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 tenth entry. For an index to all entries see my closing statement.
-:-
That the Long Ending Was Not Original to Mark (V)
by Richard Carrier
Sheffield has conceded on the internal evidence by never replying to it. The external evidence, meanwhile, proves the LE was an unknown reading before the 4th century and a rare and doubted reading before the late 4th century. It appears commonly only centuries later, and only after a stage of clear widespread adding it to manuscripts. Sheffield has rebutted none of this evidence. Yet it clearly establishes the LE was added to nearly every manuscript tradition. Even in Apostolic Churches.
This is one reason Sheffield’s argument that we should have documentation of the LE’s being added is illogical. Because the evidence conclusively proves it was added to these manuscript traditions anyway. Even if the LE was authentic. So the fact that it was widely added cannot be denied. Sheffield does not appear to understand this point. He cannot explain why it was added either. So he cannot claim it was added “because it was authentic.” The sequence of evidence shows otherwise.
Another reason it’s illogical is that we have zero documentation regarding any changes to the text of the Gospel of Mark in any “Apostolic” church in antiquity. So we cannot say what wasn’t added. Sheffield cannot even identify when the LE appeared in any church, nor when any acquired a copy of Mark, much less how that copy ended. It’s illogical to argue from the content of documents you don’t have (nor have descriptions of; nor even mentions).
I’ve said enough on these points in previous entries. Here I will only address Sheffield’s misuse of evidence in his latest.
Sheffield quotes Birdsall saying “all presuppositions” about “the Byzantine text…must be doubted” as if relevant. It isn’t. Birdsall is not talking about the LE. And the conclusion that it’s inauthentic is not a presupposition. It’s extensively demonstrated. To the contrary, Birdsall is telling Sheffield we have too little documentation regarding how the Byzantine text came about, and why it has so many variants, and deviates so much from earlier traditions. Birdsall is telling Sheffield we do not know the things Sheffield claims to know.
Sheffield’s quote of the Alands is the same non sequitur. It’s not talking about the LE; and in context is saying the same thing Birdsall is: that we don’t know what Sheffield claims to know. The paragraph it introduces is about how we need textual criticism to reconstruct the evolution of the Byzantine text over time and location. It’s not about the existence of unexamined documents that tell us when and why every one of those variants came about. Few such documents exist. None ancient.
Sheffield then illogically tries to claim we have such documentation. Lets add up his claimed exceptions and see if we get above zero.
- Tertullian “documents…a forged writing” of Paul. Not a Gospel. Not Mark. Not an Apostolic Church text. So we are still at zero.
- Caius “identifies four individuals…altering the text of scripture.” No Apostolic Church text is mentioned. No Gospel is mentioned. No reference to Mark. No reference to the LE. So, still zero.
- Irenaeus “documents…that Marcion” meddled with Luke and Paul. No Apostolic Church. No Mark. No LE. Still zero.
- Irenaeus “documents” that Marcionites forged books and stories. No Apostolic Church. No Gospel. No Mark. No LE. Still zero.
- Irenaeus “documents…a variant reading in John’s Apocalypse.” No Apostolic Church. No Gospel. No Mark. No LE. Still zero.
- Augustine “documents the change of one word in Jonah.” No Apostolic Church. No Gospel. No Mark. No LE. Still zero. (Also, 5th century. Too late.)
- (Likewise Nikon “in the tenth century” is a Medieval, not an ancient source. Ancient documentation, still zero.)
- And that Augustine “documents the removal of the Pericope Adulterae” is simply false. He only stated his opinion as to why he believed it was removed; he references no documentation of the fact (in De Adulterinis Conjugiis 2:6-7; see quotation and discussion at The Nazaroo Zone). And he says nothing regarding an Apostolic Church text. So, still zero.
So where is this ancient documentation of the state of any Apostolic Church’s text of Mark? There is none. We have no ancient records of how any of the thousands of deviations and variants appeared in them. And all evidence and references to the LE’s inclusion in medieval manuscripts attests to it being added, not removed.
There is also no “empirical documentation” regarding “how vigilant the Apostolic churches were to changes” in their texts. That this was claimed, is not evidence it was done; and the vast range of textual variants and interpolations proves it was not. Sheffield says “history is unaware of unknown scribes,” as if there were none. In fact, history is “unaware” of any scribes in Apostolic Churches in antiquity: we have no names, no record of what they did and didn’t do to Gospel texts, no record of what they did or didn’t do with the ending of Mark. Yet they certainly existed. And certainly introduced a lot of deviations and variants, as all manuscripts prove.
Sheffield cannot cite the dogmatic opinion of centuries old scholars against modern textual criticism. Outside fringe apologetics, the most advanced scholarship all agrees Eusebius and Jerome attest the LE was a rare and dubious reading even in the 4th century. It therefore cannot have been in Apostolic Church texts even then. Much less before. And Sheffield presents zero evidence it was.
Instead, Sheffield irresponsibly says I “dismiss all the allusions to the LE in the works of Papias, Justin, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Vincentius…the Apostolical Constitutions, and the Gospel of Nicodemus.” I do not “dismiss” them. I empirically prove they don’t exist or don’t reference the LE (Hitler Homer, pp. 292-304; except the Gospel of Nicodemus, which is a medieval text and thus not relevant here, p. 304). Sheffield makes no response. Unanswered demonstrations win all debate.
Likewise, I do not “assert” that Irenaeus’s text has an interpolated LE. I prove it (Hitler Homer, pp. 295-300). Sheffield offers no rebuttal. And Sheffield can produce no text of the Diatessaron containing the LE before the 4th century, when we already know the LE was being added (Ibid., pp. 293-94).
