Is Mark 16:9-20 authentic?

[JamesSnappJr]

RobRecht,

It's easier for my small brain if we don't overlap subjects; I'd like to take one or two things at a time. Is there anything else about the non-testimony of Clement and/or Origen that you'd like to mention?

Yours in Christ,

James Snapp, Jr.

[robrecht]

RobRecht,

It's easier for my small brain if we don't overlap subjects; I'd like to take one or two things at a time. Is there anything else about the non-testimony of Clement and/or Origen that you'd like to mention?

Yours in Christ,

James Snapp, Jr.

Hi, James. Do you see the problems with your presentation of Cassiodorus' Latin text of Clement? I just want to make sure we agree on a proper way of proceeding to encourage our ability to best understand your arguments.

By the way, it's robrecht, not RobRecht. Thanks.

All glory to God in the highest!

[JamesSnappJr]

Clement and Cassiodorus

Robrecht,

You asked, "Do you see the problems with your presentation of Cassiodorus' Latin text of Clement?"

I don't think there's ever been a publication of the works of Clement that wasn't overtaken by a new, improved edition of the works of Clement not long afterwards. Even the recent publication by Carl Cosaert about Clement's Gospels-text can stand some improvement. So whatever shortcomings are in my presentation, they perpetuate a longstanding academic tradition.

I would love to have something with all the bolts tightened; nevertheless I think that the presentation of Cassiodorus' Latin text of Clement, as provided, is sufficient to maintain that it has not been shown that Clement never utilizes Mark 16:9-20 in any of his extant works -- which was all I was aspiring to show.

Do you see the problems in the statements by authors such as Stephen Miller and A. Kiljn about the commentaries written by Clement and Origen in which they affirm that Mark's text ends at 16:8? Do you see the problem in the statements that merely mention Clement's, and Origen's, silence, without mentioning the scarcity of their over-all use of the Gospel of Mark?

Yours in Christ,

James Snapp, Jr.

[robrecht]

Do you see the problems in the statements by authors such as Stephen Miller and A. Kiljn about the commentaries written by Clement and Origen in which they affirm that Mark's text ends at 16:8? Do you see the problem in the statements that merely mention Clement's, and Origen's, silence, without mentioning the scarcity of their over-all use of the Gospel of Mark?

I think I've already answered these questions.

Robrecht,

You asked, "Do you see the problems with your presentation of Cassiodorus' Latin text of Clement?"

I don't think there's ever been a publication of the works of Clement that wasn't overtaken by a new, improved edition of the works of Clement not long afterwards. Even the recent publication by Carl Cosaert about Clement's Gospels-text can stand some improvement. So whatever shortcomings are in my presentation, they perpetuate a longstanding academic tradition.

I would love to have something with all the bolts tightened; nevertheless I think that the presentation of Cassiodorus' Latin text of Clement, as provided, is sufficient to maintain that it has not been shown that Clement never utilizes Mark 16:9-20 in any of his extant works -- which was all I was aspiring to show.

I am merely referring to my request that if you wish to discuss ancient texts with me that you please provide links to the original language texts and cite any secondary sources that you are referring to. That way I will not have to waste time tracking down errors of presentation, such as not citing enough of the pertinent context or leaving out important points that are not supportive of your point of view.

Christ be before me ...., robrecht

[JamesSnappJr]

Clement and Origen -- and Eusebius and Jerome

Robrecht,

Yes; I think I heard your answer: all the commentators (including Metzger) who have cited Clement and Origen as if they supply meaningful evidence for the absence of Mark 16:9-20 from their manuscripts of Mark have been giving their readers a false impression. (If this was not your answer, let me know.)

But this is not something that should be whispered. That false impression has become entrenched, and it will only be removed by loud and long protestations against it. If one were to insist that Clement's Adumbrationes ought to be viewable from every angle, then how much more should the basis for the claim that "Clement of Alexandria and Origen show no knowledge of the existence of these verses" be scrutinized.

Similarly the testimony of Eusebius and Jerome regarding Mark 16:9-20 has been grossly misrepresented by commentators, and it needs to be described in more detail. Shall we move on that that now?

Yours in Christ,

James Snapp, Jr.

