Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Excuse me, but now it's starting to sound like you're grasping at ad hominem straws. Because you happen to deem something implausible is hardly evidence...and you've ignored a rather large amount of text from Metzger above.Have you ever thought about the sheer implausibility of Tschendorf's story? He was a thief, and his removal of a national treasure from a foreign country was scandalous and inexcusable.
And where is the manuscript now? It has been photographed and x-rayed to death.
Surely the new thieves can finally return it. It is no longer needed for purposes of scholarship...
When it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, its a criminal.
The discovery of this manuscript, now nearly a century ago, was the supreme triumph of the great Biblical scholar Constantine Tischendorf. In the year 1844 he was travelling in the East in search of manuscripts, and in the course of his travels he visited the monastery of St. Catherine at Mount Sinai. While working in the library he noticed a basket containing a large number of stray pages of manuscripts, among which he was astounded to behold several leaves of the oldest Greek writing he had ever set eyes on, and, as a short inspection proved, containing parts of the Greek Bible. No less than forty-three such leaves did he extract, and the librarian casually observed that two basket loads of similar waste paper had already been consumed in the furnace of the monastery. It is therefore not surprising that he easily obtained permission to keep the leaves which he had picked up; but when he discovered that some eighty more leaves of the Old Testament from the same manu­script were also in existence, difficulties were made about letting him see them; and he had to content himself with informing the monks of their value, and entreating them to stoke their fires with something less precious. He then returned to Europe, and having presented his treasure to his sovereign, King Frederick Augustus of Saxony, published its contents under the name of the Codex Friderico-Augustanus. These forty-three leaves be­longed, like all that Tischendorf had yet seen or heard of, to the Old Testament, containing portions of 1 Chronicles, 2 Esdras, Tobit, and Jeremiah, with Esther complete; they are now, as we have seen (Ch.V, p.67), at Leipzig, separated from the rest of the volume to which they once belonged. In 1853 he returned to Sinai; but his former warning, and perhaps the interest aroused in Europe by the discovery, had made the monks cautious, and he could hear nothing more concerning the manuscript. In 1859 he visited the monastery once again, this time under the patronage of the Tsar Alexander II, the patron of the Greek Church; but still his inquiries were met with blank negation, until one evening, only a few days before he was to depart, in the course of conversation with the steward of the monastery, he showed him a copy of his recently published edition of the Septuagint. Thereupon the steward remarked that he too had a copy of the Septuagint, which he would like to show to his visitor. Accordingly he took him to his room, and produced a heap of loose leaves wrapped in a cloth; and there before the astonished scholar's eyes lay the identical manuscript for which he had been longing. Not only was part of the Old Testament there, but the New Testament, complete from beginning to end. Concealing his feelings, he asked to be allowed to keep it in his room that evening to examine it; leave was given, "and that night it seemed sacrilege to sleep." He tried to buy the manuscript, without success. Then he asked to be allowed to take it to Cairo to study; but since the monk in charge of the library objected, he had to leave it behind. The Superior of the monastery, however, was at Cairo; and he, at Tischendorf's request, sent for the manuscript, and placed it in his hands, a few sheets at a time, for copying. Then Tischendorf suggested that it would be a graceful act to present it to the Tsar of Russia, as the protector of the Greek Church; and since the monks desired the influence of the Tsar in connection with the election of a new Archbishop, they consented to this, and after dilatory negotiations, Tischendorf was allowed to take the precious manuscript to Russia for presentation to the Tsar. In view of stories put about subse­quently by later generations of monks at St. Catherine's, it should be emphasised that Tischendorf's behaviour was quite correct throughout. He acted all through in agreement with the monks, and when there was some delay in the arrival of the counter-gift which, in accordance with Oriental usage, was expected from the Tsar, he intervened and secured the transmission of a sum of 9000 roubles and some decorations. To the end of his life he remained on good terms with the Sinai community, as contemporary documents show.
[The full story may be found in a pamphlet issued by the Trustees of the British Museum in 1934 (The Mount Sinai Manuscript of the Bible).]
