Subject: Re: tc-list FW: Mark 16:9-20

From: Jim West <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 15:55:25 +0000

At 01:49 AM 10/21/98 +0000, you wrote:
>--> 
>--> Hello everyone,

Gee- it might just be me- but is ther any way you can leave off the dashes
and arrows which begin every line of your text, please, if possible.

And hello to you.

>--> Mark 16:9-20 

[snipped]

>--> Looking for references and general info that anyone can
>give
>--> me on the subject. Thanks!!

There is absolutely no doubt that the long ending of Mark is secondary and
was not a part of the earliest document.  A brief glance at the textual
evidence will show that it is LATE, late, late!!!!!!

You may want to consult any modern (i.e., written in the last half century
of so) commentary on the Gospel of Mark, like that of Eduard Schweizer, or
even better, Rudolf Pesch.

The long ending (as it is called) is preserved by various parties because
their treasured text is based on late, virtually worthless (so far as being
useful in recovering the earliest readings of any NT document), Byzantine
manuscripts.

Best,

Jim

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Jim West, ThD
Adjunct Professor of Bible- Quartz Hill School of Theology
Pastor- Petros Baptist Church

[email-masked]

---

From: [email-masked] (Maurice A. Robinson)
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 17:37:16 EDT

>There is absolutely no doubt that the long ending of Mark is secondary 
>and was not a part of the earliest document.  A brief glance at the 
>textual evidence will show that it is LATE, late, late!!!!!!

[snip]

>The long ending (as it is called) is preserved by various parties 
>because their treasured text is based on late, virtually worthless (so
far as 
>being useful in recovering the earliest readings of any NT document), 
>Byzantine manuscripts.

Although I am too preoccupied to get into a debate over the long ending
of Mark, I am somewhat at a loss over the rhetoric and invective in Jim's
message. Something better than a misleading diatribe would be preferable.

Why not simply note that among the extant Greek MSS there are only two
which actually omit the passage (the somewhat interrelated Alexandrian
witnesses Sinaiticus and Vaticanus), while all remaining Greek MSS (save
those which are missing the final page of Mark) contain the long ending,
with a few containing both the long ending and the shorter ending? At
least that would be factual. 

You might also want to note that Vaticanus happens to leave a blank space
at the end of Mark (unique in the entire NT of that MS) which is nearly
sufficient to contain the whole of those verses, and which likely
indicates that the scribe of Vaticanus knew of the long ending and
apparently had some concern regarding the omission which the blank space
seems to reflect.

And as for "late" and "virtually worthless" evidence, I doubt that the
evidence of the Curetonian Syriac (sy-c), which contains the long ending
(at least the last few verses in the extant fragments)  should be so
quickly discounted as mere Byzantine-era fluff. 

=================================================
Maurice A. Robinson
Professor of NT and Greek
Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary
Wake Forest, North Carolina

___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

---

From: Carlton Winbery <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 20:59:03 +0400

>quickly discounted as mere Byzantine-era fluff.
Thanks, Maurice, for reminding us how scholars discuss such questions.  It
seems that I read somewhere that there is evidence that Tatian's
Diatessaron used the long ending.  Can someone confirm or give contra
evidence?

I would add that I think that it takes both external and internal
(intrinsic and transcriptional) evidence to make the case that Metzger
does.  The external evidence alone is not so conclusive.

Carlton L. Winbery
Fogleman Professor of Religion
Louisiana College
Pineville, LA 71359
[email-masked]
[email-masked]

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 08:16:46 -0500

I wasn't going to add my opinions on this thread, as I had already
given them privately to the original poster. But a few odd thoughts
on the direction of the discussion.

>does.  The external evidence alone is not so conclusive.

Depends on where one stands. As a person who always studies the
external evidence first (and will wherever possible decide things
based on the external evidence), I would state that the external
evidence against the passage is pretty strong. Note:

It is omitted by:

* The earliest Alexandrian witnesses: Aleph B sa-ms

* The earliest "Western" witnesses: (a defective but does not have space)
    k sin

* The earliest "Caesarean" witnesses: arm-mss geo1 geoA

Alternate endings are found in:

* Many late Alexandrian witnesses: L Psi 579 sa-mss bo-mss pc

Some sort of expression of doubt are found in:

* certain "Caesarean" witnesses: f1 pc

Frankly, to me that adds up to an addition. If the internal evidence
happens to agree, wonderful. :-)

***

"R. David Large" <[email-masked]> wrote, in part:

>I believe the passage is genuine.

This cries out for a definition of "genuine." There are at least
three possible meanings: "Part of the original writing," "A work
of the original author (but not part of *this* work)," and
"Canonical." It appears that the author of the post means the
first, but the term needs to be clarified. A passage may be canonical
without being by the original/alleged author (witness Second Isaiah,
or for that matter the whole Torah; compare also 2 Peter, etc.)
Or it may be by the author without being part of the writing
(perhaps Romans 16; at least part of 2 Corinthians). Etc.

It sounds, though, as if the poster is a supporter of the Byzantine
text. In fact, I have never heard anyone support this passage who
is not a supporter of the Byzantine text. This is perhaps worth
keeping in mind.

***

I guess this proves Jim West's point about how dogmatic we are. :-)
Not sure what the cure is....
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-

                        Robert B. Waltz
                     [email-masked]

Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism?
Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn
(A site inspired by the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism)

---

From: [email-masked] (Maurice A. Robinson)
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 12:48:15 EDT

>on the direction of the discussion.

Although I am trying avoid debate (probably for similar reasons), I still
have some odd thoughts. Oddness is my prerequisite for doing textual
criticism.

>* Many late Alexandrian witnesses: L Psi 579 sa-mss bo-mss pc

Whether this small selection (add to the pool 083, 099, 274mg, L-1602,
sy-hmg, eth-mss) equals "many" is debatable, and though the MSS may be
chronologically late as regards copying date, their text may still be
early. 

However, among the Greek witnesses at least, the alternate short ending
(only one!) is _always_ found in conjunction with the long ending, and
with a note attached ("expression of doubt" if you like). Old Latin
Bobbiensis (k) does have the short ending without the long ending, but it
is the only exception.  BTW -- going back to the beginning of the thread
-- Burgon's 1871 book is still excellent as regards the complete and
comprehensive presentation of the evidence, since very little that is new
has been added to the pool. So even if one does not agree with Burgon's
conclusions, his book is still valuable in this regard).

>happens to agree, wonderful. :-)

Yet elsewhere, when similar early witnesses possess readings with NO
expression of doubt attached, one should not thereby conclude
authenticity any more than one should when the same MSS elsewhere lack
words or phrases which happen to be marginally noted (cf. the longer
Alexandrian reading at Mt. 27:49 or the agrapha of D at Mt 20:28 or Lk
6:4; also the omission of Mt 24:35 in Aleph*). Marginal notes and
comments reflect at most an opinion current at the time in which the MS
was written, maybe even an earlier opinion. The opinion may tend toward
an assumption of authenticity or inauthenticity, but the weight of the
totality of the evidence is far superior to those marginal or other
annotations.

>is not a supporter of the Byzantine text. This is perhaps worth

Mr. Large may or may not be a Byzantine supporter.  I am, but it seems
that this is irrelevant to the point at this variant unit, since I see no
reason why any non-Byzantine supporter could not practice reasoned
eclecticism on this passage and legitimately conclude authenticity for
these 12 verses on the basis of the evidence they tend most to respect.
The very early support from the Curetonian Syriac and Irenaeus serves as
a minimum. The sources which omit are diverse (though predominantly
Egyptian), but not so diverse as the sources which include. One still has
to contend with the testimony of the non-Byzantine witnesses C D W Theta
f13, 33, the rest of the Old Latin tradition, the Syriac tradition apart
from sy-s (including the early sy-c), and the Coptic Bohairic, all very
diverse and all in unquestioned support of these verses.  Codex
Alexandrinus (generally Byzantine in the Gospels) is the only early
witness liable to the awful "Byzantine" accusation.

Further, the fact that B includes the unique extended blank space at this
point also could influence a reasoned eclectic to argue a pre-Vaticanus
presence of the passage, perhaps in the archetype of Vaticanus. So add
this to the pool supporting its possible authenticity.

William Farmer certainly is not a Byzantine text supporter, but at least
to my reading and recollection (correct me if I  am wrong -- it has been
24 years since I read Farmer's book) in his "Last Twelve Verses of Mark"
(1974),  Farmer (in his own way)  argues for the originality of these
verses in the pre-canonical archetype of Mark's gospel. 

