Beginning today and for the next six weeks I will be engaging a formal debate here on my blog with Anglican autodidact Jonathan Sheffield over whether the long ending of Mark (verses 16:9-20), almost universally agreed to be a later interpolation not written by the author of Mark, was in fact in the original draft of Mark and not an interpolation after all. On that theory, the removal of that ending in early manuscripts was the corruption, not its later addition.
Sheffield himself has funded this exchange and we will share full non-exclusive rights to its content. The debate will operate from the assumption of having read my already rather thorough treatment of the question published in Hitler Homer Bible Christ. Anyone who really wants to familiarize themselves with the particulars, or check some of the references and other information that come up in this debate, might want to procure a copy of that in print or kindle.
The procedure we will follow is that Sheffield will begin with an opening statement. Which is now provided below. I will then reply in a following blog post. And he in turn. And so on until the debate closes on its final day, January 21st. Each entry will be limited to roughly the same word count. There will be no assigned pace—so we can each research our next entry before submitting it, and ensure as careful a wording as possible.
Comments on each of the entries in this debate series are open to anyone who submits polite and relevant remarks. Patreon patrons retain the privilege of their comments publishing immediately. Everyone else’s will wait in a moderation queue that I will have to check and clear every few days. Jonathan Sheffield specially asks that atheists engage with this debate, because it differs from the usual fundamentalist or Evangelical tack. So do feel free to comment. But please make your remarks polite, relevant, and informed.
That the Long Ending Was Original to Mark
by Jonathan Sheffield
The Aeneid was written in a period of history that is exceptionally well-documented, compared to the circumstances in which the Tso Chuan and Homeric epics were composed. This allows us to understand in good detail the context of the Aeneid’s formation. [Richard Carrier, Hitler Homer, p. 45]
Dr. Carrier, given that both the formation of the New Testament and the Aeneid occurred around the first century, under the control of the Roman Empire, a period of history that you assert is “exceptionally well documented” it would follow that we could also document and understand the historical formation of the New Testament. Consequently, If you reject the “Apostolic Polity” as evinced in the writings of Irenaeus of Lyons (in Against Heresies 3), Tertullian of Carthage (in Against Marcion 4), Eusebius of Caesarea (in History of the Church), and the Anglican Divine Richard Hooker, then you should be able to give some ancient documentation to trace when and where the commonly received texts of the Apostolic Churches were written and how copies of the originals were sent out; as Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Gaius during the late second century were able to name some of the authors and provide details for the formation of the so called Gnostic texts (e.g. Marcion, Valentinus, Basilides).
Therefore, Dr. Carrier, if you maintain the hypothesis that the original publications of Mark’s Gospel when received by the apostolic churches were indeed deficient these 12 verses, then by what natural mechanism did these 12 verses find their way into independent Apostolic Church texts that were of different theological positions, and were spread over a vast geographic area from Galilee and Jerusalem, to Britain in the West, India in the East, Ethiopia and North Africa in the South, and Germany in the North? These verses would have also had to be translated into multiple languages to include the Vetus (Old) Latin, Aramaic, Gothic, Geʿez, and Coptic.
We must also consider the following: Who created this passage? How did this individual gain access to physical texts in actual apostolic churches? Where and when did this process to update the texts first begin? Because if it wasn’t Peter’s disciple Mark, then who did it, and how? Surely, Dr. Carrier, you would not have us believe that the creation and appending of these 12 verses to actual physical texts came ex nihilo.
Even though I don’t agree with Anthony Fenton Hort and F.C. Burkett, as Anglicans, they did understand the need for a theoretical mechanism to help explain the existence of readings, for example, the long ending of Mark (or LE) that are in the commonly received texts of the Greek & Aramaic Apostolic churches. By proposing a recension by Lucan of Antioch in the Greek and a recension by Rebulla of Edessa in the Peshitta (see Pickering’s The Identity of the New Testament Text II, 3rd ed., 2003, p. 14) they could use both recensions to defend their so called best and earliest texts, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, that are deficient these 12 verses.
But here lies the problem with this school of thought that you lean on, Dr. Carrier, which is the basis for these interpolation theories of the LE and other traditional readings. Since the creation of these theories in the late 18th century that began with scholars such as Griesbach, as noted by Burgon (in Unholy Hands on the Bible, vol. 1, p. C-4), this scholarship has been unable to historically substantiate these theories, for this is what J.N. Birdsall is saying, in referring to his own work and the work of Lake, Lagrange, Colwell, and Streeter when he declares: “It is evident that all presuppositions concerning the Byzantine text—or texts—except its inferiority to other types, must be doubted and investigated de novo” (“The Text of the Gospels in Photius,” Journal of Theological Studies 7 [1956], p. 43).
