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.
The evidence can't really speak for itself in the form of the poor quality B&W photos from K.Lake's fascimiler edition. You would need to examine the manuscript in detail, both the nature and quality of the pages in question, and the text.
Tischendorf, probably the only scholar to examine the manuscript in person for many years, and Scrivener, also along with Burgon one of the few Englishmen to have examined the manuscript at the time of Hort, had this to say:
"(pg 94 footnote 1, Plain Intro. Scrivener):
(i) It is demonstrable that the Eusebian Sections and Canons on the margin are contemoraneous with the text. For they are wanting from leaves 10 and 15. Now thiese leaves are conjugate [this means connected to each other via folding in the quire] ; and they have been (on other grounds) noted by Tischendorf as written not by the scribe of the body of the NT, but by one of his colleagues ('D')[Corrector D], who wrote part of the OT and acted as Diorthota of the NT. Thus it appears that, after the marginal numbers had been inserted, the sheet containing leaves 10 and 15 was cancelled, and rewritten before the MS. was completed and issued.
(ii) The exemplar from whence these numbers were derived, differed considerably from that which the text follows. For in some cases, the sectional numbers indicated the presence of passages which are absent from the text. E.g. St Matt xvi 2, 2, which is sect. 162, is wanting; and 162 is assigned to ver.4, while the wrong canon (5 for 6) betrays the presence of the canonizer's exemplar of the passage omitted by the scribe. The same is true of St. Mark xv 28 ('in which case the scribe is 'D').
(iii) The scribe who wrote the text was unacquainted with the Eusebian sections. For the beginning of a section is not marked, as in A and most subsequent MSS., by a division of the text and a larger letter. On the contrary, the text is divided into paragraphs quite independent of the eusebian divisions, which often begin in the middle of a line, and are marked merely by two dots ( : ) in vermillion, inserted no doubt by the the rubricator as he entered the numbers in the margin. The fact that the numbers of the sections as well as of the canons (not as in other MSS. of the Canons only) are in vermillion, points the same way.
(iv) From the above it follows, (1) That while Cod Aleph proves the absence from its exemplar of certain passages, its margin proves the presence of some of them in a contempraneous exemplar; (2) that while on the one hand the Eusebian numbers, coeval with the text, show that the MS. cannot be dated before the time of Eusebius, on the other hand the form of the text, inasmuch as it is not arranged so as to suit them, and as it differs from the text implied in them, marks for it a date little, if at all, after his time - certainly many years earlier than [codex] A.
(v) As regards the omission of the verses of St Mark xvi. 9-20, it is not correct to assert that Cod. Aleph betrays no sign of consciousness of their existance. For the last line of ver. 8, containing only the letters "togar", has the rest of the space (more than half the width of the column) filled up with a minute and elaborate 'arabesque' executed with the pen in ink and vermillion, nothing like which occurs anywhere else in the whole MS. (OT or NT), such spaces being elsewhere invariably left blank. By this careful filling up of the blank, the scribe (who here is the diorthaota 'D'), distinctly shows that the omission is not the case of 'non-interpolation', but of deliberate excision. (So Gwynn). "
(pg 96):
"Tischendorf's judgement [was] that four several scribes had been engaged upon it, one of whom was the writer of its rival, Codex Vaticanus (footnote to this below)...but it is at all events quite plain, as well from internal considerations as from minute peculiarites in the writing, such as the frequent use of the apostrophus and of the mark ">" (see above, p.50), on some sheets and their complete absence from others (Collation, &c. pp xvi-xvii; xxxii; xxxvii), that at least two, and probably more persons have been employed on the several parts of the volume.
(footnote to 'Codex Vaticanus'): ...minutely discussed in the Christian Rememberancer, pp. xxi-xxiii: Although Dr. Hort labours to show that no critical inferences ought to be drawn from this identity of the scribe of Cod. B with the writer of six conjugate leaves of Cod. Aleph (being three pairs in three distinct quires, one of them containing the conclusion of Mark's Gospel), he is constrained to admit that 'the fact appears to be sufficiently established by the concurrent peculiarities in the form of one letter, punctuation, avoidance of contractions, and some points of orthography (Hort's Intro. p 213). The internal evidence indeed, though relating to minute matters, is cumulative and irresistible, and does not seem to have been noticed by Tischendorf, who drew his own conclusions from the handwriting only."
I have placed the whole chapter with the 8-page description of Sinaiticus online here:
http://adultera.awardspace.com/TEXT/SCRIV/V1c4/index.html
The problem with old B&W photos is that some obvious things, which are evident in a first-hand examination, are not discernable from a mere photo. This includes the difference in quality and source of the vellum or antelope-skin used, the different color of the inks used by the various correctors and scribes, and of course other minutae such as the type of pen used in a given section.
--- In TC-Alternate-list@yahoogroups.com, Richard Bentley <phileleutheruslipsiensis@...> wrote:
>
> Dear TC Alt listers,
>
> There are some pretty precarious things out in the internet, but one that has caught my attention (however so briefly) is the idea that codex Sinaiticus contains a *cancel sheet* or *sheets* intended to replace the text of St. Mark ending at vs 8 in chapter 16.
>
> Nothing could be further from the truth. Let the evidence speak for itself.
>
(quotation taken from TC-Alternate-List)Dear "Richard Bentley" --
The exact motive for the removal of the original bifolium containing
text from Mark 14:54 - Luke 1:56 is not known. But it is known that
the original bifolium was removed, and replaced with a cancel-sheet.