The romance of the Codex Sinaiticus was not yet over, however. Since the year 1856 an ingenious Greek, named Constantine Simonides, had been creating a considerable sensation by produc­ing quantities of Greek manuscripts professing to be of fabulous antiquitysuch as a Homer in an almost prehistoric style of writing, a lost Egyptian historian, a copy of St. Matthew's Gospel on papyrus, written fifteen years after the Ascension (!), and other portions of the New Testament dating from the first century. These productions enjoyed a short period of notoriety, and were then exposed as forgeries. Among the scholars concerned in the exposure was Tischendorf; and the revenge taken by Simonides was distinctly humorous. While stoutly maintaining the genuine­ness of his own wares, he admitted that he had written one manuscript which passed as being very ancient, and that was the Codex Sinaiticus, the discovery of which had been so trium­phantly proclaimed by Tischendorf! The idea was ingenious, but it would not bear investigation. Apart from the internal evidence of the text itself, the variations in which no forger, however clever, could have invented, it was shown that Simonides could not have completed the task in the time which he professed to have taken, and that there was no such edition of the Greek Bible as that from which he professed to have copied it. This little cloud on the credit of the newly-discovered manuscript therefore rapidly passed away, and the manuscript reposed, still unbound and in the cloth which had wrapped it at Sinai, in what was presumed to be its final home. It had, however, one more transmigration to undergo. In 1933 it became known that the Soviet Government was not unwilling to sell it, having little use for Bibles and much for money. Indeed, negotiations had previously been opened with an American syndicate; but the financial crisis supervened, and America's difficulty gave England an unhoped-for opportunity. After prolonged negotiations a bargain was concluded by which it passed into the possession of the Trustees of the British Museum for the sum of £100,000 (much less than the sum contemplated in the American negotia­tions), of which half was guaranteed by the British Government. Accordingly, just before Christmas, 1933, the great Bible entered the British Museum, amid scenes of much popular excitement. There were, of course, those who criticised the purchase. Some used the argument of Judas Iscariot in John xii.5, but found that its parentage made it unpopular; some revived the legends of Tischendorf's misconduct and the claim of Simonides, but these also had little success. Others, more plausibly, argued that since an excellent photographic facsimile had been published by the Oxford University Press (New Testament, 1911; Old Testament, 1922) from photographs taken by Professor Kirsopp Lake, the original was of no further importance; but even this (which never commended itself to those who had experience of MSS. and photographs) has been disproved by a study of the scribes and correctors of the MS. by Messrs. H. J. M. Milne and T. G. Skeat of the British Museum (published 1938), which never could have been carried through without access to the MS. itself. The manuscript has now been beautifully and securely bound by Mr. Douglas Cockerell, and one may hope that it has now reached its final resting-place.
Again you sidestep the evidence that doesn't suit you, and offer a red herring.Excuse me, but now it's starting to sound like you're grasping at ad hominem straws. Because you happen to deem something implausible is hardly evidence...and you've ignored a rather large amount of text from Metzger above.
How is it evidence? And who are you to assign motivation? The manuscript was given up willingly. Perhaps it should have been returned, but this has no bearing on the textual history of Mark! Por Dios!It wasn't in the name of 'science' or anything else but greed.
Others, more plausibly, argued that since an excellent photographic facsimile had been published by the Oxford University Press (New Testament, 1911; Old Testament, 1922) from photographs taken by Professor Kirsopp Lake, the original was of no further importance; but even this (which never commended itself to those who had experience of MSS. and photographs) has been disproved by a study of the scribes and correctors of the MS. by Messrs. H. J. M. Milne and T. G. Skeat of the British Museum (published 1938), which never could have been carried through without access to the MS. itself.
I confess I don't know whether to laugh or cry at this remark. Many scholars, and especially Christians concerned with the bible text, don't find it humorous at all that scholars are engaging in 'negotiations' with criminal antiquity dealers who steal and smuggle national treasures out of foreign countries.Among the scholars concerned in the exposure was Tischendorf; and the revenge taken by Simonides was distinctly humorous.
That's a fair assessment. The sporadic mutilation of the text by wealthy patrons for themselves, and the shenanegans of a couple of Cambridge professors from the Oxford Movement era have very little to do with the widespread and normal reproduction of the text of Mark.justified said:Oh, right. so it has nothing to do with the textual history of Mark. Thank you for clearing that up.
Its a labour of love, Justified.justified said:Naz, are we done discussing the short ending of Mark? Just answer the question. If you are attempting to tire me of this discussion, you are succeeding.