Who maintains their conclusions when the hypothesis continues to fail? Kurt and Barbara Aland seem to agree with Birdsal when they state “no adequate history has yet been written of the Byzantine text (…) But this is a task we may well leave to a future generation” (in The Text of the New Testament, 2nd ed., 1995, p. 142). In other words, all this school of thought has provided is post-modern narratives to explain the creation of these readings like the LE.
To be fair, Dr. Carrier, you have suggested an alternative theory in your scholarship, identifying Ariston as a possible suspect for the LE (Hitler Homer, p. 286), but here are the problems with your theory.
First, Eusebius, who specifically addresses the question on the long ending of Mark to Marinus, also includes in his histories information on Ariston, but discusses this figure in another context and does not draw this conclusion you are asserting (see Williamson’s 1965 translation of Eusebius, History of the Church, p. 150).
Second, if Ariston did add the passage in the second century, why did it take until the 4th century for the LE to show up when you said it became popular? Since you discount the patristic testimony that possibly quotes the passage leading up to the fourth century, it betrays your theory; for if it was added by Ariston, then it would have explained why Irenaeus and others were quoting it—but since you reject their testimony, the position is weakened.
Third, you have no corroborating evidence to support the note added in the 13th century that was found in the Armenian manuscript. Where are the letters or synod from the ancient world speaking of the LE being added in by Ariston? Otherwise, this theory amounts to mere speculation. Your theory is still missing a mechanism like an Uthman, the third caliph, who made a revision of the Koran and burned the other copies for the Muslim communities (Sahih al-Bukhari, Meanings vol. 6, bk. 61, no. 510), to explain how it could have been done on a massive scale in Christianity to account for the LE in the Apostolic Greek, Aramaic and Latin textual traditions.
In addition, Dr. Carrier, you state at the beginning of your treatise that you won’t even explore the possibility the LE could have been removed (Hitler Homer, p. 233), but we have documentation from Nikon in the tenth century accusing the Armenians of casting out scriptures from their texts (see S.S. Patrum qui temporibus Apostolicis by J. B. Cotelerius, 1698 Antwerp ed., vol. i, p. 235), and Augustine offers corroborating testimony on the same passage in the 4th (see Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, vol. xxxxi, p.387). You even cite an example of a late manuscript that omits the entire reference to serpents in the LE (Hitler Homer, p. 237). Logically you can’t rule it out a priori. According to Tertullian and Irenaeus, in the 2nd century Marcion removed large portions of Jewish readings from Luke and ten letters of Paul.
We can even provide documentation to establish motive as to why the LE would be removed, citing the greatest anti-Christian scholar of the ancient world Propher of Tyre who probably made fun of the LE (see Porphyry, Against the Christians, 2004 ed. by Harnack; cf. Macarius, Apocriticus III: 16).
Instead of using postmodern narratives invented in the late 18th century, why not accept the apostolic polity as described by Irenaeus, Tertullian, Eusebius and Richard Hooker which authenticates the LE as the official words of Mark’s Gospel?
-:-
Such is Sheffield’s opening statement. My response is now here. The debate has begun.
I think plumping for any one of the several endings as being original just makes it harder to explain the existence of the other endings. Plumping for the longest ending the more so.
Any one text can be changed resulting in all different kinds of readings (e.g. Gnostic Texts). Yet the last 12 verses of Mark has the widest distribution in different languages, geographic areas, and is witnessed among churches that hold different theological positions which have historically fought with each other. So, to use Occam’s razor, the simplest explanation is that Mark 16:9-20 goes back to the original.
I did not understand how an ending would go back to the original based on Churches fighting each other. An ending could be interpolated and still have theology guys quibble about the right interpretation.
Suhaib, we are not talking about interpretation, but the actual wording of the text. Consider this, suppose I interpolate 5 additional verses into a text in North Africa; how then do I get those same 5 verses into a text in Gaul, and then in Palestine, and then in Rome, and then in Antioch, and finally get them all basically to agree on the wording?
The thing is, the ending could have been interpolated very early on, within the first few decades of the textual tradition. This way you can get widespread agreement on it by later churches and later manuscript lines.
