Anglican scholar Jonathan Sheffield and I are debating whether the “long ending” of the Gospel of Mark (or “LE,” 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 fifth entry. If you are jumping in at the middle, you can catch up with Sheffield’s opening statement; my first reply; Sheffield’s first response; and my second reply.
That the Long Ending Was Original to Mark (III)
Jonathan Sheffield
The objective for this rebuttal is to follow-up with Dr. Carrier regarding his questions on the Apostolic Polity.
[I]f there be any heresies which are bold enough to plant themselves in the midst of the Apostolic Age, that they may thereby seem to have been handed down by the apostles…we can say: Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [that first bishop of theirs] shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men—a man, moreover, who continued steadfast with the apostles. For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter. In exactly the same way the other churches likewise exhibit (their several worthies), whom, as having been appointed to their episcopal places by apostles, they regard as transmitters of the apostolic seed.
Tertullian, Prescription against Heretics 32
Irenaeus on the opposite side of the Roman Empire in Gaul (circa 180) corroborates Tertullian’s testimony and provides empirical verification to the same system affirming: “We can enumerate those who were established by the apostles as bishops in the churches, and their successors down to our time” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.3).
What is an Apostolic Church? This, Dr. Carrier, defines the criterion, and documents how the Apostolic Churches were organized. The polity also establishes a legal chain of custody for the texts; essentially, the transfer and control procedures to safe guard the texts against tampering to preserve the evidence.
While these churches are not immune to error or foul play in either their lists and texts, the culmination of different churches, across a wide geographical area, in many languages, provides an objective framework to examine the differences and consensus in the received texts of the Apostolic Churches.
What Dr. Carrier is unable to provide, is any credible tome from the ancient world refuting what Irenaeus, Tertullian and Eusebius has documented in their writings on the Apostolic Polity.
Regarding when they acquired any copy of Mark? For this, we turn to Irenaeus, who opens his third book against the heresies identifying what writings were handed down to the Apostolic Churches from the apostles. In reference to Mark, Irenaeus states: “After (Peter/Paul’s) departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, also handed down to us in writing what Peter had preached” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.1). Eusebius confirms the account in his histories, and documents that Clement of Alexandria and Papias of Hierapolis corroborates this testimony (Williamson’s 1965 translation of Eusebius, History of the Church, p. 88-89; cf. Hist. Ch. 2.15).
More important, are the legal arguments Irenaeus employs in defense of Mark and the other Gospel publications as the official writings of the apostles. When Irenaeus states, “We appeal again to that tradition which has come down from the apostles and is guarded by the successions of elders in the churches” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.2), he establishes the transfer, control and mechanism for the writings back to the apostles. Further on, Irenaeus says, “The tradition of the apostles, made clear in all the world can be seen in every church by those who wish to behold the truth” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.3). This provides independent attestation of different churches, across a wide geographical area, in many languages that witness to the same writings, naming the same authors.
The case of Marcion is most relevant to our current inquiry on the LE, since it deals specifically with the originality of Gospel readings: “Marcion argued in his Antitheses that the version of Luke, that was current among the apostolic churches, was interpolated by the defenders of Judaism” (Tertullian, Against Marcion 4.4). Tertullian approaches the claims of Marcion by subjecting his version of Luke objectively against the texts that have come down in the official churches of Paul. Tertullian appeals to the churches of Corinth, Galatia, Philippians, Thessalonica, Ephesus, and Rome for comparison and finds: “That the Gospel of Luke which we are defending with all our might has stood its ground from its very first publication; Whereas Marcion’s Gospel is not known to most people” (Tertullian, Against Marcion 4.5).
The same case is made regarding the LE, when we examine the official versions of the Apostolic Churches (Vulgate, Peshitta, and Greek Text), it’s essentially in them all. These are the texts to judge them by Dr. Carrier, not texts of unknown provenance. “The reading is in all extent lectionaries and claimed for two of the church’s greatest festivals (Easter & Ascension)” (Pickering’s The Identity of the New Testament Text II, 3rd ed., 2003, p. 163).
Burgon documents an independent investigation by Victor of Antioch (circa 450) from Victor’s commentary on Mark who was aware of Eusebius statement and concludes, “Yet we, at all events… in very many we have discovered it to exist, have out of Accurate copies, subjoined also the account of our Lords Ascension in Conformity with the Palestinian exemplar of Mark which exhibits the Gospel Verity” (Burgon’s The Last Twelve Verses of Mark, 1871, pg. 64-65). Victor validated the LE against an official text of an Apostolic Church and found it to be genuine.