[robrecht]

Robrecht,

Yes; I think I heard your answer: all the commentators (including Metzger) who have cited Clement and Origen as if they supply meaningful evidence for the absence of Mark 16:9-20 from their manuscripts of Mark have been giving their readers a false impression. (If this was not your answer, let me know.)

But this is not something that should be whispered. That false impression has become entrenched, and it will only be removed by loud and long protestations against it. If one were to insist that Clement's Adumbrationes ought to be viewable from every angle, then how much more should the basis for the claim that "Clement of Alexandria and Origen show no knowledge of the existence of these verses" be scrutinized.

Similarly the testimony of Eusebius and Jerome regarding Mark 16:9-20 has been grossly misrepresented by commentators, and it needs to be described in more detail. Shall we move on that that now?

Yours in Christ,

James Snapp, Jr.

Once again, I am asking you to present the texts you wish to discuss responsibly so as not to create additional false impressions. At least Metzger was willing to acknowledge his error and correct it.

Christ be with us, Christ within us, Christ behind us, Christ before us, Christ beside us, Christ to win us, Christ to comfort and restore us. Christ beneath us, Christ above us, Christ in quiet, Christ in danger, Christ in hearts of all that love us, Christ in the mouth of friend and stranger.

robrecht

[JamesSnappJr]

Clement and Origen: Their Silence is Non-testimony

Robrecht,

I appreciate your desire to see the texts in vivid detail; on the other hand, I've already provided ten times more detail about Clement's use of Mark, and Origen's use of Mark, than any commentary on Mark that I've ever read. At some point, the cry, "More details, more details!" becomes, "Feed me obfuscation!". And I feel like we've reached that point, since my ambition regarding Clement and Origen is not to prove that either one used Mark 16:9-20, but that if neither one used Mark 16:9-20, this should not be considered a valid justification for the notion that their copies of Mark did not include those verses.

We have viewed the testimony of Clement and Origen at a magnification-level sufficient to leave no doubt that their silence (if they are silent; I do not grant that Clement is silent but as I already said this is a tertiary point) is a side-effect of their general neglect of the Gospel of Mark as a whole, and should not be interpreted as any sort of evidence that their copies of Mark did not contain 16:9-20.

Do you agree?

Yours in Christ,

James Snapp, Jr.

[robrecht]

Robrecht,

I appreciate your desire to see the texts in vivid detail; on the other hand, I've already provided ten times more detail about Clement's use of Mark, and Origen's use of Mark, than any commentary on Mark that I've ever read. At some point, the cry, "More details, more details!" becomes, "Feed me obfuscation!". And I feel like we've reached that point, since my ambition regarding Clement and Origen is not to prove that either one used Mark 16:9-20, but that if neither one used Mark 16:9-20, this should not be considered a valid justification for the notion that their copies of Mark did not include those verses.

We have viewed the testimony of Clement and Origen at a magnification-level sufficient to leave no doubt that their silence (if they are silent; I do not grant that Clement is silent but as I already said this is a tertiary point) is a side-effect of their general neglect of the Gospel of Mark as a whole, and should not be interpreted as any sort of evidence that their copies of Mark did not contain 16:9-20.

Do you agree?

Yours in Christ,

James Snapp, Jr.

I have not asked you for anything further with respect to the text of Cassiodorus. Rather, it was I who provided you with the sufficient references to demonstrate how your presentation was indeed misleading, unintentionally I'm sure. In order to avoid this in the future, I request merely that you provide links to whatever original texts you would like to discuss with me and acknowledge your secondary sources so that we can see if you are leaving out important information from the sources you cite or if you are indeed citing the most important sources. This is just standard practice for anyone who desires to engage in discussion of scholarly issues. You have repeatedly expressed concern about eminent scholars advancing false claims, thus I would expect that you would be happy to take the necessary precautions to avoid doing so yourself. This is the opposite of obfuscation, the avoidance of which is a primary, not a tertiary, issue, as I'm sure you would agree.

Christ be with us, Christ within us, Christ behind us, Christ before us, Christ beside us, Christ to win us, Christ to comfort and restore us. Christ beneath us, Christ above us, Christ in quiet, Christ in danger, Christ in hearts of all that love us, Christ in the mouth of friend and stranger.

robrecht

[JamesSnappJr]

Carefully Citing Clement and Origen

Robrecht,

I gather that you would like links (or book-page-and-line references) to texts quoted. Noted.

