Mr Snapp has been posting so much interesting material lately on the TC-Lists, that I've decided the most efficient way to connect people is to just give a link to the current thread there:
Mr. Snapp has graciously placed his entire book on Mark's Ending online as a downloadable file at the TC-Alternate List website (on Yahoo Groups).
You have to become a member of the group to access the file and download it, but membership is free and you can remain anonymous.
TC-Alt is an Alternate Textual Criticism Group that allows Christian opinion and allows the discussion of religious and theological issues as well as just plain textual criticism.
Just go here to sign up, and then the files section is available to you. Then you can download the book!
Here's the main paragraph from Dr. Comfort's comments on Mark 16:9-
20. (Where Comfort used the Hebrew letter Aleph, I will write the
word "Aleph.")
"Omit verses: Aleph B.
According to the extant documentation, Mark's Gospel (as written by
Mark) ends with 16:8. This is attested by Aleph and B (the two
earliest extant manuscripts that preserve this portion of Mark), some
early versions (Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, and Georgian), and some
early church fathers (Clement, Origen, Eusebius, Jerome, Ammonius,
Victor of Antioch, and Euthymius). Each of the various endings that
have been appended to Mark 16:1-8 (there are three of them; see UBS3
for Greek text and the NRSV for English translations) could not have
been written by Mark. The most well-known ending, printed as Mark
16:9-20 in UBS3 and NA26, in narratively and stylistically
incongruous with 16:1-8. Any fair-minded reader can detect its non-
Marcan flavor. Major scholarly consensus is that someone other than
Mark wrote 16:9-20 perhaps as early as the second century. This
writer provided an extended conclusion derived from other sources,
including the other Gospels. All the other endings that have been
appended are even more obviously not the work of Mark."
Comfort's presentation is spectacularly misleading. He misinforms or
underinforms his readers about every kind of evidence:
MANUSCRIPTS. Comfort does not mention the prolonged blank space in
B. He does not mention that Aleph has a cancel-sheet at the end of
Mark and the beginning of Luke. He does not mention the support for
Mark 16:9-20 in all Greek MSS of Mark 16 except Aleph and B.
VERSIONS. Comfort does not mention the Old Latin copies which
support Mark 16:9-20, or the Vulgate, even though the Vulgate is
older than the Armenian version and the Old Georgian version. He
lists "Syriac" as if the Sinaitic Syriac MS is somehow THE witness to
the Old Syriac, without mention the Curetonian Syriac MS's support
for the inclusion of Mark 16:9-20, nor does he mention the Peshitta.
Comfort does not mention the Gothic Version (c. 350) even though it
is older than the Armenian. And Comfort does not inform his readers
here that the Georgian Version was largely dependent upon the
Armenian Version. He does not mention the Ethiopic evidence for Mark
16:9-20 (or for the Double-Ending).
PATRISTIC EVIDENCE. The abrupt ending of Mark is not attested by
Clement or by Origen. Neither one says anything about how the Gospel
of Mark ended. Eusebius claimed that most of the accurate copies
ended Mark's account at the end of 16:8, and he indicated that he
viewed 16:9-20 as superfluous -- but he also knew MSS with 16:9-20,
and explained how the passage, if retained in the text, could be
harmonized with Matthew 28. Jerome's comments to the effect that
Mark 16:9-20 was missing in almost all copies is an enhanced,
exaggerated restatement of Eusebius' comments on the subject.
Jerome's own independent view is expressed by his inclusion of Mark
16:9-20 in the Vulgate, and by a letter in which he referred his
readers to Mark 16:14 as a means of explaining where he had found the
interpolation now known as the Freer Logion. Comfort also refers to
"Ammonius" as if the all of the "Ammonian Sections" are the work of
Ammonius, rather than the work of Eusebius, who (according the
Eusebius in his Letter to Carpian) patterned the Sections on what
Ammonius had done when Ammonius had made a non-extant cross-reference
system centered on the Gospel of Matthew.
Comfort's use of Victor of Antioch as support for the abrupt ending
is outrageous. Victor of Antioch emphasized that although, as
Eusebius had said, some copies end at the end of 16:8, he had found
16:9-20 in ancient copies, particularly in a specially cherished
Palestinian exemplar. Listing Victor of Antioch as a witness for the
abrupt ending would be like listing Comfort as a witness for the
inclusion of Mark 16:9-20.
(Regarding Comfort's reference to Euthymius -- I do not know what
statement of Euthymius Zigabenus, a medieval writer, Comfort had in
mind. It may be a case of a repetition of Eusebius' comments.
Burgon cited Euthymius as a witness in favor of Mk. 16:9-20 in "The
Last Twelve Verses of Mark," p. 30. But in any case, Euthymius is
NOT "early.")
It is staggering that Comfort, though he treats the silence of
Clement and Origen as if it is as good as a statement from them that
Mark ends with 16:8, does not mention the second-century support for
the inclusion of Mark 16:9-20 found in Justin Martyr, Tatian, and
Irenaeus. Nor does Comfort mention the abundant support from
Ambrose, Aphraates, Augustine, the "Acts of Pilate," and many other
early patristic witnesses.
Comfort's presentation of external evidence is atrociously unbalanced.
His presentation of the internal evidence is almost as bad.
