Is Mark 16:9-20 In the Original?

[RevSteve45]

Do you believe that Mark 16:9-20 are in the original? I find its absence in 2 manuscripts singularly unconvincing on this point. Here is what my commentary says on the subject:

"Some Bible scholars doubt the authenticity of 16:9-20, insisting that Mark did not write this portion. These verses are not found in two early manuscripts, the Vatican Codex and the Sinaitic Codex. However, they are found in the overwhelming majority of early manuscripts. Those who reject verses 9-20 have attempted to support their opinion by a process called hapax legomena, the citing of some terms found here and not elsewhere in the Gospel. It is one of the least scientific or scholarly methods used to criticize authorship. The futility of such a process may be seen easily by applying it to an equal part of the writings of most any erudite scholar. Some of the same ones who reject these verses also say that Paul did not write Ephesians because they have found 36 words in that epistle, not found elsewhere in Paul's writings.

The authenticity of these verses (16:9-20) should not be doubted: (1) They are found in nearly all Greek manuscripts and have been accepted in the Church from the Second Century A.D. (2) Nothing in these verses contradicts anything in the rest of Scripture." (Reddin, Opal L.S., D.Min., The Complete Biblical Library, Vol. 3: Study Bible, Mark, pg. 453, World Library Press, Springfield, MO., 1986)

[Socrates]

No, for the reasons I already stated in this post www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=91694#post91694 And Jaltus said that I understated the case!

[spl_cadet]

I say yes because of the Council of Trent's ruling on the case :teeth:

[RevSteve45]

Socrates,

Thank you for letting me know that you can answer NONE of the points raised in my commentary.

In His Service,
Steve

[Jaltus]

Do you believe that Mark 16:9-20 are in the original? I find its absence in 2 manuscripts singularly unconvincing on this point. Here is what my commentary says on the subject:

"Some Bible scholars doubt the authenticity of 16:9-20, insisting that Mark did not write this portion. These verses are not found in two early manuscripts, the Vatican Codex and the Sinaitic Codex. However, they are found in the overwhelming majority of early manuscripts. Those who reject verses 9-20 have attempted to support their opinion by a process called hapax legomena, the citing of some terms found here and not elsewhere in the Gospel. It is one of the least scientific or scholarly methods used to criticize authorship. The futility of such a process may be seen easily by applying it to an equal part of the writings of most any erudite scholar. Some of the same ones who reject these verses also say that Paul did not write Ephesians because they have found 36 words in that epistle, not found elsewhere in Paul's writings.

This is a very poorly written and researched commentary. The guilt by association (saying some don't think Paul wrote Ephesians) is a childish trick to try to influence the case through emotion.

The manuscript evidence listed is flat out falacious.

There are NO second century manuscripts that have the longer ending, not a single one. The church fathers who wrote in Greek nearly unanimously DO NOT quote it including many manuscripts of Jerome, except for those writing after Nicea. It is missing from the earliest translations (Armenian, Syriac, Sahedic).

Add to this the total differences between those that actually have the passage, and you can begin to see the problems. Also, the final section does not add to any of the themes Mark is portraying throughout his gospel, so the question would be why is it there at all?

The authenticity of these verses (16:9-20) should not be doubted: (1) They are found in nearly all Greek manuscripts and have been accepted in the Church from the Second Century A.D. (2) Nothing in these verses contradicts anything in the rest of Scripture." (Reddin, Opal L.S., D.Min., The Complete Biblical Library, Vol. 3: Study Bible, Mark, pg. 453, World Library Press, Springfield, MO., 1986)

It may not contradict, but it does add things listed nowhere else in all of scripture, something which I find a bit dubious.

And by the way, never take the word of a D. Min. on text criticism...try to find someone with a PhD since a D.Min just means they are a pastor and have an advanced degree in pastoring, they need not know anything about true scholarship.

[praxeus]

Jaltus
There are NO second century manuscripts that have the longer ending, not a single one.
============================
Praxeus
Well I haven't figured out how to do a highlight reply, and maybe on Sunday I will add more.. My view is that Dean John Burgon put this "issue" to rest a long time ago...

Meanwhile, a question..

What are the second century manuscripts we are talking about here ? Sounds like a real find ! 200 years newer than anything else we have !

(btw, if the reference is Patristics, it ain't much better, since the real heavy duty quoting of the Gospels comes in the third.)

You can always tell when a position is weak when artificial constructs are used to hide real evidence. "Early Greek sources" is often used for that, if one wants to bypass tons of Latin evidence :-) Be careful if you hear that phrase from Bruce Metzger, or Daniel Wallace, or James White. Hold your spiritual wallet. Caveat emptor.

Shabbat Shalom,
Praxeus
========================
========================

[Pereynol of Sheer Dread]

covah yowah eayas, dahlin....:xmm:

[Jaltus]

No, we actually have a few second century manuscripts (about 3, IIRC, starting off with P 56 from about 100 AD) and we have 4-6 third century (how about good old Aleph and B?).

The reason Greek manuscripts get priority over Latin et al is because those are TRANSLATIONS, not the original language and thus are subject to interpretation and not just straight translation. Thus, Greek is always more important when reconstrucxting the NT.

Besides, the numbers mean relatively little, 1000 copies of an error just makes 1000 bad copies. Manuscripts should be weighed, not counted.

[John Reece]

Today @ 02:24 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=99126#post99126)
Jaltus:

Manuscripts should be weighed, not counted.

:thumb:

[RevSteve45]

Actually, the commentary did NOT say that there were 2nd Century manuscripts that had the text. What they said was, "they have been accepted in the Church from the Second Century A.D." There is a difference between the two statements.

Nor is comparing the arguments of Bible scholars against this passage to the arguments against Pauline authorship of Ephesians an "appeal to emotion." The FACT, is that the exact SAME methods are used to make both arguments. They claim that, in both books, the inclusion of certain words not found elsewhere in the same books, means the words do not belong there. As they said, this is one of the LEAST scientific or scholarly methods used to criticize authorship.

While a few manuscripts omit the passage, many with great authenticity include it. There are over 4200 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament and only TWO do not contain these verses.

The Vatican manuscript, which is the one most often cited as leaving out this passage of scripture has a blank space between Mark 16:8 and the book of Luke as if the copier were not sure whether to include it or not.

The vulgate version prepared by Jerome in an early century includes the disputed verses. Many of the early church fathers in their writings quote from the passage, thus further indicating it's genuineness.

If we are going to use the TWO original manuscripts as proof that these signs are not for us today, then we must remember that other very important (and accepted) portions of scripture are also left out of the original manuscripts. Examples: First 46 chapters of Genesis, Psalm 105-137, Hebrews 9:14-13:25.

This is one reason why I use the KJV & NKJV, because they do not use the excuse of weak arguments, to leave out many verses in the New Testament.

In His Service,
Steve

[Jaltus]

Actually, the commentary did NOT say that there were 2nd Century manuscripts that had the text. What they said was, "they have been accepted in the Church from the Second Century A.D." There is a difference between the two statements.

What is that difference? If there are no second century manuscripts, how can there be second century agreement? Totally bogus, especially since the ECFs do not include this passage in their manuscripts.

Nor is comparing the arguments of Bible scholars against this passage to the arguments against Pauline authorship of Ephesians an "appeal to emotion." The FACT, is that the exact SAME methods are used to make both arguments. They claim that, in both books, the inclusion of certain words not found elsewhere in the same books, means the words do not belong there. As they said, this is one of the LEAST scientific or scholarly methods used to criticize authorship.

Blatant oversimplification here. The point is more than words, it is idioms, verb usages, and syntax for Mark. The same cannot be said of Paul, which is why it is bogus, as only vocab is argued.

Add to this that the passage is incredibly inconsistent (very few major manuscripts have the same longer ending, as there are at least 5 endings, not to mention minor variations) and you begin to see the case against it.

While a few manuscripts omit the passage, many with great authenticity include it. There are over 4200 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament and only TWO do not contain these verses.

Yes, there are over 4200 Greek manuscripts, but less than 1000 contain Mark (closer to 500 or less), and many more than two do not contain the longer ending. Two majuscules do not contain it, but there are other manuscripts which do not. For example, 304 does not contain it (miniscule).

The Vatican manuscript, which is the one most often cited as leaving out this passage of scripture has a blank space between Mark 16:8 and the book of Luke as if the copier were not sure whether to include it or not.

It also has blank paragraphs at the end of all the gospels as well as other books, so this is not a real argument.

The vulgate version prepared by Jerome in an early century includes the disputed verses. Many of the early church fathers in their writings quote from the passage, thus further indicating it's genuineness.

And many church father's do not include it, including the Greek father's. Jerome himself has it in some manuscripts and not in others, and thus he is not an argument for inclusion. In fact, since it is both there and not there, that is an argument against inclusion since it makes it more dubious. Add to this that the more difficult readings is to be prefered, and you see the strength of the case against growing by the minute.

If we are going to use the TWO original manuscripts as proof that these signs are not for us today, then we must remember that other very important (and accepted) portions of scripture are also left out of the original manuscripts. Examples: First 46 chapters of Genesis, Psalm 105-137, Hebrews 9:14-13:25.

The theology you draw from it is irreleveant, especially since I think the signs are for today simply because cessationism is an argument from silence and not from scripture. Your theological axe to grind is truly beside the point.

This is one reason why I use the KJV & NKJV, because they do not use the excuse of weak arguments, to leave out many verses in the New Testament.

In His Service,
Steve

I don't use the KJV because it is outdated both linguistically and academically. I do use it for OT as I think it is a good translation of that, but the NT is horribly inaccurate since they did not have the manuscript evidence we have today. I John 5:6-8 anyone?

[praxeus]

Shalom.. greetings..

Well, RevSteve45 has the basic facts well in hand, there is an underlying rebellion in folks who simply want to snip, reject, rewrite, redact, change, choose .. the Word of God.

And I wil add that it might be good for some folks to know the SCQ the "Scribal Corruption Quotient" of Sinaticus and Vaticanus.. ie.. if folks really care about the preservation of the Word of God.. Or perhaps they are more interested in quoting their fav "scholars".

These answers below surprised me though, so I will go over them carefully.

Jaltus
No, we actually have a few second century manuscripts (about 3, IIRC, starting off with P 56 from about 100 AD)

Schmuel
Let's call them fragments, and lets admit that they are a red herring here, since they have nothing of Mark in them

Jaltus
and we have 4-6 third century

Schmuel
Still in Fragment City. Maybe you want to go shopping there and pick up some Remnants ? Nothing of Mark, afaik, do you ?

Jaltus
(how about good old Aleph and B?).

Schmuel
The two textcrit darlings, scribally ultra-corrupt, late fourth century, gave us the Apocrapha and the socalled LXX as well, disagree with each other and everything else. Do yourself a favor, and read a bit of Dean John Burgon, the physical and textual desciption, especially of Sinaticus, and its 10+ hand doing 'correcting'. (Vaticanus has that hilarious "you fool and knave" note, to complement Sinaticus).

Jaltus
The reason Greek manuscripts get priority over Latin et al is because those are TRANSLATIONS, not the original language and thus are subject to interpretation and not just straight translation. Thus, Greek is always more important when reconstrucxting the NT.

Schmuel
Way oversimplified, and when you get to Early Church Writers, who wrote their commentaries, some in Greek, some in Latin, it is completely out of the field. Anyway for the end of Mark the evidence is overwhelming in the Greek, so I will not spend extra time on this.

Jaltus
Besides, the numbers mean relatively little, 1000 copies of an error just makes 1000 bad copies.

Schmuel
This is true if you have a late stemmata (e.g. Jerome to the Latin Vulgate), however the Byzantine Text is a wide variety of locales, times and cultures, no stemmata, and that is why the now-discredited Lucian Recension theory was thrown around for years, to justify using this type of logic on the Byzantine Text. Since that theory is kaput, one should realize that the huge numbers, diversity of locales, and consistency of text of the Byzantine manuscripts means a huge amount. Jaltus, you have been fed a liberal textcrit line.. come out from among them, my brother.