Here's how this is known:
(1) The cancel-sheet's scribe used the diple-mark, which was not
used in the Marcan text before the cancel-sheet or in the Lucan text
which follows it.
(2) The cancel-sheet's scribe wrote out "ANQRWPOS," "HUIOS," and
"OURANOS," rather than contracting them as is done in the pages
preceding and following the cancel-sheets. The spelling of the names
"Pilate" and "John" are different in the cancel-sheet than in the
main pages. (This was pointed out by George Salmon, who was taking
into consideration not only this cancel-sheet at the end of Mark, but
others in Sinaiticus as well.)
(3) The handwriting used in Luke 1:1-56 is extraordinarily
compacted, and the handwriting used in Mark 16:2-8 is extraordinarily
stretched. Only a scribe making a cancel-sheet would have a motive
to do this.
Now then: we know what the cancel-sheet looks like, because it's
extant -- but what does it imply about the contents of the original
bifolium? Using statistical comparisons, it looks to me like the
original page certainly did not contain the Long Ending. Here's
why: written in the usual way, with 630 letters per column, columns
5-10 of the original pages would hold 3,780 letters. The text of
Mark 15:16-16:8 as written in Aleph's cancel-sheet on columns 5-10)
contains 2,983 letters. The cancel-sheet's scribe accidentally
skipped 88 letters. And the LE itself has 971 letters (though it
could be calculated at a few more or a few less, depending on
variants). Added up, that would be 4,042 letters. That's 262
letters too many for these six columns to hold if written in the main
copyist's usual format.
So, unless the original scribe compacted his handwriting for several
columns, the original bifolium could not have included Mark 16:9-20.
A scenario in which an underling-copyist was provided with only a
certain number of sheets of parchment on which to write, but was
determined to include the Long Ending anyway, is not altogether
impossible. But it's so unlikely that it is scarcely worth
considering. What *is* worth looking into is the strange variation
of the rate of letters-per-column that is observable in the cancel-
sheet -- a variation which just might, maybe, conceivably suggest
that the cancel-sheet maker knew the LE.
The letters-per-column rate in the cancel-sheet looks like this
(remember the average rate is about 630) --
Col. 1: 635
Col. 2: 650
Col. 3: 639
Col. 4: 707
Col. 5: 592
Col. 6: 593
Col. 7: 604
Col. 8: 605
Col. 9: 552
Col. 10: 37 (Mark ends here at the end of 16:8)
Col. 11: 681
Col. 12: 672
Col. 13: 702
Col. 14: 687
Col. 15: 725
Col. 16: 679
Let's think about that fourth column, which contains 707 letters.
(That's a lot more than the original scribe's average rate. It's
also a lot more than what we see in the first three columns of the
cancel-sheet.) Six columns, each containing 707 letters, would
contain 4,242 letters.
Suppose that a scribe compacted his lettering for the entire
remaining text of Mark in the same manner that the cancel-sheet-maker
compacted the text in column 4 of the cancel-sheet, without skipping
any material (so that in our calculation, we add the 76 letters which
were skipped in 15:47 and the 12 letters which were skipped in
16:6). He would write a total of 4,042 letters -- leaving 200
letters' worth of leftover space (which would be enough to also
include the SE) at the end of column 10.
Thus it is not technically impossible that the original page
contained the LE, or even the Double-Ending. But it would take a
uniquely determined copyist. The idea that the original page
contained the LE is therefore Extremely Unlikely to the point of
being unreasonable. It is much, much, much more likely that the
original copyist concluded the Gospel of Mark in column 10 -- either
with the Abrupt Ending or the Short Ending or a unique feature, such
as an extensive note -- and began the Gospel of Luke at the top of
column 11 (where it begins in the cancel-sheet), and made a major
omission somewhere in Luke 1:1-56.
Consider: columns 11-16 of the cancel-sheet, containing Luke 1:1-56,
contain 4,146 letters. In these six columns, the average letter-per-
column rate is 691, well above the main copyist's usual rate of 630.
If the main copyist had started Luke in column 10, though, the rate
of letters-per-column would have been 592 -- well below the main
copyist's usual rate of 630. If the main copyist had accidentally
skipped Luke 1:5-7 via ocular error, he would have omitted 319
letters. If he had accidentally skipped from EIPEN DE MARIAM in Luke
1:34 to EIPEN DE MARIAM in v. 37, he would have omitted 311 letters.
Either one of these errors sufficiently accounts for the discrepancy
in the rate of letters-per-column in the Lucan text in the cancel-
sheet (i.e., the cancel-sheet-maker had to fit 4,146 letters into a
space which had previously contained only 3,827 or 3,835 letters.
Thus the need for compaction in columns 11-16.
The only other possible explanation for the compaction in columns 11-
16 runs along these theoretical lines. (Stay with me here; this gets
a little complicated.) In the original bifolium, the Gospel of Mark
ended in column 9, rather than 10 (with either the Abrupt Ending or
the Short Ending), and the Gospel of Luke began at the top of column
10, and instead of accidentally skipping about 300 letters in Luke 1,
the original scribe accidentally *repeated* about 300 letters in Luke
1. The diorthotes caught the mistake, and realized that his only
options were (a) start at the top of column 10 and stretch the
lettering, or (b) start at the top of column 11 and compact the
lettering. He decided to start at the top of column 11 and compact
the lettering.