Farmer as I recall rejects the hypotheses that Mark originally ended at
16:8 or that a later summary was tacked on after the text was accepted as
canonical. He argues, however,  that the ending is NOT by the same author
as the rest of Mark, but still that the ending was produced and completed
(apparently with approval of "Mark") BEFORE the gospel was put into
circulation. If this is a correct summary, then there would be at least
one non-Byzantine person out there who would argue authenticity.

___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

---

From: "William L. Petersen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 16:42:21 -0400

Some observations on the "long" ending of Mark, which have not yet been
made on the list (although they are certainly in the literature):

(1) The *internal* evidence would seem to suggest that the long ending
(16:9-20) is a pastiche of material culled from the resurrection
appearances in extant NT books:

> v. 9 early on the first day of the week = Matt 28.1 or Mk. 16.2 or Lk 24.1
> v. 9: first to Mary M = John 20.1, 14, 18
> v. 9: seven demons = Lk 8.2
> v.10: etc., etc.
> v. 12 = Luke's Emmaus episode
> v. 14 = John 10.19-29
> v. 15 = Matt 28.19
> etc., etc.

Virtually *every* detail of every *appearance* cited in the "long ending"
has a parallel in some other canonical gospel.  This is odd, for unlike the
other parallels between Mark and the other gospels (e.g., the Anointing at
Bethany)--in which the parallelism is extended and often verbatim--here we
find mere "echoes" of the other appearances:  enough to remind you of the
story, and let you identify it, but no "full" parallelism.

If one wished to provide an ending for a gospel which--like Mark, if it
ended at 16.8--lacked (or had lost) a *satisfactory* ending, would this not
be precisely the way one would go about supplying an ending?  Would one not
harmonize the material from the other gospels?  (Recall that only John
has--as does the longer ending of Mark--an appearance to Mary M *first*.
In Matt, Jesus first meets the "women" [28.9-10], while in Luke, the two
Emmaus guys are the first to see him.  Mark brings no "new" information to
us here, and must select one of the other gospel's "first" appearance to be
*his* "first" appearance.)

This very different sort of parallelism and the technique of referencing
(enough so you know what's being referenced, but not a full parallel)
argues *against* the authenticity of the "long" ending, by my standards.
The author of the long ending is, in my view, simply "cribbing" his
appearances from the other gospels.

(2) The unique stuff in the long ending, in vv. 17-18 (snakes & poisons,
etc.), while practiced by certain Christian groups today, does not--to my
knowledge--seem to have had *any* currency in Christian antiquity.  Justin,
Origen, etc., etc., etc., don't seem to talk about it or urge it on their
followers.  If, however, the "long ending" were original, then these would
have been the part of the concluding verses of the oldest gospel (as per
the 4 source theory);   one might have expected more attention to have been
given to these remarkable activities...or, conversely, to have cautioned
against it (or have I missed a new test of faith at certain seminaries?
Faculty first, guys... [  ;-) ])...but they don't (at least as far as I
know the Fathers);  instead, they simply act as if it doesn't exist.  (Why?
 Because it probably didn't.)

(3) The reference to Irenaeus shows that the long ending (IF it is THIS
ending, and not some other ending which ALSO contained the "right hand of
God" reference.... [recall that we've several endings floating around here,
something which, simply by itself, suggests a textual disturbance...]) is
old.  But the silence of all other early Fathers is curious--and Irenaeus'
reference is only to one part of one verse of the "long ending"--not a
citation of it "en bloc."  (Note that while Irenaeus specifically states
the reference is from the "end of Mark" [might this be an attempt to
legitimize the ending, and an interpolation into Irenaeus???], "sitting at
the right hand of God" is an image found in Heb. 10.12 and Col. 3.1,
and--without the "seated" bit--found in many other NT references.   Again,
I find this odd...  How often does Irenaeus cite a reference by stating
from *which* book he is drawing it, and *where*, specifically, in that book
he is drawing the citation???  "Methinks the good pater doeth give his
source *too* precisely."

(4) Regarding the Diatessaronic witnesses, I've not checked them all, but
Codex Fuldensis and the Liege Harmony have the long ending harmonized in
with the other material from the other gospels, as do the Arabic and the
Persian.  Ephrem's *Commentary,* however, lacks any reference...  Given the
prominence of the ending in later MSS of Mark, it is not surprising to find
the long ending in some of the harmonies.  Ephrem's silence, however,
matches that of Justin, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and Origen--to
name only the most obvious.

***

The two questions for those who wish to defend the authenticity of the long
ending are (to my mind, at least):  (1) *Why* would it be omitted?  (2) Why
are *all* of the appearances of Jesus in the "long ending" merely truncated
versions of appearances described elsewhere in the gospels?  This is
singularly odd, for ALL the other gospels have "unique" appearances--that
is, appearances unique to that gospel:  Emmaus for Luke, to Mary Mag and
the other Mary outside the tomb for Matt, and to Mary Mag, as a gardener,
in John.  *Only Mark,* if you paste on the long ending, would not have any
distinctive (= "only in Mark") appearances.  This suggests to me that
something is rotten on the rue Nablus.

V. Taylor, *The Gospel according to St. Mark* has a good section on the
Greek text and the support (or lack thereof) for the long ending in the
early church.

--Petersen, Penn State University.

---

From: "Kerry Gilliard" <[email-masked]>
Date: 23 Oct 1998 00:28:06 -0000

Maurice,

> one non-Byzantine person out there who would argue authenticity.

Now THAT's something that passed my mind during my search (BTW- thank you everyone. So much information, so little time....)- are there any other 'theories' regarding the 'origin' of the last 12 verses?

Also, for those on the list who hold a 'conservative/evangelical' position regarding scripture, does the use of morphe in 16:12 (as opposed to schema, although some people consider them synonyms) present a problem with accepting the verses as authentic? 

Kerry Gilliard
http://witness.base.org OR 
http://tidalwave.net/~blufunk195
1 Peter 3:15, Jude 3

-----
See the original message at http://www.egroups.com/list/tc-list/?start=4834
--
Free e-mail group hosting at http://www.eGroups.com/

---

From: "Stephen C. Carlson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 00:19:47 -0400

Another factor to throw into the mix is a tenth-century Armenian MS that
ascribes the longer ending of Mark to Ariston.  Ariston is mentioned by
Papias in one of Eusebius' quotations [HE, III.39.4, cf. 7].  There is
other evidence that the writings of Papias were known in Armenia around
this time.  For example, Orchard cites a Folker Siegert article, NTS 
27:605-14, that a thirteenth-century Armenian scholar, Vardan, refers
to Papias' exegesis on ALHOS and that an Armenian fragment on the
Apocalyse of John quotes Papias.

This suggests, if somewhat speculatively, that there is information in
the lost works of Papias about the longer ending of Mark, possibly
attesting to its lack of originality.

It is also interesting that the Armenians may have preserved some
information connecting Papias to the other major text critical problem
-- the Pericope Adultera.  Apparently, Vardan also stated that Papias
wrote it.  This statement is more explicit than Eusebius' own
obscure statement that Papias has "expounded another story about a
woman who was accused before the Lord of many sins, which the Gospel
to the Hebrews contains." [HE, III.39.17]  Papias is also connect to
the writing of the Fourth Gospel in other traditions, for example,
in the Old Latin Prolog to John.

If there is any lost, non-hypothetical early Christian text that would
be found, I would want it to be the five-volume work of Papias.  It
would answer so many questions about so many puzzles.

Stephen Carlson
--
Stephen C. Carlson                        mailto:[email-masked]
Synoptic Problem Home Page   http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/
"Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words."  Shujing 2.35

---

From: Ken Litwak <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 23:03:54 -0700

> *his* "first" appearance.)

My only comment on this subject (and I tend to think the long ending is
not part of the original text - but not with the aboslute, 
incontrovertible certainty of some) is that I don't thinkt there's much
hope of making textual decisions based on what "seems" like it would be
what would be supplied to fill a lacuna. The problem with this is, what
then would we expect the real ending, if there was anyting beyond v.9,
to have looked like?  If parallel appearenaces on the one hand, but
totally unique material on the other hand aren't what would have been in
a presumed original ending, what would have been in that ending?   Since
there's really no way to determine that, I find a judgment about what
would have been written by someone trying to fill the void a problematic
basis for a textual decision.

Ken Litwak

---

From: "Prof. Ron Minton" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 09:31:29 -0500 (Central Daylight Time)

On Thu, 22 Oct 1998, Robert B. Waltz wrote:
>... I would state that the external evidence against the passage is
> pretty strong. Note:
> 
> It is omitted by:

As I see it we should not normally take the age difference in competing 
manuscripts as that important unless there are several centuries between
the representatives.  In this case there is not.

As I see it we should not normally take the quantitative difference in
competing manuscripts as that important unless there are enormous
differences between the representatives.  In this case there is.  1800 to
3 is significant even to those of us who despise mere "nose counting."

