following in others' footsteps. Consider Michael Holmes'
      approach (in Bible Review, April 2001, p. 23). Dr. Holmes appealed
      to B, Aleph, the Sinaitic Syriac, and Bobbiensis as evidence that
      "demonstrates that the short form [that is, the Abrupt Ending] was
      widely dispersed geographically at an early period. In summary, the
      evidence for a short form of Mark ending at 16:8 is both early (mid-
      to late second century) and broad."

      How do fourth-century mss like B and Aleph turn into "mid- to late
      second century" evidence? Observe Dr. Holmes' footnote: "The
      discovery of papyrus copies of the Gospels of Luke and John dating
      from c. 200 C.E. or a bit earlier that preserve a text very similar
      to the text of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus demonstrates that these two
      fourth-century manuscripts in fact preserve a textual tradition that
      dates back at least to around the time of Irenaeus." The earliest-
      known-date of the textual tradition as a whole is then assigned to a
      specific variant within that tradition (in this case, the AE), even
      though there is no second-century Proto-Alexandrian evidence extant
      for that variant.

      If P75 constitutes evidence that its later relative B preserves a
      second-century text of Mark 16, then P45 constitutes evidence that
      its later relative W preserves a second-century text of Mark 16, and
      this idea sort of boomerangs so as to suggest that of all endings,
      P45 is more likely to have had the LE than any other known variant.

      "Maybe it [P45] 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?"

      We don't know how Mark ended in P45. (Or in mss alongside P75.) At
      the same time, it should not be hard to say that P45's closest
      textual relative - W - has the Long Ending with the Freer Logion.

      Yours in Christ,

      Jim Snapp II
      Curtisville Christian Church
      Indiana, USA
      www.curtisvillechristian.org
    • Stephen C. Carlson
      ... In my study of Mark 6:45-8:26 that I presented at SBL last year, I found that W is a mixture of text-types: mostly from a Caesarean text close to P45, but
      Message 2 of 4 , Jun 9 9:05 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        "Jim Snapp" voxverax <snapp@...> wrote:
        >We don't know how Mark ended in P45. (Or in mss alongside P75.) At
        >the same time, it should not be hard to say that P45's closest
        >textual relative - W - has the Long Ending with the Freer Logion.

        In my study of Mark 6:45-8:26 that I presented at SBL last year,
        I found that W is a mixture of text-types: mostly from a Caesarean
        text close to P45, but with a detectable amount of a Western text
        similar to D. If the results hold up for Mark generally (which I
        have not studied), the presence of the Long Ending in W can be
        attributed to its Western affiliation (since D has the LE too) and
        does not therefore provide evidence for what P45 may have
        contained. (That's the problem with mixture: if a reading is
        found in one parent, it does not entitle us to assume that the
        other parent has the same reading.)

        See: http://www.hypotyposeis.org/weblog/2004/11/sbl-paper-on-caesarean-text-now-ready.html

        The relationship between P75 and B is different, however. In my
        study of John 4, B and P75 are more closely related to each other
        than to any other text, and neither is mixed.

        See: http://www.hypotyposeis.org/weblog/2003/11/proposed-stemma-for-john-4.html

        Stephen Carlson

        --
        Stephen C. Carlson,
        mailto:scarlson@...
        "Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35
      • sarban
        ... From: voxverax To: Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2005 6:44 AM Subject: [textualcriticism] Mk. 16:9-20
        Message 3 of 4 , Jun 9 9:08 AM
        • 0 Attachment
          ----- Original Message -----
          From: "voxverax" <snapp@...>
          To: <textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com>
          Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2005 6:44 AM
          Subject: [textualcriticism] Mk. 16:9-20 in the 2nd Century & Indirect
          Evidence