Jaltus
Manuscripts should be weighed, not counted.

Schmuel
Yes, and the weight of Aleph and B should be less than a feather... ie. if you believe that God is faithful to His promises to preserve His Word, and if you believe His scribes would succeed in avoiding misteaks.

Shalom,
Schmuel

[Socrates]

praxeus:Well, RevSteve45 has the basic facts well in hand, there is an underlying rebellion in folks who simply want to snip, reject, rewrite, redact, change, choose .. the Word of God. Not fair! Note that there is a tremendous amount of question-begging here, which is sadly par for the course with much KJVO literature. I.e. they argue extensively about the preservation of God's Word, then ASSUME that the way God chose to preserve His Word was with the KJV or the so-called Textus Receptus. From this begged question, they then rail against anyone who argues that God might have chosen to preserve His Word via the older manuscripts which also show less evidence of editorial expansion of piety and harmonization.

Jaltus:

Manuscripts should be weighed, not counted.

And like John Reece, I say :thumb: But Praxeus saith:Yes, and the weight of Aleph and B should be less than a feather... ie. if you believe that God is faithful to His promises to preserve His Word, and if you believe His scribes would succeed in avoiding misteaks. Here we go again with the begged question. Of course, the TR advocates can't satisfactorily explain why their text type did not become the majority, as far as we can tell from actual EVIDENCE of manuscripts, till about the 9th century.

Also, KJVOs can't adequately explain why no actual Greek manuscript agrees with the TR. Nor do they explain why they, in effect, confer infallibility on the anti-Reformation Catholic Erasmus who produced the TR by the dreaded textual criticism of available manuscripts.

So it is highly improper to accuse dissenters from KJVO from being "rebels against God" for not agreeing. Just to show that the argument can easily rebound, please also check out my post "Corruptions" in the TR/KJV :brow: (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=19899#post19899)

[Jaltus]

Welcome to the wonderful world of TWeb, Schmuel.

The drinks are in the fridge and the nuts are everywhere (including me, hehe).

Well, RevSteve45 has the basic facts well in hand, there is an underlying rebellion in folks who simply want to snip, reject, rewrite, redact, change, choose .. the Word of God.

As far as I can tell, the MT is the one that smoothed and changed the word of God (again, I John 5:6-8 anyone?) including adding notes from the margin into the text.

And I wil add that it might be good for some folks to know the SCQ the "Scribal Corruption Quotient" of Sinaticus and Vaticanus.. ie.. if folks really care about the preservation of the Word of God.. Or perhaps they are more interested in quoting their fav "scholars".

The additional hands of the various manuscripts are quite obvious. I find it humorous however that you react against them when it is generally the later hands which change the text to the Byzantine readings.

Schmuel
Let's call them fragments, and lets admit that they are a red herring here, since they have nothing of Mark in them

Irrelevant (and shows a lack of close reading) since it was Rev who brought them up to support his case. My point is that there were not 2nd C manuscripts which support the MT reading, a point which you quickly back up for me. And you are correct that it was a red herring by my opponent.

Schmuel
Still in Fragment City. Maybe you want to go shopping there and pick up some Remnants ? Nothing of Mark, afaik, do you ?

P 45 has a large chunck of Mark from the third C.

Schmuel
The two textcrit darlings, scribally ultra-corrupt, late fourth century, gave us the Apocrapha and the socalled LXX as well, disagree with each other and everything else. Do yourself a favor, and read a bit of Dean John Burgon, the physical and textual desciption, especially of Sinaticus, and its 10+ hand doing 'correcting'. (Vaticanus has that hilarious "you fool and knave" note, to complement Sinaticus).

Actually, I have read Dean Burgon and also seen parts of Sinaticus and Vaticanus, as I have done some work in text criticism.

As for ultra corrupt, not even Dean says that. He says there are issues with the later hands and that some of the copying shows hurriedness. As for manuscripts disagreeing with each other, the MT does as well.

Schmuel
Way oversimplified, and when you get to Early Church Writers, who wrote their commentaries, some in Greek, some in Latin, it is completely out of the field. Anyway for the end of Mark the evidence is overwhelming in the Greek, so I will not spend extra time on this.

Overwhelming? Not particularly.

Schmuel
This is true if you have a late stemmata (e.g. Jerome to the Latin Vulgate), however the Byzantine Text is a wide variety of locales, times and cultures, no stemmata, and that is why the now-discredited Lucian Recension theory was thrown around for years, to justify using this type of logic on the Byzantine Text. Since that theory is kaput, one should realize that the huge numbers, diversity of locales, and consistency of text of the Byzantine manuscripts means a huge amount. Jaltus, you have been fed a liberal textcrit line.. come out from among them, my brother.

You are kidding, right? Wide times? Try ninth Century on. As for being "fed a iberal textcrit line," you are the one showing indoctrination, I have actually done the work myself on some of this.

I truly hope you are not a KJVO quoting Burgon, for that would be overly ironic. You see, Burgon disagreed with the TR and argued against it. He believed that the MT should be coallated and then rescended for a true Greek text.

[EdJones]

"The" original?

I think that if our God is big enough to speak things into exsistance, He can make sure His word is kept the way He wants it.




-----------------------
I Peter 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

[Solly]

/ot So Jaltus, just what are your credentials to be disussing this matter?

[Socrates]

Ed Jones:[post#15 ] "The" original?

I think that if our God is big enough to speak things into exsistance, He can make sure His word is kept the way He wants it.Of course he CAN. But this doesn't mean that He DID so in the way the KJVOs think He did!

[praxeus]

Hi Jaltus et al,

Jaltus
to the wonderful world of TWeb, Schmuel. The drinks are in the fridge and the nuts are everywhere (including me, hehe).

Praxeus
Thanks.. btw, for those who don't know, I use Praxeus
and Schmuel on the web, trying to use Praxeus here, but sometimes I slip :-)

Praxeus
>Well, RevSteve45 has the basic facts well in hand, >there is an underlying rebellion in folks who simply >want to snip, reject, rewrite, redact, change, choose .. >the Word of God. ”

Jaltus
As far as I can tell, the MT is the one that smoothed and changed the word of God (again, I John 5:6-8 anyone?) including adding notes from the margin into the text.“

Praxeus
I guess you mean MT=Majority Text when you are referring to the TR .. these designations can get confusing :-). I love discussing the Johannine Comma because there is so much misunderstanding
and false information (some of which Bruce Metzgar even retracted !), and it was one of my last resistances to accepting the King James Bible as the Scriptures. Especially I have been researching Cyprian, Priscillian, the Vulgate Prologue to the Canonical Epistles attributed to Jerome, and a number of other issues. The web info is copious, although one must do a little private research to fully handle-ize and collate it.

While the alexandrian texts differ in major ways, even from including/omitting/massive changes in hundreds of verses, the "counter-weight" of the DOMV is that there are a couple of very special textual issues about a handful of verses, such as 1 John 5:7 and Acts 8:36. Can we say "deliberately confusing the issues"? :-)

Praxeus
>And I wil add that it might be good for some folks to >know the SCQ the "Scribal Corruption Quotient" of >Sinaticus and Vaticanus.. ie.. if folks really care about >the preservation of the Word of God.. Or perhaps they >are more interested in quoting their fav "scholars".

Jaltus
The additional hands of the various manuscripts are quite obvious. I find it humorous however that you react against them when it is generally the later hands which change the text to the Byzantine readings.

Praxues
Actually the issue goes much deeper than that. I once spoke to James White about it, and he was so happy that Sinaticus had a dozen hands correcting each others errors, because with spectrographic techniques, we might be able to find out the original corrupt reading, that was rejected by later (not necessarily Byzantine, despite your assertion) scribes. One of the great ironies of all this is that the actual eclectic or proof-text used by the textcrits like W-H (ie. #1-Vaticanus #2-Sinaticus) is developed in an apparatus that really doesn't give much of a hoot or a holla about thee supposed spectrographic rediscovery techniques.

Praxeus
>Let's call them fragments, and lets admit that they are >a red herring here, since they have nothing of Mark in >them.

Jaltus
Irrelevant (and shows a lack of close reading) since it was Rev who brought them up to support his case. My point is that there were not 2nd C manuscripts which support the MT reading, a point which you quickly back up for me. And you are correct that it was a red herring by my opponent. “

Praxeus
Sorry, Jaltus. All that Steve said was
"(1) They are found in nearly all Greek manuscripts and have been accepted in the Church from the Second Century A.D. "
This is clearly a reference to ECW, not to 2nd century Greek manucripts. Please be more careful, especially in using your own errors to accuse me of 'a lack of close reading'.

Praxeus
>Still in Fragment City. Maybe you want to go shopping >there and pick up some Remnants ? Nothing of Mark, >afaik, do you ?

Jaltus
P 45 has a large chunk of Mark from the third C.

Praxeus
True, thanks, "large chunk" is an overstatement, and not 2nd century, and no ending.
Interestingly Jim Snapp, not a KJBO at all, at
http://www.waynecoc.org/MarkOne.html
http://www.waynecoc.org/MarkTwo.html
http://www.waynecoc.org/MarkThree.html
has the most complete web-available review of the evidences. Nicely done. He does mention P45 in #2.

Praxeus
>The two textcrit darlings, scribally ultra-corrupt, late >fourth century, gave us the Apocrapha and the socalled >LXX as well, disagree with each other and everything >else. Do yourself a favor, and read a bit of Dean John >Burgon, the physical and textual desciption, especially >of Sinaticus, and its 10+ hand doing 'correcting'. >(Vaticanus has that hilarious "you fool and knave" note, to complement Sinaticus).

Jaltus
Actually, I have read Dean Burgon and also seen parts of Sinaticus and Vaticanus, as I have done some work in text criticism. As for ultra corrupt, not even Dean says that. He says there are issues with the later hands and that some of the copying shows hurriedness.

Praxeus
Nope..Dean John Burgon goes far, far beyond that.
One example
http://users.vnet.net/theshuecrew/mark16.html
http://www.purewords.org/kjb1611/html/corrupt.htm
"We venture to assure him, without a particle of hesitation, that B, D , and Aleph (Sinaiticus), are three of the most scandalously corrupt copies extant: -- exhibit the most shamefully mutilated texts which are anywhere to be met with - Revision Revised"

Jaltus
As for manuscripts disagreeing with each other, the MT does as well.

Praxeus
Technically, every extant ancient Scriptural manuscript (outside of some Hebrew Pentateuchs) disagrees with every other manuscript in the world to some extent. The question here is one of the huge differences, as Hoskier demonstrated, even between Sinaticus and Vaticanus. Completely different than the situation with the mainstream of Byzantine manuscripts.

Schmuel
>Way oversimplified, and when you get to Early Church >Writers, who wrote their commentaries, some in Greek, >some in Latin, it is completely out of the field. Anyway >for the end of Mark the evidence is overwhelming in the >Greek, so I will not spend extra time on this.

Jaltus
Overwhelming? Not particularly.

Schmuel
Of undamaged copies of the Gospel of Mark, per Jim Snapp, the evidence is over 1000 to 2 or 3. Including many that are placed in the Alexandrian family. What word would you prefer other than overwhelming ?

Schmuel
>This is true if you have a late stemmata (e.g. Jerome to >the Latin Vulgate), however the Byzantine Text is a >wide variety of locales, times and cultures, no >stemmata, and that is why the now-discredited Lucian >Recension theory was thrown around for years, to >justify using this type of logic on the Byzantine Text. >Since that theory is kaput, one should realize that the >huge numbers, diversity of locales, and consistency of >text of the Byzantine manuscripts means a huge >amount. Jaltus, you have been fed a liberal textcrit >line.. come out from among them, my brother.

Jaltus
You are kidding, right? Wide times? Try ninth Century on.