The cancel-sheet-maker wrote the Lucan portion of the cancel-sheet
first. When that was completed, he undertook the Marcan portion,
beginning at Mk. 14:54. He wrote the cancel-sheet at a normal rate
in columns 1 (635 letters), 2 (650 letters), and 3 (639 letters) but
in column 4 -- at 15:19 -- he started compacting his handwriting.
Why? Good question.
Perhaps he detected that the main copyist had made an accidental
omission there in 15:19 (possibly the omission of KAI TIQENTES TA
GONATA PROSEKUNOUN AUTW) and he reflexively compacted the text after
inserting the missing words (even though he didn't need to, since the
only effect of the correction would be a bit less blank space at the
end of the book). Or perhaps he was aware of the Long Ending in a
secondary exemplar, momentarily decided to try to include it by
compacting the lettering, and then changed his mind. Or perhaps he
simply forgot, for a few minutes, that he had six, not five, columns
in which to fit the Marcan text. (I think this third scenario is the
most likely one.)
After compacting the text in column 4, the cancel-sheet-maker made
things difficult for himself by accidentally skipping 76 letters in
15:47 and 12 letters in 16:6. (It's possible that these omissions
were in his exemplar, but I think it's more likely that the
diorthotes, in a hurry to finish the MS, is the culprit.) Because of
these mistakes, despite his earlier calculations, it became necessary
for him to stretch the handwriting in column 9 (552 letters) so that
he would have a bit of text (37 letters) to fit at the top of col.
10.
Even though a lot of this hypothesis is, um, hypothetical, I hope the
following points are clear:
(a) there is a cancel-sheet at the end of Mark in Sinaiticus,
(b) the original bifolium did not contain Mark 16:9-20,
(c) it is impossible to discern whether the original bifolium
contained the Abrupt Ending, the Short Ending, or some unique
feature, and
(d) citations of Aleph in Mark 14:54-16:8 and Luke 1:1-1:56, in a
textual apparatus or in commentaries, should be clearly designated as
the readings of a supplement.
A couple more things: the similarity between the decoration in this
cancel-sheet and the decoration in B at the end of Deuteronomy
(already shown by Wieland Willker in his presentation of colophons in
B) strongly suggests a historical connection between the two MSS.
Also, the careless mistakes in this cancel-sheet tend to suggest that
the diorthotes was under pressure to complete the codex. This may
strengthen, however lightly, the case that Sinaiticus was made under
the supervision of Eusebius of Caesarea, or by someone commissioned
by him to make a codex in a hurry (possibly with instructions on what
to do at the end of Mark).
Yours in Christ,
James Snapp, Jr.
Curtisville Christian Church
Indiana (USA)
DRP asked (pertaining to the long space after Mark 16:8 in
Vaticanus), "What is remarkable about a blank space between books?"
A blank space consisting of merely the leftover space underneath the
final text of a book, preceding the start of the next book at the top
of the immediately-following column, would be nothing unusual.
Partly-blank columns are not unusual. But that is not what we
observe in B at the end of Mark. At the end of Mark in B, we have a
partly blank column. (To be precise, the text ends in the 31st out
of 42 lines, followed by the subscription.) Then we have, instead of
the beginning of Luke in the next column, a completely blank column.
And that's unusual. In two other places, the end of a book is
followed by a lengthy blank space that includes at least one blank
column: after the end of Nehemiah, and after the end of Tobit. But
the blank spaces in those two instances exist because at each of
those two points, a new scribe took up the following material. At
the end of Mark, though, the same scribe who was writing Mark 16
continues -- on the other side of the same page -- writing.
So it should be obvious here, at the end of Mark, there is a
deviation from normal practice. Instead of proceeding to write Luke
in the following column after Mark 16:8, the scribe left a blank
column. This is the only occurrence of such a deliberately-placed
blank column in the entire codex. That is why it is remarkable.
It's remarkable, and it's suggestive. Hort stated that the copyist
of B did this "evidently because one or the other of two subsequent
endings was known to him personally, while he found neither of them
in the exemplar which he was copying" (p. 29-30, Notes). I agree
(with the qualification that the copyist may have known of *both*
endings). Don't you?
But which ending -- the Short Ending or the Long Ending -- did the
copyist have in mind? It's hard to tell. But if he intended to
leave space for the Short Ending, he could have started Luke at the
top of the column immediately after Mk. 16:8. The Short Ending would
rather neatly fit the space at the bottom of the column following the
end of Mk. 16:8, as I show at
www.curtisvillechristian.org/Vaticanus.html . The subscription would
thus need to be placed in the lower margin, but elsewhere this
doesn't seem to be a concern of the copyist: the lower margin is
where we find the subscription to Philippians, as you can see at
http://www1.uni-bremen.de/~wie/Vaticanus/ends.html . So, if the
copyist had only intended to leave space for the Short Ending, he had
no reason to leave an entire blank column.
However, the answer to the question, "Which ending did the copyist of
B have in mind?" might be "Both." In the Greek MSS of Mark which are
textually most aligned with B -- L and Psi -- the Double-Ending
appears. B's format can be interpreted as the insightful resolution
of a problem by a smart copyist: if his exemplar looked like L and
Psi, with the Short Ending and the Long Ending both displayed, a
smart copyist could think to himself, "They can't both be right.
