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 fourth entry. If you are jumping in at the middle, you can catch up with Sheffield’s opening statement, my first reply, and Sheffield’s first response.

-:-

That the Long Ending Was Not Original to Mark (II)

by Richard Carrier

Sheffield has yet to answer any of the internal evidence and has not given sound answers to the external evidence, nor any actual evidence for the contrary conclusion.

Sheffield insists all the earliest manuscripts are deviant, and only manuscripts after the 4th century correctly convey the originals. But he has presented no evidence for this. I’ve asked him to name what surviving manuscripts contain the original text and how he knows that they do.

Sheffield insists the LE is original, yet somehow was added to manuscripts already ending with the SE, whose ancestors therefore did not contain the LE; and somehow scores of manuscripts and translation traditions show evidence of the LE having been added, whose ancestors therefore did not contain the LE; and somehow no first, second, or third century witness shows any knowledge of the LE’s existence, even in places where they would; and somehow the first author who discusses its existence (Eusebius) and the greatest biblical scholar of his century (Jerome) both admit it was a doubtable and rare reading. Which means even if authentic the LE was still added to nearly all manuscript traditions now extant, which Sheffield still hasn’t explained.

Sheffield does rightly correct my misstatement that “most” manuscripts contain the SE followed by the LE (I’ve added a corrective note). I meant to say most manuscripts that contain the SE place the LE after it (and never the reverse), one of several evidences the LE was being added. By contrast, we have no evidence the LE was ever removed.

I even noted a medieval scribe admitted to adding the LE to any manuscripts he found, based on “accurate” exemplars, without saying what constituted “accurate.” In fact we have over forty instances of scribes mentioning the LE was an uncertain reading, and yet none ever say they included it based on finding it in “Apostolic Church texts” as Sheffield fantasizes. (See James Kelhoffer, Conceptions of “Gospel” and Legitimacy in Early Christianity, pp. 155-58).

Sheffield hasn’t explained why the earliest copy of the earliest Syriac translation lacks the LE, and only Medieval manuscripts or translations include it. Indeed, the earliest Georgic translation lacks the LE (being added only centuries later), because it was translated from the Armenian, which all evidence confirms lacked the LE, and the Armenian was translated from the then-popular Syriac translation in the 4th century, further evincing the fact that the Syriac originally lacked the LE.

Sheffield hasn’t explained how the LE went from a very rare reading to a widely copied reading without anyone raising a protest or challenge that would provoke reference to Apostolic exemplars as the reason for it. Of course we can credit this to what I already said: we have almost no records by which to know the things Sheffield claims to know. He wishes to argue from the silence of records we do not have. That’s invalid (see Proving History, pp. 117-19; example, p. 223).

Sheffield confuses a single premise of Hort now rejected, with the whole of textual criticism, when in fact that premise (that the Byzantine text was stable) was already abandoned over a hundred years ago. To say refuting it refutes textual criticism is a non sequitur. Its falsehood even undermines Sheffield’s argument, as that entails textual changes continued in all Gospels throughout the world for a thousand years, without raising any extant complaint, much less “riots.” This is even proved by Birdsall, in whose article I see no support for Sheffield’s case.

Sheffield says of the earliest manuscripts that we “cannot establish who authored these texts, or who they belonged to,” but that’s true of all extant texts. With respect to the LE we have no evidence of when or from whom the text preserved in extant manuscripts originated. Except in dozens of cases where the manuscripts themselves indicate or even explicitly admit someone added it! We also have no evidence confirming a chain of custody for any text to pre-Medieval times. So there is no help for Sheffield here.

Sheffield cites Tertullian declaring an unsupported opinion that “the apostolic churches” preserve the “authentic writings” of the Apostles. But Tertullian, writing circa 200 A.D., shows no knowledge of the LE. So this is not evidence the LE was in them. Sheffield presents no evidence Tertullian even visited those churches (Tertullian simply selected Corinth, Thessalonia, Phillipi, Ephesus, and Rome from Paul’s Epistles). But Tertullian does not even mention the Gospels here (none of which were written by any Apostle). Tertullian does not say the churches he named even possessed a copy of the Gospel of Mark. In fact he appears to mean only the Epistles (of Peter and Paul, the only Apostles he here names). Sheffield also cites Irenaeus to the same point, but Irenaeus is even more explicit: he speaks only of the Epistles. Not the Gospels. Nor specifically Mark. Nor does he attest the LE was in their copies of Mark or even that they possessed any copies of Mark.

Sheffield thinks Jerome’s credentials entail he had reliable knowledge the LE was an original reading, but Jerome himself says no such thing. He says, to the contrary, that it was rare and dubious, allowing it to be questioned. He says it is “unusual” among the Gospels and “nearly all the Greek codices lack” it; and rejecting it, he says, is one of two ways to solve a contradiction it posed with Matthew (“Letter to Hedybia,” Epistles 120.3). He does not say his decision to include it in the Vulgate was based on finding it in “Apostolic” churches. Yet surely if he had, and thought that a good argument, he would have said so. He doesn’t. Nor does he give any valid reason for accepting the LE (Kelhoffer, Conceptions, pp. 146-47). Meanwhile, as I noted, the evidence indicates all Latin translations predating Jerome’s lacked the LE.

Sheffield incorrectly describes the evidence from Augustine, but to manage word count, I’ll just note that Augustine is writing from the early Middle Ages and gives no indication he had any useful knowledge regarding the LE’s authenticity. So citing him is of no use anyway.

Sheffield also cites Chrysostom as a witness to the LE being in some now-lost manuscript in some church in Antioch, claiming that’s “the oldest surviving Greek church going back to Peter.” But we have no evidence Chrysostom’s church actually dates back to any congregation actually founded by any Apostle, much less when that congregation acquired a copy of Mark, much less how they curated its text over time. Moreover, I have so far found no reliable text actually from Chrysostom that attests the LE. I need Sheffield to present exact quotes and primary source citations to support the conclusion that he did.

Conclusion:

Sheffield has presented no actual evidence and has no valid rebuttals.

-:-

Sheffield’s followup is here.