Schmuel
:-).. you are confusing "extant manuscripts" with the full historical evidence, and getting your facts all wrong even there, since A is the earliest extant Byzantine Gospels, and it is 5th century. while also uncials Q (5th), and 6th cent D2, E2, N, O, P, R, sigma, and 064 are Byzantine. (Q and R are largely Byzantine, the others more fully)
David Alan Black, New Testament Textual Criticism,, p.35-36 says "...the Byzantine text is older than the age of the earliest Byzantine manuscript (fifth century). For example, Byzantine readings once thought to be late have been found in early Egyptian papyri. Therefore adherents of this view consider the Byzantine text type to be an early and independent witness to the text of the New Testament.

You might also take a note of this quote the next time you try to place the Byzantine Text as beginning in the 9th century.

"The fundamental Text of late extant Greek MSS generally is beyond all question identical with the dominant Antiochian or Graeco-Syrian Text of the second half of the 4th century." (Hort, The Factor of Geneology, pg 92---as cited by Burgon, Revision Revised, pg 257).

The modern case, from a textual criticism viewpoint,
for Byzantine Priority, is made by Maruice Robinson, in
http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn/RobPier.html
THE NEW TESTAMENT IN THE ORIGINAL GREEK ACCORDING TO THE BYZANTINE / MAJORITY TEXTFORM
In Robinson's view, you could throw out all the extant evidence after about the 11th century, and you would still have to acknowledge Byzantine priority.

Jaltus
As for being "fed a liberal textcrit line," you are the one showing indoctrination, I have actually done the work myself on some of this.

Schmuel
We all try to do some work, however I firmly believe that many of us look at the texts with a desire to come to the conclusion that God simply did not preserve His Word.

That way, when a Scripture is discomfiting, we can always appeal to "dueling scholars"

(some of which we may see right in the mirror !... as Pogo said.. 'we have met the enemy and he is us')

Jaltus
I truly hope you are not a KJVO quoting Burgon, for that would be overly ironic. You see, Burgon disagreed with the TR and argued against it. He believed that the MT should be coallated and then rescended for a true Greek text.

Schmuel
Oh, most definitely I believe the King James Bible are the Scriptures, and I am very happy to quote Dean John Burgon, and consider him one of the true textual giants. On the NIV thread, I even discuss this a bit.

Thanks for your thoughts.

Shalom,
Praxeus

[Jaltus]

First, let me clear a few things up:

I am working on my PhD in NT studies and have done doctoral research in text criticism. I already have an M Div and an undergrad degree in Greek (classical, though, as well as Koine).

When I talk about the MT and TR, I am being very specific. The MT is NOT the TR nor is the TR the MT. The MT is a wide textual tradition starting between the 7th C and 9th C. Your quote from Wescott shows a lack of research, as he was actually discussing what is now termed "proto-Byzantine" which is a movement from the Western to the Byzantine, a shift that can be seen beginning as early as 400-450 or so, hence your reference to A which is more Western than Byzantine, as seen by the lengthened portions of Luke. This movement is most clearly seen in Cyril of Jerusalem, who tends to have both MT and Western readings in his writings, often of the same verses, though generally only in his use of the gospels (other parts of the canon tend to be a blend of Alexandrian and Western).

As for considering Burgon one of the few textual giants, he would have to be the ONLY textual giant, since he is the only person pre 1970 who backed the MT (NOT the TR, which he thought was awful). As for White, he is inconsistent in the application of the principles he holds to (how else can he explain holding onto the Comma when it has only 8 manuscripts backing it and 4 of those have it as an aside?), which makes him a dubious authority at best.

At least you know a little bit, but sadly you still miss the point of text criticism and what translation really means.

Why is there only one translation which is "inspired" per language?

I'll get back to this thread when I have more time. As for using weblinks for research, interesting idea, but I prefer to read the info firsthand since there is so much false info on the web.

[praxeus]

Jaltus
When I talk about the MT and TR, I am being very specific. The MT is NOT the TR nor is the TR the MT. The MT is a wide textual tradition starting between the 7th C and 9th C.

Schmuel
And with the Hodges-Farsted text, the term "Majority Text" often has yet another meaning, the text they put together. And your definition above does not square well with the context of your quote, tell us, are you asserting that the MT smoothed the Johanine Comma into the text ?

Jaltus
Your quote from Wescott shows a lack of research, as he was actually discussing what is now termed "proto-Byzantine" which is a movement from the Western to the Byzantine, a shift that can be seen beginning as early as 400-450 or so,

Schmuel
You are welcome to offer us a more complete quote. After your 9th century faux pas, similarly with Burgon/Sinaticus, I am going to be reluctant to take any assertions at face.

And you may explain here how the fundamental text of late extant Greek MSS is radically different (in your view) from the Byzantine Text. It definitely looks simply like semantic games on your part.

"The fundamental Text of late extant Greek MSS generally is beyond all question identical with the dominant Antiochian or Graeco-Syrian Text of the second half of the 4th century." (Hort, The Factor of Geneology, pg 92---as cited by Burgon, Revision Revised, pg 257).

Jaltus
hence your reference to A which is more Western than Byzantine, as seen by the lengthened portions of Luke.

Praxeus
You should take that one up with Rober Waltz, very much in the Textcrit camp, who places A as a Gospel Byzantine witness, and accepted by Ron Minton, one who is very anti-KJB.

You seem to like to make personal accusations on scanty evidence, your own testimony, and yet be not a whit concerned about your own errors, they just get <snipped>.

Jaltus
<snip Cyrus>
<snip Burgon non-sequitur.>

As for White, he is inconsistent in the application of the principles he holds to (how else can he explain holding onto the Comma when it has only 8 manuscripts backing it and 4 of those have it as an aside?), which makes him a dubious authority at best.

Praxeus
White does not hold on to the Comma, he is an opponent of it, often using similar deceptive argumentation as Daniel Wallace. He even has his version of the recanted Erasmus story. If White has changed, HalleluYah ! .. give us the source.

Jaltus
At least you know a little bit, but sadly you still miss the point of text criticism and what translation really means.

Praxeus
Translation: oops, I put my foot in my mouth, I thought I could get away with a bunch of loose balderdash.

And Jaltus, I am quite aware of what text criticism means, and some of he absurd paradigms ruling the roost in its modern incarnations, embraced by rebels without a cause (other than fighting the historic Scriptures).

Jaltus
Why is there only one translation which is "inspired" per language?

Praxeus
Whole new topic. Not relating to anything I have said.
However, I will ask you a question, do you believe that God would give two contradictory Scriptures ? What is the Word of God that you embrace ? What Bible do you defend ? If any ?

Jaltus
I'll get back to this thread when I have more time. As for using weblinks for research, interesting idea, but I prefer to read the info firsthand since there is so much false info on the web.

Praxeus
Wisdom is justified in her children.

And I also contact men like Jim Snapp and Maurice Robinson and William Peterson directly on these questions, to go over the details and issues.

Seems like your level of research could actually be a little deeper.

Shalom,
Praxeus

[Jaltus]

Sorry about the last post. My comp crashed part way through. I'll try to edit it later when I have time.

[Jaltus]

Since you already responded, let me post the edited version separately. This should clear up at least two things:

First, let me clear a few things up:

I am working on my PhD in NT studies and have done doctoral research in text criticism. I already have an M Div and an undergrad degree in Greek (classical, though, as well as Koine).

When I talk about the MT and TR, I am being very specific. The MT is NOT the TR nor is the TR the MT. The MT is a wide textual tradition starting between the 7th C and 9th C. Your quote from Wescott shows a lack of research, as he was actually discussing what is now termed "proto-Byzantine" which is a movement from the Western to the Byzantine, a shift that can be seen beginning as early as 400-450 or so, hence your reference to A which is more Western than Byzantine, as seen by the lengthened portions of Luke. This movement is most clearly seen in Cyril of Jerusalem, who tends to have both MT and Western readings in his writings, often of the same verses, though generally only in his use of the gospels (other parts of the canon tend to be a blend of Alexandrian and Western). In other words, come into the 21st century, or at least the 20th. Nobody holds to W-H theory without any changes, and most move well past it.

As for considering Burgon one of the few textual giants, he would have to be the ONLY textual giant, since he is the only person pre 1970 who backed the MT (NOT the TR, which he thought was awful). As for White, he is inconsistent in the application of the principles he holds to (how else can he explain holding onto the Comma when it has only 8 manuscripts backing it and 4 of those have it as an aside?), which makes him a dubious authority at best. (this is inaccurate...I confused White for a different scholar, namely Wisselink)

At least you know a little bit, but sadly you still miss the point of text criticism and what translation really means.

Why is there only one translation which is "inspired" per language? You see, this is the heart of the argument for KJVO's, and it is why they (you?) reject the LXX which is quoted within the NT.

I'll get back to this thread when I have more time. As for using weblinks for research, interesting idea, but I prefer to read the info firsthand since there is so much false info on the web.

I'll admit that you have me really checking the facts on this one, and I am not totally convinced you are wrong and I am right (about Mark, that is). However, once we have finished this discussion, I'd like to move on to consider I John 5:6-8 and the TR as a whole, which is the basis for your KJV.

I'd also like to talk theory.

Thank you for being learned and well read. Most of these discussions are tedious and useless and end in invective and slander. I appreciate your knowledge even if I disagree with your conclusions.

Now, my reply to some of what you have said:

You are welcome to offer us a more complete quote. After your 9th century faux pas, similarly with Burgon/Sinaticus, I am going to be reluctant to take any assertions at face.

And you may explain here how the fundamental text of late extant Greek MSS is radically different (in your view) from the Byzantine Text. It definitely looks simply like semantic games on your part.

"The fundamental Text of late extant Greek MSS generally is beyond all question identical with the dominant Antiochian or Graeco-Syrian Text of the second half of the 4th century." (Hort, The Factor of Geneology, pg 92---as cited by Burgon, Revision Revised, pg 257).


Again, come into the 20th century at least. Hort was wrong! Many of his theories were wrong! Try reading some recent literature, such as Daniel Wallace's essay "the Majority Text Theory: History, Methods, and Critique," found in The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research edited by Erhman and Holmes. You will find that the dating of Ninth-Seventh Century is in fact quite accurate and your Fourth Century accounting is quite inaccurate.

You should take that one up with Rober Waltz, very much in the Textcrit camp, who places A as a Gospel Byzantine witness, and accepted by Ron Minton, one who is very anti-KJB.


Never heard of either of them. However, the Alands agree with me as does Wallace, Metzger, Pickering, et al. Originally the texts were thought to be Cesarean (which I cannot spell) but that theory has been disproven (see Roderic Mullen's summary in The New Testament Text of Cyril of Jerusalem).

However, I will ask you a question, do you believe that God would give two contradictory Scriptures ? What is the Word of God that you embrace ? What Bible do you defend ? If any ?


Avoid my question and answer with another? Okay. I do not believe God would give me contradictory scriptures, but I do believe He would make me work to harmonize, otherwise why not explain more explicitly the link between OT and NT? The Word of God I embrace is Christ. I defend the autographs, of which we know probably about 99% accurately.

I am skipping your insults and deragotary terms, and I believe I started such rancor. I am hoping to avoid any further animosity and just discuss like Christians. However, this does not mean I will not point out your short comings, much as I hope you will point out mine.

The major problem I see with your methodology is the classic KJVO method: you argue against Wescott and Hort and ignore the last 100 years of scholarship since them. You argue against theories nobody holds to any longer. You need to read some modern theory (or at least cite it, such as White).

As for going from the MT to the TR, it is possible I could someday embrace the MT, but never the TR. The TR fallacy is obvious and quite horrific in terms of taking poor copies of the MT and claiming them as representative of the MT. That would be like taking 4 high school drop outs and claiming they stand for all of America...an absurd notion. TR advocates will need much better argumentation than that.

[praxeus]

[05-20-2003 @ 05:26 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=102291#post102291)
Jaltus:

Hi Jaltus and readers,
Since the Jim Snapp web pages are so helpful, and Jaltus at least is considering that maybe the Last Verses of Mark are not the weak point in the King James Bible, I am going to do most of this post as a quick summary.