Here are some quotations with references given -- four samples among many such statements found in a wide assortment of study-tools. As a person who clearly cares very much for accuracy in research, do you have anything to say about them? Have you ever had anything to say about them to the authors or publishers?

James Brooks: Mark ends at 16:8 -- "in most Greek lectionaries," and "in several early Christian writers, including Clement of Alexandria (d. ca. A.D. 215) and Origen (d. A.D. 254).” (p. 272, The New American Commentary Vol. 23: Mark, © 1991 Broadman Press, David S. Dockery, General Editor)

Philip Wesley Comfort: The end of Mark's Gospel at 16:8 is attested by "Clement, Origen, Eusebiusm Jerome, Ammonius, Victor of Antioch, and Euthymius." (pages 137-138 8 of The Quest for the Original Text of the New Testament, © 1992 Baker Book House).

A.F.J. Klijn: According to Clement of Alexandria, the Gospel of Mark ends with 16, 8. (p. 27, An Introduction to the New Testament, © 1967 by E.J. Brill, Leiden).

Stephen M. Miller: "The earliest copies of Mark end here, at verse 8. Early commentaries confirming this cutoff included those written by Clement of Alexandria (died about AD 101), Origen (AD 100s), and Eusebius (AD 200’s).” (p. 332, The Complete Guide to the Bible, (c) 2007 by Stephen M. Miller.)

Just curious. I appreciate your zeal for accurate references. And I take for granted that with such zeal, you must feel exasperated when you see the silence of Clement and Origen being abused (if they are silent) as if it is anything like a meaningful indication of the contents of their manuscripts of Mark.

If there is nothing else to add about Clement and Origen, I think we can proceed to other evidence. I was going to move along to the often-misrepresented testimony of Eusebius and Jerome, unless you would like to explore some other evidence.

Yours in Christ,

James Snapp, Jr.

[robrecht]

Robrecht,

I gather that you would like links (or book-page-and-line references) to texts quoted. Noted.

Here are some quotations with references given -- four samples among many such statements found in a wide assortment of study-tools. As a person who clearly cares very much for accuracy in research, do you have anything to say about them? Have you ever had anything to say about them to the authors or publishers?

James Brooks: Mark ends at 16:8 -- "in most Greek lectionaries," and "in several early Christian writers, including Clement of Alexandria (d. ca. A.D. 215) and Origen (d. A.D. 254).” (p. 272, The New American Commentary Vol. 23: Mark, © 1991 Broadman Press, David S. Dockery, General Editor)

Philip Wesley Comfort: The end of Mark's Gospel at 16:8 is attested by "Clement, Origen, Eusebiusm Jerome, Ammonius, Victor of Antioch, and Euthymius." (pages 137-138 8 of The Quest for the Original Text of the New Testament, © 1992 Baker Book House).

A.F.J. Klijn: According to Clement of Alexandria, the Gospel of Mark ends with 16, 8. (p. 27, An Introduction to the New Testament, © 1967 by E.J. Brill, Leiden).

Stephen M. Miller: "The earliest copies of Mark end here, at verse 8. Early commentaries confirming this cutoff included those written by Clement of Alexandria (died about AD 101), Origen (AD 100s), and Eusebius (AD 200’s).” (p. 332, The Complete Guide to the Bible, (c) 2007 by Stephen M. Miller.)

Just curious. I appreciate your zeal for accurate references. And I take for granted that with such zeal, you must feel exasperated when you see the silence of Clement and Origen being abused (if they are silent) as if it is anything like a meaningful indication of the contents of their manuscripts of Mark.

If there is nothing else to add about Clement and Origen, I think we can proceed to other evidence. I was going to move along to the often-misrepresented testimony of Eusebius and Jerome, unless you would like to explore some other evidence.

Yours in Christ,

James Snapp, Jr.

James, I'm not sure why you seem to be having so much difficulty understanding what I am requesting. I am merely asking that, if you would like me to discuss ancient texts with you, that you please give a link to the full text in the original language and note any secondary sources you are relying on. I ask this because your previous presentation of Cassiodorus' Latin translation of Clement was misleading. Work with the original texts will help you avoid inadequate presentations and unjustified conclusions in the future, save time for your readers, and build up some trust between you and your readers. Also, if you cite whichever secondary sources you may rely upon, we can judge if you have used good sources and if you have used them well.

