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 eleventh and penultimate entry. For an index to all entries see my closing statement.
That the Long Was Original to Mark (VI)
Jonathan Sheffield
Birdsall is telling Sheffield we do not know the things Sheffield claims to know. — Richard Carrier (Fifth Reply)
As I bring my arguments to a close, I would like to draw Dr. Carrier’s attention to what is known, as it pertains to our examination of the LE, to determine originality.
First, we can document from Eusebius’s histories (here citing Williamson’s 1965 translation of Eusebius, History of the Church) the existence of Apostolic Churches in Africa (pp. 288, 404), Arabia (pp. 261, 314), Armenia (p. 286), Asia [Minor] (pp. 141, 145, 146, 166, 167-74, 186, 222, 225, 226, 229, 231), Bithynia (pp. 183, 332-34), Cappadocia (pp. 250, 266, 314), Cilicia (pp. 286, 314), Crete (pp. 181, 184), Egypt (pp. 89, 103, 124, 127, 154-60, 164, 181, 213, 229, 242, 266, 271, 298, 326), Galatia (pp. 260, 314), Gaul (pp. 193–205, 208, 406), Greece (pp. 110, 183), Italy (pp. 104, 107, 110, 124), Libya (p. 313), Palestine (pp. 229, 260, 267, 299), Phoenicia (p. 233), Phrygia (pp. 220, 231), Pontus (pp. 183, 299), Sicily (p. 405), Syria (pp. 128, 145, 181) and Thrace (p. 226). Furthermore, churches specific to those regions to include Corinth, Galatia, Philippi, Thessalonica, Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, and Smyrna, all originated in the first century (Ibid., pp. 205, 260, 89, 145, 104, 128). Thus, we know there were churches throughout the known world.
We can also document the polity of these churches, explaining how they were set up and organized (Tertullian, Prescription against Heretics 32). This is aided by the succession lists of bishops providing oversight of these churches going all the way back to an apostle as evinced in the writings of Irenaeus and Tertullian (Ibid. and Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.3).
Consequently, we know there was an organizational structure for these churches.
The letters of Paul, Ignatius of Antioch, and Polycarp of Smyrna establish early communication between the Apostolic Churches using a known system employed by Cicero in his letters to Atticus (see the Letters of Ignatius and the Letters of Polycarp). Therefore, we know how the churches communicated with each other.
We can even document a historical case study in the second century, where Marcion accused the Apostolic Churches of interpolating specific passages into the Gospel of Luke (Tertullian, Against Marcion 4.4), and how the Apostolic Churches authenticated its textual readings as the original wording of the text (Ibid. 4.5). So, we also know there was an historical criterion applied to scriptural readings to determine originality.
Both Tertullian and Irenaeus document that the authentic writings can be examined at the apostolic churches where they were publicly read to the congregations (Tertullian, Prescription against Heretics 36 and Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.3).
Since we know where these churches were located, how they were organized, who the bishops were that provided oversight, how the churches communicated with each other, what objective criterion was applied to readings to determine authenticity, and where the official scriptures were publicly read to the congregations, we have an objective framework to begin our investigation to determine the authenticity of the LE.
In the face of such an elaborately detailed and objective framework, it is puzzling why scholars like Birdsall, Metzger, Ehrman, and Dr. Carrier continue to ignore what the Apostolic Churches have said for a postmodern narrative created in the late 18th century (Burgon, Unholy Hands on the Bible, vol. 1, p. C-4; and see Pickering’s The Identity of the New Testament Text II, 3rd ed., 2003, p. 14). The only possible explanation leads us to believe that even though their theories have been falsified (J.N. Birdsall, “The Text of the Gospels in Photius,” Journal of Theological Studies 7 [1956], p. 43), it appears to indicate that the empirical data presented by the churches goes against their worldviews. All I have done is reiterate what the Apostolic Churches have documented in their writings, which cover the questions of who, what, when, where, and how; questions that have yet to be answered for their interpolation theories on the LE.
Dr. Carrier has asked, “Where is this ancient documentation on the state of any Apostolic Church’s text of Mark?” Allow me to clarify several points for Dr. Carrier.