But I don't want to decide between them. Let the diorthotes, or the
eventual owner of the MS, decide." He formatted the page so that a
subsequent copyist could add the Short Ending by stretching the
lettering, so that the text extended into the top of the next column
AND so that a subsequent copyist could add the Short Ending by
compacting the lettering and extending each light a bit farther into
the margin than usual. (It wouldn't do to leave two blank columns,
even though the Long Ending could be easily written into two columns
with plenty of room to spare, because if the subsequent copyist chose
to adopt the Short Ending, a completely blank column would
unavoidably remain.)
In other words, the format of the text at the end of Mark in B is
consistent with a scenario in which the copyist of B knew the Short
Ending and the Long Ending, and expected the eventual owner of the MS
to adopt either the Short Ending or the Long Ending (but not both!).
B's format may be the result of a copyist's clever reaction to the
Double-Ending in his exemplar.
If that's NOT what the format of B means, then of all possible
alternatives, the most likely is that the copyist's exemplar ended at
16:8 and the copyist wanted to leave room for the Long Ending, with
which he was familiar.
DRP: "You yourself phrase your assertion about the blank space in
Vaticanus as follows: "which SEEMS to have been placed there...""
Yes; to complete that sentence: "Vaticanus has a prolonged blank
space which seems to have been placed there to give the eventual
owner of the manuscript the option of adding the Long Ending or the
Short Ending." I cannot read the mind of the copyist of B to verify
that he was thinking about both endings, or to verify that he was
just thinking about the Long Ending. But those are the only two
reasonable options. It is much, much, much, much more probable that
the copyist of B skipped an entire column after Mark 16:8
thoughtfully than that the copyist of B skipped an entire column
after Mark 16:8 accidentally. Don't you agree?
DRP: "I am more impressed by the fact that the scribe did not
include vv. 9-20, as evidence that it was not Markan, than by any
possibility that he wanted someone to be able to add it."
But there are more facts to consider that the fact that the scribe of
B did not include vv. 9-20. There is the fact that the blank column
after 16:8 is unique in B. There is the fact that B's closest Greek
allies have the Double-Ending (with a feature that Byzantine MSS
don't have -- "And in their hands" in 16:18). There is the fact that
we're dealing with the last (vulnerable-to-accident) portion of a
book. All these facts should be taken into consideration. When they
are, the *reasons,* or possible reasons, for the facts can become
just as pivotal as the facts themselves, and help us realize what the
facts are capable of implying.
DRP: "I think it would take a greater conviction and sureness to
impel of a scribe to OMIT something from Mark deliberately, than the
conviction required to cause a scribe to ADD something deliberately."
Why? Are accidental omissions, or omissions based on
misunderstandings, or omissions which are actually merely expressions
of indecision, impossible?
DRP: "I have done a harmony / continuous blend of the gospels, which
only made sense when I omitted the longer ending of Mark. My harmony
blends perfectly without vv. 9-20, and the harmony would have been
impossible when including that passage."
Are you suggesting that a second-century author of the Long Ending
depended on Matthew, Luke, and John, and still managed to write an
ending for the Gospel of Mark which was impossible to harmonize with
Matthew, Luke and John? Are you saying that for an individual
concerned about being able to harmonize the Gospels, the Long Ending
is the more difficult reading?
Yours in Christ,
James Snapp, Jr.
Curtisville Christian Church
Indiana (USA)
www.curtisvillechristian.org/MarkOne.html
Re: Accountability and the End of Mark
Dear George,
GFS: "You indicate on your website that you think the longer ending
should be considered to be an original part of the text."
Right. My view is that it was a freestanding composition that Mark's
survivors attached to Mk. 1:1-16:8 before the initial release of the
book. It was removed from the text when someone in the second
century decided that John 21 had a better claim to be the
authoritative ending of Mark's narrative-thread.
GFS: "You indicate that the weightiest evidence against its
originality is that the absence of the ending in either Vaticanus or
Sinaiticus."
Right again (with a slight syntax-adjustment).
GFS: "You attempt to overcome this by a desparate application of the
"could've, should've, would've" argument."
Wrong. First I attempt to overcome the evidence in Aleph and B (and
the Sinaitic Syriac, and one Sahidic MS, and the Armenian version,
and Eusebius' statement) by appealing first to other external
evidence of earlier or comparable age -- Justin, Tatian, Irenaeus,
Hippolytus, Vincentius of Thibaris, the Gothic Version, the Vulgate,
Aphrahat, Porphyry/Hierocles-According-to-Macarius-Magnes,
Alexandrinus, Washingtonensis, the "Acts of Pilate," the
Claromontanus Catalogue, Old Latin MSS aur, c, d-supp, ff-2, l, n+o,
q, the Curetonian Syriac MS, and the Peshitta.
Then I consider who would have had the means, the motive, and the
opportunity to add Mark 16:9-20 to the rest of the book. The answer
-- the most probable of all options by far, imho -- is the survivors
of Mark in Rome, prior to the initial distribution of the book. A
later writer would not have deliberately closed the Gospel of Mark --
which loudly calls, in 16:7, for an ending that is set in Galilee --
with accounts of Jesus' post-resurrection appearances in Jerusalem.
Nor would a later writer with access to the other Gospels, searching
for a way to end Mark's account, choose to paste together snippets
from the other Gospels along with new, freely-composed stuff about
snake-handling and invulnerability to harmful potions, especially
while he had acess to John 21. No one wishing to write an ending for
Mark that would fit in with the other Gospels would read Luke 24:33-
41 and proceed to write Mark 16:12-13.