1) Jaltus, good wishes on your PhD, just please be aware that sometimes such training makes it harder to actually think "outside of the box".. sometimes it makes it harder even to think with common sense :-)

2) Nobody holds to the W/H theories ?
Yes and no.. sometimes the theories are adjusted some, (similar to evolution coming up with "plate tectonics" aka continental drift, to try to explain those pesky marine fossils on the top of the mountains) eg. a "proof-text" textual criticism can be renamed with an "eclectic" flavor. Problem is the changes are cosmetic, and the underlying paradigms are as weak as ever, and when false props are taken out (eg. the discredited Lucian recension) nobody is concerned that the theories are then left without any support. Eyes are blinded, still

3) MT and TR.. covered before

4) Burgon, covered before, here and in the NIV thread.
Oh, that my ModernVersion friends would start by accept ting the Dean, and throw away their alexandrian texts. Then we could discuss the TR, MT and KJB issues from a more sensible starting point.

5) White/Wisselink - okay, I see Wisselink did some interesting work on the assimilation/harmonization issues, referened by Maurice Robinson

6) Admit that Jaltus is checking the facts. Excellent. And if you begin to smell some rotting fish in Denmark re: the end of Mark accussation, think of this a bit ---

what type of weird, convoluted paradigms would have people throw away a major section of the Gospels just because some pointy-heads are bound in illogical thinking about the Scriptures ? -- Does it matter that people are essentially told --
'You really don't have the Bible, you have a section in Mark (or in John) that isn't supposed to be there. Poor fella, let us scholars straighten you out.. come, come to our feet and listen, and worship our knowledge.. and we will tell you what the Word of God is.'

7) Johannine Comma and TR discussions
Possibly... this web-based email is a little different for me. I do find the Comma a fascinating topic, and one that is intrinsically bound with our textcrit paradigms, such as likeliness of additions/omissions, and a topic where misrepresentation abounds. The fact that Metzger corrected an error is itself quite worthy of note.

8) to talk theory- makes sense, a lot of times folks are trained only to talk around theory, whatever you do don't examine or re-examine the underlying paradigms.

Jaltus
Thank you for being learned and well read. Most of these discussions are tedious and useless and end in invective and slander. I appreciate your knowledge even if I disagree with your conclusions.

Praxeus
Your very welcome, thank you. Productive, edifying dialog trumps invective every day of the week :-)

Jaltus
Again, come into the 20th century at least. Hort was wrong! Many of his theories were wrong! Try reading some recent literature, such as Daniel Wallace's essay &quot;the Majority Text Theory: History, Methods, and Critique,&quot; found in The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research edited by Erhman and Holmes. You will find that the dating of Ninth-Seventh Century is in fact quite accurate and your Fourth Century accounting is quite inaccurate.

Schmuel
Try reading Maurice Robinson. I have found Ehrman and Wallace to be particularly dubious in the way that they present various cases, Wallace on the Comma is a classic. Try understanding that the changes since W-H are basically cosmetic. Vaticanus and Sinaticus are still defacto proof-texts, and the cases where a reading is not from one of those two textcrit darlings are still small in textcrit land.

<snip "A" etc> remember there are a number of Byzantine Texts in the 5th and 6th century. Aleph and B are the 4th. The apostles were the 1st. To try to build a case on the difference between the 4th and 5th is wrong, that is a minor issue compared to many majors, such as locale, diversity, harmony of manuscripts, scribal integrity, and internal and logical and historical consistency issues.

Jaltus
Avoid my question and answer with another? Okay. I do not believe God would give me contradictory scriptures, but I do believe He would make me work to harmonize, otherwise why not explain more explicitly the link between OT and NT? The Word of God I embrace is Christ. I defend the autographs, of which we know probably about 99% accurately.

Schmuel
I could write a few pages on each sentence :-) Since I really disagree with everything there. Anyway, thanks for the explan. Christ is the Word made flesh, the expression of God....His Word, written, the Scriptures, is how we know Christ, the plumbline for all doctrinal measuring.. without the Word, the Scriptures, each one can claim to know Christ in their own individualistic and idiosynchric ways.

<snip understanding that insults, rancor etc are not helpful>

Jaltus
The major problem I see with your methodology is the classic KJVO method: you argue against Wescott and Hort and ignore the last 100 years of scholarship since them. You argue against theories nobody holds to any longer. You need to read some modern theory (or at least cite it, such as White).

Schmuel
Well, I will let my understanding of those theories be judged by my web handiwork, including these posts. I have made it a special point to try to understand where, why and how the textcrits come up with their ideas. That doesn't mean I will blow hard-earned money on an Ehrman book new, but it does mean I will research with any sensible means possible, including used books, journals, textcrit forums, private correspondence with experts in the field, web research sessions, as well as the email and voice chat dialogs.

Jaltus
As for going from the MT to the TR, it is possible I could someday embrace the MT, but never the TR. The TR fallacy is obvious and quite horrific in terms of taking poor copies of the MT and claiming them as representative of the MT. That would be like taking 4 high school drop outs and claiming they stand for all of America...an absurd notion. TR advocates will need much better argumentation than that.

Praxeus
Just to go to a MT would be a tremendous step forward. The big trap is the alexandrian Aleph-B embrace of Scriptural delusion. Once you are out of that, you can at least breath freedom again.

Shalom,
Praxeus

[Jaltus]

[i]Today @ 06:53 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=103678#post103678)
Hi Jaltus and readers,

1) Jaltus, good wishes on your PhD, just please be aware that sometimes such training makes it harder to actually think &quot;outside of the box&quot;.. sometimes it makes it harder even to think with common sense :-)

Mind you, I snip without telling.

It is not hard to get a PhD and think outside the box, but it is hard to get a 4.0 and think outside the box. I challenged one profs dissertation and got a B+ when those in the seminar agreed I had probably the best paper in the class. Ah well, I never really cared about grades anyway (which is quite true, grades mean nearly nothing to me).

2-6) Covered below or no response needed.

7-8) Hopefully to be discussed again later.


Schmuel
Try reading Maurice Robinson. I have found Ehrman and Wallace to be particularly dubious in the way that they present various cases, Wallace on the Comma is a classic. Try understanding that the changes since W-H are basically cosmetic. Vaticanus and Sinaticus are still defacto proof-texts, and the cases where a reading is not from one of those two textcrit darlings are still small in textcrit land.

&lt;snip &quot;A&quot; etc&gt; remember there are a number of Byzantine Texts in the 5th and 6th century. Aleph and B are the 4th. The apostles were the 1st. To try to build a case on the difference between the 4th and 5th is wrong, that is a minor issue compared to many majors, such as locale, diversity, harmony of manuscripts, scribal integrity, and internal and logical and historical consistency issues.

First off, no fair swapping back and forth between names, I get confused easily, hehe.

Second, please name those Byzantine texts from the 5-6th centuries.

Third, you seem to have lost the fact that I mentioned the papyri as being more important (I think Aleph and B should be dumped for the papyri, though I feel like a lone voice in the wilderness) and also earlier. They have nearly exclusively Alexandrian texts, a few Western, and only one Byzantine (that I recall, though I could be wrong) and it was 8th Century (P 41, but I could be wrong about this).

This being said, the papyri by and large back Aleph and B, not the Byzantine text.

Schmuel
I could write a few pages on each sentence :-) Since I really disagree with everything there. Anyway, thanks for the explan. Christ is the Word made flesh, the expression of God....His Word, written, the Scriptures, is how we know Christ, the plumbline for all doctrinal measuring.. without the Word, the Scriptures, each one can claim to know Christ in their own individualistic and idiosynchric ways.

Yup.

Schmuel
Well, I will let my understanding of those theories be judged by my web handiwork, including these posts. I have made it a special point to try to understand where, why and how the textcrits come up with their ideas. That doesn't mean I will blow hard-earned money on an Ehrman book new, but it does mean I will research with any sensible means possible, including used books, journals, textcrit forums, private correspondence with experts in the field, web research sessions, as well as the email and voice chat dialogs.

Actually, just do an interlibrary loan, especially since Ehrman and Holmes is out of print, hehe. I guess I do have a bit of an advantage on you since I am at a school with (alleged) theological facilities and I do have some profs who are known for their work in NT, though not text critical work.

Praxeus
Just to go to a MT would be a tremendous step forward. The big trap is the alexandrian Aleph-B embrace of Scriptural delusion. Once you are out of that, you can at least breath freedom again.

Shalom,
Praxeus

Again, this is what is wrong with a lot of KVJOs, they think everything is Aleph-B based. W-H were normally biased by Alpeh, but nowadays most scholars tend to follow B instead. I myself think that the papyri are a much better source to follow due to the date and generally the quality (obviously you would have to go papyri by papryi on quality, but I hope you see my point). This would put us in the Second century, only about 100 years or less from the writings themselves. I am sure you see the practicality of such a move.

Well, I'd love to say more, but my wife is calling me. Talk to you later.

- Jaltus

[Waterrock]

Greetings Praxeus, Jaltus, and friends ~

I nearly fell off my chair after reading so many inaccurate statements in this thread, accompanied by a warning against inaccurate information on the 'net. It appears that some false ideas are being allowed to float around the atmosphere of this conversation. Allow me to enter and, hopefully, clear the air somewhat:

First, it should be obvious that we can have second-century support without having second-century manuscripts. I think I can explain this in two words: patristic evidence. In compositions from the 100's, Mark 16:9-20 is used explicitly by Irenaeus in "Against Heresies" III:10:5-6. Tatian used it when he made the Diatessaron (c.175). Justin Martyr makes a strong allusion to it. The "Epistula Apostolorum" reflects its usage. And Papias -- Papias, I say, c. 110! -- mentions a case of poison-drinking, which may have been mentioned to provide an example of the fulfillment of Mark 16:18. If anyone wants to question this evidence, have at it.

Also, Vaticanus' blank space at the end of Mark /is/ unique. It's not unique because it's a blank space. It's unique because it's a blank space followed by an intentionally-placed blank column. This is the only place in the manuscript where such a feature occurs. Anyone who took the time to read Hort's "Notes" should know that he admitted that this blank space implies that the copyist was aware of Mark 16:9-20.

Also, Codex W does not have the Short Ending at all. It should be categorized as support for the Long Ending (vv. 9-20), with an interpolation between v. 14 and v. 15.

Now then: I would like to take another look at this question about Mark 16:9-20 (without getting side-tracked about First John 5:7 or the broad question of Critical-vs-Majority Texts). Would someone who believes that Mark 16:9-20 does not belong in the Bible (Jalthus??) please provide a Top Five (or Ten) Reasons for that position? (I know something similar was already supplied in a link. But a fresh presentation may help me see why that evidence seems to convince you.)

Yours in Christ,
Waterrock

[Jaltus]

Today @ 09:48 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=104251#post104251)
Waterrock:
First, it should be obvious that we can have second-century support without having second-century manuscripts. I think I can explain this in two words: patristic evidence. In compositions from the 100's, Mark 16:9-20 is used explicitly by Irenaeus in &quot;Against Heresies&quot; III:10:5-6. Tatian used it when he made the Diatessaron (c.175). Justin Martyr makes a strong allusion to it. The &quot;Epistula Apostolorum&quot; reflects its usage. And Papias -- Papias, I say, c. 110! -- mentions a case of poison-drinking, which may have been mentioned to provide an example of the fulfillment of Mark 16:18. If anyone wants to question this evidence, have at it.

Papias is not a quotation and also is NOT an allusion to it. Justin himself says that his Greek manuscripts do not have the ending, and your "strong allusion" is five words from the ending appear out of order and separated within a sentence by him. Thus, your "evidence" is quite obviously NOT evidence. I am sorry, but someone else already mentioned these and was shot down. I will however agree that this does show it was known then. However, it shows it was rejected as genuine, which is in fact a count against you.