- First, it was only noticed in the 4th century (circa 320) that there were copies of Mark that didn’t have the LE (Carrier, Hitler Homer, p. 236), which was duly recorded by a Church Historian, Eusebius, and passed on as a footnote. The Greek Texts of Vaticanus (circa 325) and Sinaiticus (circa 350) confirm this point (Ibid. 270); but these texts cannot establish a legal chain of custody to the official Greek Apostolic Churches. Therefore, these texts cannot be shown to witness to the received readings of the church.
- Erasmus references the Vaticanus manuscript in the Preface to his 1535 edition of the Textus Receptus, and he condemns it. 350 readings from it were made available to him, and he rejected them on the grounds that they did not follow the Scripture citations of the orthodox fathers like Chrysostom, Gregory Nazianzus, and Gregory of Nyssa (see Erasmus Rejection of Vaticanus). In other words, it did not represent the commonly received readings of the Greek Orthodox Churches, which is why, to understand the state of Mark as it applies to the LE; we need to examine the commonly received texts that have come down through the apostolic churches, instead of texts of unknown provenance.
- Remember, there is no extant manuscript that dates earlier than Vaticanus containing any portion of Mark Chapter 16 (Carrier, Hitler Homer, p. 270). So, when Dr. Carrier asserts it was a rare reading prior to the fourth, and almost nonexistent in the second, he is only speculating based on several manuscripts of unknown provenance from the 4th century, and his interpretation of Eusebius (in Hitler Homer, p. 307) as opposed to Burgon’s interpretation of the same (in Unholy Hands on the Bible, vol. 1, p. C-24).
While Dr. Carrier asserts he has proved the LE witnessed in the manuscripts of Irenaeus and the Diatessaron have been interpolated (see Dr. Carrier’s last reply & Hitler Homer, pp. 293, 295-300), Metzger looks at the same evidence and states, “The earliest patristic witnesses to part or all of the long ending are Irenaeus and the Diatessaron” (see Bruce Metzger’s Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, for his comments on Mark 16:9-20: p. 124).
In regard to the internal evidence, Burgon goes through the same evidence and comes to the opposite conclusion (Unholy Hands on the Bible, vol. 1, pg. C-75 to C-106), which further demonstrates its subjectivity or confirmation bias.
But when we appeal to the textual traditions which have come down from the apostles, and is guarded by the successions of bishops in the churches, the following testimony is revealed:
- Ephraem Syrus, a deacon at the Church of Edessa (c. 375) quotes the LE (Hitler Homer, p. 307), as well as an earlier Syriac father, Aphraates, in 337 (Ibid.). Yet, Dr. Carrier would have us believe the LE appeared in most of the Apostolic Churches’ texts in the 4th century Ex-Nihlo, which is just magical thinking. Is Dr. Carrier claiming supernatural intervention?
- Within the Church of Milan in the 4th century, Ambrose, a bishop in apostolic succession who had access to the official text using the Vetus Latin and not the Vulgate, quotes the LE many times without reservation (Ibid., p. 308).
- When we look to the North African Church of Hippo during the late 4th century, Augustine, a bishop in apostolic succession whose churches go back to at least the second century, quotes the passage (James Snapp, Authentic: The Case for Mark 16:9-20 [2016], pp. 12-13), confirmed Jerome’s translation of the Gospel, and found no problem with the LE or the PA [or Pericope Adulterae] (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).
- Jerome affirms in the preface to his Gospel revision that the Latin was revised in comparison with only old Greek manuscripts (see Jerome’s Prologue to the Gospels), and the object of his revision had been to restore the Latin to the form of the Greek original (Letter to Marcella 1). While Jerome was aware of Eusebius’s footnote (see Hitler Homer, p. 308), the LE passed the evaluation criteria to make it into his edition (Hitler Homer, p. 278), as well as the PA; two readings which are deficient in Dr. Carrier’s, so called, best and earliest manuscripts.
In summary, when we examine the official versions of the Apostolic Churches (i.e. Vulgate, Peshitta, Greek Text), the public readings of scripture found in the ancient lectionaries (Unholy Hands on the Bible, vol. 1, pg. C-75 to C-106), the quotations of fathers over a vast geographical area, and the overwhelming majority of extant manuscripts in different languages and churches (1800 Greek, 8000 Latin, 1000 Syriac: see Pickering’s The Identity of the New Testament Text II, 3rd ed., 2003, pp. 163-64), the overwhelming empirical evidence is that the LE is original.
I do want to thank Dr. Carrier for allowing myself as a member of the Anglican Communion to share my views on the LE and wish him all the best in his future endeavors.