George, D.E. Nineham got some things wrong but he was basically right
when he wrote that the contents of the Long Ending "fit on so
awkwardly to 16:8 that they can hardly have been composed originally
as a continuation of the Gospel." And Hort got some things wrong but
he was basically right when he wrote, in "Notes," pp. 50-51, that
internal evidence "excludes the supposition that these verses
originated in a desire of a scribe or editor to round off the
imperfect end of the Gospel," and, "There is however no difficulty in
supposing on the contrary (1) that the true intended continuation of
vv. 1-8 either was very early lost by the detachment of a leaf or was
never written down; and (2) that a scribe or editor, unwilling to
change the words of the text before him or to add words of his own,
was willing to furnish the Gospel with what seemed a worthy
conclusion by incorporating with it unchanged a narrative of Christ's
appearances after the resurrection which he found in some secondary
record then surviving from a preceding generation. If these
suppositions are made, the whole tenour of the evidence becomes clear
and harmonious. Every other view, we believe, is untenable." What
Hort just described, George, is very much like the theory I
advocate. The main difference is that I assign an earlier date to
the addition of the Long Ending.
Now about the claim that my hypothesis is a "could've, should've,
would've argument." If that applies to my hypothesis a little, then
it applies to competing theories a lot. Consider the required steps
in the alternatives: Mark is *supposed* to have intentionally ended
his account at 16:8 (or, Mark was prevented from finishing -- the
same hypothesis I advocate); then someone is *supposed* to have not
accepted such an abrupt stoppage (I agree!), and someone is
*supposed* to have written the Long Ending by sifting through
Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John and Acts, and this author is *supposed*
to have attached the LE to Mark -- without realizing that the
contents of the events he was relating took place in Jerusalem,
rather than Galilee, and without adjusting the final sentence of 16:8
-- and this addition is *supposed* to have been accepted as part of
the Gospel of Mark so early that second-century writers such as
Irenaeus and Tatian (both of whom walked the streets of Rome at one
time or another) used it.
Also, the alternative theories require that while the author of the
Long Ending was so bothered by the abruptness of 16:8 that he took
the step of creating and attaching the Long Ending, no patristic
writers until the fourth century mentioned that the Gospel of Mark
ended abruptly, compared to the others, as far as we can tell from
their extant writings.
GFS: "The most pertinant remark I can make regarding that is that it
comes up against the hard reality that it isn't there."
And in the other 99% of Greek manuscripts, it IS there. In Irenaeus'
second-century copy of Mark, it IS there. In the text used by Tatian
in the second century, it IS there. In the European Old Latin, it IS
there. In the Peshitta, it IS there. In the Gothic Version, it IS
there. In the Vulgate, it IS there. In the lectionary used by
Augustine, it IS there. And so forth.
GS: "Any attempt to take measurements and intuit that the copyist
intended to insert it later is pure supposition."
Regarding Sinaiticus' cancel-sheet, I do not think that the person
who made the cancel-sheet intended to insert Mark 16:9-20 later.
Regarding Vaticanus, there are two things that can be supposed about
the blank space: either it is accidental, or it is intentional. Do
you seriously think that it is more plausible to suppose that it is
an accident that the only such prolonged blank space in the codex,
occurring before and after the handwriting of one copyist, has no
connection to a long textual variant which occurs at that point?
GFS: "If the copyists did indeed like to preserve the formatting of
their exemplars as you suggest, might not the formatting of both
Vaticanus and Sinaitus hark back to a now lost proto-exemplar of
both?"
Yes -- or it could be just a coincidence. (It might be interesting
to compare the line-endings in all of Sinaiticus' cancel-sheets and
compare them to line-endings in B and see if the number of lines that
end with the same letter in both MSS is significantly higher than it
is on other pages, but I haven't got the time for such a project.)
If it *does* reflect the format of some ancestor MS, well, it is not
exactly news that Vaticanus and Sinaiticus both descend from an
ancestor in the Alexandrian text-stream of the second century. The
question of whether that ancestor existed at a point before, or
after, the creation of the Short Ending is more difficult to discern
from the evidence in Aleph and B.
As I've explained elsewhere, the abrupt-ending-plus-long-blank-space
ending may have embodied, when it was first created, a copyist's
clever reaction to the double-ending in his exemplars. It would be
very possible for a copyist at Caesarea to read an exemplar which
ended with the abrupt-ending-plus-blank-space and fail to perceive
that the producer of his exemplar thus expressed indecision about
whether to adopt the Long Ending or the Short Ending (since the Short
Ending was, as far as can be discerned/deduced, unknown at Caesarea
in the fourth century). On the other hand, it would also be very
possible for a copyist at Caesarea to read an exemplar which ended
with the abrupt ending and to think, "Hmm; where's the rest of the
book?" or, "But maybe the eventual owner thinks that usually-absent
part belongs there," and put a prolonged blank space after 16:8.
In other words, the text and format in B at the end of Mark are
capable of descending from the Double Ending, and are also capable of
descending from a scenario in which a copyist with knowledge of the
Long Ending copied down an exemplar with the Abrupt Ending.