Also, Vaticanus' blank space at the end of Mark /is/ unique. It's not unique because it's a blank space. It's unique because it's a blank space followed by an intentionally-placed blank column. This is the only place in the manuscript where such a feature occurs. Anyone who took the time to read Hort's &quot;Notes&quot; should know that he admitted that this blank space implies that the copyist was aware of Mark 16:9-20.

Hort was wrong. Blank spaces do appear in many manuscripts including Vaticanus. How do I know? I have seen copies of the manuscript myself. I have the end of Romans and beginning of I Corinthians right next to me, and it has a blank space between them. Not so sure about the column thing. Still, sorry, don't buy it. Even if I did, though, the lack still shows the weakness of the case.

Also, Codex W does not have the Short Ending at all. It should be categorized as support for the Long Ending (vv. 9-20), with an interpolation between v. 14 and v. 15.


Washingtonius has verse 8, the longer ending, and the lengthened 14. It is unique in this respect (and in many others). If I said it had the shorter ending, I mispoke (mistyped?). I am setting up a time to go see this manuscript next summer in DC.

Now then: I would like to take another look at this question about Mark 16:9-20 (without getting side-tracked about First John 5:7 or the broad question of Critical-vs-Majority Texts). Would someone who believes that Mark 16:9-20 does not belong in the Bible (Jalthus??) please provide a Top Five (or Ten) Reasons for that position? (I know something similar was already supplied in a link. But a fresh presentation may help me see why that evidence seems to convince you.)

First, my name is Jaltus.

Secondly, the reason it should not be in there has been listed previously in this discussion, but will be listed again.

1) Lack of early attestation
2) Early attestation of the lack (yes, this is different)
3) The non-NT designation of the apostles (though it is Byzantine usage)
4) The poor grammatical and syntactical connection between 8 and 9-20
5) The shorter reading

[Waterrock]

Jaltus ~

Thanks for responding so speedily. My apologies for not getting your name right before.

Now then: You say that Papias did not quote Mark 16:18. I agree. I did not say he quoted it. But here's the key passage as provided by Eusebius:

"For he [Papias] reports that in his day a man rose from the dead, and again another amazing story involving Justus, who was surnamed Barsabbas: he drank a deadly poison and yet by the grace of the Lord suffered nothing unpleasant."

Philip of Sides (a.k.a. Philip Sidetes) offers a similar, but more detailed statement: "Papias recorded, on the authority of the daughters of Philip, that Barsabbas, whose surname was Justus, drank the poison of a snake in the name of Christ when put to the test by the unbelievers and was protected from all harm. He also records other amazing things, in particular about one Manaim's mother, who was raised from the dead."

(Both quotations taken from "The Apostolic Fathers" translated and edited by Lightfoot-Harmer-Holmes, pp. 315 & 318.)

Apparently you think the correspondence between these accounts and Mark 16:18 is altogether coincidental. I think it is more likely that Papias mentioned this incident as an example of the fulfillment of Mark 16:18's prophecy that a believer drinks something deadly will not be harmed. He does not spell this out, though.

You stated, "Justin himself says that his Greek manuscripts do not have the ending."

Jaltus, I don't think you intended to lie, so I must conclude that when you wrote that, you were as reckless as you were incorrect. Bring forth your citation of Justin's statement that his Greek manuscripts do not have the ending, or don sackcloth and ashes and withdraw your preposterous claim.

You stated "Your "strong allusion" is five words from the ending appear out of order and separated within a sentence by him. Thus, your "evidence" is quite obviously NOT evidence."

Perhaps you are weighing the evidence with an unjust scale, Jaltus. Yes, the words are not in exactly the same order. But the context (in First Apology 45, by the way) is all about the same scene depicted in the Long Ending; furthermore, one of those words is "pantachou," which is quite rare; it occurs only in Mark 1:28, Luke 9:6, and Mark 16:20.

Here's a fuller citation of Justin's statement:

>>> That which he says, "He shall send to Thee the rod of power out of Jerusalem," [Justin is quoting Psalm 110 here] is predictive of the mighty word, which His apostles, going forth from Jerusalem, preached everywhere. And though death is decreed against those who teach or at all confess the name of Christ, we everywhere both embrace and teach it. And if you also read these words in a hostile spirit, you can do no more, as I said before, than kill us; which indeed does no harm to us, but to you and all who unjustly hate us, and do not repent, brings eternal punishment by fire.” <<<

Justin adds "from Jerusalem" to emphasize the parallel with Psalm 110. Take out that insertion, and part of his first sentence says, "... the mighty word, which His apostles, going forth preached everywhere." This yields the following comparison ~

Justin: going forth everywhere preaching.
Mark: going forth preaching everywhere.

The "everywhere" = "pantachou."

If anyone can read that and still imagine that the parallels are coincidental, I would present to that person the slightly-earlier paragraph: Justin wrote, "And that God the Father of all would bring Christ to heaven after He had raised Him from the dead, and would keep Him there until He has subdued His enemies the devils..."

In one brief series of statements, Justin mentioned the resurrection (which is mentioned in 16:9), the ascension (which just happens to be mentioned in 16:19) and the defeat of devils (which just happens to be mentioned in 16:9 and 16:17), and the lack of true harm done to believers (a la 16:17), and the spread of the word (a la 16:20). This all falls short of an explicit quotation, but I think a categorization of "abundantly clear allusion" is quite appropriate.

>>> I will however agree that this does show it was known then. <<<

Hurrah. In light of this material, we agree that Justin, pre-165, knew the Long Ending. (Not bad for something that you just described as "quite obviously NOT evidence.")

>>> However, it shows it was rejected as genuine, which is in fact a count against you. <<<

In no way, shape, or form does it show that, Jaltus!

Onward:
You wrote, "Hort was wrong. Blank spaces do appear in many manuscripts including Vaticanus. How do I know? I have seen copies of the manuscript myself. I have the end of Romans and beginning of I Corinthians right next to me, and it has a blank space between them. Not so sure about the column thing."

Jaltus, blank spaces are not unusual. Hort did not say that blank spaces are unusual. I did not say that blank spaces are unusual. In fact, /no one/ is suggesting that blank spaces are unusual. Since it was customary to begin a book at the top of a column, things could scarcely be otherwise (except when a book ended exactly at the end of the previous column). What's unusual in Vaticanus is the entire blank column at the end of Mark.

Elsewhere in Vaticanus, a couple of blank spaces show up in the O.T. where a copyist finished his assigned text. Those two instances are simply leftover space. But here in Vaticanus at the end of Mark, a blank column has been deliberately left between Mark 16:8 and Luke 1:1 (they are on opposite sides of the same page-leaf).

>>> Still, sorry, don't buy it. Even if I did, though, the lack still shows the weakness of the case. <<<

Demonstrating the ability to reject the implications of this blank column (which, when combined with the blank space after the end of Mark 16:8 in the previous column, comes just 4 lines short of being able to contain the text of verses 9-20) is one thing. Being able to show a better explanation is something else. Imho, the blank column in Vaticanus clearly indicates that the copyist did not have the Long Ending in his master-copy, but did have it in his head.

>>> "... If I said it had the shorter ending, I mispoke (mistyped?)." <<<

Noted. We agree, then, that the Short Ending is not supported by Codex W. Metzger states that the Freer Logion in W was "probably the work of a second or third century scribe who wished to soften the severe condemnation of the Eleven in 16:14" (from his Textual Commentary). If so, then this implies the existence of a second- or third-century copy with verses 9-20.

And now a review of your top 5 reasons to reject Mark 16:9-20. (I appreciate your patience in repeating these things.)

(1) Lack of early attestation.

It is supported by patristic evidence from Irenaeus and Tatian. That implies that it was in the exemplars they used. How is this not early?

It is also supported by Porphyry-according-to-Macarius-Magnes, and Aphraates, and is in Alexandrinus, Bezae, and (with the Freer Logion) Codex W. How is this not early? (Remember, Aphraates and Porphyry both lived before Sinaiticus was made.)

Let me put it another way: if a combination of Irenaeus, Tatian, Porphyry, Aphraates, and Codices A, D, and W (and the memory of the copyist who produced Vaticanus) does not add up to early attestation, what does??

(2) Early attestation of the lack (yes, this is different).

By this you are no doubt referring to Eusebius (325). I recommend taking a closer look at what Eusebius said about this, because he also described the Long Ending as having been written by Mark. (No fair claiming Jerome for support, btw. Jerome's composition "Ad Hedibiam" essentially translates Eusebius' comments; it is not an independent statement.)

(3) The non-NT designation of the apostles (though it is Byzantine usage).

You mean "those who had been with him" in 16:10?? If so, this is quite a feathery objection. A creative investigator could find unique features in practically any 12-verse section of Mark.

(4) The poor grammatical and syntactical connection between 8 and 9-20.

I'm willing to put this on the scales as-is. The transition is awkward. Was Mark capable of writing awkwardly on occasion? I'd say so.

(5) The shorter reading.

Do you mean "the shorter reading" as the abrupt text ending at 16:8, or "the shorter reading" as the Short Ending? Either way I think your position will fall through the ice. Here's why: (a) various studies (Zuntz, Colwell) show it is simply a flawed approach to prefer a reading simply because it is shorter. (b) I think you implied earlier that you didn't really think that Mark stopped writing at the end of 16:8 (it might have been someone else; correct me if this hazy memory is wrong). Thus you would have to admit that the shorter reading (i.e., the ending at the end of 16:8) is not original. (c) The Short Ending is regarded by Metzger and others as support for the abrupt text, but it also interlocks with a scenario in which the Long Ending was lost (i.e., a scenario which produced the abrupt text). It apparently shows (apparently, I say!) that the abrupt text existed before the Short Ending, but it does not show that the Long Ending did not exist before the abrupt text.

Yours in Christ,

Waterrock

[Jaltus]

Today @ 12:25 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=105662#post105662)
Waterrock:Now then: You say that Papias did not quote Mark 16:18. I agree. I did not say he quoted it. But here's the key passage as provided by Eusebius:

&quot;For he [Papias] reports that in his day a man rose from the dead, and again another amazing story involving Justus, who was surnamed Barsabbas: he drank a deadly poison and yet by the grace of the Lord suffered nothing unpleasant.&quot;

Philip of Sides (a.k.a. Philip Sidetes) offers a similar, but more detailed statement: &quot;Papias recorded, on the authority of the daughters of Philip, that Barsabbas, whose surname was Justus, drank the poison of a snake in the name of Christ when put to the test by the unbelievers and was protected from all harm. He also records other amazing things, in particular about one Manaim's mother, who was raised from the dead.&quot;

(Both quotations taken from &quot;The Apostolic Fathers&quot; translated and edited by Lightfoot-Harmer-Holmes, pp. 315 &amp; 318.)

Apparently you think the correspondence between these accounts and Mark 16:18 is altogether coincidental. I think it is more likely that Papias mentioned this incident as an example of the fulfillment of Mark 16:18's prophecy that a believer drinks something deadly will not be harmed. He does not spell this out, though.

I agree that he does not spell this out, it is an assumption made by you. I do not think one can truly use this other than as a very weak parallel, but not a true piece of evidence.

You stated, &quot;Justin himself says that his Greek manuscripts do not have the ending.&quot;

Jaltus, I don't think you intended to lie, so I must conclude that when you wrote that, you were as reckless as you were incorrect. Bring forth your citation of Justin's statement that his Greek manuscripts do not have the ending, or don sackcloth and ashes and withdraw your preposterous claim.

No, I mistyped, I was referring to Jerome with respect to the mention of the lack of ending.

You stated &quot;Your &quot;strong allusion&quot; is five words from the ending appear out of order and separated within a sentence by him. Thus, your &quot;evidence&quot; is quite obviously NOT evidence.&quot;

Perhaps you are weighing the evidence with an unjust scale, Jaltus. Yes, the words are not in exactly the same order. But the context (in First Apology 45, by the way) is all about the same scene depicted in the Long Ending; furthermore, one of those words is &quot;pantachou,&quot; which is quite rare; it occurs only in Mark 1:28, Luke 9:6, and Mark 16:20.