Comfort refers to three endings. What are they? Apparently, Comfort
either thinks that the Double-Ending is a different ending, or he
thinks that 16:9-20 with the Freer Logion is a different ending.
Either way, he misleads his readers.
Comfort stated that Mark 16:9-20 "could not have been written by
Mark." That is false. If Mark 1:1-16:8 is placed alongside Mark
16:9-20, and they are considered as two separate texts (without
considering 16:9-20 to have been written as the ending of Mark 1:1-
16:8), there is not much in the way of style or vocabulary or syntax
that can be used as evidence that 16:9-20 is non-Marcan which cannot
also be said about other 12-verse sections of Mark.
Comfort stated that "Any fair-minded reader can detect its non-Marcan
flavor." False. Comfort has resorted here to intimidating rhetoric,
implying that if a reader does not agree with him that 16:9-20 does
not have a non-Marcan "flavor," the reader must not be fair-minded.
Comfort then stated, "Major scholarly consensus is that someone other
than Mark wrote 16:9-20 perhaps as early as the second century." He
might be right. It may be that most scholars have never
independently examined the second-century evidence from Justin,
Tatian, and Irenaeus which demonstrates their use of the passage. If
that is the case, it only shows that "major scholarly consensus" on
this subject is worthless.
Next, in his statement, "This writer provided an extended conclusion
derived from other sources, including the other Gospels," Comfort
misrepresents a theory as if it is a fact. Comfort does not know how
16:9-20 was written. He has no way to exclude the alternative that
16:9-20 originated independently of the other Gospels, or that it was
written by Mark, with Peter's approval, for use in the church at
Rome, before the Gospels of Matthew and Luke and John were
written.
And, finally, Comfort wrote, "All the other endings that have been
appended are even more obviously not the work of Mark." Notice the
choice of words: "All the other endings." What are these other
endings? A few sentences earlier, Comfort said that there are only
three endings after 16:8. That's incorrect -- there are only the
Short Ending, and combinations of the Short Ending and the Long
Ending, and the Long Ending with the Freer Logion. Calling these
"all the other endings" is like referring to "all the other
professors" besides Professor Comfort in the following list:
(a) Professor Comfort. (b) Professor Jones. (c) Professor
Comfort standing alongside Professor Jones. (d) Professor Comfort
carrying a briefcase.
Nobody normally uses the English language that way. And I cannot
discern why Dr. Comfort used the phrase "all the other endings" here;
I can only reduce the possibilities to either an intent to mislead
his readers, or to a failure to understand the evidence, or to
exceptionally poor communication skills. Regardless of how the
phrase "all the other endings" was conceived, it effectively misleads
the unsuspecting reader, who is left with no idea of the vastness and
the consistency of the external support for Mark 16:9-20.
After some brief comments, which essentially agree with Metzger's
theory that the original ending of Mark was accidentally lost,
Comfort makes the following proposal: "It would be better if the
text more accurately reflected the evidence of the earliest
manuscripts and did, in fact, conclude the Gospel at 16:8. All the
endings, then, should be placed in the apparatus."
Again, there's that phrase, "all the endings." All the authors of
"The Quest for the Original Text of the New Testament" should be
ashamed that they tell their readers only the names of the two
manuscripts which end Mark with 16:8, without telling about the
special features of those two MSS at the end of Mark, and without
telling them about the earliest attestation to 16:9-20.
Looking for misinformation and half-truths in Comfort's comments is
like looking for teeth in a tiger's mouth. His comments look like
the result of superficial research, covered by a facade of assertive
language. One can only wonder in dismay at the thought of how many
students at Wheaton have soaked up his teachings, and have gone on to
spread them in their congregations and at other schools. And if
things like this can happen at Wheaton, they can happen elsewhere.
Yours in Christ,
James Snapp, Jr.
__________________ "Neither do I judge thee. Sin no more." (Jn 8:11)
RecentlyJames Snapp Jr. has caught yet another Textual Critic fudging the evidence on the Ending of Mark.
I quote his post here, because it is illustrative of the problem that crops up repeatedly from those who support "modern" readings chosen by popular critical Greek texts.
Basically, people take key evidence and turn it inside out, by changing the criteria and goalposts, by reversing the significance and meaning of evidence, and by choosing the reverse of normal expectations of probability and plausibility.
Over at the textualcriticism discussion-board I recently drew attention to Dr.
Joel Marcus' description of some external evidence pertaining to Mark 16:9-20 in
the new Anchor Yale Bible Commentary series, volume 27A. The part that seemed
most objectionable was the following:
"Verses 9-20, moreover, do not exist in our earliest and best Greek manuscripts,
Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, both of which terminate at 16:8, as do the Sinaitic
Syriac, about a hundred Armenian manuscripts, the two oldest Georgian
manuscripts (from 897 and 913 C.E.), and all but one manuscript of the Sahidic
Coptic (Metzger, 122-23; cf. Birdsall, "Review," 154)."
Marcus is here repeating, almost verbatim, Metzger's description of the
evidence. But his final phrase -- describing the Sahidic Coptic manuscripts --
is incorrect. In the real world, only one Sahidic MS containing Mark stops at
16:8; four others have the SE and LE, with annotations; one Sahidic MS has the
LE right after 16:8.
Marcus also states,
"When verses 9-20 do appear, moreover, they are often
separated from 16:8 by scribal signs (asterisks or obeli) or by notations that
state or suggest that what follows is not found in some witnesses (see Aland,
"Markusschluss," 442-46)."
