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.

Discover more from Richard Carrier Blogs

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading