Anglican scholar Jonathan Sheffield and I are debating whether the “long ending” of the Gospel of Mark (verses 16:9-20) is authentic or interpolated. For essential reading and references on the subject see chapter sixteen of Hitler Homer Bible Christ. This is our third entry. If you are jumping in at the middle, you can catch up with Sheffield’s opening statement and my first reply.
That the Long Ending Was Original to Mark (II)
Jonathan Sheffield
In order to understand the scholarly consensus against the genuineness of Mark 16:9-20, which Dr. Carrier asserts is the result of the culmination of evidence (Hitler Homer, p. 233, and First Reply), I would like to draw attention to the historical development of this school of thought on which Dr. Carrier and Modern scholarship relies so heavily to support their hypothesis on the LE.
Dr. Carrier, Burgon identifies “Griesbach as the first to insist that the LE was spurious” (in Unholy Hands on the Bible, vol. 1, p. C-4), demonstrating this view of the LE to be of quite a recent development. While the footnote of Eusebius was well known to scholars up through the late middle ages, Burgon states “it is only since the appearance of Griesbach’s second edition [1796 – 1806] that critics of the New Testament began to rule against the genuineness of these verses” (ibid.) …denoting that “previous critical editions of the New Testament were free from this reproach” (ibid.); citing the editions of Mill in 1707, Bengel’s in 1734, Wetstein in 1751, Alter in 1786, Birch in 1788 and Matthaei in 1788.
The development of this theory, Dr. Carrier, begins to gain support when Hort in 1881 introduces a theory explaining the existence of readings like the LE; a theory that would also, in turn, nullify the commonly received texts of the Apostolic Churches’ testimony, by relegating thousands of independent witnesses down to essentially one (see Pickering’s The Identity of the New Testament Text II, 3rd ed., 2003, p. 14). Accordingly, in the face of the extant manuscript testimony, Hort stated “the natural presumption would be that a majority of extant documents is more likely to represent a majority of ancestral documents at each stage of transmission than vice versa” (see Hort’s Introduction to The New Testament in the Original Greek, 1882, p. 45).
However, Dr. Carrier, Birdsall’s published study in 1956 (“The Text of the Gospels in Photius,” Journal of Theological Studies 7, p. 43) has had major implications for this school of thought affirming:
Since the publication of Hort’s introduction in 1881 it has been assumed in most quarters that the text was uniform from the time of Chrysostom and that this uniform text, called here Byzantine, is to be found in his quotations…However, more recent investigation has questioned both the uniformity of the Byzantine Text and its occurrence in Chrysostom’s citations.
Given Karl Popper’s Maxim “for a theory to be scientific it must be falsifiable”, it appears from Birdsall’s review of the studies, including his own, that Hort’s premise has been falsified. How then can proponents of this school of thought continue to maintain Hort’s conclusion when its premises have been falsified? I don’t think you want to go after Karl Popper with a poker.
Therefore, I conclude that the critical text theory is just another postmodern narrative, without facts to back it up.
Subsequently, this also means that the commonly received texts of the Apostolic Churches (i.e. Peshitta, Vulgate, and Greek Text) are back in contention, and are no longer considered one witness, but thousands of independent witnesses.
Having vindicated our textual witnesses, we turn our attention to the external evidence, which Dr. Carrier asserts further confirms his hypothesis on the LE (Hitler Homer, p. 269). Yet the following empirical data will provide evidence to the contrary. Now “the passage in question is contained in every extant Greek manuscript (about 1800) except 3 (i.e. Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, minuscule 304) … To be more precise, every Syriac MS (about 1000) except 1 (the Sinaitic circa 400) …and every Latin MS (8000?) except one (Bobiensis circa 400) bears witness to the LE” (Pickering, The Identity of the New Testament Text II, 3rd ed. [2003], p. 163-64).
