Subject: tc-list Mk 16:19-20 redux

From: [email-masked] (M A Robinson)
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 21:08:31 EST

>From [email-masked] (Jeff Cate):

Repeating portions from the previous thread which were not addressed in
my previous post, solely to provide context:

>>>>b) Luke also uses the heightened term "the Lord Jesus" only in
>>>>Luke 24:3, after His resurrection.

>>>You didn't mention that Luke uses the phrase "Lord Jesus" not just in
>>>Lk 24:3, but in Acts 1:21; 4:33; 7:59; 8:16; 11:20; 15:11; 16:31;
>>>19:5, 13, 17; 20:24, 35; 21:13.

I wrote:

>>I fail to see how Lukan use of this phrase *beyond* his gospel
>>establishes anything in regard to the gospels themselves,
>>particularly when (as pointed out) Luke himself refrains from using
>>the term until a post-resurrection context exists.

Jeff Cate now writes:

>Assuming a two-source hypothesis, it would be odd to find Luke using
>"Lord Jesus" within his Gospel since the phrase is used by neither
>Mark nor Q, unless some peculiar Lukan source had used it. The use of
>"Lord Jesus" in 16:19-20 is similar to the repeated use of "Lord
>Jesus" in Acts. On a previous post, I already argued for Mk 16:17-20
>as being a pastiche based on *Acts*. "Lord Jesus" in 16:19-20 is
>further evidence for 16:17-20 being dependent not just on episodes,
>but even on phrasing, from Acts.

Things now will start getting interesting, since I now return directly
to text critical aspects of this situation. I let the discussion run
its course without stating the obvious, and my one real question still
is whether anyone ever bothers to consult a textual apparatus before
drawing conclusions.

Here is the summary of the evidence, compiled from the Nestle27 
apparatus at the pertinent point:

Mk. 16:19

Nestle27 -- O MEN OUN KURIOS IHSOUS
Variant1  --  O MEN           KURIOS IHSOUS
Variant2  --  O MEN OUN KURIOS
Variant3  --  O MEN OUN KURIOS IHSOUS CRISTOS

Nestle27 is supported by K Delta f1 f13 33 565 579 892c 1241 1424
	2427 L-2211 al it vg-cl sy cop Ir-lat.

Variant1 (omitting OUN but retaining KURIOS IHSOUS) is supported by
	C* L W L-844 pc

Variant2 (omitting IHSOUS) is supported by "M" (= Byz) Dsupp Theta Psi
	it-l vg-st vg-ww

Variant3 (adding CRISTOS post IHSOUS) is supported by W it-o bo-mss

So, while everyone seemed so intent on making a case from KURIOS IHSOUS,
the Byzantine Majority reading **totally omitted** the key word IHSOUS,
and it therefore was _never_ pertinent to the discussion of
authenticity from the perspective of those who were arguing in favor of
the long ending (if anyone favoring the long ending thinks otherwise, 
let me know).

The fact that the editors of N27 chose to claim it as part of the
"original" form for the long ending does not militate against this
point, unless one first concurs with their decision on reasonable
internal grounds.  Very few who claim long-ending-authenticity would
concur with their decision; most would prefer to follow the Byzantine
majority at this point. If so, the point of the KURIOS IHSOUS reading
is moot.

Why should this be the case?  Basic principles of internal evidence. 
Had the longer term KURIOS IHSOUS been original to the long ending, it
is unlikely that _any_ scribe would have omitted it, save by accident.

Homoioteleuton _is_ possible from "KS IS" to "KS", but while scattered
MSS
might accidentally omit, the likelihood that virtually _all_ MSS would
do so and/or _never_ have the error corrected is highly unlikely.

Rather, the addition of IHSOUS in less than two dozen Greek MSS and
some versional witnesses reflecting Byzantine, Alexandrian, "Caesarean"
and Western diversity (not always in line with the text of their
respective texttypes) seems to point to relatively independent instances
of
the typical "pious expansion" so often charged against the Byzantine
majority. The addition of CRISTOS to IHSOUS in the similarly diverse
witness group W it-o bo-mss demonstrates an even more extended "pious
expansion".