A rough English translation of K. Aland's "Markusschluss" is available in the
TC-Alternate Files. What Marcus describes as a feature that appears "often"
actually appears in something like 20 MSS. I do not think that an
occurrence-rate of 1.3% justifies the term "often."
Marcus made some other questionable statements, too, but instead of dwelling on
them I want to ask for your opinions about something else. When I presented Dr.
Marcus' statements, I received a response to the effect that those errors were
no big deal: according to the respondent, his statement about the Sahidic
Coptic copies "is actually a summary reflecting the true nature of the Sahidic
evidence." And, regarding the claim that asterisks, obeli, and annotations
suggesting spuriousness "often" occur, the reply was:
"I am not sure how justified you are in assuming that 1,480 mss of Mark lack such signs - who has checked these?."
When I first read such comments I thought that the writer might be joking, but
as I re-read his comments I think he is completely serious. To him, it really
is a benign error to claim that all Sahidic copies but one terminate at Mark
16:8, since the evidence indicates that that is where the earliest form of the
Sahidic version of Mark terminated. And, it seems, he is perfectly okay with
the idea of saying that certain features appear "often" in manuscripts, because
no one has verified that they do not appear often.
So my questions to you are:
(1) Are Marcus' errors trivial?
(2) Would you trust the text-critical judgment of anyone who thinks that
Marcus' statements are trivial?
I am hoping that you can spare the time to give detailed answers, not just "yes"
or "no." To me, the case is clear, but I would like to know the view from other
perspectives.
Yours in Christ,
James Snapp, Jr.
- posted on TC Alt List June 2009
peace
Nazaroo
__________________ "Neither do I judge thee. Sin no more." (Jn 8:11)
Mr. Snapp Jr. has gracously posted his current understanding on the Ending of Mark, in response to a query as to the evidence indicating that Mark originally composed an independant piece, which was attached to his Gospel, possibly post-humously:
-------------------QUOTE-----------------
Mark 16:9-20 as the Original Ending of the Gospel of Mark
Steven,
SA: "What to you is the compelling evidence that Mark was not the author of the
resurrection account as the original ending of his Gospel."
That is a well-phrased question, because (although this view is not necessary
for the case for the authenticity of Mark 16:9-20) I think that verses 9-20 were
written by Mark as a freestanding composition, and that this originally separate
composition was attached to the Gospel of Mark by his colleagues at Rome after
Mark was forced to stop writing at the end of v. 8.
It would be convenient, in some ways, if the evidence indicated that Mark did
proceed to write verses 9-20. That would be a simpler scenario that the one I
have pictured. But I don't think the evidence allows such a simple conclusion.
That view is /too/ simple; it is simpler than my approach, yes – like a bridge
that only reaches halfway across a canyon is simpler than one that reaches all
the way across. Here are the pieces of evidence, listed in no particular order,
that drive me to the view that Mark 16:9-20 is not the ending that Mark was
preparing to compose when he was writing 16:8.
(1) The transition from 16:8 to 16:9 is grammatically very harsh. Mark uses
"gar" 67 times on other occasions, and every time it does not end a sentence.
The end of 16:8 looks like an interrupted sentence. It is grammatically
feasible, but not linguistically probable at all as the conclusion of a
narrative. The alleged parallels in an essay by Plotinus, and in a speech by
Protagoras, are not the same sort of thing. Plotinus substantially post-dates
Mark and the points at which the collections of Plotinus' essays start and stop
reflect the editing of Plotinus' assistant Porphyry. As for Protagoras, he
simply ends his speech with a clarifying parenthetical phrase. Neither of those
compositions resembles the "cliff-hanger" at the end of Mark 16:8. Whereas the
closing phrases in the essay by Plotinus, and the speech by Protagoras, wrap up
loose ends, the gar-phrase in Mark 16:8 creates one.
Although some interpreters have viewed the end of 16:8 through an optimistic
lens, and regarded it as some sort of open-ended invitation to the reader
(although the question of exactly what sort of invitation it is varies from
interpreter to interpreter), it seems to me that one could tear off the Gospel
of Mark at a number of points in 16:1-8, and the same interpreters, using the
same optimistic lens, could squint a meaningful and brilliant open-ended ending
into existence. It requires much less squinting to see that the end of 16:8
looks like an interrupted sentence because it /is/ an interrupted sentence.
Mark's failure to complete the half-sentence indicates that he did not complete
the narrative as a whole.
(2) The group of women in 16:8 is not revisited; we go from a group of women
that includes Mary Magdalene in 16:8, to an appearance exclusively to Mary
Magdalene in v. 9, with no explanation. We never get back to the group of women
anywhere in 16:9-20. We never get back to the group of women. Dr. Bruce Terry
has pointed out that Mark repeatedly brings a pericope to a close and reopens
the narrative with a fresh scene. But in those other sudden transitions (such
as from 2:12 to 2:13), things wrap up tidily in the first pericope. That is not
the case here. In this case, there is unfinished business in the first scene:
Mary Magdalene is in the group of women in 16:8. Nothing is said about how she
separated from the others.
Dr. Terry mentioned one case of a pericope with unfinished business which merits
further explanation: in 14:65-66, we see the narrative camera focused on a
scene where Jesus is being slapped, and then the camera turns back to Peter, and
when it returns to Jesus in 15:1, the servants who were slapping him are gone.
