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 eighth 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, my third reply, and Sheffield’s third response.

-:-

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

by Richard Carrier

Sheffield still has delivered no response to nearly all of the evidence I presented against the authenticity of the LE. By now this counts as a decisive loss for his position, by any scoring of formal debate. He remains instead obsessed with a single rebuttal: that ancient “Apostolic churches” attested its authenticity; a statement he has presented exactly zero evidence for. See all my previous entries.

Besides internal evidence, I’ve also shown by abundant external evidence that the evolution of the ending of Mark went from no evidence for one to two hundred years of the LE even existing (no patristic authors are aware of it; no known manuscripts contain it), followed by a period of one to two hundred more years of the LE existing only as an unusual or rare reading (patristic authors admit it was found almost nowhere and that they have no evidence it was authentic; and all manuscripts extant either lack it outright or only contain it with indications of it being unusual or added), and only after hundreds of years does it start to appear as a normal reading (patristic authors only then assert without evidence that it was authoritative; and manuscripts that contain it are then scrubbed of indications of it being unusual or added). So not only do we have the “fossil evidence” of it being added over time; we even have the transitional fossils!

What evidence does Sheffield have in reply? Nothing.

Sheffield goes on about manuscripts of Mark in “Apostolic churches” containing the LE, but has presented not a single such manuscript. Nor anyone witnessing to any such thing before Eusebius. And Eusebius disconfirms it; as he would surely mention having seen the LE in “Apostolic” manuscripts if in fact he had. To the contrary, he says the LE was extremely rare, and dubious. Jerome corroborates him decades later. So neither of them could have been finding it in “Apostolic texts.” And neither says they did. No one does. Until decades after Jerome decided to include it in his Latin Vulgate. When no previous Latin translation had it. After that, scribes started adding it to their manuscripts; as we have explicit statements saying so, as well as markings and indications in the manuscripts themselves.

Sheffield illogically thinks we have to know how the LE arose to know it arose. I’ve repeatedly explained (in Hitler Homer and this debate) that there are many possible ways the LE could have arisen, and I offer the Aristonian theory as only one…for which we even have some internal and external evidence; unlike Sheffield’s alternative, for which we have no evidence whatever. I’ve repeatedly said the evidence is not strong enough to be certain it originated with Ariston; and yet that weak evidence remains far more than Sheffield has for any alternative. So if Sheffield cannot be convinced by the evidence of the Aristonian theory, he should be even less convinced of his own theory, for which there is no evidence at all, and vast evidence against (almost all of which Sheffield simply ignores).

Sheffield illogically thinks we have detailed documentation of every church’s every change to the text of their Bibles in every decade of antiquity since the dawn of Christianity. We don’t. We have zero documentation. It is a violation of objective logic to argue from the silence of documents we don’t have. Therefore, he cannot argue that ‘because no one tells us’ who created the LE or when it was added to any given Church’s text, that therefore no one did. We have vast evidence it was being added even if it was authentic. Yet in no case does anyone tell us why they were adding it. Other than late, dogmatic opinion, with no stated evidence.

Sheffield also confuses his modern fabricated canonical text with the various divergent texts known to Medieval scribes. When Ehrman says “later copyists tended to correct quotations of the Bible to the form of the text prevalent in their own day,” Sheffield evidently didn’t notice the phrase “prevalent in their own day.” Sheffield also seems to not understand that “tended to” does not arithmetically mean “always did.” His attempt to rebut Ehrman here is thus not even relevant; it’s also illogical, as the evidence Ehrman has for his actual contention is vast, and Sheffield addresses exactly none of it. I cite not only Ehrman’s citations and studies proving this, but also those of Metzger, Fee, and Marcovich (Hitler Homer, p. 290-91, notes 50, 51, 52, and 53); Sheffield responds to none of them. This is not how debate works.

Sheffield then illogically thinks I said the Latin translation of Irenaeus has an interpolated reference to the LE based on the Vulgate. I never said any such thing. So his attempt to rebut this argument I never made has no bearing on the evidence I did actually present, that that was indeed an interpolation (Hitler Homer, pp. 295-300), and may have even been interpolated in the Greek before its Latin translation was made (Ibid., p. 296).

Sheffield also illogically thinks Burgon’s assertion that “Justin’s statement [that shares three words with the LE] is concerning the Apostles after the Lord’s Ascension” at all rebuts the fact that Justin “does not indicate he is quoting any Gospel there.” Sheffield ignores every reason I gave to doubt he is (in Hitler Homer, pp. 292-93).

Sheffield has no relevant argument from the Diatessaron, all extant manuscripts of which are rife with readings Sheffield rejects as non-canonical (Hitler Homer, pp. 293-94); he presents no evidence the LE is not another one of them.

Sheffield claims “Chrysostom referred to Mark 16:9 in his Homily 38 on First Corinthians 15″ but that simply isn’t true. There is no mention of that verse there. Sheffield (and Snapp) are apparently confusing his statement that Jesus “was seen of Mary first” as being a reference to Mark 16:9. It is not. It is a reference to John 20:11-18. I have yet to be presented with any evidence Chrysostom had ever seen the LE.

Sheffield then says Ambrose and Augustine knew and preferred the LE, but that’s irrelevant. Ambrose wrote mostly toward the end of the 4th century; Augustine, early 5th century. Both wrote decades after Jerome had already endorsed the LE by including it in his Vulgate. Augustine and Ambrose never cite any evidence to believe the LE was authentic (Hitler Homer, pp. 307-08). They just liked it. Evidence that the LE started growing in popularity after Jerome is not evidence of its authenticity.

Occam’s razor is constrained by evidence. Sheffield has none. All the evidence, internal and external, points to the LE being a later interpolation. Occam’s razor thus favors no other conclusion.

-:-

Sheffield’s reply is here.