Sorry, but you are going the wrong way in terms of evidence. The biblical material at this point is beside the point, the words used were common "Byzantine" (for lack of a better term) Greek, though not biblical Greek (I am not saying Koine for I am trying to limit myself to strictly ecclesiological uses). It is a possible adaption, but in no way does it show a strong link to the ending. This is very weak evidence.


If anyone can read that and still imagine that the parallels are coincidental, I would present to that person the slightly-earlier paragraph: Justin wrote, &quot;And that God the Father of all would bring Christ to heaven after He had raised Him from the dead, and would keep Him there until He has subdued His enemies the devils...&quot;

In one brief series of statements, Justin mentioned the resurrection (which is mentioned in 16:9), the ascension (which just happens to be mentioned in 16:19) and the defeat of devils (which just happens to be mentioned in 16:9 and 16:17), and the lack of true harm done to believers (a la 16:17), and the spread of the word (a la 16:20). This all falls short of an explicit quotation, but I think a categorization of &quot;abundantly clear allusion&quot; is quite appropriate.

I do not agree at all. You have too many qualifiers in order to make your case, so I really do not think it is legit at all. So what if he was talking about things that happened at the alleged end of Mark? Those subjects would naturally bring rise to what he was saying, whether or not he had the ending of Mark in front of him or else just the other gospels and Acts. After all, much of the same vocab is found in Luke and John (according to Metzger and Mann).

Hurrah. In light of this material, we agree that Justin, pre-165, knew the Long Ending. (Not bad for something that you just described as &quot;quite obviously NOT evidence.&quot;)

I am not so sure about this now. The more I think about it the less convincing it is.

In no way, shape, or form does it show that, Jaltus!

This will be dealt with below.

Jaltus, blank spaces are not unusual. Hort did not say that blank spaces are unusual. I did not say that blank spaces are unusual. In fact, /no one/ is suggesting that blank spaces are unusual. Since it was customary to begin a book at the top of a column, things could scarcely be otherwise (except when a book ended exactly at the end of the previous column). What's unusual in Vaticanus is the entire blank column at the end of Mark.

Elsewhere in Vaticanus, a couple of blank spaces show up in the O.T. where a copyist finished his assigned text. Those two instances are simply leftover space. But here in Vaticanus at the end of Mark, a blank column has been deliberately left between Mark 16:8 and Luke 1:1 (they are on opposite sides of the same page-leaf).

&gt;&gt;&gt; Still, sorry, don't buy it. Even if I did, though, the lack still shows the weakness of the case. &lt;&lt;&lt;

Demonstrating the ability to reject the implications of this blank column (which, when combined with the blank space after the end of Mark 16:8 in the previous column, comes just 4 lines short of being able to contain the text of verses 9-20) is one thing. Being able to show a better explanation is something else. Imho, the blank column in Vaticanus clearly indicates that the copyist did not have the Long Ending in his master-copy, but did have it in his head.

More assumptions. You cannot use the alleged mental state of a copyist as evidence. This is the flimsiest of reasoning. How do we know he just didn't accidently start at the wrong spot? This is known to happen all the time.

Noted. We agree, then, that the Short Ending is not supported by Codex W. Metzger states that the Freer Logion in W was &quot;probably the work of a second or third century scribe who wished to soften the severe condemnation of the Eleven in 16:14&quot; (from his Textual Commentary). If so, then this implies the existence of a second- or third-century copy with verses 9-20.

Maybe, maybe not. However, I would conceed third-fourth century. Washingtonius is late fourth/early fifth, so having a two hundred year leap is a bit much.

And now a review of your top 5 reasons to reject Mark 16:9-20. (I appreciate your patience in repeating these things.)

(1) Lack of early attestation.

It is supported by patristic evidence from Irenaeus and Tatian. That implies that it was in the exemplars they used. How is this not early?

Irenaeus is not a Greek father. The Latin showed early signs of corruption and expantion. Tatian is not evidence either, as explained above.

It is also supported by Porphyry-according-to-Macarius-Magnes, and Aphraates, and is in Alexandrinus, Bezae, and (with the Freer Logion) Codex W. How is this not early? (Remember, Aphraates and Porphyry both lived before Sinaiticus was made.)

I'll give you third-fourth, but not any earlier. All of the codices you list are fifth century on. I do not know Porphyry nor Aphraates.

Let me put it another way: if a combination of Irenaeus, Tatian, Porphyry, Aphraates, and Codices A, D, and W (and the memory of the copyist who produced Vaticanus) does not add up to early attestation, what does??

Let me edit to what evidence I buy:

Let me put it another way: if a combination of (maybe Porphyry, Aphraates) and Codices A, D, and W does not add up to early attestation, what does??

Hmmm, much less convincing now, isn't it?

(2) Early attestation of the lack (yes, this is different).

By this you are no doubt referring to Eusebius (325). I recommend taking a closer look at what Eusebius said about this, because he also described the Long Ending as having been written by Mark. (No fair claiming Jerome for support, btw. Jerome's composition &quot;Ad Hedibiam&quot; essentially translates Eusebius' comments; it is not an independent statement.)

First, there is large dispute over whether Jerome depended on Eusebius for this quote. I do not know enough to go over it. Second, I cannot find the quote from Eusbius . Do you happen to know where it is (book, chapter)?

(3) The non-NT designation of the apostles (though it is Byzantine usage).

You mean &quot;those who had been with him&quot; in 16:10?? If so, this is quite a feathery objection. A creative investigator could find unique features in practically any 12-verse section of Mark.

Not just that, there is also the qanasimon which is unique, and in the same section. Internally, you will find no other section of Mark with so many anaomalies. Also, this would be the one section of Mark that does not appear in either Luke or Matthew (if you hold to Markan priority). Rhetorically, it is a different style than the rest of Mark. I put a lot of weight on internal considerations when I do text criticism, and I find the internal case to be overwhelmingly against the longer ending, whereas I think the external case is much shakier.

(4) The poor grammatical and syntactical connection between 8 and 9-20.

I'm willing to put this on the scales as-is. The transition is awkward. Was Mark capable of writing awkwardly on occasion? I'd say so.

But ending a sentence with gar and resuming without an explicit mention of the subject, which has changed from the previous verse, and that subject is Jesus? Quite a serious problem.

[qote](5) The shorter reading.

Do you mean &quot;the shorter reading&quot; as the abrupt text ending at 16:8, or &quot;the shorter reading&quot; as the Short Ending? Either way I think your position will fall through the ice. Here's why: (a) various studies (Zuntz, Colwell) show it is simply a flawed approach to prefer a reading simply because it is shorter. (b) I think you implied earlier that you didn't really think that Mark stopped writing at the end of 16:8 (it might have been someone else; correct me if this hazy memory is wrong). Thus you would have to admit that the shorter reading (i.e., the ending at the end of 16:8) is not original. (c) The Short Ending is regarded by Metzger and others as support for the abrupt text, but it also interlocks with a scenario in which the Long Ending was lost (i.e., a scenario which produced the abrupt text). It apparently shows (apparently, I say!) that the abrupt text existed before the Short Ending, but it does not show that the Long Ending did not exist before the abrupt text.[/quote]

I think Mark actually probably (75%) stopped at 16:8. I do not prefer shorter readings because they are shorter (Acts has generally shown that the longer reading should be preferred in just over half the instances). The shorter ending is morelikely to give rise to the longer ending than the longer ending to the shorter. I think no ending at all is more likelyu to give rise to different endings, which is one reason I favor 16:8 as the true ending.

I hope this makes sense to you.

[Waterrock]

Jaltus ~

Allow me to take things point-by-point.

J: "I do not think one can truly use this other than as a very weak parallel, but not a true piece of evidence."

Papias' testimony is evidence (especially when one considers the details in Philip Sidetes' account of it). Overwhelmingly strong evidence? No. I didn't say it was. But it is more than nothing.

J: "You have too many qualifiers in order to make your case [about Justin Martyr], so I really do not think it is legit at all. So what if he was talking about things that happened at the alleged end of Mark?"

What?! Just how do you propose that I find a usage of Mark 16:9-20 in which the author is *not* discussing post-resurrection appearances, signs, or the ascension?

J: "Those subjects would naturally bring rise to what he was saying..."

They would not readily elicit "pantachou," particularly the combination of "pantachou" with the other words from 16:20.

J: "After all, much of the same vocab is found in Luke and John (according to Metzger and Mann)."

A-ha! You're using Mann's commentary! That explains a lot!

WR: "We agree that Justin, pre-165, knew the Long Ending.

J: "I am not so sure about this now. The more I think about it the less convincing it is."

Translation: "Oops. I conceded an important point! Earlier I said categorically, "The ECFs [Early Church Fathers] do not include this passage in there manuscripts," and here I just admitted that Justin used the passage. Can I take that move back?"

WR: "In no way, shape, or form does it show that, Jaltus!" (referring to J's claim that Justin's testimony shows the inauthenticity of Mark 16:9-20.

J: "This will be dealt with below."

But you don't get back to this. To your credit, you did admit that you "mistyped" (i.e., you made a mistake which was actually the entire basis for your statement). Jaltus (and readers) take note: Justin does NOT say that Mark 16:9-20 is not in his manuscripts.

J: "You cannot use the alleged mental state of a copyist as evidence. This is the flimsiest of reasoning. How do we know he just didn't accidently start at the wrong spot? This is known to happen all the time."

The evidence that the copyist of Vaticanus knew the Long Ending = the manuscript + logic. Your question-raising is 100% equivocation, as if to say, "We can't know for sure, so we have to throw out this evidence." Well of course we can't know for sure. But we can gauge probabilities. The copyists of Vaticanus *never* intentionally placed a blank column between books like the one at the end of Mark. Of course, it's /possible/ that a time-traveling Nazi frogman forced the copyist to skip a column. But it is rather unlikely. So is your theory that the copyist /accidentally/ skipped a column.

J: "I would conceed [sic] third-fourth century" [as the date of the origin of the Freer Logion].

Fine. Thus the presence of the Freer Logion in W weighs in with a significance equal to a copy from the 200's-300's with Mark 16:9-20.

J: "Irenaeus is not a Greek father. The Latin showed early signs of corruption and expantion."

It almost seems as if you are bizarrely suggesting that Irenaeus's explicit citation should not count because he didn't write in Greek! But surely you would not suggest such a thing, especially since you already cited versional evidence and seemed to think it matters. Instead, I think you're suggesting that some later writer who preserved Irenaeus' writings just threw this in! In which case I point out that a marginal note in MS 1582 - in Greek - mentions this statement specifically. If you want to continue to question the originality of this statement in "Against Heresies," I think you have some mountains to climb.

J: "Tatian is not evidence either, as explained above."

Are you "mis-typing" again? 'Cause I don't see /anything/ above about Tatian! (This seems to happen frequently. Please be more careful.)

WR: "It is also supported by Porphyry-according-to-Macarius-Magnes, and Aphraates, and is in Alexandrinus, Bezae, and (with the Freer Logion) Codex W. How is this not early?"

J: "I'll give you third-fourth, but not any earlier. All of the codices you list are fifth century on. I do not know Porphyry nor Aphraates."

First of all, the weight of this evidence is not diminished by your lack of knowledge about them. Praxeus already gave you links to online articles that can put you in touch with the writings of Porphyry-according-to-Macarius-Magnes and Aphraates. So you can easily get to know them.

Second, allow me to emphasize that you grant that there is evidence from the "third-fourth" centuries. Jaltus, the earliest MS [manuscript] of Mark extant is P-45, and it's from the third century. The earliest MS with the abrupt text is Vaticanus, from the fourth century (325). You thus admit that the evidence for Mark 16:9-20 is earlier than the date when Vaticanus was produced.

J: [continuing the previous quote] "but not any earlier."

You can only make such a statement by ruling out Papias, Justin, Irenaeus, and Tatian (whom you did NOT address!), not to mention the Epistula Apostolorum and the Didascalia.