Professor Ron Minton

---

From: "William L. Petersen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 10:57:07 -0400

Generally speaking, I agree with Ken Litwak's observations;  there are,
however, a couple points in his comments which indicate that I need to be
clearer in stating my position, so as to prevent misunderstanding.

I begin with the following:

(1) Observation:  all other gospels contain some unique resurrection
appearances;
(2) Mark does not.
(3) All of  the appearances in Mark's "long ending" are also found in other
gospels.

Next:  If one were to "supply" an ending for a Mark which lacked one, there
are three possibilities:

(a) create your own appearance stories (utterly without parallels)--but
this is not what we find;
(b) combine parts of other canonical appearance episodes with your own
unique (unparalleled) material--but this is not what we find;
(c) crib off of the other appearance episodes in the canonical gospels
(this would mean all of the appearances would have parallels).

Our empirical observation leads us to exclude possibilities a and b, and
selecting c.

If one were to assume that the long ending were part of the "original" text
of Mark (which is the alternative being proposed on the list), then one
faces three very odd circumstances:

(A) Unlike all other parallels among the gospels, where Mark gives a full
narrative (take a synopsis and look at the "Cleansing of the Temple" [Mark
11:15-19, parr.], "The Question about Jesus' Authority" [Mark 11:27-33,
parr.], or the "Synoptic Apocalypse" [Mark 13, parr.]), and the other
gospels follow suit, here we would have *the only known case* where Mark
gives a series of "one-liners" (v. 9:  "he appeared first to Mary
Magdalene";  v. 12: "he appeared in another form to two of them as they
were walking in the country";  etc.), which are then *blown up* by the
other evangelists into full stories (Luke 24:13-35 [the Emmaus episode]
would be an expansion of Mark 16:12).  This seems unlikely, for it is
inconsistent with all other parallels among the gospels:  nowhere else (if
I am wrong, please give me the reference...) do we find 5 or 10 *words* in
Mark being expanded in the parallel accounts into *22 verses*, as happens
with the Emmaus account.  The fact that this pattern of composition is
*contrary to the norm* should set off alarm bells.

(B) The fact that stringing together of bits and pieces of known stories
from the gospels into catenae (which is essentially what we have in the
long ending:  a catena of resurrection appearances drawn from the other
canonical gospels) was a practice in later (2nd, 3rd cent.) Christianity,
and the fact that the creation of such a catena is one of the 3 things (see
a-c, above) we might expect someone to do if one where needing to supply
resurrection apprearances to the end of Mark, also suggests that the long
ending is secondary.

(C) Vincent Taylor remarks on the non-Marcan style of the long ending--a
point which I find very convincing.  Taylor:  (p. 610):  "The vocabulary
and style of this section show clearly that it was not written by Mark, but
is based on a knowledge of traditions found in Lk and Jn."  He then
proceeds to list a whole catalogue of non-Marcan features (vocabulary,
grammar, etc., etc.).  (Taylor also provides an excellent summary of the
Patristic [non-]evidence for the long ending...)

>From my prespective, then, it is not (as Ken seems to suggest)

>making textual decisions based on what "seems" like it would be
>what would be supplied to fill a lacuna.

Rather, it is listing all the options (a, b, and c, above) as to how an
abrupt, unacceptable, or lost ending of Mark might be rectified.  Eliminate
what is not the case (a and b of the above), and you are left with c.  Is c
reasonable?  Yes it is.  The only other possibility is that the long ending
is "original"--but that faces the problems listed as A, B, C--in addition
to the manuscript evidence, which *also* argues against the "originality"
of the long ending.

In short, what we empirically find in the long ending (i.e., a catena of
resurrection appearances, entirely dependent upon the other gospels) is one
of the three options for providing a satisfactory ending for Mark.  There
is nothing unusual about it;  it requires *no* leaps in logic or evidence.
It also concurs with the observed Patristic silence (*pace* Irenaeus' very
[to my mind] suspicious quotation), the statements of Jerome and Eusebius
(that the long ending was lacking in most mauscripts known to them), the
fact that the langaugue in the long ending is not Marcan, and the empirical
state of the textual evidence:  it is missing in our oldest MSS (something
upon which Jerome and Eusebius also note, even way back then).  
Arguing that the long ending is "original" requires one to abandon this
very logical and consistent pattern;  it also requires one to answer the
following questions:  (1) How does one explain its absence in the oldest
MSS?  (2) How does one explain its non-Marcan style?  (3) How does one
explain the silence of the Fathers on its remarkable, distinctive features
(e.g., v. 18)?  (4) How does one explain its "non-standard" parallel style
(i.e., not a full parallel, as we have elsewhere in Mark and the other
gospels, but just these very abbreviated "echoes" of the other resurrection
appearances)?  (5) How does one prove that the passage is *not* what it
appears to be:  a catena of appearances extracted (and condensed) from the
other gospels?

--Petersen, Penn State Univ.

---

From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 16:38:26 +000

Can I applaud the clarity of thought and of presentation of thought 
in Bill Petersen's response to Ken Litwak?  Bill has very helpfully 
set out the *rationale* he is following in making a textual decision, 
which is often what is missing in the exchanges of opinions (often 
pre-conceived) on this list.  If one is inclined to reach conclusions 
other than those Bill favors, then one at least has a clear 
presentation of positions to address (and a clear model of how to 
set forth a contrary view of things).

L. W. Hurtado
University of Edinburgh,
New College
Mound Place 
Edinburgh, Scotland EH1 2LX
Phone: 0131-650-8920
Fax: 0131-650-6579
E-mail:  [email-masked]

---

From: "Mark Goodacre" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 17:05:46 GMT

On 23 Oct 98 at 10:57, William L. Petersen wrote:

> parr.], or the "Synoptic Apocalypse" [Mark 13, parr.]), and the other gospels
> follow suit, here we would have *the only known case* where Mark gives a
> series of "one-liners" (v. 9:  "he appeared first to Mary Magdalene";  v. 12:
> "he appeared in another form to two of them as they were walking in the
> country";  etc.), which are then *blown up* by the other evangelists into full
> stories (Luke 24:13-35 [the Emmaus episode] would be an expansion of Mark
> 16:12).  This seems unlikely, for it is inconsistent with all other parallels
> among the gospels:  nowhere else (if I am wrong, please give me the
> reference...) do we find 5 or 10 *words* in Mark being expanded in the
> parallel accounts into *22 verses*, as happens with the Emmaus account.  The
> fact that this pattern of composition is

I agree with Prof. Hurtado in finding Prof. Petersen's post clear and 
convincing.  However,  there are answers to the points made in this paragraph.  
It is not always the case that "Mark gives a full narrative . . . and the other 
gospels follow suit".  On several occasions Mark has a barebones narrative 
where Matthew and Luke have a much fuller parallel.  The Temptation Narrative 
is the most famous example (Mark 1.12-13) -- two verses in Mark against eleven 
in Matthew (4.1-11) and thirteen in Luke (4.1-13), not dissimilar to the Emmaus 
example under discussion -- two verses in Mark (16.12-13, more than "5 or 10 
words") against twenty-two in Luke (24.13-35).

One might think too of the Call of the Disciples in Luke (5.1-11) compared 
with Mark (1.16-20) or the Rejection at Nazareth in Luke (4.16-30) compared 
with Mark (6.1-6a).  Or an even more striking example might be the Sermon on 
the Mount in Matthew -- 138 verses in Matthew 5-7 compared to one or two verses 
in Mark (1.22-23 or 1.39, depending on where one sees Matthew inserting it into 
the Markan outline).  One of the great pains (or glories)  of Synoptic Problem 
studies is the difficulty of establishing clear tendencies e.g. of abbreviation 
or expansion (see especially Ed Sanders's _Tendencies of the Synoptic 
Tradition_).

This of course focuses the issue of Farmer's defence of the originality of 
these twelve verses -- he is working with a neo-Griesbachian agenda according 
to which Mark's omission of  much of Matt. 28 and Luke 24 would be problematic. 
By defending the authenticity of these words, he is attempting to deal with a 
genuine difficulty for the Griesbach Hypothesis.

While I am writing, and since no-one else has done so, perhaps I might 
recommend my colleague David Parker's "The Ending's of Mark's Gospel" (_The 
Living Text of the Gospels_, Chapter 8).