Dr. Carrier, by way of hyperbole in his Reply, attempts to counter this testimony when he states “most later manuscripts that do contain the LE, place it after another forged ending, the so-called Short Ending…a sequence highly improbable unless the LE was added after that verse was, and thus not original to the text.”
“Most Manuscripts”, Dr. Carrier?
“Exactly six Greek manuscripts (L, Psi, 083, 099, 579, and 274) have the Shorter Ending; minuscule 274 has it next to 16:9 in the margin” (James Snapp, Authentic: The Case for Mark 16:9-20, 2016, p. 149).
Considering the overwhelming manuscript testimony favoring the LE, Dr. Carrier does appeal to his, so called, best and earliest Greek texts (i.e. Sinaiticus, Vaticanus; Hitler Homer, p. 270) in an attempt to discredit the received texts of the Apostolic Churches as secondary in origin. Yet, the provenance of these texts is unknown. Dr. Carrier cannot establish who authored these texts, or who they belonged to; therefore, the contents within its pages are hearsay.
Tertullian states that the official writings of the apostles are found in the churches known to the apostles (e.g. Peter, Paul, John), listing Corinth, Philippi, Thessalonia, Ephesus and Rome (Tertullian, Prescription against Heresies 36). This testimony is also confirmed by Irenaeus at Gaul in Circa 180 (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.3). Therefore, we can provide an objective framework to examine the textual witnesses in these historic churches closest to the authors going back to the 1st century to investigate the authenticity of the LE.
Incidentally in the fourth century, we can establish the provenance of two official texts read publicly at churches in Antioch and Rome, which were known to Peter. Burgon cites Chrysostom as a witness to the LE in his homily from Antioch (in Unholy Hands on the Bible, vol. 1, p. C-16), which is the oldest surviving Greek church going back to Peter.
In the west, we have Jerome acting as secretary to the pope, and trained in Greek by Gregory Nazianzen, the patriarch of Constantinople; Jerome stated in his prologue to the gospels that his Latin translation was “revised in comparison with only old Greek manuscripts” (at least 4th century; see Jerome’s Prologue to the Gospels). Jerome, in his letter to Marcella, stated that “the object of his revision has been to restore them (the Latin) to the form of the Greek original” (Letter to Marcella 1). Jerome, who was aware of Eusebius’s footnote, ruled in favor of the LE by including it in the Vulgate.
To provide further evidence in support of the LE, Augustine, who wrote to Jerome complaining about the riot that erupted in a congregation in North Africa over one word changed in Jerome’s translation of Job [correction: Jonah], actually vetted Jerome on his gospel translation stating:
We are in no small measure thankful to God for the work in which you have translated the Gospels from the original Greek, because in almost every passage we have found nothing to object to, when we compared it with the Greek scriptures.
(Excerpted from the Letters of Augustine (No. 28, 71, 82) and the Letters of Jerome (No. 112) in A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, translated into English under the supervision of Henry Wace and Philip Schaff, and published by Parker in Oxford and New York between 1890-1900. This exchange is available here.)
In conclusion, the scholarly consensus against the LE is a late 18th century development, and while the central premises of their theory have been falsified, the scholarship which Dr. Carrier relies on, continues to maintain their conclusions. Dr. Carrier’s so called best and earliest texts that are deficient the LE, cannot establish a legal chain of custody to the Apostolic Churches, yet Jerome’s Vulgate and the text at Antioch that witness to the LE can.
Due to time constraints, I will be following up on Dr. Carriers questions on the Apostolic Polity, but I have referenced in my opening the authoritative works.
-:-
See my Reply.
“Yet, the provenance of these texts is unknown. Dr. Carrier cannot establish who authored these texts, or who they belonged to; therefore, the contents within its pages are hearsay. ”
The brobdingnagian iruny surely can’t be lost on Jonathan…
….it appears from Birdsall’s review of the studies, including his own, that Hort’s premise has been falsified..