J: "Let me edit to what evidence I buy: ... if a combination of (maybe Porphyry, Aphraates) and Codices A, D, and W does not add up to early attestation, what does?? Hmmm, much less convincing now, isn't it?"

Sure, but you're molding the evidence! The impact of Justin's words doesn't seem to have registered (well, it did for a moment there), so you rejected it. It is possible to speculate that Irenaeus' quotation is an interpolation, so you rejected that. You haven't looked into Porphyry or Aphraates, so they can't weigh in (yet). You refuse to see the manifest implication of the blank column in Vaticanus, so that is not allowed to weigh in either. And Tatian? Tatian you simply overlooked!

[Time Out: this guy's done /doctoral/ work on NT textual criticism?! "Sahedic." "Cesarean." "Justin=Jerome=Tatian." Hmm.]

J: "First, there is large dispute over whether Jerome depended on Eusebius for this quote. I do not know enough to go over it."
Second, I cannot find the quote from Eusbius."

Previously you stated, "I have read Dean Burgon." Perhaps you overlooked his book "The Last Twelve Verses of Mark Vindicated" in which he analyzed Eusebius' statement, which is found in "Ad Marinum."

J: "Internally, you will find no other section of Mark with so many anaomalies."

See the online article by Bruce Terry about this frequently-repeated claim.

J: "this would be the one section of Mark that does not appear in either Luke or Matthew (if you hold to Markan priority)."

First, that's not true. Second, the non-use of Mark 16:9-20 is not problematic if Matthew and Luke used pre-publication drafts of Mark (a theory which solves more than one question, by the way). Third, Matthew and Luke could easily independently choose to follow special sources at this climactic point.

J: "I put a lot of weight on internal considerations when I do text criticism, and I find the internal case to be overwhelmingly against the longer ending, whereas I think the external case is much shakier."

That's interesting, since (as anyone can see) throughout this thread you have been focusing on the external evidence. Until you realized that the external evidence might not take you where you wanted to go.

J: "I think no ending at all is more likely to give rise to different endings, which is one reason I favor 16:8 as the true ending."

In other words, when you gauge probabilities, you think it is more likely that Mark intentionally ended the Gospel-account at 16:8 than that the Gospel of Mark originally had verses 9-20, and one of your reasons for this -- perhaps the decisive reason -- is that the abrupt text is shorter. You think that is more likely than the theory that the Gospel of Mark originally had verses 9-20, and they were lost in the early Alexandrian text-stream (where the Short Ending then originated) at an early date. Does that pretty much sum up your approach?

Yours in Christ,

Waterrock

[Jaltus]

First, an apology. For some reason I keep confusing names. I always get Justin and Jerome confused, but this time I confused Tatian and Papias. My apologies. I'll try to be more careful.

Today @ 10:42 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=106393#post106393)
Waterrock:
Papias' testimony is evidence (especially when one considers the details in Philip Sidetes' account of it). Overwhelmingly strong evidence? No. I didn't say it was. But it is more than nothing.

A concession on your part. Thank you.

What?! Just how do you propose that I find a usage of Mark 16:9-20 in which the author is *not* discussing post-resurrection appearances, signs, or the ascension?

Not what I said at all. You misread me completely. My point was that the subject matter would bring to mind what he was writing about. While the vocab does point in your favor, it is not as strong a parallel as you would wish since, while the word pantacou is common in both classical, Koine, and Byzantine literature (see the list of uses in BDAG, pg. 754 and also in LSJ (I only have the middle, so it has only a partial listing of non-Koine uses)). Your case on the rareness of pantacou is much weaker than you would like to admit.

They would not readily elicit &quot;pantachou,&quot; particularly the combination of &quot;pantachou&quot; with the other words from 16:20.

Five words in the wrong order and non-consecutively? The weakness speaks for itself.

Translation: &quot;Oops. I conceded an important point! Earlier I said categorically, &quot;The ECFs [Early Church Fathers] do not include this passage in there manuscripts,&quot; and here I just admitted that Justin used the passage. Can I take that move back?&quot;

No, unlike some people, I honestly seak to learn through discussion, and thus my opinion sways according to the evidence.

WR: &quot;In no way, shape, or form does it show that, Jaltus!&quot; (referring to J's claim that Justin's testimony shows the inauthenticity of Mark 16:9-20.

J: &quot;This will be dealt with below.&quot;

But you don't get back to this. To your credit, you did admit that you &quot;mistyped&quot; (i.e., you made a mistake which was actually the entire basis for your statement). Jaltus (and readers) take note: Justin does NOT say that Mark 16:9-20 is not in his manuscripts.

Actually, I did get back to this, it would be in number 2 where I asked you questions in order to clarify.

The evidence that the copyist of Vaticanus knew the Long Ending = the manuscript + logic. Your question-raising is 100% equivocation, as if to say, &quot;We can't know for sure, so we have to throw out this evidence.&quot; Well of course we can't know for sure. But we can gauge probabilities. The copyists of Vaticanus *never* intentionally placed a blank column between books like the one at the end of Mark. Of course, it's /possible/ that a time-traveling Nazi frogman forced the copyist to skip a column. But it is rather unlikely. So is your theory that the copyist /accidentally/ skipped a column.

Actually, that is not equivocation. Equivocation is changing definitions. I believe you mean vaciliation (wavering between two options) but in any event you are wrong. You are correct that we can gauge probabilities. Since there is very shaky evidence before the time of the manuscript, it is dubious to claim this as evidence. It is like a tower of cards you are building, and then expecting to live at the top of it.

Fine. Thus the presence of the Freer Logion in W weighs in with a significance equal to a copy from the 200's-300's with Mark 16:9-20.

You misread me again. I was saying the longer ending would be at least 3rd-4th century. I said nothing of the expansion in 14 other than mentioning it was there.

It almost seems as if you are bizarrely suggesting that Irenaeus's explicit citation should not count because he didn't write in Greek! But surely you would not suggest such a thing, especially since you already cited versional evidence and seemed to think it matters. Instead, I think you're suggesting that some later writer who preserved Irenaeus' writings just threw this in! In which case I point out that a marginal note in MS 1582 - in Greek - mentions this statement specifically. If you want to continue to question the originality of this statement in &quot;Against Heresies,&quot; I think you have some mountains to climb.

What I have problems with is the use of other languages to prove that something was in the original Greek. I will give you that this does show the ending is early, but it does not show that it is from the Greek ending, something I find probematic.

Are you &quot;mis-typing&quot; again? 'Cause I don't see /anything/ above about Tatian! (This seems to happen frequently. Please be more careful.)

WR: &quot;It is also supported by Porphyry-according-to-Macarius-Magnes, and Aphraates, and is in Alexandrinus, Bezae, and (with the Freer Logion) Codex W. How is this not early?&quot;

I'll look into the Aphraates and Porphyry sometime this week and get back to you.

First of all, the weight of this evidence is not diminished by your lack of knowledge about them. Praxeus already gave you links to online articles that can put you in touch with the writings of Porphyry-according-to-Macarius-Magnes and Aphraates. So you can easily get to know them.

I did not say it was diminished. I think you have a real chip on your shoulder. You need to calm down a bit.

Second, allow me to emphasize that you grant that there is evidence from the &quot;third-fourth&quot; centuries. Jaltus, the earliest MS [manuscript] of Mark extant is P-45, and it's from the third century. The earliest MS with the abrupt text is Vaticanus, from the fourth century (325). You thus admit that the evidence for Mark 16:9-20 is earlier than the date when Vaticanus was produced.

Yes. I think that showing something from the year 1900, when assumed to be from 1000, will generally show that the original was from before 1900. In this case, I think showing evidence of Mark from the 4th century lends itself to Mark being 3rd century. Thus, I see the longer ending of Mark being made possibly in the 3rd-4th Century due to the evidence from the 4th-5th- century. You evidence from the father's is a bit scant.

You can only make such a statement by ruling out Papias, Justin, Irenaeus, and Tatian (whom you did NOT address!), not to mention the Epistula Apostolorum and the Didascalia.

Well, you just added a few new names there. Give me time to look them up. I am no expert on church history, so these names are not "ringing in my ears" so to speak (my specialty is exegesis).

Sure, but you're molding the evidence! The impact of Justin's words doesn't seem to have registered (well, it did for a moment there), so you rejected it. It is possible to speculate that Irenaeus' quotation is an interpolation, so you rejected that. You haven't looked into Porphyry or Aphraates, so they can't weigh in (yet). You refuse to see the manifest implication of the blank column in Vaticanus, so that is not allowed to weigh in either. And Tatian? Tatian you simply overlooked!

Unlike you, this is not a dogmatic event for me. It is searching for the truth. You assume you have it already, and thus are a closed mind not willing to consider that you could be wrong. I admit you have evidence, I just think it is a house of cards. Perhaps your other finds will convince me, perhaps not. However, I know that if I found overwhelming evidence against, you would not care.

[Time Out: this guy's done /doctoral/ work on NT textual criticism?! &quot;Sahedic.&quot; &quot;Cesarean.&quot; &quot;Justin=Jerome=Tatian.&quot; Hmm.]

I never said my spelling was great, and I did my doctoral work in Acts. The fathers are much less relevant there (depending on the passage you choose).

Previously you stated, &quot;I have read Dean Burgon.&quot; Perhaps you overlooked his book &quot;The Last Twelve Verses of Mark Vindicated&quot; in which he analyzed Eusebius' statement, which is found in &quot;Ad Marinum.&quot;

Yes, I have read some of his works, not all of them. I'll look for that one and see what I can find.

See the online article by Bruce Terry about this frequently-repeated claim.

Do you have a link for this?

First, that's not true. Second, the non-use of Mark 16:9-20 is not problematic if Matthew and Luke used pre-publication drafts of Mark (a theory which solves more than one question, by the way). Third, Matthew and Luke could easily independently choose to follow special sources at this climactic point.

What is not true? It is quite true that there is no close parallel for this section in Matthew or Luke. The prepublication theory is, frankly, bizarre, since books like this are not published, they are written and sent. There were not 15 poor copies written and trashed, there was likely one copy made and sent. Only Luke possibly had a lot of copies made before being sent. Matthew and Luke could have followed special sources, but why change at this point and not the crucifixion which is the climax of every gospel? You must admit this is a small piece of evidence against you.

Let me say this, I have not been overly careful in my writing here, but then this is not the only section I check on this site. You seem to be totally wrapped up in this argument. I think you need to take a step back and calm down a little. I appreciate your critiques of my posts, but not your critiques of me or your snide comments.

That's interesting, since (as anyone can see) throughout this thread you have been focusing on the external evidence. Until you realized that the external evidence might not take you where you wanted to go.

No, I stated earlier that I would like to discuss how we do text criticism. I believe that modern scholars put too much weight on external considerations and not enough on internal. That is how you get the TR instead of the MT and how you get people following Aleph and B instead of the papyri.

In other words, when you gauge probabilities, you think it is more likely that Mark intentionally ended the Gospel-account at 16:8 than that the Gospel of Mark originally had verses 9-20, and one of your reasons for this -- perhaps the decisive reason -- is that the abrupt text is shorter. You think that is more likely than the theory that the Gospel of Mark originally had verses 9-20, and they were lost in the early Alexandrian text-stream (where the Short Ending then originated) at an early date. Does that pretty much sum up your approach?

No, actually I agreed that the shorter reading is not a good hallmark at all. Are you sure you read my post? You sure trimmed out what I said here. I think the grammatical reasons destroy the longer ending, an argument with which you did nothing, instead avoiding it. I think the longer ending is probably more likely than the shorter ending, but I still think the "true ending" should be 16:8, for it is more likely to be original than either "ending."

Grammar is more important than many are willing to admit, and this is one of those spots where the grammar truly presents probelms for those who deal with the longer readings, both of them.

[Pereynol of Sheer Dread]

Today @ 11:42 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=106393#post106393)
Waterrock:


Translation: &quot;Oops. I conceded an important point! Earlier I said categorically, &quot;The ECFs [Early Church Fathers] do not include this passage in there manuscripts,&quot; and here I just admitted that Justin used the passage. Can I take that move back?&quot;

Why speak like this? Why so uncharitable?