Mark
--------------------------------------
Dr Mark Goodacre     mailto:[email-masked]
  Dept of Theology, University of Birmingham
 
Recommended New Testament Web Resources: 
  http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre/links.htm
World Without Q:
  http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/q
Homepage:
  http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre

---

From: [email-masked] (Jeff Cate)
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 10:23:47 -0700

In addition to the parallels that Bill mentioned from the canonical
gospels, I would add that vv. 17-20 of the longer ending seem to be a
pastiche of events primarily found in Acts (which of course is the sequel
of a canonical gospel).

v. 17 casting out demons - Acts 5:16; 8:7; 19:11-12
v. 17 speak in new tongues - Acts 10:46; 19:6 (2:4?)
v. 18 pick up snakes in their hands - Acts 28:3-5
v. 18 drink any deadly poison - no direct parallel but maybe an allusion
to Acts 28:3-5 since Acts describes Paul being bitten but not affected by
the viper
v. 18 lay their hands on the sick - Acts 5:15-16; 19:12; especially 28:8;
also possibly to 3:6-7 & 20:9-12
v. 19 Jesus taken up into heaven Acts 1:9-11 (Lk 24:50-53)
v. 19 sat down at right hand - Acts 2:33; 5:31; 7:55-56 (not to mention
other mentions in Gospels, Pauline epis., etc.)
v. 20 went out and proclaimed the good news everywhere - summary of the
missionary exploits elaborated on throughout Acts (especially Paul's
journeys)
v. 20 confirmed the message by signs - summary statements in Acts 2:43;
5:12; 6:8; 8:6, 13; 14:13; 15:12 repeatedly mention "signs" being done by
the apostles, Steven, Philip, Paul, Barnabas, et alia in confirmation of
their preaching.

Jeff Cate, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Christian Studies
California Baptist University
Riverside, California 92508

---

From: [email-masked] (Maurice A. Robinson)
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 16:49:54 EDT

On Thu, 22 Oct 1998 16:42:21 -0400 "William L. Petersen" <[email-masked]>
writes:

>If one wished to provide an ending for a gospel which--like Mark, if 
>it ended at 16.8--lacked (or had lost) a *satisfactory* ending, would 
>this not be precisely the way one would go about supplying an ending? 
Would 
>one not harmonize the material from the other gospels?  
[snip]
>This very different sort of parallelism and the technique of 
>referencing (enough so you know what's being referenced, but not a full
parallel)
>appearances from the other gospels.

Granting this line of argument (which has plausibility), this still would
not nullify a text-critical position such as held by Farmer, in which the
addition of the ending belongs to the pre-canonical or pre-circulation
stage of this gospel. One of course then has to determine at what date a
"canonical" or otherwise widely-circulated Mark began to emerge. 

I certainly have no problem in viewing the ending of Mark as a basic
summary of the resurrection appearances and paralleling much of what is
found in the other gospels (regardless of the Markan priority hypothesis
or the date of the ending). However, the issue of Markan authorship of
the ending properly belongs to higher criticism and probably is becoming
inappropriate for the tc-list, so I will try to conclude this line of
discussion before it departs textual criticism entirely.

Assuming the long ending only gives a "resurrection summary" of what is
found in the other gospels, why then were all the "extras" added to the
longer ending of Mark which go far beyond a simple harmonization of the
other resurrection accounts.  E.g., the seven demons derive from Lk. 8:2
and not from any resurrection narrative. 

Further, if a mere precis were intended, one would presume the summary to
be in harmony with and not blatantly contradict the appearance accounts
in the parallel gospels. Yet  the *Markan* appearance to the two walking
into the country (= the Emmaus road appearance in Lk 24) ends with a
statement that the assembled disciples "did NOT believe" the report of
the two witnesses. Yet the Lukan account not only does NOT have the
assembled disciples in unbelief, but in contrast, it is the *Eleven* who
confidently announce to the Emmaus Two that "The Lord has risen and
appeared to Simon!"  Would a mere summary precis end up giving such
blatantly opposite results rather than a close harmonization of the
accounts? 

The same could be said regarding the addition of "believing and baptized"
to the Matthean great commission. Why add extra material which alters or
contradicts the original statement?  Similarly, the catalogue of  "signs
following" is otherwise unparalleled in the other gospel accounts, as
well as the session on the right hand of God. 

How then does one account for "extra" material -- especially extra
material which contradicts the accounts from which it supposedly is drawn
-- if such is supposed to be a mere precis of the other gospel accounts?
Some of this material might be accounted for by drawing on more remote
parallels (for whatever reason), but not all of it, and certainly not the
contradictions. One of course could argue that the extra material came
from non-canonical sources, now lost, but in the absence of proof this is
more problematic than what it would attempt to solve.

>(2) The unique stuff in the long ending, in vv. 17-18 (snakes & 
>poisons, etc.), while practiced by certain Christian groups today, does
not--to 
>my knowledge--seem to have had *any* currency in Christian antiquity.  
>Justin, Origen, etc., etc., etc., don't seem to talk about it or urge it
on 
>their followers.  If, however, the "long ending" were original, then
these 
>would have been the part of the concluding verses of the oldest gospel
(as 
>per the 4 source theory);   one might have expected more attention to
have 
>been given to these remarkable activities...or, conversely, to have 
>cautioned against it (or have I missed a new test of faith at certain 
>seminaries?

We probably should ask Jim West about those mountain people in Tennessee
before deriving a final answer on those points. :-)  However, even if the
various sign gifts were not at issue in the 2nd century (though the
Montanist movement might indicate the contrary), it certainly is the case
that all of the signs except the drinking of poison are paralleled in the
book of Acts, and one could argue that the Markan ending, if not
original, at least had a basis for adding most of the signs to the long
ending by creating a precis from the signs in Acts. This still would not
account for the "extra" about drinking poisons, however.

>(Note that while Irenaeus specifically 
>states the reference is from the "end of Mark" [might this be an attempt
to
>legitimize the ending, and an interpolation into Irenaeus???], 
...
>he is drawing the citation???  "Methinks the good pater doeth give his

I would suggest this to be very much an overstatement. Why should not
Irenaeus be trusted here?  We generally operate on the principle that a
father's specific comments on a passage are more likely to be unaltered
than the NT text he quotes (since scribes were considered unlikely to
alter the comments as much as they might alter from memory the NT text
itself).  If Irenaeus says it is from Mark, apart from variants in the
patristic mss which might raise suspicion, there should be no reason to
claim interpolation in Irenaeus at this point.  Also, if Irenaeus is
assumed here to be interpolated in the absence of evidence, then what
about every other case where a father speaks? The text everywhere could
fall under similar suspicion, and nothing would remain certain in
patristic studies.

How often Irenaeus states which biblical book he quotes from, I haven't
counted. That Irenaeus does cite various OT and NT books by name on
various occasions *is* clear. In fact, at the beginning of the same
section in which Irenaeus mentions and quotes from the *ending* of
"Mark", he also cites and quotes Mark 1:1 as being the *beginning* of
that same gospel (Adv. Haer. 3.10.5). There are no variants which in
either case would suggest interpolation, and such should not be claimed
in the absence of compelling evidence.

>ending are (to my mind, at least):  (1) *Why* would it be omitted?  
>(2) Why are *all* of the appearances of Jesus in the "long ending"
merely 
>truncated versions of appearances described elsewhere in the gospels? 
This is
>singularly odd, for ALL the other gospels have "unique" appearances
...
> *Only Mark,* if you paste on the long ending, would not have any

As to Q.2 first -- certainly no rule states that a "valid" gospel has to
present unique material at any given point, let alone the specific item
of additional resurrection appearances. The very fact that the long
ending *does* include much unparalleled additional material (as noted
above) serves in its own way to satisfy the demand for something unique
in this ending. 

Regarding Q.1 -- Of course many people (not Petersen, since he has not
spoken to this point) have suggested that Mark originally did not end at
16:8, but continued on with some other longer ending, which original
ending was later lost (by accident or whatever; typical of what might
occur with the final leaf of a codex). The loss of the original long
ending then supposedly was supplemented by some non-Markan author(s) who
added the shorter or long ending or both to alleviate the loss. The idea
that the long ending was constructed as a precis summary of resurrection
appearances in the other three gospels would then fall in line with this
hypothesis.

Why then might not the converse be equally possible, namely that the long
ending we currently possess was original, and that a *few* mss happened
to lose their final page, thus ending with 16:8? (MS 2386 mentioned
earlier reflects this very situation). If this occurred on a very limited
scale, it then would be no surprise to find only a few extant witnesses
reflecting such an omission: so today we find Sinaiticus and (perhaps)
Vaticanus among the Greeks, sy-s, a single Sahidic ms and some Armenian
mss. These witnesses might each have shared the same fate of losing a
final leaf or (more likely) some of them were copied or translated from
common exemplars which had accidentally lost the final page of Mark. Some
MSS like Bobbiensis (it-k) may have supplied the shorter ending to
compensate for whatever defect lay in the exemplar before them.