Christ be with us, Christ within us, Christ behind us, Christ before us, Christ beside us, Christ to win us, Christ to comfort and restore us. Christ beneath us, Christ above us, Christ in quiet, Christ in danger, Christ in hearts of all that love us, Christ in the mouth of friend and stranger.

robrecht

[JamesSnappJr]

Robrecht,

I understand your request.

Did you have difficulty understanding the two questions that I just asked? Please answer them. Then we can move along to Eusebius' testimony.

Yours in Christ,

James Snapp, Jr.

[robrecht]

... Here are some quotations with references given -- four samples among many such statements found in a wide assortment of study-tools. As a person who clearly cares very much for accuracy in research, do you have anything to say about them? Have you ever had anything to say about them to the authors or publishers?

James Brooks: Mark ends at 16:8 -- "in most Greek lectionaries," and "in several early Christian writers, including Clement of Alexandria (d. ca. A.D. 215) and Origen (d. A.D. 254).” (p. 272, The New American Commentary Vol. 23: Mark, © 1991 Broadman Press, David S. Dockery, General Editor)

Philip Wesley Comfort: The end of Mark's Gospel at 16:8 is attested by "Clement, Origen, Eusebiusm Jerome, Ammonius, Victor of Antioch, and Euthymius." (pages 137-138 8 of The Quest for the Original Text of the New Testament, © 1992 Baker Book House).

A.F.J. Klijn: According to Clement of Alexandria, the Gospel of Mark ends with 16, 8. (p. 27, An Introduction to the New Testament, © 1967 by E.J. Brill, Leiden).

Stephen M. Miller: "The earliest copies of Mark end here, at verse 8. Early commentaries confirming this cutoff included those written by Clement of Alexandria (died about AD 101), Origen (AD 100s), and Eusebius (AD 200’s).” (p. 332, The Complete Guide to the Bible, (c) 2007 by Stephen M. Miller.)

Sorry I missed your questions here. It is unfortunate, of course, but not at all surprising, that errors creep into the secondary literature, especially derivative commentaries and even moreso introductory texts such as an Intro to the NT or a Guide to the Bible. Just recently I did indeed point out an error in a scholarly monograph to a very nice young woman at EJ Brill, and we laughed about it, but she declined to give me the book for free as I suggested. This was not introductory material but a scholarly monograph, but inadvertant errors are not uncommon, even in scholarly monographs. I haven't read an Intro to the NT in 35 years and was not in the market for one so I did not even look at Klijn's.

With respect to the (yours or are you dependent upon a source?) much vaunted 'false claim' in Metzger, let's take a look at your earlier post about this:

I insist that calling something a “false claim” does not imply that the claimant knowingly made an erroneous argument. It only means that the claim is false, regardless whether it came into being due to forgetfulness, carelessness, a printing error, or deliberate intent. In the case at hand, Metzger made a false claim about Eusebius, as I documented: in the 1964 edition of The Text of the New Testament, on page 226, Metzger wrote, “Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Eusebius show no knowledge of the existence of these verses.”

It is certainly not true (i.e., it's false) that Eusebius shows no knowledge of the existence of these verses; Eusebius discusses the ending of Mark in Ad Marinum, when answering Marinus’ question about how to harmonize Matthew 28:2 and Mark 16:9, and Eusebius used Mark 16:9 in two other places in the same composition.

I don’t know why Metzger wrote what he wrote about Eusebius on page 226 of the first edition that, but write it he did. We all make mistakes. Sometime before the third edition went to press, Metzger realized his mistake. If you consult the third edition of The Text of the New Testament,” you will see that the name “Eusebius” has been replaced by “Ammonius.” Which is not much of a correction, but the testimony of Ammonius is something we can visit later in the discussion.

