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 seventh 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; my second reply; Sheffield’s second response; and my third reply.

That the Long Ending Was Original to Mark (IV)

Jonathan Sheffield

The objective for this rebuttal is to first summarize the findings of Dr. Carrier’s Ariston theory (Hitler Homer, p. 286), and then understand how Dr. Carrier explains away the citations of the fathers (Hitler Homer, pp. 290-304), in particular those leading up to and through the 4th century, that appear to quote the long ending of Mark in their writings.

Recall Dr. Carrier suggested the LE may have first originated in either the commentaries of Aristion, or the Dialogue of Ariston (Hitler Homer, p. 287). Consequently, since there are no extant copies of these works, we cannot verify that premise. Remember, Dr. Carrier’s theory is based on a note placed on a 10th century Armenian manuscript by an unknown scribe in the 13th century (Hitler Homer, p. 286). While Dr. Carrier insists the scribe must have had access to a historical document to confirm the point, we cannot read the minds of unknown scribes; and both the Colwell and Metzger examinations of this note didn’t arrive at Dr. Carrier’s conclusion (Ibid.), which further demonstrates the subjectivity of the interpretation of the note.

Therefore, Dr. Carrier hasn’t presented any tangible evidence on the creation of the LE, only speculation. To explain the mechanism placing the LE in the Greek, Latin, and Aramaic Textual traditions, Dr. Carrier deduces from his Ariston theory that “someone else transposed it to their copy of the Gospel” and then “Subsequent church communities then started regarding it as a lost original reading and added it.”

Who is this “someone” that Dr. Carrier refers too? Will Dr. Carrier, also identify which church community this “someone” belonged too? Can Dr. Carrier tell us what church communities started regarding the LE as a “lost original reading”? Did these church communities include the Donatists, the Novatians, the Nestorians, Monophysites, the Arians, the Malachite’s, or the Montanists? Where are the letters from bishops, or the council, documenting where these churches came together to append these 12 verses to the text of Mark? The problem for Dr. Carrier’s interpolation theory on the LE is that he has no empirical data from the ancient world to establish his narrative as an actual historical event; but if Dr. Carrier wants to maintain that any postmodern narrative is as good as another, very well, just don’t call it historical.

As we turn to the writings of the fathers who appear to bear favorable witness to the LE, we must consider the following in evaluating the testimony:

• First, it wasn’t until the 16th century that chapter and verses were added to the text of the New Testament by scholars like Robert Stephanus in his 1551 edition (see Wikipedia, “Chapter & Verses“); therefore, we should not expect the fathers to quote scripture in this manner.
• Second, as Burgon states “Fathers often quote Scripture loosely…and sometimes allude only when they seem to quote” (in Unholy Hands on the Bible, vol. 1, p. C-12).

Yet Dr. Carrier, like any good lawyer who has to deal with the culmination of witness testimony against his client, appears to employ a defense strategy of discrediting the evidence, instead of engaging it (Hitler Homer, p. 290). For Dr. Carrier opens up the examination of the Patristic evidence with the following assertion that needs to be proven (Ibid.):

A major problem with relying on Patristic authority is that the manuscripts of the Church Fathers have themselves been doctored to reflect later canonical readings.

To support this assertion, Dr. Carrier calls upon Dr. Ehrman who also contends (Ibid.):

The MS traditions of virtually all the church fathers show that later copyists tended to correct quotations of the Bible to the form of the text prevalent in their own day.

While we can’t read the minds of scribes, surely, we can test Dr. Carrier’s/Ehrman’s hypothesis.

Let’s take the canonical reading of “Only Begotten Son” found in John 1:18 that conforms to the Latin and Greek Ecclesiastical texts (For the former see Jerome’s Latin Vulgate, Douay-Rheims translation; and for the katter see the EOB: The Eastern/Greek Orthodox New Testament Based on the Official Patriarchal Text of the Greek Orthodox Churches, p. 238). When we examine the writings of Origen, Basil of Caesarea and Cyril of Alexandria, we find both the canonical reading “Only Begotten Son” and the variant reading “Only Begotten God” (See Jesse M. Boyd’s defense of John 1:18, Appendix B, “Fathers who quote John 1:18 with both readings”; note that the majority of the patristic evidence presented in the appendix is taken from Ezra Abbot, “On the Readings of John i. 18,” in Bibliotheca Sacra 18 [1861], pp. 810-872), and compared with the UBS’ presentation of evidence in their fourth edition of The Greek New Testament, which is now in its 5th edition).

In this sample of works, it appears the copyists left the readings as is. In another example, Dr. Carrier maintains that Irenaeus’s citation of the LE only survives in the Latin translation and are among those most tampered with (Hitler Homer, p. 295). Therefore, the text prevalent would be the Vulgate. Yet Dr. Carrier’s full quotation of Irenaeus for the section under examination (Ibid., p. 297) doesn’t follow the Latin Vulgate in the citation of Mark 1:2 (Latin Vulgate: Jerome’s Translation, Vulgate Mark 1:2); for it reads “as it is written in the prophets” which is a distinctive Byzantine reading (see James Snapp’s 5 October 2017 commentary on Mark 1:2). If the scribe was bringing it in line with the Vulgate, it would have been corrected to “As it is written in Isaias the prophet.” These tampering theories are not consistent with the empirical data, but it does demonstrate the creation of Dr. Carrier’s Deux Ex Machina to solve his problem of having to deal with the patristic citations for the LE, especially Irenaeus’s.

Dr. Carrier admits that the Justin quote (c. 160) “uses together the same three words appearing in Mark 16:20 but does not indicate he is quoting any Gospel there” (Hitler Homer, p. 292). However, Burgon shows that the context of Justin’s statement is concerning the apostles after the Lord’s Ascension (in Unholy Hands on the Bible, vol. 1, p. C-14).

Regarding Tatian’s Diatessaron (circa 175), we have two independent Syriac fathers, Aphraates and Ephrem, citing the LE from two independent copies of Tatian’s Diatessaron by the middle of the 4th century (Hitler Homer, p. 294), and we have a third copy in Arabic that has come down to us which witnesses to the LE (James Snapp, Authentic: The Case for Mark 16:9-20 [2016], p. 7). While Dr. Carrier admits few versions of Tatian’s Diatessaron agree (Hitler Homer, p. 293), here is a point of agreement between three independent copies; still Dr. Carrier concludes the LE was appended to the Diatessaron by later editors (Ibid., p. 294), thus his Deux Ex Machina.

Both Ambrose (c. 337) and Augustine (c. 354) frequently quoted from Mark 16:9-20. Augustine, in his Harmony of the Gospels, comments exclusively on Mark 16:12 from the Greek Codices (James Snapp, Authentic: The Case for Mark 16:9-20 [2016], pp. 12-13). This is significant, because Augustine vetted Jerome’s gospel translation against Greek scriptures, and did not object to the LE in the Vulgate; yet Augustine criticized Jerome on his translation of Jonah, and was against Jerome removing the apocrypha from his edition of the O.T. (as 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).

During the same time Chrysostom referred to Mark 16:9 in his Homily 38 on First Corinthians 15 from the oldest Greek church going back to Peter (see James Snapp, Authentic: The Case for Mark 16:9-20 [2016], p. 14).

Remember, any one of these ancient testimonies witnessing to the LE alone would not be conclusive, but all together they are the smoking gun that it is original.

According to Occam’s razor, when there exist two explanations for an occurrence, the simplest explanation would be preferred; in the case of the LE, the Apostolic Polity is the simplest explanation that requires the least speculation; unless Dr. Carrier believes picking up vipers is more likely. We can test this principle by finding 100 believers who won’t pick up vipers, which is more likely than finding 100 believers who would (excluding believers in West Virginia).

-:-

My reply shall be posted here in a couple of days.