He compares this to the disappearance of Mary Magdalene's companions. However,
it looks to me like the "servants" in 14:65 ("officers" in the NKJV; "guards" in
the ESV) should be understood as a group of soldiers whose job was merely to
guard Jesus until He was called for, at which point the other soldiers would
take Him to trial. In other words, Jesus is handed off from one group of
soldiers, in 65a, to a second group of soldiers, or "servants," in 65b. There's
a textual variant here – EBALLON versus ELABON – and we also face the question
of how hUPHRETAI ought to be translated. But no matter how one slices it, the
result remains the same: if the hUPHRETAI = "servants," whose job is only to
watch Jesus until the soldiers take Him to trial, then it is no surprise that we
don't see then again, since the trial before Pilate commences in 15:1. And if
the hUPHRETAI = "officers," leaders of the soldiers, then we /do/ see them
again, in the group of soldiers on hand in chapter 15, mentioned in 15:16.
Either way, this is not the same kind of inexplicable disappearance of
characters that we see between 16:8 and 16:9.
(3) A reference to "the first day of the week" appears in 16:2. Mark would
thus have no reason to use the phrase "on the first day of the week" again in
16:9. If 16:9 began a new composition, though, the phrase would be completely
appropriate, as would be the new parenthetical phrase that Jesus had cast out
seven demons from Mary Magdalene. (The phrase that refers to the seven demons
is not particularly question-raising if one assumes that 16:9-20 was written by
Mark right after he wrote 16:8, but it is even more appropriate if 16:9-20
existed as a freestanding composition.)
(3) Mark indicates, by foreshadowing a rendezvous between Jesus and the
disciples in Galilee in 14:28 and 16:7, his intention to describe a rendezvous
between Jesus and the disciples in Galilee. As Croy and other authors have
shown, Mark establishes a pretty clear pattern of
prediction-followed-by-explicit-fulfillment in Mark. However, what is predicted
in 14:28 and 16:7 is not explicitly fulfilled in 16:9-20. The encounter between
Jesus and the disciples in 16:14ff. could be assumed to have occurred in
Galilee, but elsewhere Mark makes the fulfillments explicit, leaving no need for
the reader to make assumptions.
(4) In 16:10-13, EKEINOS is used as a pronoun four times, and again in 16:20.
Mark uses EKEINOS as a pronoun in 12:4-5, too, so this cannot validly be
considered a "non-Markan" feature of 16:9-20. But it does show that 16:9-20 is
written in a more condensed, more "staccato" style (as more than one author has
put it) than 16:1-8. That would be natural in a short freestanding composition
that Mark had composed as an easily memorized summary of Jesus'
post-resurrection appearances. In this regard it is comparable to the
staccato-style summary in First Corinthians 15:3-7. EKEINOS is repeated,
somewhat rhythmically, as WFQH is somewhat rhythmically repeated in I Cor.
15:3-7.
Now, on one hand, a person could say that this merely shows the nature of the
source Mark was using as he wrote the Gospel of Mark, just as the stylistic
features in I Cor. 15:3-7 show the nature of Paul's source without /being/
Paul's source. So this feature is not strong enough to stand alone as evidence
that Mark 16:9-20 was not Mark's own deliberate ending. On the other hand, it
interlocks with the other points; that is, this feature is neatly explained by
the same premise that explains the rest. Those who would argue that Mark
16:9-20 is a natural continuation from 16:8 need to explain why Mark suddenly
began to write in this condensed style.
(5) In 16:7, the women, including Mary Magdalene, are instructed by the angel
to go tell Jesus' disciples "that He is going before you into Galilee; there you
will see Him," but 16:9-11 only says that Mary Magdalene reported that Jesus had
appeared to her, and that Jesus is alive and that she had seen Him. It does not
say that she said anything about Galilee, or about the angel at the tomb, or
about the angel's message. This is accounted for more naturally by the idea
that 16:9-20 was attached, than by the idea that Mark wrote it at the same time
that he wrote 16:1-8.
(6) 16:7 seems to foreshadow an encounter in Galilee in which Peter will be
prominently featured. But in 16:9-20, the climactic reunion between Jesus and
the apostles does not feature Peter in any special prominence at all.
(7) The preceding six points stand completely separate from this point, and I
expect this point to be persuasive only to those who already see the Proto-Mark
model as a probable solution to the Synoptic Problem. If Matthew 28:8-10 and
28:16-20 represent the contents of Matthew's copy of Proto-Mark, then we have
grounds to expect Mark to follow up on 16:8 with an ending that resembles
Matthew 28:8-20, minus the intervening verses in 28:11-15 about the guards.
Such an ending would interlock smoothly with 16:8: the fear of the silent women
is relieved when Jesus personally appears to them and restates the angel's
command; they report to the disciples; the disciples dutifully depart to
Galilee; in Galilee Jesus meets the disciples (and restores Peter, though this
is not mentioned in Matthew 28), and commissions them to spread the gospel
everywhere.