Finally, Sheffield tries to cite a quotation of Macarius of Porphyry’s possible use of the LE (see Macarius III: 16). But that’s too late to be useful (by 300 A.D. we already know the LE existed), is not an exact quote of the LE, and is not said to be from Mark’s Gospel (remember: the LE may have originated elsewhere). So this offers no evidence the LE existed in any Apostolic Church’s copy of Mark. Much less before the 3rd century.
Bayes’ Theorem entails that when the evidence altogether is improbable but on one theory, that theory is the more probable. Sheffield has presented no evidence that is even improbable on the LE’s inauthenticity; whereas I have presented a ton of evidence that’s improbable on its authenticity. None of which Sheffield has rebutted.
-:-
Only our closing statements remain now: Sheffield’s then mine.
I love reading your arguments Richard, They are clear and logical. In constract I really cannot be bothered reading Sheffield’s smoke and mirrors any more. It has been a really enjoyable and informative … I was going to say exchange… but on reflection exchange is perhaps a bit too generous as one side was illuminating and the other merely confusing. Not too sure if it is even a dialogue.
Dr. Carrier in your first response you asked Sheffield…
What are “Apostolic” churches?
Unless I missed it I’m not seeing that he ever provided a direct response to that question.
But somewhere along the way you seem to not only understand its meaning (whatever that might be) but seemed to acknowledge it’s relevance with respect to ancient documentation on changes to scripture.
Because in your last response you repeatedly made reference to these so called “Apostolic” churches as being the place we should expect to see such documentation (if it actually existed).
Do you now understand what Sheffield’s meant by “Apostolic” churches? If so can you please explain to me what is meant by that?
And do you acknowledge it’s meaning and distinction (as a real thing)?
I do know what he means because I studied his arguments elsewhere; but he has indeed failed to explain what he means in this debate, leaving it vague here, which is relevant to the audience, who may rightly be mystified. He has to make a claim, before defending it. And here he hasn’t even really clearly made a claim. I have simply operated on the assumption that he means what I know from elsewhere he does mean, for want of anything else to go by.
What he means is a church that claims unbroken descent in its leadership and congregation from a church founded by an eyewitness to Jesus (an “Apostle”). This poses all sorts of illogical problems for him (e.g. no Gospels existed when any actual Apostle was alive, most “apostolic” founding narratives are mythical, etc.), but he never settled on any clear assertion in this debate, so these problems never came up. Except those I already noted and called out (e.g. a centuries later claim that a certain church is “apostolic” in this sense does not mean it really was; claims have to be verified by evidence, and we have none here).
The mattr can easily be settl’d: all Mr Sheffield need du is take a trip to Muchiri, Malabar Coast. There he can cunsult the Apustolik Curius Mu Library’v the Church foundid by St Thomas. A numbr’v inform’d and inspird church fathrs such as Ambrose, Gregry, and Jerome hav alludid t Thomas’s Keralan trip.
And it’s incuncevabl Thomas made the perilus trek just t injoy the rice bred and vej curry on a banana leaf!
There’s an old rock ‘n’ roll song originally recorded by Big Joe Turner and then by Bill Haley. Haley had the most popular version of it but Haley’s version had different words than the original (to satisfy the powers that be). I’d never heard the original version and would have sworn Haley’s was the original. But a little digging (as has been done here by carrier) shows which came first. I’d say the earliest extant copies of Mark would prove to be the original. It’s almost a ‘Duh!’ Big Joe Turner’s was also the best version.
So I realize this debate essentially ended after the first reply. Sheffield has offered a hypothesis that defies the evidence and is not itself evidenced in any meaningful way. Instead, I wanted to ask about preparation leading up to a formal debate like this.
Obviously, you’ve researched and written exactly on this subject before (Hitler Homer Bible Christ). Did you go back through the citations you originally used there, or did you seek out even more recent scholarship on the subject? I know you’ve mentioned before that you tend not to do a lot of research for debates with apologists, but I expected a scholarly debate like this (the outcome so far notwithstanding) to perhaps incite more detail?
I also noticed that Sheffield actually had a strategy video with SJ Thomason prior to the debate. I was wondering if you were aware of it, or if you’d actually watched it prior to the debate starting. I’ll admit off the bat it’s terrible, and if you haven’t seen it you probably shouldn’t waste your time. Thomason completely misunderstands the point of the debate from the get-go, and apparently has neither a critical nor logical bone in her body. Sheffield seems to come off as thoughtful, and certainly more studied, but he very clearly thinks that everything in Christianity should be believed until ridiculously exact pieces of evidence are supplied against.
Yeah. Those kinds of videos are a waste of time. In fact 99.9% of all videos are a waste of time.
As for research, I did not check if anything new has been published under peer review on this subject since Hitler Homer.
I had hoped Sheffield would have brought up any such stuff had there been any. But now I suspect he probably didn’t check. Because he doesn’t seem ever to rely on any scholarship from the last 100 years, except to quote mine irrelevant remarks that have no bearing on this debate or even what he is citing them as claiming (e.g. the Birdsall paper on Photius never says any of the things Sheffield keeps claiming of it; a behavior that reminds me of flat earthers who keep insisting some paper or other proves some point they are relying on, when no such thing is ever said in the paper they keep citing).
I apologize if this is in bad form, but is Jonathan still participating in this discussion? I believe you’d both set an end date of Jan 21, but this is now the longest he’s gone without a reply.