Is Mark 16:9-20 authentic?

[JamesSnappJr]

Clement and Cassiodorus and Mark 16:19


Robrecht,

R: notaftermore

[JamesSnappJr]

Eusebius, the Eusebian Canons, and Jerome's Recycling of Ad Marinum

Ad Marinum,, he had no means to verify that the statements regarding the proportion of MSS with, or without, verses 9-20, were true in all locales. And he may have deduced that they were probably not true in the locale in which Marinus lived.



That would just be busy-work, because nothing about the surrounding text changes. Just the name. (Did I not say this already?)


I am not concerned about his intent; I am concerned about the resultant false impression given to his readers, and how it should be corrected.



Then.. stop.. asking.. for.. links.you

By deducing that when Eusebius made his Canon-tables, he rejected Mark 16:9-20.

GreekIt looks like Jerome recycled Ad Marinum

Yours in Christ,

James Snapp, Jr.

[robrecht]

R: [Upon seeing the means by which I made a rough English translation of Ad Hedibiam]It looks like Jerome recycled Ad Marinum

Yours in Christ,

James Snapp, Jr.
[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

Why not just read the Latin original? If you really care about patristic scholarship and text criticism, it would be so much better to learn the languages. Relying on a Google translation of another translation and 'guessing' at the meaning is not going to take you very far.

It may be a while before I have time to get to all of your other points. It will have to be piecemeal.

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]

Then.. stop.. asking.. for.. links.[/COLOR]

I ask for links to the original language texts that you are trying to interpret because I do not trust implications drawn from translations, let alone Google translations of other translations. That practice can be very misleading, as I've already shown. Arguing by weblink, is merely producing a link and not the argument or rationale for what the author is saying. Up to this point, I don't think you have done that for Burgon, but I will look again.

[robrecht]

Robrecht,

R: notaftermore

I've already responded to these points. I note that you are still relying on an English translation, and seem to end with an understatement of your previous position. I have agreed all along that it is 'entirely possible' that Clement or Cassiodorus was alluding to Mk 16,19. It is when you try to overly diminish and misrepresent the possibility that this is an allusion to the language of Luke or a more general allusion to language that is contained in many other places in scripture that I try to help you out. You should rely on the original languages and not devalue or eliminate the context.

[One Bad Pig]

One Bad Pig,

Regarding Eusebius: he certainly does not seem eager to reject Mark 16:9-20 in Ad Marinum, and that's something to consider when evaluating how seriously he did or did not take the statements that he framed as things that someone might say who rejected the passage. (For why would anyone advocate retaining the passage if it was rarely encountered, and was absent from the accurate copies?) At the very least, it is clear that he did not present those statements as observations that originated with him.

You may have missed where I pointed out that Origen seems to have tended toward a reluctance to reject any variant, and that Eusebius is not unlikely to have followed the sentiment as well.

Regarding the claim that "people who marked the passage as spurious believed that Mark ended at 16:8" -- What people? What marks? We haven't gotten that far yet. Stay tuned! Metzger's description of MSS with "asterisks or obeli" accompanying Mark 16:9-20 was very misleading.

The claim comes from Eusebius (though, as you state, the observations likely did not originate with him), so yes, we have gotten that far.

[robrecht]

Greek

Are you aware of the fact that you completely sidestepped my point? You introduced Bock as someone who thought Jerome was not dependent upon Eusebius and I corrected your misreading of Bock. Is this sidestepping intended as a tacit acknowledgement that you had misread Bock? I'd like you to clarify that before we move on to a more detailed comparison of the texts of Eusebius and Jerome. Again, I would request that you provide links to the original texts that you wish to discuss. If you cannot read the languages, at least others here can.

[JamesSnappJr]

Eusebius says Nothing About MSS with Asterisks Beside Mk 16:9-20

One Bad Pig,

OBP: "You may have missed where I pointed out that Origen seems to have tended toward a reluctance to reject any variant, and that Eusebius is not unlikely to have followed the sentiment as well."

No; I noticed that. I didn't notice where you explain why Eusebius would be reluctant to reject a reading that was in the MSS that he considered accurate, and which was also found in almost all manuscripts to which he had access. The least complex explanation, istm, is that Eusebius did not intend for the things that he described as things that a person might say to be construed as things that he personally had observed, even if he had observed something similar.

OBP: "The claim comes from Eusebius (though, as you state, the observations likely did not originate with him), so yes, we have gotten that far."

Incorrect. Eusebius says nothing whatsoever about manuscripts which have asterisks alongside Mark 16:9-20.

Yours in Christ,

James Snapp, Jr.

[JamesSnappJr]

Clement and Jerome

Robrecht,

R: I have agreed all along that it is 'entirely possible' that Clement or Cassiodorus was alluding to Mk 16,19."

Wonderful; then we agree about that. Let it be noted: It is entirely possible that Clement was alluding to Mark 16:19. Unqualified statements to the contrary (some of which are fairly described as wild distortions) should be adjusted accordingly.