This interlocks so smoothly with Mark 16:8 that the interlock is /suggestively/
easy, indicating that such an ending was in Proto-Mark, and would thus be the
sort of ending which Mark would have intended to follow 16:8 in the Gospel of
Mark. But that is not the sort of ending we have in 16:9-20; instead, we see no
further trace of Mary Magdalene's companions as Mary Magdalene alone is
featured; we see the disciples disbelieving her report; there is no statement to
the effect that the disciples left Jerusalem and went to Galilee. This is all
accounted for if 16:9-20 is not the ending that Mark had been expecting to write
after 16:8.
Besides noting those seven reasons for concluding that 16:9-20 was not written
by Mark as the conclusion of the Gospel of Mark, I would also note that the lack
of a transition between 16:8 and 16:9 appears to reflects the reverence of the
editor (a Roman colleague of Mark) for both Mark 1:1-16:8 and for the LE. A
newly composed ending, made expressly for the purpose of concluding the Gospel
of Mark, would have a smoother transition. Such high respect for the LE
indicates that the editor regarded it as both authoritative and appropriate, and
this indicates, in turn, that it was either a Markan composition (a point
supported by all the Markan features in 16:9-20 already noted by Farmer) or a
composition known to have been approved by Mark and/or Peter for the church at
Rome.
Yours in Christ,
James Snapp, Jr.
--------------------------------- UNQUOTE ---------------------
From TC-Alt List on Yahoo Groups. Message #2697
peace,
Nazaroo
__________________ "Neither do I judge thee. Sin no more." (Jn 8:11)
I printed out the pages of your translation of Mark that involve Mark 16:9-20.
Here are 26 observations, criticisms, etc. about footnote #146 that might be
helpful if you plan to revise the material sometime. I didn't have time to
analyze the Endnote much, but I noticed several things there that need
improvement. Perhaps this will convince you that it might be a good idea to
give the issue some further thought before continuing to pray that editors and
translators will omit Mark 16:9-20 from the New Testament. Here I offer 26
thoughts about the apparatus in footnote #146.
(A) In the text, after the end of Mark 16:8, I read, "Verses 9-12" linked to
footnote #146. In Footnote #146, which is really an apparatus, you refer
correctly to verses 9-20. Then, further along in the footnote, you list
witnesses which "add only longer ending, vv. 9-12" with critical marks," and
then, "add only longer ending, vv. 9-12"." The same material is repeated at the
beginning of Endnote #10. All these references should be to verses 9-20, not
9-12.
(B) "(Lect? lection ends with v. 8)" – cited verbatim from UBS-2 – is a
phantom. One might as well add a note of doubt to the last lection of every
book of the NT. The same Byzantine lectionaries in which a lection concludes at
16:8 also contain a lection that begins at 16:9. It is acrobatic to look at
this inclusion, and list it as evidence for omission. Where, in the apparatus,
is the statement, "Lect: vv. 9-20 = lection for Ascension-Day and Heothina #3"?
Where is the listing for the lectionary used by Augustine? Via selection,
deception.
(C) "(It-a-vid [i.e., Vercellensis, vid.] lacuna, but not enough room for the
longer ending)" is listed as a witness for the abrupt ending at 16:8 and for
"add only shorter ending." But the extant text of Mark in the original pages of
Codex Vercellensis stops at 15:15. Then there is a page, with Vulgate text,
containing Mark 16:7b-16:20. C.H. Turner, observing that the removal of four
pages can be detected, assumed that the MS only had four more pages of Mark
originally – that there is no missing extra folio, and that the copyist did not
compress his lettering, and that the copyist did not omit text via parablepsis.
However, if the person responsible for the replacement-page was attempting to
remove some disturbing feature at the end of the text of Mark, why didn't he
replace the excised pages with the full text of 15:15-16:20? Why cram
16:7b-16:20 onto a single leaf? Turner assumed that the replacement-page began
at 16:7b because the missing last leaf had originally begun at the same point in
the text. It seems more likely that the initial loss of the final pages of
Mark, and the addition of the new Vulgate page, took place separately; the
Vulgate page not being written for the occasion but instead being cannibalized
from an already-discarded Vulgate-copy.
So, there are some significant assumptions propping up the use of Codex
Vercellensis (non-extant from 15:15) as a witness for the abrupt ending at 16:8
or the Shorter Ending, or the Longer Ending. Another factor to consider, when
gauging the weight of the testimony of Codex Vercellensis and its missing pages,
is the presence of chapter-number 74 after Mt. 27:66. The same chapter-number
appears in the same place in Codex Corbeiensis (ff2), an OL witness (slightly
younger than Codex Vercellensis) which contains Mk. 16:9-20.
(D) You listed Armenian MSS as witnesses for the lack of 16:9-20. Okay, but
what about all the Armenian witnesses that contain 16:9-20? They should be
listed as support for 16:9-20. And what about Eznik of Golb? He was involved
in the Armenian translation(s) in the 400's, and his book "De Deo," in which he
cites Mk. 16:17-18, is far older than any Armenian Gospel-MS. He should be
included in the apparatus.
(E) You listed two Georgian MSS as witnesses for the lack of 16:9-20. I
realize that people do this because Metzger did it. But considering that the
Old Georgian version was translated from Armenian, when the Armenian *and* the
Georgian are presented as if they are independent witnesses, even though the
line of descent is undeniable, we face the same sort of misrepresentation that
would occur if a MS, and a copy of it, were presented as if they are two
independent witnesses. The weight given to those two Old Georgian copies should
be whatever weight one would assign to Armenian copies of the same age. Also:
what about all the Georgian witnesses that contain 16:9-20? The Adysh MS,
which does not contain Mark 16:9-20, is from 897, and the Opiza MS, from 913,
also ends Mark at 16:8. But what about the Jrutchi Gospels (936), the Parhal
Gospels (973), and the Tbet' Gospels (995)? What about the evidence that
Birdsall has analyzed, to the effect that there were two forms of the Gospels in
Georgian going all the way back to the 500's, maybe even into the 400's?