I wonder if Metzger may have been merely thinking of the canons of Eusebius and not the entire corpus of Eusebius' writings, as should have been clear to anyone discussing the authenticity of Mk 16,9-20 and Eusebius' comments precisely about the authenticity of Mk 16,9-20. The later 'correction of Eusebius to Ammonius' seems to make it clear that Metzger had in mind the canons of Eusebius, which were developed precisely to make the text of Ammonius more useful. Whoever 'corrected' 'Eusebius' to 'Ammonius' may have been merely clarifying Metzger's originally intended meaning. Does Metzger mention the canons of Eusebius or Ammonius in his 1st edition? I thought I might have had Metzger's 1st edition at home, but it turns out I only have his 2nd edition, where he speaks clearly of the Eusebian canons. Do you have the whole context of the 1st edition?

Even though St Patrick's day is now past, I think I will continue to use my allusion to this prayer in my closings.

Christ be with us, Christ within us, Christ behind us, Christ before us, Christ beside us, Christ to win us, Christ to comfort and restore us. Christ beneath us, Christ above us, Christ in quiet, Christ in danger, Christ in hearts of all that love us, Christ in the mouth of friend and stranger.

robrecht

[robrecht]

Robrecht,

I understand your request.

Did you have difficulty understanding the two questions that I just asked? Please answer them. Then we can move along to Eusebius' testimony.

Yours in Christ,

James Snapp, Jr.

No, your questions were not at all diffiuclt. See my answer above. Before we move along to Eusebius, I would perhaps like to discuss your use of the Philocalia. Do you have links to the text, or would you like me to find them for you? Are you relying on any secondary literature discussing this matter?

Christ be with us, Christ within us, Christ behind us, Christ before us, Christ beside us, Christ to win us, Christ to comfort and restore us. Christ beneath us, Christ above us, Christ in quiet, Christ in danger, Christ in hearts of all that love us, Christ in the mouth of friend and stranger.

robrecht

[robrecht]

So since Clement is alluding to Lk 22,67 and then directly quoting Luke 22,70 (not Mt 26,64) in these very next lines, is it really so unlikely that he is alluding to Lk 22,69 in the preceding sentence instead of Mk 16,19?

Of course we also cannot rule out allusions to Col 3,1 Heb 10,12 12,2 or even Ac 2,33 5,31 Rom 8,34 1 Pet 3,22, but Lk 22,69 best suits the context in which he directly quotes Lk 22,70.

[JamesSnappJr]

Clement, Origen, Eusebius, and Jerome

Robrecht,

-- Ah! There you are! -- Apologies for losing track of this discussion.

I'm sure it would be real interesting to delve into the Philocalia, but my main point regarding Origen and Clement of Alexandria, as I've stated before, is that if they do not use Mark 16:9-20, their non-use of Mark 16:9-20 is a side-effect of their general non-use of the Gospel of Mark as a whole. Clement hardly ever uses any text of Mark outside chapter 10, and oodles of sections of Mark that are much longer than 12 verses are not used by Origen. Their failure to utilize Mark 16:9-20 implies nothing that their failure to utilize many other 12-verse sections of Mark implies.

I think you agree that this is the case. Unfortunately many commentators, of whom I have offered samples, have treated Clement and Origen as if their testimony is something weighty and important that clearly implies that Mark 16:9-20 was not in their copies. That's a misrepresentation of the significance of their (non-)testimony.

If Clement uses Mark 16:19 in the Adumbrationes on Jude 24 as preserved by Cassiodorus, then so much for his silence. And if Origen alludes to Mark 16:17-18 in Philocalia, then so much for his silence. But these tangential possibilities -- which considerably qualify Metzger's statement -- do not detract from my main point regarding Origen and Clement -- a point which I cannot state any more plainly than I already have.

The testimonies of Eusebius and Jerome have also been misrepresented by many commentators (including Metzger). In my book, I cite Eusebius extensively; his composition Ad Marinum, and the Eusebian Canons, are the relevant compositions; you can find part of the text of Ad Marinum in Kelhoffer's Miracle and Mission, but a fuller presentation is in Eusebius of Caesarea - Gospel Problems and Solutions, which was released by Roger Pearse.