-:-
My closing is here.
I have a few questions for Jonathan, if he is still responding.
1) According to Tertullian in Against Marcion, the criteria to determine authenticity is time (older is more authentic). In the oldest versions of Mark that we have (from any source), does the LE exist or is it lacking?
2) Do we have any text from an Apostolic Church that includes the LE prior to the 4th century?
3) Does Birdsall “ignore what the Apostolic Churches have said for a postmodern narrative created in the late 18th century” (9th paragraph, first sentence)? Or, has he shown those postmodern narratives “have been falsified” (9th paragraph, second sentence)?
4) You employ copious citations of Burgon. Why do you feel his interpretations (from over a century ago, lacking modern discoveries and tools) are such a trustworthy source?
Thank you for your questions Keith,
In regard to your first question “1) According to Tertullian in Against Marcion, the criteria to determine authenticity is time (older is more authentic). In the oldest versions of Mark that we have (from any source), does the LE exist or is it lacking?
First, I am delighted that you have taken the time to read through these sections of Tertullian. In order to answer your first question, I feel it is appropriate to review the entire quote.
Tertullian first states “On the whole, then, if that is evidently more true which is earlier, if that is earlier which is from the very beginning, if that is from the beginning which has the apostles for its authors, then it will certainly be quite as evident, that that comes down from the apostles, which has been kept as a sacred deposit in the churches of the apostles”
Therefore, when we review the criteria from Tertullian, he lays out several specific pieces of information:
For a text to be recognized as earlier, the copy has to trace back to the beginning, to an exemplar, that has Apostolic authorship.
Tertullian affirms these texts are found in the churches of the apostles, because they can establish a legal chain of custody back to the apostles (See Tertullian definition here Criteria to be deemed apostolic chap 32).
Tertullian, in the next line then begins the examination for the original reading, by appealing to the texts that have come down from the churches in Corinth:
“Let us see what milk the Corinthians drank from Paul”,
Then Tertullian appeals to the text found at the churches at Galatia
“To what rule of faith, the Galatians were brought for correction”
Also the texts found at the churches in Philippi, Thessalonica & Ephesus
“what the Philippians, the Thessalonians, the Ephesians read by it;”
And finally, Tertullian appeals to the texts at Rome
“what utterance also the Romans give, so very near (to the apostles), to whom Peter and Paul conjointly bequeathed the gospel even sealed with their own blood.”
So the reading has to be both Apostolic (trace back to the beginning) and Catholic (have universal attestation from other churches that can also trace back to the apostles – therefore, a commonly received reading.
Tertullian then applies this principal into practice, when he says “We have also St. John’s foster churches. For although Marcion rejects his Apocalypse, the order of the bishops (thereof), when traced up to their origin, will yet rest on John as their author.”
In other words, we can establish a legal chain of custody for the text of Revelation, back to John, that independently witnesses to John as the Author. Do you see how objective that criteria is?
I understand why Dr. Carrier has to reject the polity of the Apostolic churches as a fantasy (though he has no credible tome from the ancient world rejecting what Irenaeus, Tertullian and Eusebius evinced in their writings).
Its because, if the apostolic churches are correct, then to have a text sourced back to a witness who wrote about the events testified in the Gospels, would be very problematic for his theories.
So, Dr. Carrier is unable to engage what Tertullian and Irenaeus said.
So the oldest versions of Mark we can appeal too come through the churches, which meets the criteria both Tertullian and Irenaeus documented in their writings.
This is why I appeal to Ambrose, which is the earliest witness to the Vetus Latin, who was a bishop of the Church of Milan –
While Dr. Carrier dismisses his testimony “since he never specifies what document he knew the LE From” Really? What text would the bishop of Milan have, obviously the text he is reading to his congregation at the church of Milan.
The same can be said for Augustine in North Africa.
A Deacon in Edessa in (Circa 337) quotes the passage as well.
While Chrysostom at Antioch, that even the New Advent Scholars references quotes Mark 16:19 as well as Burgon, Dr. Carrier has to dismiss it as a quote from John.
While I can see why Dr. Carrier could assume that, in the text of John, he doesn’t specifically say Mary was seen of Jesus First, that is only recorded in Mark, and Chrysostom is comparing in his homily where Paul says Jesus was seen first by Peter, that is was referring to the testimony of men, but shows from the Gospel that its specially says Mary was seen by Jesus first – which statement is only recorded in Mark, not John.