(F) You listed Clement as a witness for "txt lack vv. 9-20." However, except
for chapter 10, there is not much of the Gospel of Mark that is used by Clement.
If mere non-use is a valid witness for a text that lacks a passage, then Clement
is a witness for almost all of Mark chapters 1-9 and 11-16. Picture the text of
the Gospel of Mark as a pizza, sliced into 56 or 57 slices, with each slice
consisting of 12 verses: Origen does not use 34 of those 12-verse slices. I
don't see how anyone can consider this non-use legitimate evidence.
(G) You listed "Epiphanius ½" as a witness for "txt lack vv. 9-20."
Specifically, what quotation from Epiphanius is this supposed to be? Is it
Ancoratus 50? That is simply a statement that the four Gospels consist of 1,162
chapters; Epiphanius is simply observing the total number of sections arranged
by Eusebius of Caesarea. But if that is not what you are citing, what are you
citing? In addition, you did not cite Epiphanius as a witness for Mark 16:9-20!
But in Panarion III:6:3 (Migne MG Vol. 41, part 386), Epiphanius refers to
Mark's statement that Jesus ascended up to heaven and sat on the right hand of
the Father. If you thought Epiphanius' testimony was worth mentioning for "text
lack vv. 9-20," will you now list his testimony as what it really is?
(H) You listed Hesychius as a witness for "txt lack vv. 9-20" but Hort observed
that in the work in which Hesychius says that Mark ended his account when "he
had told in a summary manner the particulars down to the mention of the one
angel," the context shows that "the writer is speaking exclusively of the
appearances to the women, and has especially in view the absence of the addition
incident supplied by Lc. xxiv. 24." Hort also mentioned that Hesychius, in
"Quaest. 1, p. 40," "uses a phrase founded on xvi. 19." So is Hesychius
genuinely a witness for a text that ends at 16:8, or does he use a text that
contains 16:9-20?
(I) You listed "Jerome" and "mss acc. to Jerome" as a witness for "txt lack vv.
9-20." Jerome did indeed write, in Epistle #120, To Hedibia, that "almost all
the Greek codices lack the passage," but this statement is part of a long
extract from Eusebius' Ad Marinum, freely translated into Latin and modified in
the spontaneous translation-process. Jerome delivered this epistle via
dictation (He says in his opening words that Hedibia should remember that Jerome
claims no exceptional wisdom but relies on the One who said, "Open your mouth,
and I will fill it"), so when we see such a large extract, what can be naturally
deduced: that Jerome is saying this because Eusebius said it, or that Jerome is
saying this because he has personally seen many Greek codices that lack Mk.
16:9-20? Someone might say, "Perhaps both." But remember that Jerome included
Mark 16:9-20 in the Vulgate, a text which he explicitly stated he had edited
according to old Greek manuscripts. And remember that in "Against the
Pelagians" he located the interpolation now known as the Freer Logion by citing
Mk. 16:14, without any warning to his readers that 16:14 might not be in their
copies. Furthermore, in Jerome's correspondence to Augustine, Jerome affirms
that he extracts materials from earlier writers, not necessarily agreeing with
it, in order to put a variety of opinions into the hands of his readers, and to
save himself the trouble of dealing with superfluous questions.
Earlier this year, a French website placed online a French translation of
Jerome's Epistle 120, and, using Google Translate, I pieced together an English
translation. The result, at Jerome, Letter 120: To Hedibia (2009) , is imperfect, but
if anyone is still wondering, "Was Jerome paraphrasing Eusebius' Ad Marinum?",
this should remove all doubts. Consult Jerome's "Question #3" in his letter to
Hedibia. Not only do Jerome's answers to Hedibia echo Eusebius' answers to
Marinus, but Jerome answers Hedibia's vague third question by copying three of
Marinus' (related, but more specific) questions as well as Eusebius' answers to
them! So, the unannounced extract from Eusebius' "Ad Marinum" that is embedded
in Jerome's Epistle 120 should not be regarded as an independent statement by
Jerome. In addition, Jerome condenses and adjusts Eusebius' words in such a way
that the only recommendation that Hedibia could conclude that Jerome was making
was to retain Mark 16:9-20.
(J) You listed "Ammonius" as a witness for "txt lack vv. 9-20." Where is this
work in which Ammonius says that he has a text of Mark that lacks vv. 9-20? The
actual witness here is not Ammonius; it is Eusebius, the developer of the
"Ammonian Sections" that are a component of Eusebius' cross-reference system.