If accidental cause for the omission can be a likely possibility (and I
see no reason why it cannot, given that some who do not favor the long
ending postulate the accidental loss of a now non-extant longer ending),
there is no need to seek further for intentional reasons which might
cause the omission of the long ending. Some modern commentators (e.g.,
Frank Stagg) seem to think it more "convenient" to have Mark end without
the sign gifts, since this helps to refute all the snake-handlers,
strychnine drinkers, and tongue-speakers of the modern era. Given the
abuses of the Montanist movement and the continuing threat of its revival
in the early church, there *could* have been adequate reason to omit or
at least to modify the long ending to some degree; but I do not argue
that this must be the case. 

The accidental hypothesis is preferable, especially when only two extant
mss in the entire Greek tradition are affected by the omission; both
Alexandrian; both lacking the support of the remaining Alexandrian
witnesses; one leaving a blank space implying at least a knowledge of the
existence of the long ending; and these otherwise being supported by a
mere handful of other versional witnesses. The short ending is another
matter, but I don't think there is anyone who claims it to be original,
despite its appearance in several Greek mss and it-k. 

This certainly does not solve the problem, but at least offers other
possibilities worth considering.

==============================================
Maurice A. Robinson
Professor of NT and Greek
Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary
Wake Forest, North Carolina

---

From: Jack Kilmon <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 15:49:38 -0700

I have placed a new scribal font on my website as a companion to the DSSFont
designed
after 1QISa.  This one is based on the script of the Pesher Habakkuk.  Like all of
my scribal
fonts, it does require some "scribing" using your character spacing utility to raise
lameds
or lower finials and adjustment of point size to approximate the textual exemplar.

I hope it is useful.  The purpose of these fonts are to assist you in your
publications where
you would prefer to use the original script rather than modern square characters or
transliterations.  Their use in the classroom may assist your students in their
familiarity
with the original scripts.

You can download the font at http://www.historian.net/files.htm

Hope ya like it.

Jack

---

From: [email-masked] (Maurice A. Robinson)
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 17:52:19 EDT

On Fri, 23 Oct 1998 10:57:07 -0400 "William L. Petersen" <[email-masked]>
writes:

>(A) Unlike all other parallels among the gospels, where Mark gives a 
>full narrative (take a synopsis and look at the "Cleansing of the
Temple" 
>[Mark 11:15-19, parr.], "The Question about Jesus' Authority" [Mark 
>11:27-33, parr.], or the "Synoptic Apocalypse" [Mark 13, parr.]), and
the other
>gospels follow suit, here we would have *the only known case* where 
>Mark gives a series of "one-liners" 
        [snip]
> nowhere else (if I am wrong, please give me the reference...) do we
find 5 or 10 
>*words* in Mark being expanded in the parallel accounts into *22
verses*, as 
>happens with the Emmaus account.  

It might not be a "series", but quite obviously in the Temptation
account, Mark gives an extremely brief and succinct "one-line" account in
contrast with the other Synoptic Gospels (having respectively 11 and 13
verses as parallels to Mark's one). I'm not exactly convinced that Mark
had to operate under some rule which precluded succinct one-liners....

>(C) Vincent Taylor remarks on the non-Marcan style of the long ending...
>Taylor:  (p. 610):  "The vocabulary and style of this section show
clearly that it was >not written by Mark, but is based on a knowledge of
traditions found in Lk and Jn."  >He then proceeds to list a whole
catalogue of non-Marcan features (vocabulary,
>grammar, etc., etc.).  

And Burgon similarly (Last Twelve Verses, pp. 136-190) goes to the other
extreme in pointing out pro-Markan evidence in relation to the long
ending and also demonstrating by _reductio ad absurdum_ that the
*opening* 12 verses of Mark actually contain as much "non-Markan"
stylistic and vocabulary material as do the last 12 verses, even though
that section is of unquestioned authenticity. Burgon further notes that
there are *true* stylistic parallels between the opening verses of Mark's
gospel and the closing verses in the long ending. If Taylor is to be read
on the one hand, then Burgon should be read on the other.

>The only other possibility is that the long ending is "original"

:-)

>the statements of Jerome and Eusebius (that the long ending was lacking
in most >manuscripts known to them)

Again, see Burgon, pp. 38-57 for a very different understanding of the
testimony of Eusebius and Jerome.
 
>Arguing that the long ending is "original" requires one to abandon 
>this very logical and consistent pattern

Actually it only requires one to allow for "normal" patterns of
transmission, accidental omission, and localized regional variant
possibilities...

> it also requires one to answer the following questions:  
>(1) How does one explain its absence in the oldest MSS?  

Already discussed by me previously.

(2) How does one explain its non-Marcan style?  

Burgon's discussion has been mentioned above.

(3) How does one explain the silence of the Fathers on its remarkable,
distinctive 
>features

Also see Burgon.

>(e.g., v. 18)?  (4) How does one explain its "non-standard" parallel 
>style (i.e., not a full parallel, as we have elsewhere in Mark and the
other
>gospels, but just these very abbreviated "echoes" of the other 
>resurrection appearances)?  

Already discussed by me previously.

>(5) How does one prove that the passage is *not* what it appears to be: 
a catena of >appearances extracted (and condensed) from the other
gospels?

By the "extra material"; already discussed by me previously.

---

From: Jack Kilmon <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 16:55:48 -0700

This has been an interesting thread and a busy week has prevented me from
catching all of it.  How do the TC-listers feel about the theory that
the Yohannine appendix was originally the ending of Mark?

Jack

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 18:17:07 -0500

>the Yohannine appendix was originally the ending of Mark?

This is only a personal feeling, but I don't think this is possible.
At least, the ending of John cannot have come *verbatim* from the
ending of Mark.

I won't claim to have done detailed vocabulary studies, but the
ending of John sounds "Johannine" to me. Not the theology, the
language. It's simple -- simple enough that even I can understand
it. :-) Writings from Mark don't sound that way.

I suppose it is possible that the final chapter came from Mark
with "Johannine" rewriting. But that's an awfully complex
explanation....

In any case, it's not a question on which textual criticism
can offer an opinion. And since I was just recently attacked
in another venue for being a poor theologian (which is absolutely
false; I'm not a theologian at all :-), I will stick with
what I know and say no more. :-)
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-

                        Robert B. Waltz
                     [email-masked]

---

From: [email-masked] (M A Robinson)
Date: Sat, 24 Oct 1998 00:31:30 EDT

On Fri, 23 Oct 1998 16:55:48 -0700 Jack Kilmon <[email-masked]>
writes:

>This has been an interesting thread and a busy week has prevented me 
>from catching all of it.  How do the TC-listers feel about the theory
that
>the Yohannine appendix was originally the ending of Mark?

In the absence of any manuscript evidence to that effect, I don't..

---

From: Jack Kilmon <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 24 Oct 1998 05:14:45 -0500

> In the absence of any manuscript evidence to that effect, I don't..

It seems there are two elements to this.  First, whether John 21 was
original to 4G and second, if not, where did it originate.

John 21 does contain similarities of style with 4G and familiar
Yohannine
words unique to 4G. "The Sea of Tiberias" in 21:1 as a name for the
Sea of Galilee is unique to 4G.  The reference to "Thomas, the twin"
is unique to 4G as is the "beloved disciple."  The use of the word
"anthrakia" (21:9) has a NT usage only at Jn 18:18 and the grammatical
style is very similar.

The absence of ms evidence, as you suggest, can only tell us that
Ch 21 was part of 4G at the time of P66 and P75 near the turn of
the 3rd century.  This is the strongest evidence for TC since the
rule that "you can only go with wuccha got" is the "iron curtain"
of TC.  The evidence for the interpolation of 7:53-8:11 is clear
because of its absence in the ms before D.  Not so with 21.

>From a form standpoint, however, 21 is discontinuous from the
storyline of 1-20.  It seems odd that the disciples who have just
witnessed the risen Jesus then drop everything to go back to
Galilee to take up fishing where nowhere in 4G is it mentioned
that they were fisherman, a motif that originates in Mark.
This going back home to Galilee to fish is at odds with
ch 20 where "they went back to their homes" (20:10) in
the vicinity of Jerusalem, later to see Jesus again the
same day in Jerusalem.

Words which appear in this fishing motif of 21 do not
appear anywhere else in 4G which suggests this fishing motif
is not Yohannine.  There are a number of words used in
ch 21 not used in 1-20 but common to the synoptics.
21 is a mixture of Yohannine and synoptic themes.

I have to give serious consideration to the strong
argument Powell makes for 21 originating with Mark.
The "fishers of men" theme from Mark and the miraculous 
catch of fish from John appear as a single unit in Luke.

The first words spoken to a disciple in Mark is
"follow me."  The last words spoken by Jesus in John
21 is "follow me."