Regarding Sinaiticus, the person who made the cancel-sheet containing
Mark 14:54-Luke 1:56 gives no indication that he is aware of any
ending other than the Abrupt Ending. (On the other hand, a cancel-
sheet is not the same as the main copyist's work. Also, it is
difficult to prove, without making suppositions, that the blank page
at the end of the Gospels in Sinaiticus was only meant to be a
separator-page, rather than a page on which material absent from the
main Gospels-text, but favored by the eventual owner, could be
written down.) But could a copyist at Caesarea read an Egyptian
exemplar with the Abrupt-Ending-plus-prolonged-blank-space, ignore
the blank space, and just finish the text of Mark where it stopped in
the exemplar? Yes. So if the exemplar of Sinaiticus had the Abrupt-
Ending-plus-prolonged-blank-space, then this feature in Sinaiticus'
exemplar was also capable of embodying a copyist's clever reaction to
the double-ending in his exemplars.
One might ask, "But doesn't the Short Ending imply the previous
existence of the Abrupt Ending?" Yes, it does (unless one posits a
scenario in which a short flourish at the end of a pericope which
would otherwise end with 16:8, was written in the margin after 16:8,
and was misunderstood by a copyist to be a replacement for verses 9-
20, or some similar scenario). And it is possible that the exemplars
of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus descend from that early stage in the
Alexandrian text-stream. My point, in this post, is that it's also
possible that B and Aleph both descend from a copy of the Gospels
which had the abrupt ending with a prolonged blank space, and that
this reading, in this ancestor, existed not because its producer
found the Abrupt Ending in his own exemplar of Mark, but because he
found the Short Ending in one exemplar and the Long Ending in another
(a situation like that which is echoed in the six Greek Alexandrian
witnesses which have the Double Ending) and, rather than include them
both, left space for either.
Imho, the former possibility is more likely than the latter. But the
latter possibility should still be kept in mind, when the evidence
from B and Aleph, and the input on this variant from the Alexandrian
text-stream as a whole, is weighed.
There's no need to resort to references to "Ouiji boards and crystal
balls" (I think the word you're looking for is "Ouija"). I know this
stuff isn't the easiest thing in the world to explain, and my reasons
for assigning a low (or, lower) weight to B and Aleph when it comes
to the end of Mark may initially seem mysterious. I hope this post
helped remove some of the mystery.
Yours in Christ,
James Snapp, Jr.
Curtisville Christian Church
Indiana (USA)
www.curtisvillechristian.org/MarkOne.html
Re: Accountability and the End of Mark
Peter,
PMH: "Is there no direct third-century evidence for Mark 16.9-20?"
Let me throw some processed data at you. (Sorry this is so lengthy;
I wasn't quite sure what you were looking for.)
Afaik, there aren't any copies of Mark from the third century -- in
any language -- except P45. Hurtado estimated a 68% alignment
between P45 and W, which might indicate that it's more likely that
both of those had the same sort of ending than that they didn't.
(Speculation? Yes. But if Clement and Origen are going to be cited
as witnesses for the Abrupt Ending . . .)
Tertullian is cited in UBS-2 as a witness for the Long Ending. The
evidence from Tertullian, however, is ambiguous. He made several
statements that resemble phrases from the Long Ending, especially
16:19, but it's difficult to tell if he had in mind the Long Ending
or other passages that refer to Christ being seated at the right hand
of God. In "Against Praxeas," ch. 2, he wrote, "We believe [Jesus]
to have suffered, died, and been buried, according to the Scriptures,
and, after He had been raised again by the Father and taken back to
heaven, to be sitting at the right hand of the Father." It's a
creedal statement -- but it seems to be a creedal statement based
closely on Scripture -- partly on I Cor. 15:3-4, and partly on . . .
what? Could it be based on Mark 16:19? Maybe, but there are other
possibilities. A reference to Christ "seated at the right hand of
God" occurs in ch. 30, but Tertullian could have been drawing from
language in Colossians 3:1 or elsewhere. The phrase "seated at the
right hand of God" is sort of untracable, by itself.
Tertullian might have drawn on Mark 16:20 in "An Answer to the Jews,"
ch. 5, but then again, the similarities could be coincidental. In De
Baptismo, Tertullian did not explicitly quote Mark 16:16; on the
other hand, he may have considered the subject settled by John 3:5.
His statement, "A true and steadfast faith is baptized with water
unto salvation, but a feigned and feeble faith is baptized with fire
unto judgement" might be modeled on Mark 16:16.
(For English translations of Tertullian online:
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-03/anf03-43.htm#P10395_2912630 and
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-03/anf03-19.htm#P2021_691723 (at
note 76) and
http://www.tertullian.org/articles/evans_bapt/evans_bapt_text_trans.ht
m .)
At the Seventh Council of Carthage (A.D. 256), Vincentius of Thibaris
chimed in by saying the following: "We have assuredly the rule of
truth which the Lord by His divine precept commanded to His apostles,
saying, "Go ye, lay on hands in my name, expel demons." And in
another place: "Go ye and teach the nations, baptizing them in the
name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."" His second
reference is to Matthew 28:19; his first reference uses Mark 16:15-
18. (Hort tried to dodge this point, but unsuccessfully imho.)