As Eusebius asserts in his Letter to Carpian, Ammonius made a Matthew-centered
cross-reference system which contained, besides the Matthean text, the parallels
to Matthew found in the other Gospels. The "Ammonian Sections" cover much more
of Mark, Luke, and John than what is paralleled in Matthew; they cover the
entire text of the Gospels! The non-extant work of Ammonius inspired Eusebius,
but the extant "Ammonian Sections" are the work of Eusebius. Read Appendix G in
Burgon's "Last 12 Verses of Mark" and any doubts about this should be forever
removed. Burgon noted that Mark has 21 unparalleled sections; Luke has 72; John
has 97; Luke and Mark have 14 sections exclusive to them; Luke and John have 21
sections exclusive to them – none of which would be enumerated and included in a
Matthew-centered cross-reference system like what Eusebius describes as the work
of Ammonius.
[... continued next post... - Nazaroo ]
__________________ "Neither do I judge thee. Sin no more." (Jn 8:11)
(K) You cited Victor of Antioch as a witness for "txt lack vv. 9-20," without
listing Victor as a witness for the inclusion of 16:9-20. In the
catena-commentary put together by Victor of Antioch, after a condensation of
Eusebius' comments (worded rather favorably toward the retention of Mk.
16:9-20), there is a statement that seems to have been composed specifically to
counteract Eusebius' claims: the author does not deny that in very many copies
the text ends at 16:8; he has no way to disprove Eusebius' century-old claim; in
addition, he has encountered copies that do not have 16:9-20. But he proceeds
to state that the passage is absent from those copies because certain
individuals supposed the passage to be spurious. Then he says that he found
Mark 16:9-20 in very many copies, and in accurate copies, specifically, in a
particularly highly esteemed Palestinian exemplar. So it seems entirely
unsatisfactory, and quite misleading, to list Victor of Antioch as a witness for
"txt lack 16:9-20," without listing Victor, many manuscripts according to
Victor, and a specially cherished Palestinian exemplar according to Victor, as
witnesses for a text that includes Mark 16:9-20.
(L) Euthymius is listed as a witness for "txt lack vv. 9-20." The only
Euthymius in the UBS GNT's list of patristic writers is the one who wrote in the
1100's – Euthymius Zigabenus. But Euthymius' comment about Mark 16:9-20 (Comm.
In Marcum 48) appears to be a nearly verbatim repetition of a slightly earlier
comment by Theophylact: Euthymius preserved what Theophylact said was stated in
Codex 26, regarding Mark 16:8: "Some of the interpreters say that the Gospel
according to Mark is finished here, and that the words that follow are a
subsequent addition. It is necessary to interpret this passage without doing
any harm to the truth." So the total testimony of Euthymius is knowledge of
Theophylact's knowledge of the annotator of Codex 26's knowledge that Eusebius
and repeaters-of-Eusebius have stated that the Gospel of Mark concluded at 16:8.
Why is it that this sort of third-hand evidence finds a place in the apparatus,
but the same apparatus gives no indication that Theophylact exegeted the
passage?
(M) In the list of witnesses for "add first the short then the long ending,"
you included 083. Then, in the list of witnesses for "add only longer ending,
vv. 9-12"" (which, again, needs to be corrected to "9-20") you included 0112.
However, these two witnesses constitute a single fragmented MS, which should not
be in the list for "add only longer ending." It should be listed exclusively
for "add first the short then the long ending."
(N) Old Latin Codex Bobbiensis is as a witness for "add only shorter ending."
It would give readers a better recognition of the character of this witness if
the apparatus included some mention of its interpolation between Mark 16:3 and
16:4, and its removal of the last part of 16:8.
(O) In the list of witnesses for "add only longer ending, vv. 9-12" with
critical marks," family-1 and 1582 are listed separately. 1582, as probably the
best overall representative of f-1, should be included under "f-1."
(P) In the list of witnesses for "add only longer ending, vv. 9-20" with
critical marks," you wrote, "(about 70 witnesses tot.)" That is quite a
distortion. I think the number of manuscripts which are claimed to have
critical marks (asterisks or obeli) attached to Mk. 16:9-20 is under 30, among
which the number of manuscripts which have been verified to have critical marks
expressing doubt about the passage – rather than indicating a lection-break or
the existence of a margin-note pertaining to the passage – is less than 20.
(Q) You listed Psi as a witness in the list for "add first the short then the
long ending" and in the list for "add only longer ending, vv. 9-12." Codex Psi
should only be in the list for "add first the short then the long ending."
(R) In the list of witnesses for "add only longer ending, vv. 9-12," you listed
Jerome's manuscripts as "Hier" with "mss" superscripted. Just a stylistic
quibble here, but why refer to Jerome as "Jerome" at one point in the apparatus,
and then abbreviate as "Hier" nine lines later?
(S) Codex W is listed among the witnesses for "add only longer ending, vv. 9-12"
and for "add expanded longer ending." (Also, just a formatting quibble, but the
words "add expanded longer ending" should be italicized.)
(T) If you're going to list the testimony of Irenaeus as "Iren" with "Lat"
superscripted, then you should also draw to readers' attention the annotation
(in Greek) found in MSS 1582 and 72 near Mark 16:19, that says that Irenaeus,
who lived close to the (time of) the apostles, cited this passage in Against
Heresies, Book III.
(U) Think of the omissions in your apparatus: Euthymius is listed, but not
Augustine. Augustine's explicit reference to Greek and Latin copies is not
listed. Clement, who is merely silent, gets listed, but Justin, who uses
wording from 16:20 (as it appeared, blended with Luke 24:52-53, in his
Synoptics-Harmony) in First Apology 45, is not listed. Where is the Gothic
Version? The Vulgate? Ambrose? Aphraates? Acts of Pilate? Macarius Magnes
and the pagan writer (probably Porphyry, edited by Hierocles) he cited?