That John 21 could be a Yohannine rewrite of the ending
of Mark is certainly possible from the standpoint of
a number of arguments but, alas and alack, the
absence of any ms of John that excludes it leaves
this issue on the doorstep for TC.

Jack

-- 
______________________________________________

Min d'LA rokHEM l'maRAN yeSHUa meshyCHA niheYAH. maRAN aTHA

Jack Kilmon
[email-masked]

http://www.historian.net

---

From: Mike Logsdon <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 24 Oct 1998 08:59:55 -0500

On a canon and authorship aside, it is of course possible that Mark was the
author of the 4th Gospel if one accepts P. Parkers assertions.

See P. Parker, "John the Son of Zebedee and the Fourth Gospel," Journal of
Biblical Literature 81 (1962): 35-43; idem "John and John Mark," Journal of
Biblical Literature 79 (1960): 97-110.

Parker makes a strong case for the Markan authorship of the 4th. Gospel,
but this largely requires a unique reading of Papias as well as a revision
of traditional synoptic issues (i.e. traditional Markan authorship and
Synoptic reliance). Of course this makes him hesitant to accept his own
arguments.  

Just an aside to the on-going Mark debate.

---

From: Jim Deardorff <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 24 Oct 1998 09:23:16 -0700 (PDT)

On Fri, 23 Oct 1998, Maurice A. Robinson wrote:

>[...]
> discussion before it departs textual criticism entirely. [...]

It appears that your conclusion of this line of discussion didn't yet take
hold, Maurice. Let me then try to conclude it. Seriously, though, whether
or not Markan priority is correct in general *does* have bearing on TC.

> contradicts the original statement? [...]

The following scenario is consistent with the external evidence or
tradition that Matthew in a Hebraic form preceded Mark:

1) The writer of Mark then had no other post-crucifixion accounts to guide
him than what was in Hebraic Matthew. For various fairly evident reasons
he did not trust Matthew's account at all from Mt 28:9 on, and having no
others to substitute for it, he omitted it. At the same time he stressed
the theme of fear, as P. Parker has emphasized Mark does in connection
with the Jewish disciples and witnesses. 

2) After Mark and Luke appeared on the scene, it became imperative that
Hebraic Matthew be translated into Greek if it were to retain its
authority and were to be available to gentiles.  Hebraic Matthew had
itself lacked its longer ending, including Mt 28:19-20. The longer ending
to Matthew was added (to Greek Matthew) at this time, along with other,
more minor, alterations. Hebraic Matthew was retired from circulation as
soon as possible after Greek Matthew came out.

3) Considerably later, Mark's longer ending was similarly added, most
likely by another person, drawing upon the post-crucifixion accounts of
the other gospels. But it was not so well attested, being later in time
than the appearance of Greek Matthew and due to too many copies of earlier
Mark already being in existence.  The greater emphasis in Mark (in the
Mark without the longer ending) upon baptism than in Matthew accounts for
the stronger role of baptism in its longer ending.

Jim Deardorff

---

From: Jack Kilmon <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 24 Oct 1998 12:33:56 -0500

Jim Deardorff wrote:

> with the Jewish disciples and witnesses.

Jim:

I cannot see any evidence, from a linguistic standpoint, that Matthew
was ever written in Hebrew.  Other than an Aramaic substratum to the
"sayings" material, Matthew seems to be all compositional Greek to me.
In fact, given Matthew's treatments of the sayings, I am not sure
that he was not using even a Greek translation of those.  His
sometimes clumsy transliterations of Aramaic words and his
reliance on the LXX sometimes makes me doubt that he was even
competent in a Semitic language.

I am convinced that the "Hebrew (Aramaic) Matthew" of Eusebius'
citation of Papias was an early sayings source and not the
Gospel of Matthew.

Jack

Jack Kilmon
[email-masked]

http://www.historian.net

---

From: Steven Carr <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 24 Oct 1998 19:38:16 +0100

In message <[email-masked]>, Jack Kilmon
<[email-masked]> writes
>competent in a Semitic language.

It is very clear that the author of Matthew relied on the LXX, but could
you give me some examples of clumsy transliterations of Aramaic words
please?

Assuming Markan priority, it seems unlikely to me that Matthew and Luke
had Mark 16:9-20 available to them in its present form. They diverge
from that and from each other much more than they diverge from Mark
16:1-8.

---

From: Nichael Lynn Cramer <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 24 Oct 1998 15:18:33 -0400

As many have pointed out, this is way off the track of TC, but...

>>"sayings" material, Matthew seems to be all compositional Greek to me.

Indeed, given that both of Matthew's primary sources (i.e. Q and Mark) were
themselves in Greek it seems highly unlikely that the "original" Matthew
would itself have been written in anything other than Greek.

>>citation of Papias was an early sayings source and not the

This is a very important point, usually neglected by the proponents of a
putative "Hebrew original Matthew".  That is that the logic --the line of
argument-- that supports Papias' "saying collection" being a Hebrew
proto-Matthew is precisely the same logic that would support the collection
being identified with the Synoptics Saying Source.

Now, I don't think anyone has strongly argued that "Q" was in fact what
Papias was writing about.  But, nonetheless the logic --and the evidence--
is identical.  (In fact, it is arguably stronger given that we have much
independent evidence supporting the existence of the SSS and virtually none
supporting the existence of the proto-Matthew).

--
Nichael Cramer
[email-masked]                        deep autumn--   
http://www.sover.net/~nichael/                   my neighbor what does she do

---

From: [email-masked] (M A Robinson)
Date: Sat, 24 Oct 1998 22:23:39 EDT

>On Sat, 24 Oct 1998 12:33:56 -0500 Jack Kilmon <[email-masked]>

>that he was not using even a Greek translation of those.

I am thankful that I am now (I trust) out of this discussion; but to show
the peculiarities and whims affecting each of us as individuals: after my
sharp disagreement with Kilmon regarding Jn 21, I now end up for the most
part in agreement with Kilmon regarding the Hebraic Matthew hypothesis
and its supposed effect on the ending of Mark. 

At least my reasoning in both cases remains consistent -- lack of direct
manuscript evidence precludes very much speculation as to what might have
been (C.C. Torrey or C.S.C. Williams to the contrary).
 
>citation of Papias was an early sayings source and not the

Same here, except I am not fully convinced as to exactly *what* Papias
really meant, even though I am quite certain it was not a Hebrew or
Aramaic gospel of Matthew.

==============================================================
Maurice A. Robinson, Ph. D. 
Professor of Greek and New Testament
Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary
Wake Forest, North Carolina, USA

---

From: [email-masked] (M A Robinson)
Date: Sat, 24 Oct 1998 22:23:39 EDT

>M A Robinson wrote:

Since there is no text-critical material to discuss here, I will avoid
much comment on Jn 21. The arguments for the pre-canonical stages and
whether it is an appendix, etc., probably are more appropriate for
b-greek or another forum.

>the 3rd century.  

It doesn't even tell us that much, since P75 is not even extant to that
point (p66 extends in fragments to Jn 21:9). One could, however,
reasonably presume that P75 would have agreed with every other known
witness in including that chapter. We do know, textually, that ch. 21 is
part of all the Greek witnesses which we possess and also all the
versional witnesses. No source out there omits Jn 21, and all speculation
regarding the structure and composition of the fourth gospel reverts back
to the gray area involving pre-transmissional history.

>This is the strongest evidence for TC since the
>of TC.  

A quite reasonable rule, in my opinion, since it tends to prevent or at
least mollify overly-wild speculation which goes beyond the preserved
evidence.

>The evidence for the interpolation of 7:53-8:11 is clear
>because of its absence in the ms before D.  

I doubt whether anyone would think that I would concur with this view.
:-)  Neither that I would consider the D-text of the Pericope Adulterae
to reflect the original form of the text. What the original form of the
text is, however, I do not have a clue at this point, since there is no
"Byzantine" form of the text which dominates in this passage.

As for the period antedating D, there are precisely four extant Greek MS
witnesses:  P66, P75, Aleph, and B -- all Egyptian and three of them
textually related. From the same century as D are A C T and W, all of
which omit, but the only one of which is the odd one out textually is A,
the others also being predominantly Alexandrian here. For some of us the
question regarding omission among the localized Alexandrian texttype and
its primary witnesses is of more significance than the possibility of
interpolation. But this discussion I cannot pursue further, since I am
swamped with a plethora of detail in hand that I slowly and meticulously
have to wade through before  reaching final conclusions regarding the
text of the PA..

>It seems odd that the disciples who have just
>that they were fisherman

John often presupposes the existence of and a reader's familiarity with
the other canonical gospels. This can be  demonstrated: e.g., in the
trial before Pilate in John,  the question, "Are you a King" (Jn 18:33)
comes apparently out of thin air or Pilate's mind -- until one notes that
the Lukan account (Lk 23:2) has the crowd making the specific charge that
Jesus claims to be a King in opposition to Caesar, which does not occur
in John (cf. Jn. 18:29-30). So there should be no problem if John
presumes a familiarity not only with the fact that some disciples were
fishers, but also that they were specifically commanded in Mt and Mark to
go into Galilee and wait for an appearance.  