Just clarifying in line with my First Reply:
Note that the LE betrays knowledge of Luke-Acts, which can’t have been written earlier than the 90s, and knowledge of the four-Gospel edition (e.g. it employs content from John and Matthew as well), which didn’t exist before Marcion’s edition circa 140 A.D. Therefore the LE must date after 140. It could theoretically have been among the edits made in composing that four-Gospel edition, but the evidence strongly suggests it was not. Were it, it would be in the earliest manuscripts, and there wouldn’t be such widespread evidence of it being added to manuscripts and editions later, and second and third century Christian writers would have shown knowledge of it.
It’s possible it originated in the late second century and just wasn’t widely known until the fourth (and even then was only rarely found, as Eusebius and Jerome attest). But it’s also possible it originated in the third century. Whereas it’s very improbable it originated before the late second.
Yes, and not only that, but only versions of Mark with the full ending would soon become the accepted version, and hence considered worthy of the laborious task of re-copying. Versions without the ending would soon be of far less value and respect, quickly to be replaced by the “better” or fuller version, which would be be the one re-copied. This would happen throughout Christendom, as the less complete version was considered inferior, incomplete, and of less value The shorter version would hardly survive.
I am looking forward to following your debate. As a former Christian I am happy to read how I used to think and to see Dr. Carriers response. I know one thing about Christian apologists and that is they are skilled in rhetoric even when evidence is scanty or entirely lacking. Best of luck to both men!
Thank you for your comments Andrew; As an Anglican, hopefully I can bring a new historical perspective to the evidence. Feel free to question the evidence I have presented in my opening, or in future rebuttals to Dr. Carrier.
My first response is now up: Was the Long Ending of Mark Original? First Reply.
The new testament was not written after the testator died.
To believe the Lord’s will of his new testament was written after he died is a lie.
What court of law would accept such a will knowing the will was written after the testator die.
Learn the meaning of (For where a testament is).
All the words of the Lord were and are settled in heaven for ever.
All 66 books of the counsel of the Lord’s heart were declared by the Lord from the beginning.
The Lord Jesus alone is the author of his book.
The whole book is prophecy and the will of the Lord’s new testament went into effect at the Lord’s appointed time of his death.
Psalm 119:89
For ever, O Lord, thy word is settled in heaven.
Matthew 4:4
But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
Isaiah 46:10
Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:
Psalm 33:11
The counsel of the Lord standeth for ever, the thoughts of his heart to all generations.
Proverbs 22:20-21
Have not I written to thee excellent things in counsels and knowledge, [21] That I might make thee know the certainty of the words of truth; that thou mightest answer the words of truth to them that send unto thee?
Psalm 68:11
The Lord gave the word: great was the company of those that published it.
Luke 1:1-4
Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, [2] Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; [3] It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, [4] That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.
Luke 1:68-70
Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for he hath visited and redeemed his people, [69] And hath raised up an horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David; [70] As he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been since the world began:
1 Peter 1:11-12
Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow. [12] Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into.
Hebrews 9:16-17
For where a testament is , there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. [17] For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.
Hosea 8:12
I have written to him the great things of my law, but they were counted as a strange thing.
What does any of that have to do with the authenticity of the Long Ending of Mark?
Mr. Altier,
Please look up the Council of Chalcedon, because you are using a Docetist philosophy. I prefer an Anglican like Sir Francis Bacon who invented the scientific method.
Pax Christie
Mr. Altier, it should be “Pax Christi” And the rest is fanciful silliness.
This promises to be a very high quality debate in which a religious scholar at last debates something within the boundaries of reason and logic, and not of mere faith.
On the other hand, whatever the outcome, i.e. there is proof the passage is original/inserted aftwerwards, ot won’t change neither a theist not an atheist to change his/her position on faith.
But still I’m looking forward to this intellectual duel !
Three questions:
Was there actually a single positive argument provided in the opening statement for the long ending having been in the original? Or was everything said just attempting to nit pick at potentially questionable things Dr. Carrier might have said by taking them out of context? As far as I can tell the only thing said in the opening statement to the positive was that we should just assume it was there because it is in some versions which is not much of an argument.
Does Jonathan Scheffield personally believe that the gospel authors are the characters in the titles?
Did Jonathan Scheffield’s first sentence indicate that he does not understand what the phrase compared to means?