The testimony of Hippolytus was dismissed by Hort; apparently Hort
thought that some composition attributed to Hippolytus actually came
from some other source. Let's take a look. In Treatise on Christ
and Antichrist, part 46, Hippolytus refers to how Christ "was
received into the heavens, and was set down on the right hand of God
the Father." That's a pretty long parallel with Mark 16:19, but it
could feasibly be based on a creedal formula. Let's have a look at
Apostolic Tradition 32:1 -- "Let every one of the believers be sure
to partake of communion before he eats anything else. For if he
partakes with faith, even if something deadly were given to him,
after this it cannot hurt him." This looks like the sort of thing
one could say only by filtering First Corinthians 11:27 through Mark
16:18. Kelhoffer seemed quite convinced (in "Miracle and Mission")
by this statement that Hippolytus knew the Long Ending. In "The Four
Gospels," Streeter wrote (p. 336), "Hippolytus himself used a text of
Mark which contained the last twelve verses and understands the
epithet (KOLOBODAKTULOS) of its author" but he doesn't justify this
with a quotation, and might have just been expressing a deduction
that Hippolytus used the same text that Irenaeus used.
A couple of other citations, or pseudo-citations, should be mentioned
regarding Hippolytus. Burgon offered two citations as evidence of
Hippolytus' use of the LE: a use of 16:17-18 in "Peri Charismaton"
(About [Spiritual] Gifts) and another reference in "Noetus." It was
the connection between Hippolytus and "Peri Charismaton" that Hort
considered a "precarious hypothesis" (see p. 39, Notes). So let's
drop that one. (I'm not sure what date should be assigned to Peri
Charismaton as an anonymous composition.)
In "Noetus," Hippolytus alluded to some events which took place after
the resurrection, and he seems to be summing up scenes taken from the
Gospels and Acts: "This is the One who breathes upon the disciples,
and gives them the Spirit, and comes in among them when the doors are
shut, and is taken up by a cloud into the heavens while the disciples
gaze at Him, and is set down on the right hand of the Father, and
comes again as the Judge of the living and the dead." (See the
translation at http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/hippolytus-
dogmatical.html .) If John 20:22, John 20:19, and Acts 1:9 were the
basis for the first three phrases, and II Timothy 4:4 was the basis
for the last phrase, then he might have been basing his other phrase
on Mark 16:19. On the other hand, Mark 16:19 is not the only
possible source; there are other NT references to Christ being seated
at God's right hand (Colossians 3:1, Hebrews 8:1, 10:12...).
Then there's Porphyry/Hierocles-according-to-Macarius-Magnes
("Magnes" as in, from the city of Magnesia). Porphyry wrote "Against
the Christians" in about A.D. 270. It was a long book, in 15 parts.
Macarius Magnes seems to have been unaware, in his book "Apocritus,"
that he is opposing statements by Porphyry, but Macarius Magnes (in
Apocritus III:21) mentioned that his pagan opponent claimed that
Peter put Ananias and Sapphira to death, and Jerome says (in Epistle
130, "To Demetrius") that this was something that Porphyry had
claimed. So until some other text is found with such a claim, it
looks like Macarius Magnes was indeed responding to a composition
which was written by Porphyry.
It was written by Porphyry, but probably edited by Hierocles
(proconsul of Bithynia during the persecution there in 303) --
condensing some things, and adding to others. So it would seem
possible that the citations of Mark 16:18 by the pagan writer quoted
by Macarius Magnes was Hierocles, not Porphyry, even though Porphyry
deserved credit for the book as a whole.
Here's a quotation of the pagan writer cited in "Apocritus," (taken
from the online translation by Crafer at
At
http://www.ccel.org/p/pearse/morefathers/macarius_apocriticus.htm#3_16
).
"Again, consider in detail that other passage, where He says, "Such
signs shall follow them that believe: they shall lay hands upon sick
folk, and they shall recover, and if they drink any deadly drug, it
shall in no wise hurt them." So the right thing would be for those
selected for the priesthood, and particularly those who lay claim to
the episcopate or presidency, to make use of this form of test. The
deadly drug should be set before them in order that the man who
received no harm from the drinking of it might be given precedence of
the rest. And if they are not bold enough to accept this sort of
test, they ought to confess that they do not believe in the things
Jesus said."
This is framed between quotations of John 6:53 and Matthew 17:20.
Neither the pagan writer nor Macarius Magnes, in his reply, gives any
indication that the passage is not universally found in the
Scriptures. (Also notice that the Porphyr skips from 16:17a to
16:18b; that's probably just because the intervening material wasn't
relevant to his point at hand.)
(A tangential note here: Eusebius of Caesarea undertook a reply to
Porphyry -- which must have been quote a project, if the books in
Porphyry's 15-book work were not booklets -- which, alas, has not
survived. It may have occurred to Eusebius that one way to counter
Porphyry's challenge would be to adopt the Abrupt Reading.)
So, if Macarius Magnes wrote "Apocritus" in reply to an untitled copy
of Porphyry's "Against the Christians," and if the quotation of Mark
16:18 originated with Porphyry instead of Hierocles, then there is,
embedded in "Apocritus," a third-century witness for the Long
Ending. If the quotation of Mark 16:18 originated with Hierocles
instead of Porphyry, then there is a very very early fourth century
witness for the Long Ending embedded in "Apocritus."
That's about all the third-century support I can think of at the
moment.
Dear George,
No, the 99% of the MSS that contain the Long Ending are *not* all
late, corrupt Byzantine texts. The Long Ending is attested in all
text-streams (including the Alexandrian). I'm not trying to say that
the majority is right because it is the majority. I was just
balancing your observation that the Long Ending is not in B and
Aleph; noticing a variant reading is not the same as vindicating it.
GS: . . . "Let us suppose that the copyist intended to begin each
book on a separate page and proceded to do so. While he was copying
the text the abbot came along and noticed the large amount of unused
space and severely upbraided the copyist of wasting paper [make that
"vellum"]. Thereafter the copyist took care to not leave such spaces.