R: "I ask for links to the original language texts" --

And I provided a link to the Latin text of Ad Hedibiam at http://remacle.org/bloodwolf/eglise/jerome/hedibia.htm .

R: "You introduced Bock as someone who thought Jerome was not dependent upon Eusebius and I corrected your misreading of Bock."

Rather, Bock attempted to minimize Jerome's dependence on Eusebius, and I called him on it. Bock's basis for proposing that Jerome was not simply rephrasing material from Ad Marinum is paper-thin and flimsy; as I mentioned already: the only additional detail that Jerome provides is one that was obvious, as he made a Latin abridgement of Greek material by an author (Eusebius) who was obviously referring to Greek manuscripts. That Jerome was repeating Eusebius' material somewhat casually is clear when his situation is considered: by the time Jerome wrote his letter to Hedibia (say, in 406 or 407), the contents of Mark 16:9-20 had been utilized not only by Justin, Tatian, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, the authors of Epistula Apostolorum and De Rebaptismate, in the 100's and 200's, but also by Hierocles around 305, and by Macarius Magnes, in Apostolic Constitutions, by the author of Acts of Pilate, by Epiphanius, by the author of De Trinitate, by Pelagius, and by the copyists of Greek MSS used by Augustine, in the late 300's and very early 400's.

Do you imagine that those authors' copies of Mark were of a rare and elusive variety that was unknown to most Greek-reading Christians in 407? And would the same person (Jerome) who noted that the Freer Logion was found "especially in Greek codices," and who pinpointed its location for his readers by citing Mark 16:14, have declared, independently, that Mark 16:14, along with the rest of Mark 16:9-20, was absent from almost all Greek copies? One very good reason to conclude that the statement in Ad Hedibiam is absent from almost all Greek MSS is an echo of Ad Marinum, and is not a personal observation by Jerome, is that Jerome would have to be remarkably isolated and/or forgetful to issue such a statement on his own: he had included Mark 16:9-20 in the Vulgate; he used Mark 16:14 to locate the Freer Logion in Against the Pelagians, and several contemporary writers unhesitatingly used the passage as Scripture. Meanwhile the reason why Bock thinks that Jerome's abridgment of an excerpt from Ad Marinum implies that Jerome's personal experience corresponded with Eusebius' framed statement is simply that Bock is not adequately familiar with Jerome's habit of carelessly borrowing material from other writers without attribution.

R: "Again, I would request that you provide links to the original texts."

Again I mention the Greek text and English translation of Ad Marinum in the book at
http://www.amazon.com/Eusebius-Caesa.../dp/0956654010 and the link to the Latin text of the composition, near the beginning of my online translation of Ad Hedibiam: http://remacle.org/bloodwolf/eglise/jerome/hedibia.htm .

Yours in Christ,

James Snapp, Jr.

[robrecht]

No they're not. Addressing Marinus' first question, Eusebius framed several things that a person might say. Then, as Eusebius answered a different question, he mentioned that "some manuscripts" of Mark say that Jesus cast out seven demons from Mary Magdalene. This shows that not only was he aware that someone could claim that some MSS lacked Mark 16:9-20, but he was aware of some MSS that did not contain 16:9. These points are supplementary, not contradictory. (Eusebius frames the claim that there may be a contradiction between Mark 16:9 and the account in Matthew, but in his answer to Marinus he explains that the difference is merely superficial. So it is not a given that it's safe to assume that Eusebius agreed with the statements that he pre-framed; he indicates that he did not agree with that one.)

aware that someone could claim that some

Which statements, though: the statement that Mark 16:9-20 is not in 100% of the MSS, or the statement that Mark 16:9-20 is not in the accurate MSS, or the statement that Mark 16:9-20 is only in some MSS, or the statement that Mark 16:9-20 is lacking in almost all the MSS? These are not the same statement; the ratios are different, for one thing.

They are not the same statement but they are not contradictory. There is no reason to believe that he thought any of his statements about the manuscripts of Mark were false statements and every reason to expect him to say that they were false statements if he knew or thought they were false.

The question you should be asking is, if Eusebius did believe all these statements to be true, why didn't he reject Mark 16:9-20 outright?

There is, of course, no need to ask this question; Eusebius tells us exactly why he did not reject Mark 16,9-20 outright. He believes that the text should be commented upon regardless of how it got there. Thus, even if it were not written by Mark, it was still part of the texts that some possessed and dare not set aside. Both endings are approved in the opinion of the faithful and prudent members of the churches. It seems to me that Eusebius counts himself among this latter group that accepts both endings (διπλῆν εἶναὶ φησι τὴν ἀναγνωσιν), regardless of how the second one got there. But his witness to the ending at Mk 16,8 in the accurate copies, indeed in nearly all copies, still stands. He did not reject the claim about the accurate majority of manuscripts.

No they're not. It is entirely relevant to notice that Eusebius, rather than reject Mark 16:9-20 outright -- which is what one would think would be the logical next step, if he took very seriously those claims that he framed as something that someone might say -- explained to Marinus how to harmonize, and thus retain, the passage.