Thank you for your questions Jonathsn:
The positive argument is independent apostolic churches in different areas, languages and theologies overwhelmingly come up with basically the same ending of Mark.
This argument also holds true for the gospel authors, since the previous all come up with the same four books, naming the same four authors, on documents that didn’t seem to have names on them.
Unlike the gnostic texts which were all different. (See nag hammadi scriptures)
Thank you Art. I appreciate your comments; hopefully I can live up to your expectations.
Grace to you Mr. Sheffield. In Textual Criticism The Difficult Reading Principle is usually the decisive criterion among good candidates. So regarding the candidates for the ending of GMark which do you think is the Difficult Reading?
I’ll let Sheffield reply.
But for those listening in, Wallack is referring to a text critical principle called lectio difficilior potior. Wikipedia has a useful page on it. I would say it is not a decisive criterion in itself, but weighs the likelihood toward the lectio difficilior; which means other considerations could weigh it back. You also need a plausible hypothesis for the reverse, and those are often hard to come by.
I believe Sheffield takes the position (evident already in his opening here) that the modern science of textual criticism is an invalid construct (hence his reference to it being “postmodern” is not a compliment). Nevertheless, one does have to address its principles before rejecting them, as it is the modern consensus. So perhaps some of that will come up as we go.
Thank you for your question Mr. Wallack. Picking up snakes and drinking poison would seem to be the more difficult reading. As I referenced in my opening, the probably quote from Porphyry of Tyre who makes fun of the long ending of Mark would support this view.
While I’m not against textual criticism, I do have problems with the modern “reasoned” eclectic method as Dr. Carrier has referenced below.
The modern approach as E.C. Colwell spells it out: “Turns for its final validation to the appraisal of individual readings, in a way that involves subjective judgment” (See Pickering, Identity of the New Testament Text, pg. 4)
Please let me know if you have any further questions. Thanks.
Thank you for your reply Mr. Sheffield. The Transcriptional part of The Difficult Reading Principle asks which reading is more likely to be the cause of the other. Here we have whether a 16:8 ending with no post-resurrection Jesus communication or conversion of the disciples was the cause of all the other endings which have both, or, to use your theory, because the LE referred to snake handling and poison drinking it was the cause of all the other endings including 16.8 which had no post-resurrection Jesus communication or conversion of the disciples? You think it is the latter and I have summarized your position fairly?
Mr. Wallack, in addressing your question, even if you accept Dr. Carrier’s Myth theory that they hallucinated an Archetypal Jesus, his followers did believe in a resurrection, but picking up snakes and drinking poison would be a bit of a stretch; Therefore, I consider it the harder reading.
I have a lot to say on your faulty conclusion that the immunity clause is the lectio difficilior. It is demonstrably the opposite. If you want to see why, please do bring it up in one of your upcoming entries in this debate, and that will cue me to elaborate on the many reasons you have the wrong end of the stick here.
Thank you for your response Mr. Sheffield. As has been explained here the consensus of Christian Bible Scholarship is that 16:8 is The Difficult Reading and is therefore a key piece of evidence supporting its originality or at least the unoriginality of the LE. Therefore, in order for you to be persuasive in arguing that the LE is the difficult reading, you need to give a clear argument.
You wrote:
“even if you accept Dr. Carrier’s Myth theory that they hallucinated an Archetypal Jesus, his followers did believe in a resurrection, but picking up snakes and drinking poison would be a bit of a stretch;”
This needs clarification in the context of The Transcription process. Your theoretical scenario would be a Church receives GMark in the first century and considers it authoritative but not Scripture. They do not believe that Jesus would have instructed followers that they could handle snakes and drink poison as evidence of Jesus’ power because they believe that belief in Jesus would not protect against snakes and poison. So they removed the entire post-resurrection communication between Jesus and his disciples.
Keeping in mind that in the first century there was no Canon and most Churches or at least some would not have any other Gospels so their sole written authority would be a Gospel with no Manuscript Destiny (mission to proselytize the world)?
Is this the scenario you had in mind?
Thank you for your comments Mr. Wallack.
Since Dr. Carrier and I will be providing a fuller treatment on if the immunity clause is the lectio difficilior, I’ll keep my comments brief:
First, I would like to state for the record the Anglican position on canon as defined in our 1562 Articles of Religion; “All the books of the New Testament, as they are commonly received, we do receive, and account them Canonical”.