II. The Papyrii
All of the manuscripts under consideration here come from a single, known location in Egypt, Oxyrhynchus, capital of the local region or nome (modern Behnasa, around 120 miles south of Cairo). They were recovered by Bernard P. Grenfell and Arthur S. Hunt in a series of expeditions from 1896/97 and 1903 through to 1907. These two young Oxford men formed, in the words of Eric Turner, a partnership more lasting and at least as productive as that of Gilbert and Sullivan.[7] At times they were recovering up to thirty baskets of manuscripts each day from the rubbish pits into which old and no longer useful manuscripts had been thrown. They excavated at times to a depth of 8 metres and at the end of the first season sent 280 boxes of manuscripts back to Oxford. Alongside a wealth of documentary and classical literary texts, these excavations (which were followed by a series of Italian excavations in 1910-1913, under E. Pistelli and G. Farina and later in 1927-34 under E. Breccia) recovered a wide range of early Christian literature (including other early Christian material from the Apostolic Fathers, non-canonical gospels, etc.). Indeed, Grenfell recorded that it was Oxyrhynchus renown as an important Christian site, with a number of churches and thousands of monks in the fourth and fifth centuries, that in part at least, motivated the original search.[8] The manuscripts themselves provide evidence of a growing number of churches (from two in the third century, up to around forty in the sixth centuries) and, in a later period, thousands of monks.[9]
As regards the New Testament we should note that Oxyrhynchus is the principal supplier of NT papyri. If we limit ourselves to those manuscripts definitely from Oxyrhynchus (that is, all those published in the Oxyrhynchus Papyri volumes and a number published in the Italian series, Papiri greci e latini, whose provenance is specifically identified),[10] we note, in addition to those listed above, that the following would be included:
P1 (P. Oxy 2), P5 (P. Oxy 208, 1781), P9 (P. Oxy 402),
P10 (P. Oxy 209), P13 (P. Oxy 657 & PSI 1292), P15 (P. Oxy 1008),
P16 (P. Oxy 1009), P17 (P. Oxy 1078), P18 (P. Oxy 1079),
P19 (P. Oxy 1170), P20 (P. Oxy 1171), P21 (P. Oxy 1227),
P22 (P. Oxy 1228), P23 (P. Oxy 1229), P24 (P. Oxy 1230),
P26 (P. Oxy 1354), P27 (P. Oxy 1355), P28 (P. Oxy 1596),
P29 (P. Oxy 1597), P30 (P. Oxy 1598), P35 (PSI 1),
P36 (PSI 3), P39 (P. Oxy 1780), P48 (PSI 1165),
P51 (P. Oxy 2157), P69 (P. Oxy 2383),
P70 (P. Oxy 2384 & PSI inv. CNR 419f.), P71 (P. Oxy 2385),
P77 (P. Oxy 2683), P78 (P. Oxy 2684), P90 (P. Oxy 3523).
To these manuscripts we can now add the following:
Gregory /Aland #/P. Oxy NT Passage Date (acc. to editor)
P77 (new portion)4405 Mt. 23:30-34; 35-39 II/III
P100 4449 Jas. 3:13-4:4; 4:9-5:1 III/IV
P101 4401 Mt. 3:10-12; 3:16-4:3 III
P102 4402 Mt. 4:11-12, 22-23 III/IV
P103 4403 Mt. 13:55-56; 14:3-5 II/III
P104 4404 Mt. 21:34-37; 43 & 45 (?) II (late)
P105 4405 Mt. 27:62-64; 28:1-5 V/VI
P106 4445 Jn. 1:29-35, 40-46 III
P107 4446 Jn. 17:1-2, 11 III
P108 4447 Jn. 17:23-24; 18:1-5 III
P109 4448 Jn. 21:18-20, 23-25 III
P110 4494 Mt. 10:13f., 25-27 IV
P111 4495 Lk. 17:11-13, 22f. III
P112 4496 Acts 26:31f.; 27:6f V
P113 4497 Rom. 2:12f., 29 III
P114 4498 Heb. 1:7-12 III
P115 4499 Rev. 2-15 III/IV
The total number of NT manuscripts on papyrus found at Oxyrhynchus is therefore forty-seven. This is a significant proportion of the total of perhaps 111 separate manuscripts, most of which are completely without provenance. The proportion is even more telling for those manuscripts dated to the early part of the fourth century or earlier (i.e. those given as III/IV or earlier in our list), in which Oxyrhynchus accounts for 34 out of a total of 58. The down-side is that all the material from Oxyrhynchus is very fragmentary. Only a few provide substantial material (e.g. P13 covers several chapters of Hebrews in a fairly well preserved state; P115 covers a lot of the Apocalypse in a fragmentary state). Epp refers to only three others which provide more than two dozen verses (P5, P15, P27) and the longest of the new fragments is P100 (James), which attests around 20 verses.[12]
Doubtless this explains the relative lack of attention given to Oxyrhynchus in particular among textual critics. Nevertheless the breadth of material, our growing knowledge of the town itself, and its church life, make this material a vital resource. As regards scope we simply note that the Oxyrhynchus collection comprises portions of Matthew (13 copies), Luke (2 copies), John (10 copies), Acts (3 copies), Romans (4 copies), 1 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1-2 Thessalonians, Hebrews (3 copies), James (3 copies), 1 John, Jude, and Revelation (3 copies).