If this is valid, then all the claims regarding KURIOS IHSOUS as a
"non-Markan term" which would prove inauthenticity fall by the wayside.

To requote Jeff's statement:

>On a previous post, I already argued for Mk 16:17-20
>as being a pastiche based on *Acts*. "Lord Jesus" in 16:19-20 is
>further evidence for 16:17-20 being dependent not just on episodes,
>but even on phrasing, from Acts.

If the long ending therefore _never_ originally read "Lord Jesus," then
the claimed dependency on either Luke or Acts is no longer evidenced,
and all discussion to that point is irrelevant.

The _real_ issue with which now to deal is the use of the articular
KURIOS standing alone in Mk 16:19-20 (occurring twice in two verses!) 
and whether _that_ term is "Markan" or "non-Markan." 

(For point of reference, the articular KURIOS occurs with reference to 
Jesus as Lord in Mk. 5:19; 11:3; 12:36; and [within a metaphor where 
the referent seems obvious] 13:35, so in point of fact, the use of the 
articular KURIOS _without_ addition of IHSOUS argues in _favor_ of 
and not against "Markan authenticity").

Maybe now the previous discussion can terminate, and something more
text-critical arise in its place. :-)

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

___________________________________________________________________
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: [email-masked] (Jeff Cate)
Date: Sat, 31 Oct 1998 01:43:02 -0800

I responded privately to Maurice just as I said I would regarding the
lengthy stylistic issue that we have been debating. This post I choose to
make public since it is debating a variant within 16:19.

On Fri, 30 Oct 1998 21:08:31 EST [email-masked] (M A Robinson)
>is whether anyone ever bothers to consult a textual apparatus before

Yes, we do consult the textual apparatus. I had already suspected variant
readings on this phrase before I made my initial reply several days ago.
I had suspected variant readings in the mss because (1) refs to Jesus are
notorious for slight alterations by adding/omitting words such as Lord
and Christ; and (2) the refs to "Lord" and "Lord Jesus" are so out of
character for Mk 1:1-16:8 I suspected that some scribe might have
attempted to alter them, even though Mark was such a neglected Gospel in
interpretive history and many scribes might not pick up on the slight
change in style. The variation unit is also fully apparent in the
differences in English translations (KJV vs. NRSV) yet alone Greek texts
(TR and NA27). Therefore, even if you use a Bible software program which
does not include a textual apparatus the variation unit is apparent. Even
though you erroneously assumed I had no awareness of the variation unit,
in fact, I was fully aware of it, but unlike you I was in agreement with
the NA27 textual decision. Just because you personally want to change
many of the textual decisions in the NA27 and others of us are in
agreement with the majority of them does *not* mean that we are not
*aware* of the textual variants. And no, this does *not* mean that I
agree with all the decisions of the NA27/UBS4. I do not consider the
NA27/UBS4 to be the new TR that needs no re-evaluating. We must all
constantly re-evaluate the evidence. Just because I agreed with the
UBS4/NA27 on this instance does *not* mean that I have not done my TC
work as you assume. Personally, I wasn't going to mention the variant
because the external evidence seems pretty decisive and it wouldn't help
me to mention the variant reading. I knew you might, and you did
(although in a derogatory manner I wasn't expecting). BTW, there are
quite a few other lines of thought on this entire issue that I haven't
mentioned that I was expecting you to mention, but that does *not* mean
that I am not aware of those. I'll let you bring those up instead of
arguing your case against myself for you.
>majority at this point. If so, the point of the KURIOS IHSOUS reading

Au contraire. You assume wrongly. Just because one feels 16:9-20 is not
authentic, does *not* mean that 16:9-20 is not *early.* It's appearance
in the church fathers alone indicates an early date and a *pre-Byzantine*
date, I might add. Therefore, the NA27 presentation of the 16:9-20 should
*not* be based on the Byzantine majority reading alone because that is
not necessarily the "weightiest" evidence for the original form of the
longer reading. Mk 16:9-20 is not a Byzantine addition, it occured at an
early stage and therefore, the evidence for the original form of the
longer ending must be based on the "weightiest" evidence.