Dr. Carrier’s most pressing issue is how does he explain that almost all independent Apostolic churches in Greek, Latin, Aramaic and Coptic number Mark among its canonical texts, identify Mark as its author and end up with the LE if it doesn’t go back to the originals?
Dr. Carrier’s Ariston theory (Hitler Homer, p. 286) is based on a presumption that the LE may have come from two lost works (Hitler Homer, p. 287); yet, we don’t have a copy of those works to verify that premise, therefore it’s speculation, not actual evidence. The other part of Dr. Carrier’s theory is based on a note placed in the 13th century by an unknown scribe, where the LE is separated from the rest of the Gospel and says, “Of Ariston the Presbyter” (Hitler Homer, p. 286). Dr. Carrier insists the scribe must have had access to a historical document to confirm the point (Ibid.). Since we can’t read minds of unknown scribes it amounts to more speculation. If the meaning of the note was so obvious, Dr. Carrier, why didn’t Metzger and Colwell arrive at your conclusion? (Hitler Homer, p. 286) This further demonstrates the subjectivity of the note.
We have copies from two Syriac Fathers of the 4th century (Aphraates & Ephrem), which Dr. Carrier admits quotes the LE from the Diatessaron (2nd century origin; Hitler Homer, p. 307) yet dismisses this evidence and 1000 other manuscripts in favor of a lone Syriac Manuscript (Hitler Homer, p. 272) whose provenance is unknown. Ambrose, a bishop in Milan (circa 340), quotes the LE on multiple occasions, but Dr. Carrier rejects his testimony (Hitler Homer, p. 308), Jerome’s Vulgate, and 8000 Latin copies for one Codex Bobiensis (Hitler Homer, p. 276), a document of unknown provenance. Is this how we are to weigh evidence, Dr. Carrier?
-:-
My reply is here.
The idea that any of the people he quotes as apolistic fathers have any credibility is laughable. Polycarps “letters” are made up propaganda. So is Clement. Both undated and unsigned, and who do we get these gems of fraudulent kaka? Irenaeus, a man who became bishop of Lyon after the fortuitous murder of his predecessor while he was hobnobbing with the pope.
Thank you for your comments Itsatz
Itsatz, how were almost all the Apostolic Churches able to come up with the same four gospels, naming the same 4 authors in Greek, Latin, Aramaic and Coptic without any central authority. You may try to find an ancient credible tome explaining this. In the meantime, I will accept the testimony of Irenaeus, Tertullian, Eusebius and the Anglican Divine Richard Hooker.
Happy Holidays
Since the first time the four gospels are known to have been put together is by Irenaeus in 175CE, I’m wondering what you are talking about? What writings come form the apostolic church? (Whatever that is.) Then you go on to say you trust the word of Irenaeus and Eusebius, two people I know to be total liars and can prove it in black and white. The fact that you would use two obvious deceitful propagandists as sources belies your integrity.
Thank you for your comments Tony, but you are using the ad hominem fallacy of attacking the person instead of their argument, which is if you go around the Mediterranean and check different churches that have lists of bishops going back to the apostles (i.e. Apostolic Church) you will find that the overwhelming majority of them have the same 4 gospels, naming the same 4 authors in different ancient languages which confirms the position of Irenaeus, Tertullian and Eusebius whether they are liars or not.
Happy Holidays
I’ve never heard this “Apostolic Church” story before. What are the dates? I am under the impression that Irenaeus put the 4 gospels together for the first time in 175CE. I’m also aware that there were many other Christian sects with their own gospels. I believe they fell by the wayside after Constantine. That is when the 4 gospels became canon. I’ll need some evidence to change my mind.
Mr. Sheffield, I’m sorry to say that I don’t find any new information here than what you already stated in your previous contributions : the “Apostolic Churches” (and I still don’t know what they are) used the LE in the 4th century, and because they did, it has to be authentic.
Even IF that was the case, it’s a non-sequitur. You still have to provide the evidence that it had to be there in the first place.
Postulate that ““The Flavians” conjured up Mark!” Would the long or short version of Mark be then more likely?
That theory is too preposterous to even produce a coherent answer.
Richard, there you go again, poo-pooing Atwill without supplying evidence. I agree, he isn’t much of a historian, but please prove it with facts. Josephus was in Titus’ court. What about the claim that Titus and Jesus walked the same route to Jerusalem? Is there anything to it? Didn’t Constantine adopt the moniker “Flavian?”