I should think that would explain the gap equally well."
No it doesn't, because Vaticanus has the Old Testament as well as the
New Testament, and there are no such breaks between the books in the
OT, except for the two I mentioned already (which = leftover space
where a copyist finished his assigned section of text). And because
Mark does not begin on a separate page; Mark 1:1 begins the third
column of a page.
GS: "Do you really know what happened?"
Not to the degree that I know that James Tabor's statements about the
Long Ending of Mark are incorrect and should be immediately withdrawn
and corrected, but to about the same degree that any textual critics
know whether other variants of considerable size arose because of an
accident or deliberately, yes, I know that the blank space in B was
deliberately placed there. Hort surmised that this implies that the
copyist was aware of either the Short Ending or the Long Ending. Had
the copyist only wanted to leave space for the Short Ending, the rest
of the space under 16:8 would have been sufficient -- unless he had
wanted to keep the subscription out of the lower margin, and since
the subscription is in the margin is elsewhere (as I mentioned
earlier), that doesn't seem to have been a concern, which leaves the
Long Ending as the text in the copyist's memory which would have
motivated him to leave that column blank.
Dear Schmuel/Steven Avery,
Schm: . . . "James apparently considers them as moderately important,
although less than the weight given in standard modern textcrit
theory."
I consider Aleph and B very important witnesses.
...
www.curtisvillechristian.org/MarkOne.html
Schm: "Since this evidence is so wide and diverse, James, how . . .
[could] ... supposed scholars like Dr. Tabor or a fellow on forum
actually theorize a 4th century creation?"
A large part of the answer can be provided in two words: parroting
and yeasting. "Parroting," when one scholar uncritically absorbs and
repeats the words of another, and "Yeasting" when an earlier
statement is augmented in a way which the repeater thinks is harmless
but which actually produces an inaccuracy.
Dr. Tabor's statements may be "Exhibit A" of this sort of thing.
Here's what probably happened:
Tabor was taught by Robert Grant, and Robert Grant read Metzger's
first edition of "Text of the New Testament." In the first edition
(1964), Metzger wrote on p. 226 that "Clement of Alexandria, Origen,
and Eusebius show no knowledge of the existence of these verses."
(The third edition has the word "Ammonius" instead of "Eusebius" --
which is still not much of an improvement, but that's another story.)
Grant probably read Metzger's statement and re-phrased it, so in his
"A Historical Introduction to the NT," he wrote that the Long Ending
"is absent from the writings of Clement, Origen and Eusebius, and is
omitted in Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus, as well as in the
older Latin and Syriac versions," Then Grant wrote, "the Freer
manuscript contains a different ending entirely."
Tabor then relied on Grant (maybe on Metzger too, but if so he
must've failed to notice several implications of some things that
Metzger wrote) and never attempted to verify whether Grant's
statement that Codex W "contains a different ending entirely" was
true.
It is unfortunate that parroting and yeasting seem to be the norm,
rather than the exception, when it comes to how the data about the
Long Ending of Mark has been treated by American scholars. Hopefully
this situation will be amended so that they can avoid making a
terrible mistake.
Back to George.
GS: ... "that you also are able to determine that it was not the
author but the executors of his estate who added the longer ending is
interesting. By this admission you apparently concede that the author
of the Gospel could not also have been the author of the longer
ending."
Let me clear up that misconception: I do not concede that. I think
that the most likely author of the Long Ending is Mark. As Farmer
and Terry have shown, the objections made by Metzger on the basis of
vocabulary and style do not withstand examination.
GS: ... "This amounts to an admission that the longer ending does
not properly belong to the Gospel of Mark."
No it doesn't. It just implies that the Gospel of Mark had an editor
as well as an author. But that's implied regarding a lot of Biblical
books, and no one feels obligated to remove editorial work. We don't
remove II Cor. 10-13 from II Corinthians, for example. If the Gospel
of Mark, when first released for church-use, included 16:9-20, then
that should be considered the original, canonical, proper form of the
book.
GS: . . . "Either it is original or it is not original."
It is not the ending with which Mark intended to close his Gospel-
account (because he intended to write about things that had happened
in Galilee; his contemporares in Rome already knew about the
appearances in/around Jerusalem -- partly because he had already
written a short summary of those appearances) but it is the ending
with which Mark's Gospel-account ended in the form in which it was
initially released and distributed. Does that clarify what I am
trying to say?
Yours in Christ,
James Snapp, Jr.
Curtisville Christian Church
Indiana (USA)
In the course of researching Mark 16:9-20, I've seen some pretty
pathetically inaccurate comments -- both from those who wish to
affirm the legitimacy of Mark 16:9-20, and those who believe it to be
spurious. But one of the worst ~ perhaps THE worst ~ commentary was
written by Dr. Philip W. Comfort in "The Quest for the Original Text
of the New Testament," pp. 137-138 (© 1992 Baker Book House). Dr.
Comfort was, at the time the book was written, visiting professor of
New Testament literature and interpretation, and senior editor of the
Bible Department at Tyndale. He received his Ph.D. in New Testament
studies from Fairfax University.
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.
peaceOver 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,Marcus is here repeating, almost verbatim, Metzger's description of the
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)."
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 oftenA rough English translation of K. Aland's "Markusschluss" is available in the
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)."
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?Marcus' statements are trivial?
(2) Would you trust the text-critical judgment of anyone who thinks that
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
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?