MSS
>some versional witnesses reflecting Byzantine, Alexandrian, 
>"Caesarean" and Western diversity (not always in line with the text of
their
>respective texttypes) seems to point to relatively independent 
>instances of the typical "pious expansion" so often charged against the
Byzantine
>"non-Markan term" which would prove inauthenticity fall by the 

If the external evidence was evenly divided, your internal arguments
would make more sense: the shorter being original (KURIOS) being changed
to the longer (KURIOS IHSOUS). But that certainly is not a hard and fast
rule, especially when it comes to variants in names since there are other
factors at work that take precedence over the one reading being longer
and another being shorter (cf. IHSOUS TON BARABBAN in Mt 27:16-17 where
the prefered reading of NA27 is the longer). Homoioteleuton is certainly
possible as you mentioned, but you dismissed it to quickly. If such an
unintentional error (KSIS to KS) occurred early enough, there would not
seem grounds for later scribes to intentionally correct the text,
especially since it would have *entered* the Byzantine stream in the form
of KS not KSIS.

I don't think the internal evidence for opting for KURIOS over KURIOS
IHSOUS in Mk 16:19 is conclusive in either direction. What seems to
indicate the choice for KURIOS IHSOUS over IHSOUS is the *external*
evidence which you too quickly dismissed. The combined witness of K Delta
f1 f13 33 565 579 892c 1241 1424 2427 L-2211 al it vg-cl sy cop Ir-lat is
pretty substantial and early support for KURIOS IHSOUS, especially when
you realize that Sinaiticus and Vaticanus render no evidence for this
variation unit since they omit the entirety of 16:9-20.

Therefore, I feel that there are reasonable grounds to argue for the
stylistic evidence of "Lord Jesus" pertaining to Mk 16:9-20. Maurice, if
you really feel the entire stylistic argument of "Lord Jesus" was a moot
point due to your preference for the variant reading "Lord", then why did
you respond ad nauseum to all these stylistic arguments? Or was it that
*you* returned to the textual apparatus and discovered _ex eventu_ that
the variant existed :-)

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

---

From: [email-masked] (M A Robinson)
Date: Sat, 31 Oct 1998 15:09:52 EST

Leaving out the much longer body preceding material (which deserves a
more detailed response, Jeff Cate wrote: 

>if you really feel the entire stylistic argument of "Lord Jesus" was a 
>moot point due to your preference for the variant reading "Lord", then 
>why did you respond ad nauseum to all these stylistic arguments? Or 
>was it that *you* returned to the textual apparatus and discovered _ex 
>eventu_ that the variant existed :-)

Since I have the electronic Byzantine Textform ever before me as I edited
it, I do know what the Byzantine readings happen to be :-).  My responses
were structured to  allow (for the sake of argument) that the "Lord
Jesus" phrase  was the "original" reading in what was presumed to be a
"non-authentic" long ending, neither of which views I hold.  

Had I not presented my case within that framework, the point I was making
regarding the inapplicability of the phrase in Mark to either normative
Markan usage or to Lukan dependency would have had no hearing, since I
would have been viewed as merely  taking potshots from outside. In order
for a proper debate to occur, one has to at points suspend judgment and
assume the hypothetical validity of the point under discussion, as well
as state the case in a manner which the opposing side would consider
valid.  

My views regarding the Byzantine text and the authenticity of the long
ending is (or should be) clear to all. But whether I would or would not
agree with the authenticity of the phrase in Mk 16:19 was *not* pertinent
to the point that I was trying to make, viz., that the phrase (if
genuine) neither established nor disproved Markan authenticity, and so I
continued the discussion primarily to show that within the argumentative
framework the point being adduced was invalid in and of itself,
regardless of what other views might exist outside the immediate scope of
the debate. 

I hope that clarifies.