Regarding your second question “2) Do we have any text from an Apostolic Church that includes the LE prior to the 4th century?
As I stated in my conclusion, there is no extant manuscript of Mark 16 prior to the 4th century.
Vaticanus is the earliest (circa 325) – but the provenance of that text is unknown – it cannot be shown to establish a legal chain of custody to any of the Greek Apostolic Churches, just as Maricons readings couldn’t in the second century. Erasmus made that point, that Vaticanus readings didn’t represent the readings from known bishops of the churches (overseers of the text).
The Latin Vulgate, the Peshitta, and the Greek Text that have come down through the churches all basically witnesses to those readings, but Dr. Carrier and this school of thought would have us reject the Ecclesiastical texts, for texts of unknown provenance.
I’ll address your following two questions, in another post, since this conversation became rather lengthy.
Thanks,
Jonathan A. Sheffield
Thanks for replying Jonathan. I’d like to point out that your reply to my first question didn’t actually answer it. That’s not an indictment, I can see you’ve gone to lengths to get your research out and it’s easy to lose track in the middle of your comment. And you did ultimately answer under the second question’s response. But I’m not looking to have the same debate you just had with Dr. Carrier, only clarify some positions.
How much of your position regarding biblical authenticity comes from Tertullian’s claim to objective standards (older, coming from an apostolic church, ultimately authored by an apostle)?
Why is Tertullian’s claim considered reliable enough to base the rest of your interpretations on it, rather than just a statement of faith (which a church leader of any religion might claim)? Given the historical consensus is that the gospels are NOT eyewitness accounts (and indeed contain details/narratives that couldn’t have been witnessed by the assigned author), shouldn’t that cast doubt on Tertullian?
In a previous entry to the debate, you mentioned that apostolic churches had a correspondence that allowed them to verify correct readings of scripture. However, wouldn’t that also give them an easy avenue to spread changes?
Tertullian presents no evidence anything he says is true. Simply because some churches claimed these things, is not evidence they were telling the truth or could even know what they were claiming was true. He is merely asserting a dogma: that the texts certain churches held in his day went back to “the Apostles.” He gives no evidence they ascertained that was actually true, or even had any skills or means capable of ascertaining that. And even if he had, it would be moot, as for all we can tell, the LE didn’t exist when Tertullian wrote. Tertullian never mentions it, even when he should have. No one of his era did. For all we know, the text of Mark Tertullian declared authentic in this fashion lacked the LE!
And John has Mary see Jesus first. That’s what it means to say Mary saw Jesus first. There is no evidence here Chrysostom meant anything other than what John said.
And Sheffield has still never stated what extant manuscript comes from an
“Apostolic church.”
Everything else is already refuted in my entries in this debate.
I agree, Dr. Carrier. And it’s why I was trying to tease out Jonathan’s position. It does seem that Jonathan is reading a lot more into these texts than is justified. But, I’m interested to know what justification he accepts here. Is it simply that he’s a Christian first and accepted his conclusion before he started reviewing the evidence (and that does seem to be where the debate has led)? Or, does he have some criteria that at least logically lead to his conclusion (that Tertullian’s words are reasonably trustworthy)?
Sheffield assiduously avoids ever answering that question. So I don’t know. Why should we believe the unverified dogmas of religious fanatics and polemicists? Beats me. Historians usually don’t. And shouldn’t.
It’s just all the worse that even if the dogma were true, it’s irrelevant. Tertullian still doesn’t say the LE was in these allegedly verified texts of Mark, and does not appear to know the LE even exists. The evidence suggests it did not then exist for him to know of it; or that if it did, it was not then a part of Mark.
dear jonathan can u prhaps provide 5 legal chains including names of the transmitters of the gospels up to and including tertullian from mark?
Islamically all unknown chains or with breaks in them would be defectiv (malu:l) in hadeth/quran
mark must’v had numurus licenst (ijazah/authurised) studunts spred over a wide area which multiplies ie becums tawatur.
I understand any text wud’v been solely in the hands of the church not ordinry xtians and there was nevr an oral memrisation custum as that with the Quran.
Are there any interpolations in the the protestant bibl
text? if so, whot? how du u recunstruct the text without manuscripts – (which ar themselvs defectiv since any translation is hypothetical construct).
Thanx!