This position is also in line with the North African Churches statement at the Council of Carthage (419) in canon 24 after listing the 27 books of the NT:
“Let this be sent to our brother and fellow bishop, Boniface, and to the other bishops of those parts, that they may confirm this canon, for these are the tings which we have received from our fathers to be read in church”.
Regarding the LE, most of the Apostolic Churches texts (i.e. Peshitta, Vulgate, Greek Text) appear to have the long ending; but a Montanist Church (see Tertullian & Eusebius for info on the Montanists), which believe they were led by the spirit might find a member picking up a viper and quickly becoming dead, so they would just have to take out the lectionary reading.
Thank you for your response Mr. Sheffield. Here’s what the LE says,
“And these signs shall accompany them that believe: in my name shall they cast out demons; they shall speak with new tongues; they shall take up serpents, and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall in no wise hurt them;”
Your explanation sounds anachronistic to me. It is possible to survive serpents and poison without having any belief. In ancient times, with the lack of communications and science, it would be relatively easier to maintain the belief in the LE above. In contrast, in our modern times, science has proven that belief in Jesus is no defense whatsoever against snakes and poison, and modern communications have most people, including believers know that. Let’s try to get a related first hand statement from a believer here.
You are a believer in general and you believe that the LE is original, that Jesus said it and it’s true. So you believe that a believer can handle snakes and drink poison and survive. Yet you know that your ability to survive handling a snake or drinking poison is no greater than a non believer. Please explain.
Thank you for your comments Mr. Wallack
Let’s review the meaning of the passage in light of scripture:
“And these signs shall accompany them that believe: in my name shall they cast out demons; they shall speak with new tongues; they shall take up serpents, and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall in no wise hurt them;”
As an Anglican, I am thankful that I am not led astray by such scriptures, like certain groups in West Virginia, who fail to recognize the true meaning of the passage.
We can see elsewhere in scripture, where the disciples were confused by similar language used by Jesus.
Take for example Matthew Chapter 16 starting with verse 1
“The Pharisees also with the Sadducees came, and tempting desired him (Jesus) that he would shew them a sign from heaven”
Jesus realizes the true nature of Pharisees and Sadducees request and states:
“A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas. And he left them, and departed.
Pay attention to what Jesus says next:
“Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees”
Look how the disciples were confused by such language:
“And they reasoned among themselves, saying, It is because we have taken no bread.”
Then pay attention to what Jesus says next:
How is it that ye do not understand that I spake it not to you concerning bread, that ye should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees?
Then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.
Elsewhere in Scripture (Matthew Chapter 33) Jesus speaking before the multitudes about the Pharisees and scribes calls them
“Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers”
So when we come to the passage in Mark where it says:
“they shall take up serpents, and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall in no wise hurt them;”
This passage speaks to the heretical doctrines that will come upon the churches, but the churches will reign victorious over it. Just look at the 7 ecumenical councils of the Greek Orthodox Churches. We had to deal with the Gnostics, Docetism, Arians, Sabellianism, Pelagius, etc…and none of these heretical teachings brought down the churches in the East or the West.
This is the orthodox way of deriving the true meaning of scripture. The reformation understood scripture interpretation in this light as well.
Please let me know if you have any further questions.
Dus Mr Sheffield’s argumunt apply to all so call’d interpolations?
Ther’r variants and interpolations galor in difrunt canuns and within them eg in paul’s letrs; and some material in the manuscripts is no longer seen as canun nor scriptur. Difrunt churches had difrunt living canuns
Uthman/Quran – may I sujest giving an actual reference to the hadeth eg https://sunnah.com/bukhari/66/9 rather than plugging Amazon?
In my view that mekanism isn’t apt here. Uthman didn’t revise the text so much as eliminate all other original and authurised textual veriants and select a singl 1 – notwithstanding that consonantal outline is still amenabl t oral veriation as per the muslim view.
This is not the place for Qur’an thumping. Hoping you’re aware that the Qur’an has its variants, even to this day. There is arguments for redactions, see David Powers.
Thank you for your comments Alif
In response to your first question: The ones that almost all Apostolic Churches accept; The 4 Gospels, Acts, 14 Letters of Paul, James, 1 John and 1 Peter.
For your second question, as the 39 Articles say (1562 Church of England’s Articles of Religion), it is the commonly received texts that are canonical.
Regarding your last question, we don’t have any historical evidence that such an event ever happened with the texts of different Apostolic Churches.