Patrick? Marcus Eremita? Prosper of Aquitaine?
(V) 1420 and 2386 are among the witnesses listed for "lacuna." Earlier in the
apparatus, Codex Vercellensis (about which I already commented) is not only
listed but described: "lacuna, but not enough room for the longer ending."
These two witnesses should be described also; in each one, the lacuna does not
leave the question open about the original contents; it is obvious that they
both originally contained 16:9-20.
(W) There is no mention of the prolonged blank space in Codex Vaticanus – the
only deliberately placed blank space between books of the same genre in the
entire codex. This is a significant detail.
(X) There is no mention that the pages in Codex Sinaiticus containing Mark
14:54 to Luke 1:56 constitute a cancel-sheet, or that 16:8 is followed by a
uniquely emphatic decorative line. This is a significant detail.
(Y) Mark 16:17-20 is the only extant part of the Gospel of Mark in the
Curetonian Syriac. Although it is correct to say that the extant portions of
the Curetonian Syriac contain only 16:17-20, there is a possibility (however
slight) that when intact it contained, besides 16:9-20, the Shorter Ending as
well.
(Z) Since 2427 is a forgery you probably should remove it from the apparatus.
It is not in footnote #146 but it remains in the Endnote.
(And, btw, elsewhere on the page: are you serious about excluding TON NAZARHNON
from the text of 16:6, supported by just the first preoccupied hand of
Aleph-suppl, and D, on the grounds that the orthography of NAZARHNON varies???)
Yours in Christ,
James Snapp, Jr.
______________________________________ - END QUOTE ________
Enjoy!
Nazaroo
__________________ "Neither do I judge thee. Sin no more." (Jn 8:11)
James Snapp Jr. has posted the following new information concerning the Diatessaron on TC-List, and I thought I would share it with you:
__________________________________QUOTE______________
Let's take a look at Codex Fuldensis and the Arabic Diatessaron to see the
degree to which their treatment of Mk. 16:9-20 is contradictory. By putting
Hill's English translation of the Arabic Diatessaron alongside Ranke's
presentation of Codex Fuldensis, we can compare their arrangements and see
whether they agree or contradict each other regarding the arrangement of Mark
16:9-20. Here, I will use "AD" as an abbreviation for the Arabic Diatessaron,
and "CF" for Codex Fuldensis.
AD 53 has Mk. 16:9 after John 20:2-17.
CF 174 has part of 16:9 between John 20:2-10 and 20:11-17.
AD 53 uses Mk. 16:10 after Lk. 24:9.
CF 176 uses Mk. 16:10 after Lk. 24:9.
AD 53 uses Mk. 16:11 between Lk. 24:10 and Lk. 24:11.
CF 176 uses Mk. 16:11 between Lk. 24:9 and Lk. 24:11.
AD 53 uses Mk. 16:12 between Lk. 24:11 and Lk. 24:13.
CF 177 uses Mk. 16:12 between Lk. 24:11 and Lk. 24:13.
AD 53 uses Mk. 16:13b between Lk. 24:13b-35 and part of Lk. 24:36.
CF 178 uses Mk. 16:13b between Lk. 24:13-35 and part of Lk. 24:36.
AD 55 uses Mk. 16:14 between Mt. 28:17 and Mt. 28:18.
CF 182 uses Mk. 16:14 between Mt. 28:17 and Mt. 28:18.
AD 55 uses Mk. 16:15 between Mt. 28:18 (with the Pesh's variant) and Mt. 28:19.
CF 182 uses Mk. 16:15 between Mt. 28:18 and Mt. 28:19.
AD 55 uses Mk. 16:16-18 between Mt. 28:20 and Lk. 24:49.
CF 182 uses Mk. 16:16-18 between Mt. 28:20 and Lk. 24:49.
AD 55 blends "And our Lord Jesus," from Mk. 16:19, with Lk. 24:50.
CF 182 does not.
AD 55 uses "and sat down at the right hand of God" between Lk. 24:51 and Lk.
24:52.
CF 182 uses "and sat down at the right hand of God" between Lk. 24:51 and Lk.
24:52.
AD 55 uses Mk. 16:20 between Lk. 24:53 and Jn. 21:25.
CF 182 uses Mk. 16:20 after Lk. 24:53 and ends there with "Amen." (Jn. 21:25
appears in CF at the end of 181.)
This evidence is, it seems to me, compelling. The differences are trivial. The
arrangement of the contents of Mark 16:9-20 in Codex Fuldensis, and the
arrangement of the contents of Mark 16:9-20 in the Arabic Diatessaron, are
essentially the same. They are not contradictory. Both of these witnesses –
one from the West, one from the East – picture Jesus and the disciples
proceeding from Galilee directly to Bethany, before returning to Jerusalem.
Both picture the scene in Mk. 16:14 as occurring in Galilee. Both use the "as
they mourned and wept" phrase at the same point.
I don't think anything from other Diatessaronic witnesses is going to be able to
budge this evidence.
Yours in Christ,
James Snapp, Jr.
___________________________________QUOTE____
enjoy!
Nazaroo
__________________ "Neither do I judge thee. Sin no more." (Jn 8:11)
Linear Mode