          > Dear Andrew and Peter,
          >
          > (My apologies for the delay.)
          >
          > Half of me wants to say, "In the interest of not getting distracted,
          > let's remove P45 from the equation entirely and move on." The other
          > half says ...
          >
          > Andrew Criddle wrote:
          > "W is obviously much later than P45" --
          >
          > Obviously.
          >
          > "and we know that the long ending was added to the later
          > representatives of text types that originally did not contain it."
          >
          > No we don't. Other than Victor of Antioch's statements from the
          > fifth century, what evidence exists to support this? And from what
          > sort of mss do you think it was added? (Sub-question: if "And in
          > their hands" is an original part of the LE in 16:18, why is it in the
          > Alexandrian witnesses and not the Byzantine ones?)
          >
          One piece of evidence for the addition of the long ending to
          manuscripts that originally lacked it is the manuscripts with the long
          ending after the short addition (ie 'But they reported briefly to
          Peter.........the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal
          salvation [amen]') Such manuscripts include L 044 099 and 0112

          The earliest (099 and 0112) date from c 600 CE.

          They appear to represent an Alexandrian textual tradition which
          originally ended Mark with the short addition and to which the
          long ending has subsequently been added.

          Andrew Criddle
        • voxverax
          Dear Stephen and Andrew, Stephen -- It s fair to ask whether or not W acquired the LE via Western mixture. But the Freer Logion, which shows up in W, doesn t
          Message 4 of 4 , Jun 11 1:54 AM
          • 0 Attachment
            Dear Stephen and Andrew,

            Stephen --

            It's fair to ask whether or not W acquired the LE via Western
            mixture. But the Freer Logion, which shows up in W, doesn't appear
            in any of the relatives that W has in your stemma. And, W's text of
            the LE differs from Western witnesses in a couple of other ways:
            W<>D in 16:9 (W is uniquely short; D is uniquely long), W<>D in 16:10
            ("kai klaiousin" omitted in W), W<>D in 16:11 (D has a short gloss),
            W<>D in 16:14 (nil vs. de), W<>D in 16:15 (W has "alla," making a
            transition after the Freer Logion), and W<>D in 16:16 (twice). And
            W<>D in 16:19. And (I'll say it again) W has the Freer Logion. To
            me, that suggests that whatever impact Western mss may have had on
            W's ancestry elsewhere, W probably did not acquire the LE from a text
            like D.

            (Btw: in FIG. 7, I couldn't quite discern the writing on the line
            between W and D. Does it say 8%? What does that mean?)

            Andrew --

            [Responding to my question, What evidence supports the statement that
            we know that the LE was added to the later representatives of text
            types that originally did not contain it?]
            AC: "One piece of evidence for the addition of the long ending to
            manuscripts that originally lacked it is the manuscripts with the long
            ending after the short addition."

            The witnesses with the Double-Ending (L et al) show that the Long
            Ending was absent somewhere along the line (and its absence impelled
            somebody to write the SE) in the Egyptian text-stream, probably in
            the 2nd or early 3rd century, but that is not the same as evidence
            that the witnesses with the Double-Ending acquired the LE from
            members of other text-types.

            It looks to me like the L+Psi+Eth group had the Double-Ending from
            the time that the constellation of variants defining their text-type
            started to shine. Some mss before them did not contain the LE, but
            those mss (with the SE) were mss within the Egyptian text-stream.

            That the L-group's text at the end of Mark is a result of a mixture
            of manuscripts, I think everyone agrees. But usually "mixture" means
            contamination from another text-type. In the case of the LE, that
            doesn't seem to be what we're dealing with, because Mk. 16:9-20 in
            Alexandrian witnesses has some characteristics that disagree, or at
            least cannot be shown to originate from, the Byzantine, Western, and
            Caesarean forms of the LE. The phrase "kai en tais cersin" in 16:18
            is a definitive Egyptian reading. And it looks original. So it
            would seem that the LE -- with "kai en tais cersin" -- was
            perpetuated in the Alexandrian text-stream without outside help.

            Yours in Christ,

            Jim Snapp II
            Curtisville Christian Church
            Indiana (USA)
            www.curtisvillechristian.org
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.