I do as well. But you are not providing anywhere near unbiased evidence. Half of what I have read is misleading and false or relies on heavy inferences which can't be anywhere near substantiated. You are doing exactly what you think us critics do.One of my personal goals in this thread is to provide other Christians with simple historical facts and technical information normally hidden from them, or presented in a very biased manner.
I believe Christian men and women can think for themselves, when presented with the actual evidence in a clear and open manner. There is no need to put textual critics and university professors on a pedestal. They are quite capable of mistakes, bias, and hidden political agendas that fellow Christians have a right to be aware of.
I am amused that you have grouped me with 'others' rather than textual critics like yourself.justified said:I do as well. But you are not providing anywhere near unbiased evidence. Half of what I have read is misleading and false or relies on heavy inferences which can't be anywhere near substantiated. You are doing exactly what you think us critics do.
Biblical Archaeology Review? Oh jeez. Don't get me started on them. You are trying to goad me.Perhaps I didn't renew my subscription to BAR.
Just a friendly tease. Did you catch my notes in your O.T. thread?justified said:Biblical Archaeology Review? Oh jeez. Don't get me started on them. You are trying to goad me.
Mark xvi. 9-20. In Vol. I. Chap. 1, we engaged to defend the authenticity of this long and important passage, and that without the slightest misgivings (p. 7). Dean Burgon's brilliant monograph, 'The Last Twelve Verse of the Gospel according to St. Mark vindicated against recent objectors and established' (Oxford and London, 1871), has thrown a stream of light upon the controversy, nor does the joyous tone of his book miscome one who is conscious of having triumphantly maintained a cause which is very precious to him. We may fairly say that his conclusions have in no essential point been shaken by the elaborate and very able counter-plea of Dr. Hort (Notes, pp. 28-51). This whole paragraph is set apart by itself in the critical editions of Tischendorf and Tregelles. Besides this, it is placed within double brackets by Westcott and Hort, and followed by the wretched supplement derived from Cod. L (vide infra), annexed as an alternative reading (allwV). Out of all the great manuscripts, the two oldest (א B) stand alone in omitting vers. 9-20 altogether. 1 Cod. B, however, betrays consciousness on the scribe's part that something is left out, inasmuch as after efobounto gar ver. 8, a whole column is left perfectly blank (the only blank one in the whole volume 2), as well as the rest of the column containing ver. 8, which is usual in Cod. B at the end of every other book of Scripture. No such peculiarity attaches to Cod. א. The testimony of L, that close companion of B, is very suggestive. Immediately after ver. 8 the copyist breaks off; then in the same hand (for all corrections in this manuscript seem prima manu: see p. 138), at the top of the next column we read ... ferete pou kai tauta ... panta de ta parhggelmena toiV peri tou petron suntomws exhggilan meta de tauta kai autoV o is apo anatolhs kai acri dusews exapestilen di autwn to ieron kai afqarton khrugma ths aiwniou swthrias ... esthn de kai tauta feromena meta to efobounto gar ... Anastas de, prwi prwth sabbat k.t.l.,, ver. 9, ad fin. capit. (Burgon's facsimile, facing his page 113: our facsimile No. 21): as if verses 9-20 were just as little to be regarded as the trifling apocryphal supplement 3 which precedes them. Besides these, the twelve verses are omitted in none but some old Armenian codices 4 and two of the Ethiopic, k of the Old Latin, and an Arabic Lectionary [ix] No. 13, examined by Scholz in the Vatican. The Old Latin Codex k puts in their room a corrupt and careless version of the subscription in L