>the vicinity of Jerusalem, later to see Jesus again the

It is only Peter and John returning from the tomb on Resurrection Sunday
back to wherever they and the other disciples are staying during the
feast of Unleavened Bread.....where does this "returning to their homes"
come from?  I know the KJV says that ("unto their own home"), but the
Greek says only APHLQON OUN PALIN PROS (E)AUTOUS OI MAQHTAI, and
certainly reflects nothing about their actual homes or city of residence.
Also, since the gospels (including John) all agree that the initial
resurrection appearances occurred in Jerusalem on that Sunday, and since
Mt/Mk make it clear that there also were to be appearances in Galilee,
and given the comment in Acts that there were 40 days of appearances -- 
there should be nothing at all surprising about the Galilee fishing
expedition in Jn 21, given that John does presuppose knowledge of the
other gospel material. 

>this issue on the doorstep for TC.

Actually from a text-critical standpoint, the door is closed, and the
issue will likely remain on the doorstep, since TC really has nothing to
do with it.

Wake Forest, North Carolina, USA.

---

From: [email-masked] (M A Robinson)
Date: Sat, 24 Oct 1998 22:47:13 EDT

Also moving beyond the tc-list proper, but with some significance....

>from that and from each other much more than they diverge from Mark

But are you not allowing Markan priority (source criticism) to drive the
conclusion (text-criticism) in such a case? Are the divergences of Mt and
Lk from Mk in regard to their long ending parallels being made the test
of Markan authenticity?  It seems that this is placing the proverbial
cart (higher criticism) before the horse (lower criticism), and I wonder
whether this should be the case when merely attempting to establish
textual authenticity of the "autograph" or "original canonical form" or
whatever in Mark itself..

What then would occur should one follow Griesbach (as e.g., John Wenham)
in arguing Matthean priority? Or Robert L. Lindsey in arguing Lukan
priority? Or Eta Linnemann in arguing no source dependency whatsoever? In
the first two cases, the hypothesis of "Markan abridgement" could apply,
and the longer ending of Mark might find support; but this likely would
be just as illegitimate an imposition of higher over lower criticism, and
lead to no valid results within the field of textual criticism. I thus
remain unconvinced of the wisdom or sufficiency of such an approach as
opposed to dealing with the textual and transmissional evidence directly.

---

From: [email-masked] (Jeff Cate)
Date: Sun, 25 Oct 1998 01:04:48 -0700

Jack,

Your theory (which personally I find improbable based on textual and
stylistic grounds) does raise an interesting question regarding the
origination of *all* the endings of Mark. The reader of Mark expects an
appearance in Galillee (to Peter?) based on Mk 14:28 and 16:7. I would
presume that those references are what lead you to concoct the notion of
John 21 as a rewrite of an unknown, original ending of Mark in the first
place.

Quite curiously, none of our extant endings of Mark [nothing beyond 16:8;
long; short; Freer Logion] mention Galilee or Peter specifically.
Matthew's Gospel picks up on the need to mention an appearance in Galilee
(Mt 26:32; 28:7, 10) and does so (Mt 28:16). The scribe of Mk 16:9-20 for
whatever reason didn't sense the same need to mention an appearance in
Galilee, even though the long ending is based on sources other than Mark,
presumeably including Matthew which did address the anticipation for a
Galilean appearance.

Therefore, I see this lack of a specific mention of Galilee in 16:9-20 as
one of many indications of the non-Markan style of the long ending
(granted, this one is an argument from silence). In light of Mk 14:28 and
16:7, it seems quite difficult to explain 16:9-20 as originally part of
Mark. If 16:9-20 originally followed 16:8, then why no mention of an
appearance in Galilee when 16:9-20 presumes to summarize for the reader a
wide spectrum of Jesus' appearances? Was the evangelist so careless to
forget to mention an appearance of Jesus in Galilee after such bold
statements in 14:28 and 16:7? Or did the scribe of 16:9-20 simply not
clue in to the refs in 14:28 and 16:7 as he/she attempted to compile
post-resurrection episodes from other sources?

BTW, none of the references in Mark (or Matthew for that matter)
necessarily anticipate a private meeting of Jesus and Peter like we find
in Jn 21:15-22. In Mt 26:32; 28:7, 10; Mk 14:28; 16:7, the anticipated
appearance in Galilee is to be to you (pl.) (HUMAS), i.e., Peter and the
other disciples, not you (sg.), i.e., not necessarily to Peter alone.

Jeff Cate, Ph.D.

---

From: Jack Kilmon <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 25 Oct 1998 08:58:56 -0600

> John 21 as a rewrite of an unknown, original ending of Mark in the first

Actually, I didn't concoct it Jeff, but I like intriguing speculations
and Evan Powell's "Lost Gospel" is very convincing.  I think it very
likely that none of the various Markan endings are original to the
autograph and that there are two possibilities:

1. The original ending was lost.
2. There never was an ending.

Or are there just two?  There is a textual witness to Mark that may
give us the ending.  Matthew!  If we accept that Matthew used
Mark, didn't he also use the ending?  If we go to Matthew and
extract the ending, would we get something like......

Mt.28:9 (Mark 16:9)   And Jesus himself met them and said,
                      Good Morning.
Mt.28:9 (Mark 16:10)  And they went to him and clasped his feet,
                      and bowed to the ground before him.
Mt.28:10 (Mark 16:11) Jesus said to them, you need not be afraid
Mt.28:10 (Mark 16:12) Go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee
                      and they will see me there.
Mt. 28:8 (Mark 16:13) And they went with great joy and ran to
                      tell his disciples.
Mt.28:16 (Mark 16:14) And the eleven disciples went to Galilee
                      to the mountain to which Jesus had directed
                      them.
Mt.28:19 (Mark 16:15  And Jesus came up to them and said, go and
                      preach the good news to all the heathen.
                      I will always be with you, to the end.

Now just put it in Markan Greek and ya gottit! Nuttin to it (g)

Jack

Jack Kilmon
[email-masked]

http://www.historian.net

---

From: [email-masked] (Jeff Cate)
Date: Sun, 25 Oct 1998 07:31:11 -0800

>autograph and that there are two possibilities:

Maybe, concoct wasn't the right word. I too like to invest intriguing
theories since that's how we can avoid overlooking the obvious. I haven't
read Powell. I'm curious how he explains the current status of the ms
evidence for Mk and Jn as well as sees Jn 21 as a "rewrite" of an
original ending of Mark. "Rewrite" would be quite an understatement due
to the Johannine themes in the passage.

Jeff Cate, Ph.D.

---

From: Jim Deardorff <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 25 Oct 1998 10:23:08 -0800 (PST)

Jack,

It's pretty plausible that if Matthew had been written first in Greek,
its Sea (QALLASA) of Galilee would have been the Lake (LIMNH) of Luke.
This is an example occurring in narration, not just in sayings -- an
example of non-compositional Greek.

The "fell on their faces" type of Aramaism occurs at four spots in
Matthew. In keeping with the basics of the Augustinian tradition, the
authors of Mark and Luke are seen as having perpetuated this Aramaism.

There's another weak point in your argument: the sayings from an original
written "sayings" source do need to have had their own contexts, and those
contexts would also have been written in Aramaic, and constitute
narration. Such narrative evidently was translated into Greek at some
point.

This also responds to Nichael, who wrote:

>...the logic -- the line of argument -- that supports Papias' "saying
>collection" being a Hebrew proto-Matthew is precisely the same logic that
>would support the collection being identified with the Synoptics Saying
>Source [SSS]. 

However, the SSS sayings themselves, being in writing, would originally
have been embedded within narration. Otherwise, the various questions by
the disciples, scribes, Pharisees... could not have been linked to Jesus'
replies. Try it some time: take just the sayings -- the discourse, the
questions and answers -- scramble them up in whichever order, and then try
to make sense of them. So I see logic as being on the side of Papias'
Logia being a Hebrew or Aramaic source, which after editing led to
Hebraic Matthew. 

A key point that has been missed by several, however, is that Hebraic
Matthew was translated into Greek at some point. This might have occurred
before the second synoptic gospel was written, or before the third, or
only after the third gospel was written. The latter is most plausible, as
the motivation for Hebraic Matthew to be set into Greek would have been
greatest at that point. So how would you revise your argumentation, Jack,
to take this into account -- the translator of Hebraic Matthew into Greek
having (the gospels of) Mark and Luke on hand when doing his job?