A few things seem to be implied by the contents of Ad Marinum. Feel free to challenge any of these points if you think they're incorrect:

(1) Eusebius deduced from Marinus' question that Marinus accepts Mark 16:9 as part of the text.
(2) Eusebius is aware of some copies in which the text of Mark stops at the end of 16:8.
(3) Eusebius frames several brief descriptions of manuscript-evidence -- the passage is "not in every manuscript," or, "it is in some manuscripts but not in all of them," or, it "is lacking in almost all the manuscripts," it is "not in the accurate copies" -- as things that a person might say as grounds to reject Mark 16:9-20 and thus dismiss the harmonization-question as superfluous. He also points out that one could say that 16:9 seems to contradict the other accounts (esp. Matthew 28:1-2) and that this would be one reason to regard it with suspicion.
(4) Having depicted what a person who rejects the passage might say, Eusebius proceeds to say that someone else could take a different approach: figuring that it is not the task of faithful and pious individuals to pick and choose which parts of the text of the Gospels they accept -- however those parts got there -- the thing to do is to accept both accounts, and investigate how they may be harmonized.
(5) Eusebius, taking the second option, proceeds to explain, in detail, how the accounts should be harmonized: Mark 16:9 should be read with a comma, or pause, so that it is clear that what happened early on the first day of the week was Jesus' resurrection, not necessarily His appearance to Mary Magdalene.
(6) Further along in Ad Marinum, Eusebius mentions that Mary Magdalene is identified as the woman out of whom Jesus cast out seven demons, as related in some copies of the Gospel of Mark.
(7) A little further along in Ad Marinum, when answering Eusebius says that Mark says that Jesus cast out seven demons from Mary Magdalene (without any qualifying remark).

What I take away from this is that when Eusebius wrote Ad Marinum, he was perfectly willing to recommend to Marinus that Mark 16:9-20 should be kept in the text, and should be read, with a pause in 16:9. The entire part of his statement about things that someone might say who rejects the passage, he offers in much the same way that modern-day apologists present other apologists' solutions, or alternative solutions, before presenting their own solution, or the solution that they think is best.

Yet, when Eusebius made his Canon-tables -- whether before, or after, he wrote to Marinus, is unknown -- he did not include Mark 16:9-20. Regarding the Sections and Canons, it is important to realize (as, it seems, Metzger never did) that Eusebius is responsible for not only the Canon-chart but also for the section-divisions themselves. Ammonius' Matthew-centered harmony was Eusebius' inspiration for the Canon-tables, but not its close model or template; the earliest form of the Sections were the work of Eusebius (as Burgon effectively demonstrated in an appendix in his 1871 book).

Jerome, writing a composition to a lady named Hedibia, in the early 400's, borrowed some portions of Ad Marinum, in the course of answering a broad question that Hedibia had asked about how to harmonize what the Gospels say about events after Jesus' resurrection. Jerome reproduced -- in a section that has every indication of being a loose and spontaneously dictated translation and abridgment of Eusebius' remarks on the same subject -- not only the gist of Eusebius' answers, but also three of the same questions that Marinus had asked Eusebius. So what lies beneath the apparatus' reference to "Greek MSS according to Jerome" in the apparatus = Jerome, in the course of dictating a letter to answer questions asked by Hedibia, reaches her broad question, "How are the Gospels' accounts of events after Jesus' resurrection to be harmonized?" and he efficiently replies by putting into her hands the gist of the answers that had been given to Marinus by Eusebius, condensed by Jerome and translated into Latin on the spot. Thus in the condensed answer supplied by Jerome, we find the statement that almost all the Greek copies lack Mark 16:9-20, and we also find the recommendation that the passage should be retained, and should be read with a pause in 16:9, and we also find that this is followed by a reference to John.

What I take away from this is that this particular section of Ad Hedibiam is not an independent statement from Jerome based on his own investigations; it is, instead, Jerome's loose Latin abridgment of an extract from Ad Marinum. Jerome's own testimony regarding Mark 16:9-20 is already sufficiently clear: he included the passage in the Vulgate Gospels, which he made in 383 or 384 using ancient Greek manuscripts as a sort of template, and later, around 415, in Against the Pelagians, Book 2, he depicted the Christian-apologist-character stating that he had found the Freer Logion "in certain exemplars, and especially in Greek codices," and he used Mark 16:14 to show where he had found the extra material -- implying that 16:14 was in his own copies, and that he expected it to be in his readers' copies as well.

All this has been chronically misrepresented by commentator after commentator.

Yours in Christ,

James Snapp, Jr.