ending with swthriaV (k adding amhn): the same subscription being appended to the end of the Gospel in the two Ethiopic manuscripts, and (with amhn) in the margin of 274 and the Harkleian. Not unlike is the marginal note in Hunt. 17 or Cod. 1 of the Bohairic, translated by Bishop Lightfoot above. Of cursive Greek manuscripts 137, 138, which Birch had hastily reported as marking the passage with an asterisk, each contains the marginal annotation given below, which claims the passage as genuine, 138 with no asterisk at all, 137 (like 36 and others) with an ordinary mark of reference from the text to the note, where (of course) it is repeated. 5 Other manuscripts contain marginal scholia respecting it, of which the following is the substance. Cod. 199 has teloV 6 after efobounto gar and before AnastaV de, and in the same hand as teloV we read, en tisi twn antigrafwn ou keitai tauta, all entauqa katapauei. The kindred Codd. 20, 215, 300 (but after ver. 15, not ver. 8) mark the omission in some (tisi) copies, adding en de toiV arcaioiV panta aparaleipta keitai, and these had been corrected from Jerusalem copies (see pp. 161 and note, 193). Cod. 573 has for a subscription egrafh kai anteblhqh omoiwV ek twn espoudasmenwn kefalaioiV slz: where Burgon, going back to St. Matthew's Gospel (see p. 161, note) infers that the old Jerusalem copies must have contained our twelve verses. Codd. 15, 22 conclude at efobounto gar, then add in red ink that in some copies the Evangelist ends here, en polloiV de kai tauta feretai, affixing verses 9-20. In Codd. 1, 250 (in its duplicate 206 also), 209, is the same notice, alloiV standing for polloiV in 206, with the additional assertion that Eusebius "canonized" no further than ver. 8, a statement which is confirmed by the absence of the Ammonian and Eusebian numerals beyond that verse in אALSU and at least eleven cursives, with am. fuld. ing. of the Vulgate. It would be no marvel if Eusebius, the author of this harmonizing system, had consistently acted upon his own rash opinion respecting the paragraph, an opinion which we shall have to notice presently, and such action on his part would have added nothing to the strength of the adverse case. But it does not seem that he really did so. These numerals appear in most manuscripts, and in all parts of them, with a good deal of variation which we can easily account for. In the present instance they are annexed to ver. 9 and the rest of the passage in Codd. CEKVP, and (with some changes) in GHMGDL and many others: in Cod. 566 the concluding sections are there (sld ver. 11, sle ver. 12, slV ver. 14) without the canons. In their respective margins the annotated codices 12 (of Scholz), 24, 36, 37, 40, 41, 108, 129, 137, 138, 143, 181, 186, 195, 210, 221, 222, 237, 238, 255, 259, 299, 329, 374 (twenty-four in all), present in substance 7 the same weighty testimony in favour of the passage: para pleistoiV antigrafoiV ou keitai (thus far also Cod. 119, adding only tauta, all entauqa katapauei) en tw paronti euaggeliw, wV noqa nomisanteV auta einai alla hmeiV ex akribwn antigrafwn en pleistoiV euronteV auta kai kata to Palaistinaion euaggelion Markou, wV ecei h alhqeia, sunteqeikamen kai thn en autw epiferomenhn despotikhn anastasin. Now this is none other than an extract from Victor of Antioch's [v] commentary on St. Mark, which they all annex in full to the sacred text, and which is expressly assigned to that Father in Codd. 12, 37, 41. Yet these very twenty-four manuscripts have been cited by critical editors as adverse to the authenticity of a paragraph which their scribes never dreamt of calling into question, but had simply copied Victor's decided judgement in its favour His appeal to the famous Palestine codices which had belonged to Origen and Pamphilus (see p. 55 and note), is found in twenty-one of them, possibly these documents are akin to the Jerusalem copies mentioned in Codd. Evan. L, 20, 164, 262, 300, &c.