I just linked you to a lengthy demonstration of Atwill’s incompetence, error, illogicality, and ignorance of pertinent facts. That is what we sane people call “supplying evidence.” So don’t lie to everyone here and claim I made an assertion “without supplying evidence.” That just makes you look like an even bigger crank than Atwill.
It’s only the worse that you repeat non sequiturs that illustrate his tinfoil hat reasoning.
That the dynasty the Christians finally converted was related to a centuries earlier dynasty is not evidence for the claim that that earlier dynasty produced any of the New Testament, much less the religion the NT records. There is zero logic in that. And no sane historian ever argues that way. Which is why Atwill has never gotten any of his claims through peer review.
For exactly the same reason, even if some author of some Gospel modeled the route their fictional Jesus took after the route Titus took in the recent War those Gospels were responding to, that again affords zero evidence that that author had any connection to Titus. Much less that the religion that author is writing a story for did not originate a lifetime earlier. It at best would indicate the author (presumably Mark?) used the well-known Wars of Josephus as an allegorical model to work from. As ancient authors routinely used other literary works as models to work from and emulate (even Mark also uses the Elijah-Elisha and Moses narratives that way), this affords zero evidence that they did so because they knew the authors they modeled, much less were the authors they modeled.
It’s just yet worse that Atwill can’t even get the modest and entirely plausible claim that Mark modeled the route of Jesus after the route for Titus described in the Wars to pass peer review. Why? Because his methods are illogical garbage, and his demonstrated ignorance of Greek, paleography, and literary analysis is considerable. So even if he has stumbled on an interesting literary theory about Mark’s use of Josephus (which would entail nothing about who Mark was or who he was working for or how Christianity began or any other nutty thing Atwill wants to leap to), Atwill cannot even produce a competent demonstration of it. And until he does, I cannot tell if that theory is even true.
That’s the fact of it. And anyone who doesn’t recognize it, is delusional.
Tony, Me thinks on this that Dr. Carrier has the stronger position in regards to Atwill.
I intend to finally read your expertise on the Atwill, Flavian theory Dr. Carrier. Thanks for the link. I don’t understand why you categorize his theory as garbage history. Aren’t all the Christians you debate “garbage” historians? I’ve already heard you speak on the relationship of the ancient Greeks to their mythology. Each city-state had their own slant on the pantheon of Olympians. They were keenly aware of the propaganda benefits. Aeschylus drums up this implausible trial where Orestes is found innocent of killing his mother on the grounds of patriarchal tradition. Nowhere in the trial is the fact stated that the great patriarch, Agemmemnon, murdered his sister. Nowhere does Orestes even acknowledge Iphegenia’s existence. The reason why Clytemnestra killed him. Athenians trying to justify their patriarchal philosophy. If Aeschylus can do it, why not the writer of Mark? I wouldn’t put it past Titus to have supported such a feat. The fact that Mark was written during the Flavian dynasty, that Josephus guides Mark and was also a member of Titus’ court indicate a possible link. I look forward to reading your take on it.
No. Many Christian historians are good historians, and only blinded on faith doctrines; many are mediocre historians, which is still better than garbage historians. And so on. Atwill is insane. He promotes wild conspiracy theories on psychotic readings of random coincidences. And he is impervious to logic or evidence. He uses no recognized historical methods. He has no relevant skills or background knowledge. He is a quintessential crank, up there with the Aliens Built the Pyramids crowd.
Your analogy here makes no sense. If you had Aeschylus inventing a new religion for a foreign people using a foreign scripture, to somehow convince those foreign people to submit passively to Greek domination, by abandoning their entire state religion for something foreigners invented in a foreign language, then you’d at least have one analog. But none exist in the whole of ancient history. That states and peoples created their own myths to control their own people using their own scriptures is well established as normal, and describes pretty much the whole of Jewish scriptural history. And that is not the Atwill thesis.
Meanwhile, “two other guys who knew each other lived at the same time as a third guy” gives you absolutely no logical argument to the conclusion “they knew the third guy.” Much less an elaborate conspiracy theory regarding their cooperation with that third guy. Even a guy using the writings of another guy who lived at the same time, which happened a lot in antiquity, argues for no connection between the guys. Knowing and using someone’s else’s book as a source of content and ideas, does not argue that you know them personally and conspired with them to fabricate reality. Without evidence the latter is lunacy. And there is none.
Jonathan please: islamicly: wher’r the isnads/asanēd (chains) of gurantors for the gospels?
Please see Jonathan A C Brown https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_A._C._Brown whu sez
“the “depth and breadth” of the early Muslim scholars’ achievement in assessing the authenticity of saying and texts “dwarfed” that of the fathers of the Christian church.”