> competent in a Semitic language.

It should be evident also that the translator of Matthew's Hebraic
scriptural citations would likely have made use of the LXX, since in it
the translation had already been done for him, and in using it he would be
"getting it right." But a lot of Matthew's scriptural citations and
allusions had been stretched or distorted too much by its author for the
translator to be able to use the LXX very much on them. 

The above is in response also to Steven Carr, who wrote:

>It is very clear that the author of Matthew relied on the LXX...

Replace "author" with "translator" or with "translator or author," and
then this would cover the possibilities. 

Jim Deardorff

---

From: [email-masked] (M A Robinson)
Date: Sun, 25 Oct 1998 16:24:31 EST

>Mt.28:9 (Mark 16:9)   And Jesus himself met them and said, Good Morning.
>Mt.28:9 (Mark 16:10)  And they went to him and clasped his feet, and
bowed to the > ground before him.
>Mt.28:10 (Mark 16:12) Go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee and they
will see me >there.
>Mt. 28:8 (Mark 16:13) And they went with great joy and ran to tell his
disciples.
>Mt.28:16 (Mark 16:14) And the eleven disciples went to Galilee to the
mountain to >which Jesus had directed them.
>Mt.28:19 (Mark 16:15  And Jesus came up to them and said, go and preach
the > >good news to all the heathen. I will always be with you, to the
end.

Thank you Jack. 
Griesbach is justified, albeit in reverse. :-) 

You have made a good case (though arguing in the opposite direction) for
the third possibility, namely that the long ending of Mark is original. 
Matthean priority and Markan abridgement fit the parallels cited quite
nicely. The abridgement hypothesis, however, still does not explain the
Lukan parallels within the long ending, so this is not a complete
solution by a long shot, but certainly can stand in support of the long
ending as original to Mark, for those who might choose to see it that
way.

---

From: [email-masked] (M A Robinson)
Date: Sun, 25 Oct 1998 16:24:31 EST

On Sun, 25 Oct 1998 01:04:48 -0700 [email-masked] (Jeff Cate) writes:

> The reader of Mark expects 
>an appearance in Galilee (to Peter?) based on Mk 14:28 and 16:7. 

>Quite curiously, none of our extant endings of Mark . .. . mention
Galilee or Peter 
>specifically. . . . The scribe of Mk 16:9-20 for whatever reason didn't
sense the same >need to mention an appearance in Galilee, even though the
long ending is based 
>on sources other than Mark, presumably including Matthew which did 
>address the anticipation for a Galilean appearance.

>Therefore, I see this lack of a specific mention of Galilee in 16:9-20 
>as one of many indications of the non-Markan style of the long ending 

Something here is non-sequitur -- IF the long ending of Mark is
non-Markan, and (as has been suggested) IF the long ending is merely a
summary "cribbed" from the other gospels, then the *lack* of a Galilean
appearance in the long ending should be inexplicable, assuming a
wholesale borrowing and abridgement from the other three gospels. 

It seems a difficult task to maintain two contradictory opinions, on the
one hand claiming that the existence of parallels in the long ending
argues direct dependency on and abridgment of existing materials, but on
the other hand claiming that the inclusion of unique material or lack
thereof (as in the non-mention of Galilee) implies an identical
inauthenticity of the passage..  

I would like to know exactly *what* would have to be included or excluded
from the long ending of Mark which might provide clear evidence of Markan
*authenticity.* My more corrupt nature suspects that the only evidence
which might suggest authenticity would be if Codex Vaticanus had included
the long ending  instead of leaving a blank space. Had that occurred, I
am certain that a plethora of internal argumentation would exist in favor
of Markan authenticity rather than the reverse :-)

>If 16:9-20 originally followed 16:8, then why no mention 
>of an appearance in Galilee when 16:9-20 presumes to summarize for the 
>reader a wide spectrum of Jesus' appearances? 

This indeed is a good question, but I suspect it belongs more to exegesis
and hermeneutics. If the parallels are followed (and summary dependency
must allow for this), then the commission in Mk 16:15ff in fact *is* a
Galilean appearance, even if not specifically stated (cf. Mt 28:16,
19ff). 

The only real question to be answered in such a case is whether the
author of the long ending (or Mark as the case may be) was under any
obligation to specifically identify locations. It appears that he was
not:  in the long ending Jerusalem is not mentioned, though it certainly
is the venue for 16:9-11, 14; Emmaus is not mentioned in regard to
16:12-13; nor is Jerusalem mentioned as the location from which the
Ascension took place in 16:19-20; Galilee likewise is not mentioned in
the 16:15ff section. Now, *why* Mark or the author chose to write as he
did remains a problem regardless of whether the long ending is considered
authentic or not. Do I have an answer? No -- but then I do not consider
this a text-critical question as much as an interpretative one, and I
often am quite incertain regarding interpretative difficulties. As far as
I can guess, it likely was "known" (from oral tradition?) that the great
commission was delivered in Galilee; if so, then that which was common
knowledge did not have to be stated particularly in Mark's compressed
"summary statement."

>a private meeting of Jesus and Peter like we 
>find in Jn 21:15-22. In Mt 26:32; 28:7, 10; Mk 14:28; 16:7, the 
>anticipated appearance in Galilee is to be to you (pl.) (HUMAS), i.e., 
>Peter and the other disciples, not you (sg.), i.e., not necessarily to 
>Peter alone.

Is anybody taking the time to read the full context of Jn 21? *Where*
does John 21 claim or even suggest that this is a "private" meeting?
Jesus certainly has something to say directly to Peter in vv.15ff (hence
the singular pronoun), but it is in the company of at least (Jn. 21:2)
Thomas, Nathanael, James and John, and "two other disciples". This group
went fishing with Peter (21:3), were with Peter when he jumped into the
sea and swam ashore (21:7), and this group had already rowed back in the
ship and rejoined Peter and Jesus on the beach for breakfast (21:8-14).
When all of them had finished dining (21:15 HRISTHSAN), Jesus then
addressed Peter in the presence of them all (there is no indication that
anyone had departed), and Peter even points out the Beloved Disciple
standing behind him and asks about his fate (21:20)  -- why would anyone
claim this to be a "private" discussion and thereby attempt to insert a
wedge of difficulty beyond the problems which already exist in the
resurrection parallels?

---

From: "Mark Goodacre" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 09:32:47 GMT

> As many have pointed out, this is way off the track of TC, but...

This is just a suggestion, but perhaps the time has come to move the non-TC 
elements in this discussion over to Synoptic-L where it would more obviously be 
at home?  For those unfamiliar with Synoptic-L, details are available on its 
web site at:

http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l

Mark
-------------------------------------------
Dr Mark Goodacre    [email-masked]
  Dept of Theology, University of Birmingham

---

From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 14:09:31 +000

Can I mention a PhD thesis on Mk 16:9-20 that is perhaps the 
most thorough relavtively recent study attempting to answer for its 
origin & it relevance in early copies of Mark:
Paul Mirecki, "Mark 16:9-20:  Composition, Tradition, and 
Redaction" (ThD Harvard Univ., 1986).
Larry Hurtado

L. W. Hurtado
University of Edinburgh,
New College
Mound Place

---

From: [email-masked] (Maurice A. Robinson)
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 13:18:44 EST

>Redaction" (ThD Harvard Univ., 1986).

Could you provide us a summary of conclusions, Larry?

I would add a Ph.D. thesis by Stephen L. Cox, "A History and Critique of
Scholarship Concerning the Markan Endings" (PhD Southern Baptist
Theological Seminary, 1991, external reader Metzger).  Cox concluded that
Mark originally ended at 16:8, despite my best efforts to persuade him
differently :-).

---

From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 10:32:15 +000

> Could you provide us a summary of conclusions, Larry?
It's been a number of years since I read Mirecki's dissertation, and 
I don't own a copy to refresh my memory.  But in general he argues 
that the 16:9-20 is a very old ending (though likely not original), 
with ample connections to ideas, needs, concerns circulating in 
the very early church.  That is, he offers a view for *why* (not 
merely now) this "long ending" may have been felt needed & 
serviceable to early Christians.
Mirecki draws upon his dissertation in his essay "The Authentic 
Saying in Mark 16:16:  Formal and Redactional Features," in _The 
Future of Early Christianity:  Essays in Honor of Helmut Koester_, 
ed. B. A. Pearson (Fortress, 1991).
Larry Hurtado

L. W. Hurtado
University of Edinburgh,
New College
Mound Place

---

From: Steven Carr <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 07:10:29 +0000

Assuming style shows that Luke and Acts are by different authors,
leading to the conclusion that matters of style cannot tell if two works
are by different authors, should we take seriously the claim that the
'Western' version of Acts is a revision by Luke himself?