J: &quot;You cannot use the alleged mental state of a copyist as evidence. This is the flimsiest of reasoning. How do we know he just didn't accidently start at the wrong spot? This is known to happen all the time.&quot;

The evidence that the copyist of Vaticanus knew the Long Ending = the manuscript + logic. Your question-raising is 100% equivocation, as if to say, &quot;We can't know for sure, so we have to throw out this evidence.&quot; Well of course we can't know for sure. But we can gauge probabilities. The copyists of Vaticanus *never* intentionally placed a blank column between books like the one at the end of Mark. Of course, it's /possible/ that a time-traveling Nazi frogman forced the copyist to skip a column. But it is rather unlikely. So is your theory that the copyist /accidentally/ skipped a column.

The Nazi frogman theory iced it for me....


WR: &quot;It is also supported by Porphyry-according-to-Macarius-Magnes, and Aphraates, and is in Alexandrinus, Bezae, and (with the Freer Logion) Codex W. How is this not early?&quot;

J: &quot;I'll give you third-fourth, but not any earlier. All of the codices you list are fifth century on. I do not know Porphyry nor Aphraates.&quot;

First of all, the weight of this evidence is not diminished by your lack of knowledge about them. Praxeus already gave you links to online articles that can put you in touch with the writings of Porphyry-according-to-Macarius-Magnes and Aphraates. So you can easily get to know them.

Are you referring to Porphyry, the disciple of the Neo-Platonist philosopher Plotinus, whom I suppose Macarius the Great ostensibly quoted so as to refute? Why not just tell us and Jaltus about Porphyry instead of using Jaltus' honest statement to your rhetorical advantage?


[Time Out: this guy's done /doctoral/ work on NT textual criticism?! &quot;Sahedic.&quot; &quot;Cesarean.&quot; &quot;Justin=Jerome=Tatian.&quot; Hmm.]

This is the most objectionable kind of contempt I've seen from you so far. "Time Out," indeed.


J: &quot;First, there is large dispute over whether Jerome depended on Eusebius for this quote. I do not know enough to go over it.&quot;
Second, I cannot find the quote from Eusbius.&quot;

Previously you stated, &quot;I have read Dean Burgon.&quot; Perhaps you overlooked his book &quot;The Last Twelve Verses of Mark Vindicated&quot; in which he analyzed Eusebius' statement, which is found in &quot;Ad Marinum.&quot;

Again, why insinuate something negative when you could just politely answer a legitmate question? Why contort your opponent's honest question to imply that he's somehow remiss in his reading---and then fail to answer the question?


J: &quot;I put a lot of weight on internal considerations when I do text criticism, and I find the internal case to be overwhelmingly against the longer ending, whereas I think the external case is much shakier.&quot;

That's interesting, since (as anyone can see) throughout this thread you have been focusing on the external evidence. Until you realized that the external evidence might not take you where you wanted to go.

And as I see more and more, you Waterrock, continue to quibble and insinuate. Jaltus' points about internal evidence, as you say, "are not lessened" by your failure to engage with them, and they "are not lessened" as well, by your attempt to deflect them with a groundless charge.

Is it too much to ask for a clean discussion without recourse to these sorts of rhetorical tactics? I, as a reader of this exchange, would heartily appreciate such a thing....

[Waterrock]

Pereynol ~

I am being uncharitable toward Jaltus' false and misleading statements. I am being uncharitable toward the fanciful speculations that Irenaeus' citation of Mark 16:19 is a corruption and that the copyist of Vaticanus accidentally skipped a column.

That is not the same as being uncharitable to Jaltus, though. What would you have me do, P., pretend that false statements are true, and that wild speculations are probable? It is difficult to show that a statement is silly without implying that the person making the statement is also silly. I assure you, I have no interest in putting down Jaltus, but when he says that Justin states that his manuscripts do not have Mark 16:9-20, what am I supposed to do? Pretend he's right in the interest of civility? I think it is much better manners to tell the truth. I try to do so in love. I would not be so clear with Jaltus if I did not think he could handle it, and perceive frankness as frankness and humor as humor.

You asked, "Why speak this way?" To show what Jaltus is doing, that's why! He made a broad statement about evidence from early church fathers which is not true. He made a claim about Justin Martyr which is not true. And so on.

The "Nazi frogman" illustration was /supposed/ to drive home the point that Jaltus' theory that the copyist of Vaticanus accidentally skipped an entire column was highly speculative. I suppose I could have just said, "No, that theory is fanciful," but the illustration adds something, methinks. In no way am I insulting Jaltus by the use of this illustration.

If the most objectionable contempt I have shown consists of pointing out the inconsistency between Jaltus' statement that he has done doctrinal work in textual criticism and his incorrect spelling of some words which a textual critic should reasonably be expected to know pretty well, then I have to say I am not feeling very bad about the things you are objecting to. Don't blame a mirror for what it reflects.

Yours in Christ,
Waterrock

[praxeus]

Today @ 07:30 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=106541#post106541)
Waterrock:
Pereynol ~I am being uncharitable toward Jaltus' false and misleading statements. I am being uncharitable toward the fanciful speculations that Irenaeus' citation of Mark 16:19 is a corruption and that the copyist of Vaticanus accidentally skipped a column.

That is not the same as being uncharitable to Jaltus, though. What would you have me do, P., pretend that false statements are true, and that wild speculations are probable? <snip>
Waterrock

And I have to say I understand Waterrock's sharpness and directness and clarity in dialog as well.

Remember we were informed a few times about the level of seminary and scholarship studies, with a certain amount of condescension in tone, and yet on many different Mark ending issues we have seen evidence poorly researched, along with being misrepresented. (And perhaps this is more a result of textual education in seminaries rather than in spite of it.. this is the rather sad conclusion that I am leaning towards).

At one point Jaltus did seem to realize that perhaps the case against the ending of Mark should essentially be put aside, as the fullness of various evidences were pointed out on this thread and through web-info, seemingly in a manner that was much clearer than any of the earlier seminary studies had shown. And that then we would try to switch to other stronger cases against the King James Bible (which appears to be one major undercurrent of the purpose of the attack on the ending of Mark, from the get-go) such as the Johanine Comma. At least in that discussion, the "no" side would not get swamped with such overwhelming manuscript evidence, or patristic evidence in the 2nd century. And they will have James White, Bruce Metzgar and Daniel Wallace firmly on their side. So given the current popular textcrit paradigms, they would at least be on solider ground, even if Wallace et al had done some severe misrepresentations.

Yet, even after this earlier implicit acknowledgment that there was a lot stronger case for the Mark ending than anyone in the "no" side expected, (and I would claim an overwhelming case) we found that instead of being more careful, Jaltus became more careless in discussing the newer aspects that were brought forth in the Waterrock-Jaltus continuation. And honestly, at some point you have to deal with misrepresentation of issues with the equivalent of a strong rebuke. And that is what has occurred here, imho.

For the tone of the discussion to improve would be fine, but it is largely dependent on the quality of the analysis and representation of evidence to similarly improve.

We expect folks to choose and choose evidence somewhat to match their purposes, that is human nature, and also debating style (for better or for worse) but there is a point where errors and misrepresentations demonstrate an agenda that is less than sincere in dialog and research.

Shalom,
Praxeus

[Waterrock]

Jaltus ~

Point-by-point again:

Okay. So we agree that Justin does not say anything about Mark 16:9-20 not being in his manuscripts.

About Papias: I didn't say Papias' testimony was overwhelming (so saying that it isn't is not a concession), just that it should be in the equation.

J: "Not what I said at all. You misread me completely. My point was that the subject matter would bring to mind what he was writing about."

Understood. But you seem to be making the hurdle awfully high, so to speak, by suggesting that the similarities between Justin's statements and Mark 16:20 may be chalked up to two authors talking about the same thing. The idea is valid, but the level of strictness with which you apply it (to explain the verbal parallels) would, if consistently used, make it difficult to confidently identify almost any allusion.

J: "While the vocab does point in your favor, it is not as strong a parallel as you would wish"

It still belongs on the scales in favor of the Long Ending.

J: "the word pantacou is common in both classical, Koine, and Byzantine literature..."

Alas; I don't have BDAG handy at the moment. Please assist: the number of instances of pantachou in the first and second centuries is ...?

J: "Five words in the wrong order and non-consecutively? The weakness speaks for itself."

Hardly. If Justin were unknown and a fragment of this sentence from First Apology 45 were discovered, quite a few folks would probably think it was a piece of Mark 16:20 with a textual variant.

J: "I honestly seak to learn through discussion, and thus my opinion sways according to the evidence."

Excellent.

J: "Equivocation is changing definitions."

It's also attempting to make something vague or unclear which is actually clear. That is the sense in which I was using it.

J: "... but in any event you are wrong. You are correct that we can gauge probabilities. Since there is very shaky evidence before the time of the manuscript, it is dubious to claim this as evidence."

Saying that will not make it so. Even with a skeptical spin, the evidence before Vaticanus lines up in favor of the early existence of the Long Ending:
a possible reference in Papias.
a probable reference in Justin.
an explicit reference in Irenaeus (which is reinforced by a Greek note in MS 1582, and which does not agree fully with the Byzantine form of the text).
Its inclusion in Tatian's Diatessaron.
Its use by Porphyry.
Its use by Aphraates.
Its inclusion in the Vulgate.
Its use in the Gothic version (which is earlier than the Armenian).
Its use by the author of the Freer Logion.

And that is not an exhaustive list. This is no "tower of cards," Jaltus.

WR: "Fine. Thus the presence of the Freer Logion in W weighs in with a significance equal to a copy from the 200's-300's with Mark 16:9-20."

J: "You misread me again. I was saying the longer ending would be at least 3rd-4th century. I said nothing of the expansion in 14 other than mentioning it was there."

Um, 3rd-4th century *is* 200's-300's. What other meaning can such a statement have?

J: "What I have problems with is the use of other languages to prove that something was in the original Greek. I will give you that this does show the ending is early, but it does not show that it is from the Greek ending, something I find probematic."

J, versional evidence should not be underweighted just because it is versional! Besides, as I already noted, a Greek margin-note in MS 1582 cites Irenaeus' statement, and Irenaeus' statement does not agree with the late Byzantine reading of 16:19. So there are two good indicators that the quotation is genuine.

J: "I'll look into the Aphraates and Porphyry sometime this week and get back to you."

Fair enough.

J: "I did not say it was diminished."

I did not say you did. It appeared that you were willing to pass by Porphyry and Aphraates, though, and cling to a position no matter what their impact might be. I'm glad that's not really the case.

J: In this case, I think showing evidence of Mark from the 4th century lends itself to Mark being 3rd century. Thus, I see the longer ending of Mark being made possibly in the 3rd-4th Century due to the evidence from the 4th-5th- century. You evidence from the father's is a bit scant."

No it isn't; I'm just hitting the highlights. And I haven't even mentioned the likelihood that P-45 originally contained Mark 16:9-20 (a deduction based on the high percentage of agreement between P-45 and Codex W). I suppose I should qualify that: it is not overwhelming evidence. But it should be in the equation.


J: "Well, you just added a few new names there. Give me time to look them up."

Okey-dokey.

J: "Unlike you, this is not a dogmatic event for me. It is searching for the truth. You assume you have it already, and thus are a closed mind not willing to consider that you could be wrong."

Hey, you called me a name! Maybe, if I stick around, you might get to know me well enough to be qualified to say if my mind is open or closed. I'm not here to defend my mind.

J: "Do you have a link for this [Bruce Terry essay]?"

Not handy, but there's one in the margin (big red button) at www.waynecoc.org/MarkThree.html . Or do a Google search for "Bruce Terry Style Ending Mark."

WR: "First, that's not true. " ~ This was in reference to your claim that the Long Ending is the only part of Mark not used by Matthew or Luke. There are other sections unique to