Ad Marinum,, he had no means to verify that the statements regarding the proportion of MSS with, or without, verses 9-20, were true in all locales. And he may have deduced that they were probably not true in the locale in which Marinus lived.

If you read his text, you would not need to try and read his mind, let alone read your own thinking into his text. It is not at all plain that he was overruling the accurate manuscripts. He presents a two-fold reading.

Strawman. I have never claimed that he adamantly rejected this passage.

No one has claimed that Eusebius had the means to survey all manuscripts throughout Christendom. This is just another strawman of yours.

[robrecht]

[FONT=Georgia][COLOR="#000000"][SIZE=3]Robrecht,

R: I have agreed all along that it is 'entirely possible' that Clement or Cassiodorus was alluding to Mk 16,19."

Wonderful; then we agree about that. Let it be noted: It is entirely possible that Clement was alluding to Mark 16:19. Unqualified statements to the contrary (some of which are fairly described as wild distortions) should be adjusted accordingly.

You seem strangely surprised. Have you not been reading my posts very well? My point all along has been that your presentation was misleading for the reasons I have offered and which still stand. There are arguments against your interpretation of the text of Cassiodorus that I have not bothered to go into, as I would be content to merely persuade you to present the evidence fairly, without creating any false impressions.

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

[One Bad Pig]

One Bad Pig,

OBP: "You may have missed where I pointed out that Origen seems to have tended toward a reluctance to reject any variant, and that Eusebius is not unlikely to have followed the sentiment as well."

No; I noticed that. I didn't notice where you explain why Eusebius would be reluctant to reject a reading that was in the MSS that he considered accurate, and which was also found in almost all manuscripts to which he had access.

Perhaps that's because there's nothing in the text to show which he considered accurate or what his personal experience was.

The least complex explanation, istm, is that Eusebius did not intend for the things that he described as things that a person might say to be construed as things that he personally had observed, even if he had observed something similar.

Sure.

OBP: "The claim comes from Eusebius (though, as you state, the observations likely did not originate with him), so yes, we have gotten that far."

Incorrect. Eusebius says nothing whatsoever about manuscripts which have asterisks alongside Mark 16:9-20.

Are we looking at the same text?

The actual nub of the matter is the pericope [Mark 16:9-20] which says this. One who athetises that pericope would say that it is not found in all copies of the gospel according to Mark: accurate copies end their text of the Marcan account with the words . . . "because they were frightened." That is where it ends in almost all copies of the gospel according to Mark.

We can see that those who reject the pericope mark it as spurious (athetise it) in the few copies of the gospel which have it. What were they marking, if not manuscripts?

[JamesSnappJr]

Athetizes or Rejects?

One Bad Pig,

OBP: "Are we looking at the same text?"

Notwithstanding the note on p. 97 of Eusebius of Caesarea - Gospel Problems & Solutions, the term can simply mean to reject, which is how Kelhoffer rendered it. This seems to be more consistent with the tone of the framed objections offered by Eusebius; the first person does not retain the passage at all; as Eusebius proceeds to say, such a person rejects it, entirely obviating the question as superfluous."

James Snapp, Jr.

[JamesSnappJr]

Wrapping Up Regarding Clement

Robrecht,

R: "Have you not been reading my posts very well?"

Funny; I was about to ask you the same question. My points all along, regarding Clement's testimony, are that (a) Clement utilizes the Gospel of Mark so rarely, outside of chapter 10 (according to Cosaert, just twice!), that his non-use of Mark 16:9-20 does not constitute meaningful evidence that these 12 verses were not in Clement's copies of Mark, and that (b) it is possible that Clement does utilize Mark 16:19, in the excerpt preserved by Cassiodorus. Clearly we agree on both of those points, and we would both welcome -- indeed we both encourage and invite -- the correction of any commentary which gives an impression to the contrary. (Brooks, Comfort, Klijn, Martin, Ehrman, Metzger, Greenlee, Tabor, Miller, etc. -- I'm lookin' at you.)

Yours in Christ,

James Snapp, Jr.

[robrecht]

Robrecht,

R: "Have you not been reading my posts very well?"

Funny; I was about to ask you the same question. My points all along, regarding Clement's testimony, are that (a) Clement utilizes the Gospel of Mark so rarely, outside of chapter 10 (according to Cosaert, just twice!), that his non-use of Mark 16:9-20 does not constitute meaningful evidence that these 12 verses were not in Clement's copies of Mark, and that (b) it is possible that Clement does utilize Mark 16:19, in the excerpt preserved by Cassiodorus. Clearly we agree on both of those points, and we would both welcome -- indeed we both encourage and invite -- the correction of any commentary which gives an impression to the contrary. (Brooks, Comfort, Klijn, Martin, Ehrman, Metzger, Greenlee, Tabor, Miller, etc. -- I'm lookin' at you.)

Yours in Christ,

James Snapp, Jr.

Really? If it is clear to you that we agree on both of these possibilities, then I must have understood very well and even communicated agreement back to you. Why would you say that I may not be reading your posts well? Both of those points are completely unrelated to my desire that you quote texts responsibly and not misrepresent them.