All other codices, e.g. ACD (which is defective from ver. 15, prima manu) EFWGH (begins ver. 14) KMSUVXGDP, 33, 69, the Peshitto, Jerusalem and Curetonian Syriac (which last, by a singular happiness, contains verses 17-20, though no other part of St. Mark), the Harkleian text, the Sahidic (only ver. 20 is preserved), the Bohairic and Ethiopic (with the exceptions already named), the Gothic (to ver. 12), the Vulgate, all extant Old Latins except k (though a prima manu and b are defective), the Georgian, the printed Armenian, its later manuscripts, and all the lesser versions (Arabic, &c.), agree in maintaining the paragraph. It is cited, possibly by Papias, unquestionably by Irenaeus (both in Greek and Latin), by Tertullian, and by Justin Martyr 8 as early as the second century; by Hippolytus (see Tregelles, An Account of the Printed Text, p. 252), by Vincentius at the seventh Council of Carthage, by the Acta Pilati, the Apostolic Constitutions, and apparently by Celsus in the third; by Aphraates (in a Syriac Homily dated A.D. 337), the Syriac Table of Canons, Eusebius, Macarius Magnes, Didymus, the Syraic Acts of the Apostles, Leontius, Ps.-Ephraem. Jerome, Cyril of Jerusalem, 9 Epiphanius, Ambrose, Augustine, Chrysostom, in the fourth; by Leo, Nestorius, Cyril of Alexandria, Victor of Antioch, Patricius, Marius Mercator, in the fifth; by Hesychius, Gregentius, Prosper, John, abp. of Thessalonica, and Modestus, in the fifth and sixth. 10 Add to this, what has been so forcibly stated by Burgon (ubi supra, p. 205), that in the Calendar of Greek Church lessons, which existed certainly in the fourth century, very probably much earlier, the disputed verses were honoured by being read as a special matins service for Ascension Day (see p. 81), and as the Gospel for St. Mary Magdalene's Day, July 22 (p. 89); as well as by forming the third of the eleven euaggelia anastasima ewqina, the preceding part of the chapter forming the second (p. 85): so little were they suspected as of even doubtful authenticity. 11
The earliest objector to vers. 9-20 we know of was Eusebius (Quaest. ad Marin.), who tells us that they were not en apasi toiV antigrafoiV, but after efobounto gar that ta exhV are found spaniwV en tisin, yet not ta akribh: language which Jerome twice echoes and almost exaggerates by saying, 'in raris fertur Evangeliis, omnibus Graeciae libris paene hoc capitulum fine non habentibus.' A second cause with Eusebius for rejecting them is malista eiper ecoien antilogian th twn loipwn euaggelistwn marturia. 12 The language of Eusebius has been minutely examined by Dean Burgon, who proves to demonstration that all the subsequent evidence which has been alleged against the passage, whether of Severus, or Hesychius, or any other writer down to Euthymius Zigabenus in the twelfth century, is a mere echo of the doubts and difficulties of Eusebius, if indeed he is not retailing to us at second-hand one of the fanciful Biblical speculations of Origen. Jerome's recklessness in statement as been already noticed (Vol. II. p. 269); besides that, he is a witness on the other side, both in his own quotations of the passage and in the Vulgate, for could he have inserted the verses there, if he had judged them to be spurious?
With regard to the argument against these twelve verses arising from their alleged difference in style from the rest of the Gospel, I must say that the same process might be applied -- and has been applied -- to prove that St. Paul was not the writer of the Pastoral Epistles (to say nothing of that to the Hebrews), St. John of the Apocalypse, Isaiah and Zechariah of portions of those prophecies that bear their names. Every one used to literary composition may detect, if he will, such minute variations as have been made so much of in this case, 13 either in his own writings, or in those of the authors he is most familiar with.
Persons who, like Eusebius, devoted themselves to the pious task of constructing harmonies of the Gospels, would soon perceive the difficulty of adjusting the events recorded in vers. 9-20 to the narratives of the other Evangelists. Alford regards this inconsistency (more apparent than real, we believe) as 'a valuable testimony to the antiquity of the fragment' (N.T. ad loc.): we would go further, and claim for the harder reading the benefit of any critical doubt as to its genuineness (Canon I. Vol. II. p. 247). The difficulty was both felt and avowed by Eusebius, and was recited after him by Severus of Antioch or whoever wrote the scholion attributed to him. Whatever Jerome and the rest may have done, these assigned the antilogia, the enantiwsiV they thought they perceived, as a reason (not the first, nor perhaps the chief, but still as a reason) for supposing that the Gospel ended with efobounto gar. Yet in the balance of probabilities, can anything be more unlikely than that St. Mark broke off so abruptly as this hypothesis would imply, while no ancient writer has noticed or seemed conscious of any such abruptness? 14 This fact has driven those who reject the concluding verses to the strangest fancies: -- namely, that, like Thucydides, the Evangelist was cut off before his work was completed, or even that the last leaf of the original Gospel was torn away.