Riddle me this… To me, this appears to be an assertion since I cannot discern how it has been falsified.
Mr. Vineyard,
Hopefully I can clarify from Birdsall’s study where Hort’s premise has been falsified.
First, Birdsall is conducting an investigation on the Gospels’ texts used by Photius, patriarch of Constantinople in the 9th century.
Birdsall then lays out his presupposition for his investigation which was based on Hort’s premise: (see quote below)
“Since the publication of Hort’s introduction in 1881 it has been assumed in most quarters that the text was uniform from the time of Chrysostom and that this uniform text, called here Byzantine, is to be found in his quotations…”
Then Birdsall states that Hort’s premise doesn’t reconcile with the recent studies: (see quote below)
“However, more recent investigation has questioned both the uniformity of the Byzantine Text and its occurrence in Chrysostom’s citations.”
Then J.N. Birdsall states, in referring to his own work and the work of Lake, Lagrange, Colwell, and Streeter states that the premise has been falsified: (see quote below)
“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”
“It is evident” & “Must be doubted” is clear that the presuppositions have been falsified Mr. Vineyard.
When Birdsall states “except its inferiority to other types (referring to the Byzantine text form) – this is where Birdsall is not giving up his conclusion, even though all presuppositions have been falsified.
Please let me know if you have any further questions Mr. Vineyard.
Jonathan Swift was a High Church Anglican, and probably would have supported Richard Hooker as I do.
Thanks.
What about the contradicting info from verse 8 to verse 9? Why would Mark write that?
Thank you for the question Peter, hopefully I can shed some light, and resolve the concern you have.
Since we are investigating the style and manner of Mark’s Gospel, it’s important to understand what historical documents we have to give us more information on the formation of Mark’s Gospel.
First, Irenaeus tells us that “Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter handed down to us in writing what Peter had Preached” (See Irenaeus Against Heresies Book 3, 1st chapter).
Next, Eusebius tells us that Mark, who was Peter’s Disciple was asked to provide a summary of the instruction the people had heard from Peter. Eusebius says he is deriving the information from Clement of Alexandria in Outlines Book VI, and that his statement is confirmed by Bishop Papias of Hierapolis. (see Williamson’s 1965 translation of Eusebius, History of the Church, pg. 88-89).
So, the source is Peter’s Sermons, and Mark is providing a summary of them based on the historical documents we have.
Now, if the historical records are correct, it should read like a summary, instead of a detailed account like Livy’s history of Rome.
So, when we approach Chapter 16 verses 8 to 9, what we have is a switch-over, moving from one event to another (abruptly) to close out the Gospel.
I just finished reading the Last Chronicle of Barset by Anthony Trollope, who does the same thing to close out his book.
But the question is, do we see the same pattern anywhere else in Mark? Burgon demonstrates yes, and that the pattern we see in Chapter 16, we also see in Chapter 1. (in Unholy Hands on the Bible, vol. 1, p. C-79).
I’m going to provide Burgon’s quote, but as your reading it, pull up the first chapter of Mark (KJV) and follow along with Burgon as he goes through the chapter. Then pull up Mark 16 (KJV) and read through the entire chapter and tell me if you see the same pattern or not.
“The candid reader must needs admit that precisely the self-same manner is recognizable in this first chapter of Mark’s Gospel which is asserted to be peculiar to the last. Note, that from our Savior’s Baptism (which occupies three verses) the Evangelist passes to His temptation, which is dismissed in the next two verses. The last five describe the call of four of the Apostles, without any distinct allusion to the miracle which was the occasion of it…The opening of His Gospel is singular concise, and altogether sudden”
Looking forward to your reply.
As a Skeptic I would rate the importance of Authority criterion behind The Difficult Reading Principle, Internal and External categories. As a Believer though, you weigh Authority as the top criterion, at least the authority you agree with.