Eg jesus–>peter–>mark–>iraneus?
This particular chain seems ‘maqtū’ (cut). whu are irineus’ informunt(s)? Are they trustwurthy?
Why is it a lone chain – did Peter keep shtum, intimating only t mark? Givn a gospl broadcast, why did matthew luke john copy / plajiarise?
LE if not the gospl seems ‘da’ēf jiddan’ (very weak) hadēth.
Thank you for your comments Alif,
While I respect the scholarship of Bukhari who used a similar system to that of the Apostolic Churches 200 years after the death of his prophet, he was only one man; yet Christianity has thousands of Apostolic Churches, with lists of bishops going back to the Apostles, coming up with the same 4 gospels, naming the same authors, and basically coming up with the same traditional readings like the LE and PA. This was done not only in 1 language, but many of the ancient languages to include Greek, Latin, Aramaic, Coptic and others.
Best wishes
It’s easy to tell you are an Atheist, Dr,Carrier. Here you are responding to blogs on Xmas. I read your take on Atwill, I won’t refer to him again, he’s clutching at straws. Yet I still don’t discount the theory that Roman Emperors had something to do with the gospels. (They certainly had much to say in promoting Christianity by the 4th century.) I imagine we’ll never know who authorized the creation of the gospels.
The gospel writers were Greeks familiar with tragic drama. (passion plays) Aeschylus did contribute to the creation of a new religion. May not have been for foreigners, but a new religion it certainly was. The Furies were the old religion replaced by Apollo. Apollo replaced the prophetess of Delphi as the god of prophecy, during the classical age. Experts at spiritual propaganda. As were the Roman emperors, who were also the Pontus Maximus responsible for things like declaring Halley’s comet the soul of Julius Caesar ascending to heaven.
Thanks again for the link. It changed my viewpoint. By the way, I’ve purchased 3 of your books, so your last sushi dinner was on me. Keep up the good work. Regards Tony
“The same case is made regarding the LE, when we examine the official versions of the Apostolic Churches (Vulgate, Peshitta, and Greek Text), it’s essentially in them all.”
Regarding the Vulgate it’s generally agreed that Jerome was its author. Here’s what Jerome says about the LE:
http://www.textexcavation.com/marcanendings.html#jerome
“Of which question the solution is twofold. For either we do not receive the testimony of Mark, which is extant in rare gospels, almost all of the Greek books not having this chapter at the end, especially since it looks like it narrates things diverse from and contrary to certain evangelists….”
Jerome testifies that in his time the LE was rarer than Gordon Gecko’s interest in Annacott Steel. What is usually lost in the discussion here is that there is an implication that Jerome is not only referring to the Greek but also the Latin, which I’m almost certain he was fluent in. Dr. Carrier has already indicated that the oldest Latin Manuscripts we are aware of lacked the LE. Jerome’s text critical observation is exponentially weightier evidence than individual manuscripts here because it has SCOPE. This is magnified by Jerome’s travels through the Christian Empire so that he would have been aware of many individual texts and other patristic’s observation of texts.
So in Jerome’s time 16:8 dominated in the Greek and Latin. Eusebius, the biggest authority before Jerome. confirms Jerome’s evidence and apparently selected 16:8 based on his authoritative Canon tables. Eusebius’ authority appears to be accepted to Jerome’s time. Jerome, like Eusebius, indicates that despite the manuscript evidence it is acceptable to use either ending. So Jerome chooses the LE. Jerome is now the authority and Christianity gradually converts to the LE.
Note the coordination of the evidence for change TO LE. The earliest manuscripts don’t have it and the earliest patristics don’t use it. Eusebius/Jerome testify implicitly that 16:8 dominated in all text types, Alexandrian, Western, Caesarean and Byzantine. We lack early GMark because it lacked the LE and subsequent Christianity didn’t want Mark manuscripts without it. And as I believe Dr. Carrier will/should show there is a huge time gap between Eusebius/Jerome and subsequent manuscripts in quantity that show unqualified support (no editing or notes/commentary) for the LE.
So Rome appeared to accept the Vulgate as the authoritative GMark which in itself should be discomforting to you as translation is motive and opportunity to change. We have no evidence that Rome adopted the Vulgate other than because it considered Jerome authoritative and liked what the Vulgate said. Jerome was kind enough to give us his related evidence which clearly supports 16:8 as original.
What evidence do you have regarding the evidence Jerome had other than the evidence Jerome tells us he had for determining the likely original ending of GMark?