We emphatically deny that such wild surmises 15 are called for by the state of the evidence in this case. All opposition to the authenticity of the paragraph resolves itself into the allegations of Eusebius and the testimony of אB. Let us accord to these the weight which is their due: but against their verdict we can appeal to a vast body of ecclesiastical evidence reaching back to the earlier part of the second century; 16 to nearly all the versions; and to all extant manuscripts excepting two, of which one is doubtful. So powerfully is it vouched for, that many of those who are reluctant to recognize St. Mark as its author, are content to regard it notwithstanding as an integral portion of the inspired record originally delivered to the Church. 17 ________________________________________________________
Scrivener's Footnotes (renumbered)
1. I have ventured but slowly to vouch for Tischendorf's notion, that six leaves of Cod. א, that containing Mark xvi.2-Luke i.56 being one of them, were written by the scribe of Cod. B. On mere identity of handwriting and the peculiar shape of certain letters who shall insist? Yet there are parts of the case which I know not how to answer, and which have persuaded even Dr. Hort. Having now arrived at this conclusion our inference is simple and direct, that at least in these leaves, Codd. א B make but one witness, not two.
2. The cases of Nehemiah, Tobit, and Daniel, in the Old Testament portion of Cod. B, are obviously in no wise parallel in regard to their blank columns.
3. Of which supplement Dr. Hort says unexpectedly enough, 'In style it is unlike the ordinary narratives of the Evangelists, but comparable to the four introductory verses of St. Luke's Gospel' (Introduction, p. 298).
4. We ought to add that some Armenian codices which contain the paragraph have the subscription 'Gospel after Mark' at the end of verse 8 as well as of verse 20, as though their scribes, like Cod. L's, knew of a double ending to the Gospel.
5. Burgon (Guardian, July 12, 1882) speaks of seven manuscripts (Codd. 538, 539 being among them) wherein these last twelve verses begin on the right hand of the page. This would be more significant if a space were left, as is not stated, at the foot of the preceding page. In Cod. 550 the first letter a is small, but covers an abnormally large space.
6. Of course no notice is to be taken of teloV after efobounto gar, as the end of the ecclesiastical lesson is all that is intimated. The grievous misstatements of preceding critics from Wetstein and Scholz down to Tischendorf, have been corrected throughout by means of Burgon's laborious researches (Burgon, pp. 114-123).
7. The minute variations between these several codices are given by Burgon (Appendix E, pp. 288-90). Cod. 255 contains a scholion imputed to Eusebius, from which Griesbach had drawn inferences which Burgon (Last Twelve Verses, &c., Postscript, pp. 319-23) has shown to be unwarranted by the circumstances of the case.
8. Dr. C. Taylor, Master of St. John's College, Cambridge, in The Expositor for July 1893, quotes more evidence from Justin Martyr -- hinting that some also remains behind -- proving that that Father was familiar with these verses. Also he cites several passages from the Epistle of Barnabas in which traces of them occur, and from the Quartodeciman controversy, and from Clement of Rome. The value of the evidence which Dr. Taylor's acute vision has discovered consists chiefly in its cumulative force. From familiarity with the passage numerous traces of it arose; or as Dr. Taylor takes the case reversely, from the fact of the occurrence of numerous traces evident to a close observer, it is manifest that there pre-existed in the minds of the writers a familiarity with the language of the verses in question.
9. It is surprising that Dr. Hort, who lays very undue stress upon the silence of certain early Christian writers that had no occasion for quoting the twelve verses in their extant works, should say of Cyril of Jerusalem, who lived about A.D. 349, that his 'negative evidence is peculiarly cogent' (Notes, p. 37). To our mind it is not at all negative. Preaching on a Sunday, he reminds his hearers of a sermon he had delivered the day before, and which he would have them keep in their thoughts. One of the topics he briefly recalls is the article of the Creed ton kaqisanta ek dexiwn tou patroV. He must inevitably have used Mark xvi. 19 in his Saturday's discourse.