Regarding your preference for older Bible scholarship over newer, please tell us in what other discipline older scholarship would be preferred over newer? While you are at it, can you estimate the time period during old scholarship when publicly saying that the Church/Pope was wrong and the LE was not original would not have been very bad for your health?
Also, why do you divide between “The Church” and Bible Scholarship? Aren’t the Bible scholars of your Church accepted as authoritative by your Church. Aren’t they responsible for your current Bible text?
And regarding the supposed authority of the Church in general, the original Church rejected the authority of its supposed source, The Jewish Bible, and your Church rejected the authority of your supposed source, the Catholic Church.
Additionally, the authority of “The Church” looks impeached in general with its history of antisemitism and sexual misconduct.
This looks to me like an inconsistency within your argument.
Thank you for your questions Mr. Wallack.
To clarify my position, I am not arguing from authority, but independent witnesses, over a vast geographic area, with different theological positions, that were fighting with one another. Independent witnesses that agree, that didn’t collude on the evidence, would be conclusive in any normal court of law.
Mr. Wallack, you have to take into consideration that the historical churches were fighting with one another, yet are you asserting that they had no problem allowing their texts to be corrupted by the opposing party?
(e.g Polycarp in the second century from Smyrna (Asia Minor) was fighting with the church of Rome on when Easter should be observed.)
In regard to your second question Mr. Wallack: “Please tell us in what other discipline older scholarship would be preferred over newer?”
Answer: The 17th century Scientific Method of Sir Francis Bacon over the late 20th century postmodernism.
In regard to your third question Mr. Wallack: “can you estimate the time period during old scholarship when publicly saying that the church/Pope was wrong and the LE was not original would not have been very bad for your health?”
Answer: Dr. Carrier documents in his book (See Hitler, Homer, pg. 278) that the Georgic and Armenian lack the LE (nearly a hundred).
FYI, the Georgic and Armenian churches are still independent of Rome. Do you recall that the Pope of Rome visited Georgia about a year ago, and the Patriarch of Georgia said no one should go see the Pope? The Pope spoke before an almost empty stadium.
In regard to your fourth question Mr. Wallack: “why do you divide between the Church and Bible Scholarship?”
Answer: I accept the biblical scholarship of Jerome, Augustine, Erasmus, Cardinal Ximenez, Lancelot Andrews, Theodore Beza, William Tyndale, John Calvin, and modern scholars such as Burgon, Hoskier, Miller, Hills, Pickering, Letis and others.
What I am arguing against is one school of thought that was invented in the late 18th century by German rationalists, not all of biblical scholarship.
Mr. Wallack, to reiterate I am not arguing from authority, but independent witnesses that agree, that can establish a legal chain of custody for the text in which they were both guardians and witnesses too.
In addition, I am not speaking to their personal morality, but the polity of the Apostolic Churches.
Please let me know Mr. Wallack if you have any further questions.
Thank you for your response and clarification Mr. Sheffield. I believe you are saying that your best evidence in general is that there is good implication that multiple specific Churches, defined by geography, at important points in history, held the LE as original?
Let me ask you about some specific Churches. The Church of Jerusalem would be the best potential witness yet now there is not much of a Church presence there. The country is now a Jewish country (a theoretical impossibility per the Churches you cite as witnesses here) and every country Jesus supposedly visited is now not Christian. Where does the current (or historical) Jerusalem Church say that the LE was original? [This is mainly rhetorical, I’m not expecting an answer to this].
Let me give an easier question. How bout the Church of Rome? On the surface, not a good witness to supposed events at the edge of the Empire with a different language and culture. What is your best evidence that the Church of Rome, at a key point in history, claims that the LE was original? Keeping in mind:
1) The Vatican seems to consider Vaticanus their prize manuscript.
2) The footnotes of Catholic Bibles generally indicate that the LE is likely not original.
3) My outstanding question is still why would a position of a specific Church a long time ago be more authoritative than their current position? Here, for the Church of Rome.