10. Several of these references are derived from 'The Revision Revised,' p. 423.
11. Nor were these verses used in the Greek Church only. Vers. 9-20 comprised the Gospel for Easter Monday in the old Spanish or Mozarabic Liturgy, for Easter Tuesday among the Syrian Jacobites, for Ascension Day among the Armenians. Vers. 12-20 was the Gospel for Ascension Day in the Coptic Liturgy (Malan, Original Documents, iv. p. 63): vers. 16-20 in the old Latin Comes
12. To get rid of one apparent antifwnia, that arising from the expression prwi th mia tou sabbatou (sic), ver. 9, compared with oye sabbatwn Matt. xxvii. 1, Eusebius proposes the plan of setting a stop between AnastaV de and prwi, so little was he satisfied with rudely expunging the whole clause. Hence Cod. E puts a red cross after de: Codd. 20, 22, 34, 72, 193, 196, 199, 271, 345, 405, 411, 456, have a colon: Codd. 332, 339, 340, 439, a comma (Burgon, Guardian, Aug. 20, 1873).
13. The following peculiarities have been noticed in these verses: ekeinoV used absolutely, vers. 10, 11, 13; poreuomai vers. 10, 12, 15; toiV met autou genomenoiV ver. 10; qeaomai vers. 11, 14; apistew vers. 11, 16; meta tauta ver. 12; eteroV ver. 12; parakolouqew ver. 17; en tw onomati ver. 17; kurioV for the Saviour, vers. 19, 20; pantacou, sunergountoV, bebaiow, epakolouqew ver. 20, all of them as not found elsewhere in St. Mark. A very able and really conclusive plea for the genuineness of the paragraph, as coming from that Evangelist's pen, appeared in the Baptist Quarterly, Philadelphia, July, 1869, bearing the signature of Professor J. A. Broadus, of South Carolina. Unfortunately, from the nature of the case, it does not admit of abridgement. Burgon's ninth chapter (pp. 136-190) enters into full details, and amply justifies his conclusion that the supposed adverse argument from phraseology 'breaks down hopelessly under severe analysis.'
14. 'Can any one, who knows the character of the Lord and of his ministry, conceive for an instant that we should be left with nothing but a message baulked through the alarm of women' (Kelley, Lectures Introductory to the Gospels, p. 258). Even Dr. Hort can say, 'It is incredible that the Evangelist deliberately concluded either a paragraph with efobounto gar, or the Gospel with a petty detail of a secondary event, leaving his narrative hanging in the air' (Notes, p. 46).
15. When Burgon ventures upon a surmise, one which is probability itself by the side of those we have been speaking of, Professor Abbot (ubi supra, p. 197) remarks upon it that 'With Mr. Burgon a conjecture seems to be a demonstration.' We will not be deterred by dread of any such reproach from mentioning his method of accounting for the absence of these verses from some very early copies, commending it to the reader for what it may seem worth. After a learned and exhaustive proof that the Church lessons, as we now have them, existed from very early times (Twelve Verses, pp. 191-211), and noting that an important lesson ended with Mark xvi. 8 (see Calendar of Lessons); he supposes that teloV, which would stand at the end of such a lesson, misled some scribe who had before him an exemplar of the Gospels whose last leaf (containing Mark xvi. 9-20, or according to Codd. 20, 215, 300 only vers. 16-20) was lost, as it might easily be in those older manuscripts wherein St. Mark stood last.
16. The codex lately discovered by Mrs. Lewis is said to omit the verses. But what is that against a host of other codices? And when the other MS. of the Curetonian includes the verses? Positive testimony is worth more than negative.
17. Dr. Hort, however, while he admits the possibility of the leaf containing vers. 9-20 having been lost in some very early copy, which thus would become the parent of transcripts having a mutilated text (Notes, p. 49), rather inconsistently arrives at the conclusion that the passage in question 'manifestly cannot claim any apostolic authority; but it is doubtless founded on some tradition of the apostolic age' (ibid. p. 51).
Excellent topic for another thread.PreacherMan4U said:Next we could perhaps look into the probability of not having Paul's first letter to the Corinthian church? In what we call first Corinthians, Paul states that he had written them before. Does that mean that there were origionally 3 Corinthian letters?
What do you think?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?