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

From: [email-masked] (M A Robinson)
Date: Sun, 01 Nov 1998 01:00:00 EST

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

I raised the issue: 

>> my one real question still is whether anyone ever bothers to consult a
textual >>apparatus before drawing conclusions.

>Yes, we do consult the textual apparatus. 

Well and good. My surprise is that not one other person during the course
of the discussion bothered to raise the issue while both Jeff and I were
going on regarding Markan versus Lukan style when the variant unit could
have affected the entire situation. I already stated why I was not
raising that issue, but did no one else out there take notice that apples
and oranges were perhaps being discussed?

> 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; 

Some, but hardly all, and especially infrequently in the Gospels.

>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

"Lord" (as I mentioned), with the article as in Mk 16:19 does have
parallels within the main body of Mark, so I would not call that reading
"out of character". Also, "the Lord" occurs in 16:20 without
modification.

>Even though you erroneously assumed I 
>had no awareness of the variation unit, in fact, I was fully aware of it

Actually I didn't know, so I couldn't "assume," but I normally would
"assume" at least  the Nestle27 text to be in front of most people on
this list. I did assume that you were totally convinced of the
originality of KURIOS IHSOUS :-)

>I knew you might, and you did (although 
>in a derogatory manner I wasn't expecting). 

I intended no derogation (and I'm not sure my words indicate that; if so,
apologies); only a wake-up call regarding the fact that those who would
defend the long ending as authentic would find the whole line of argument
irrelevant, since it concerned a reading which would not occur in their
preferred form of the text. 

As mentioned, the line of argument might make sense IF the premise is
granted regarding the N27 reading as authentic, but I know of no long
ending supporter who would accept that variant reading (possibly Farmer,
but I haven't read him in over 20 years -- anyone want to check?). For
those who see the KURIOS IHSOUS reading as "original" to the long ending,
and who also consider the long ending inauthentic, then of course, feel
free to proceed with the previous line of argument. I joined that fray
solely to show that in my opinion that that line of argument did *not*
prove either authenticity or inauthenticity, and thus even within that
context the premise for establishing inauthenticity was faulty.

>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.

If referring only to the textual questions, no problem. The other
arguments probably will show up in due course. If you mean further
stylistic and related criteria, I would prefer to keep that part off the
list as less pertinent to textual criticism.

>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.* 

Of course not. Can't be if Irenaeus testifies to it and if Irenaeus is
not "interpolated" at that point. Can't be if sy-c has it.... Never
claimed anything different. 

> It's appearance in the church fathers alone indicates an early date and
a 
>*pre-Byzantine* date, I might add. 

At least in a "patristic" state (which often says nothing about
"Byzantine"). 

>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. 

Here is where I demur. At the point of the variant reading in question I
already stated highly valid internal reasons for rejecting the KURIOS
IHSOUS reading as belonging to the "original form" of the long ending --
even if the long ending is presumed to be inauthentic, as you and many
others hold. 

Not only is the Byz reading shorter, but it is the "more difficult"
reading (given the tendency for pious expansion in a minority of MSS at
any given point), it concurs with "Markan style" (even if restricted to
16:20 immediately following); it cannot easily be explained as mere error
due to homoioteleuton during the transmissional history of the MS
tradition (comments on  which below), and also the scattered minority of
witnesses from a number of texttypes, most of which do not reflect the
dominant reading of their type (the Alexandrian witnesses come closest,
but not even all of them, and their leading representatives Aleph and B
are omitting the passage at this point). 

Had precisely the same evidence been in place but with _Byz_ supporting
KURIOS IHSOUS instead of KURIOS, I suspect most eclectics would be
strongly arguing _against_ that reading -- even against its limited
Alexandrian support -- and that on the same grounds stated above. So why
is such not a valid line of argument in the present instance?

>Mk 16:9-20 is not a Byzantine 
>addition, it occurred at an early stage and therefore, the evidence for 
>the original form of the longer ending must be based on the 
>"weightiest" evidence.

And what among the evidence is "weighty" in your opinion? You seem to
discount totally the internal arguments provided. Are you arguing wholly
from external data? If not, what internal and external data seem
convincing to you regarding the longer reading, and why are such data
compelling in the light of strong internal and external arguments to the
contrary?

>>Rather, the addition of IHSOUS in less than two dozen Greek MSS and
>>some versional witnesses reflecting Byzantine, Alexandrian, 
>>"Caesarean" and Western diversity 

I wrote that, based upon the data in Nestle27. Ulrich Schmid has informed
me that _Text und Textwert_ on Mark, vol.2, (which our library does not
yet have) says there are 85 MSS which read KURIOS IHSOUS (out of however
many -- I have asked Ulrich to post details to the list). The quantity
changes, not appreciably, and the MSS supporting the longer reading now
probably include more Byzantine minuscules, which, if so,  further
demonstrates the point of limited pious expansion, since these MSS would
not be genealogically connected to those from other texttypes.

>If the external evidence was evenly divided, your internal arguments 
>would make more sense: 

I thought I pointed out the near-even division of the external evidence.
All texttypes represented; none in a majority save perhaps the remaining
Alexandrian witnesses, and these lacking their two chief representatives.
On what basis are you suggesting the division is not nearly even?

>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 preferred reading of NA27 is the 
>longer). 

Just as is KURIOS IHSOUS here, but the Mt. 27:16-17 reading is hardly in
the same category, since IHSOUS not only is bracketed in N27, but the
supporting evidence is virtually non-extant for that reading (Theta f1
700* pc sy-s in the first case; B Theta 700* f1 pc sy-s Or-mss Or-lat in
the second case). 

Were it not for the presence of B in the second case as well as the
exegetical interpretation held by some that possible confusion could
arise between Jesus Barabbas and Jesus who is called Christ, causing the
crowd to clamor for the wrong one to be released, I doubt whether either
reading would be in the text at all, brackets notwithstanding. Of course
even in that instance homoioteleuton could be invoked as a cause of the
majority reading, but once more it falls under the same condemnation as
in Mk 16:19 -- you can claim homoioteleuton as a primary cause of a
variant when the number of MSS containing such is small, but it is
transmissionally well-nigh impossible for such to occur on the grand
scale without correction at an early stage creeping in. 

It certainly is more likely (at least in Mt 26:17) that dittography
occurred in the extremely small number of witnesses supporting IHSOUS
BARABBAS (UMININ TON BARABBAN or UMININ BARABBAN), which, once in place,
could lead a corrector to insert IN in the corresponding parallel in v.16
(-MENON IN BARABBAN). A later MS would then incorporate the dittography
and/or the correction into their text (on a very limited scale). This
would be unsurprising. It would have been more surprising had such a
dittography/addition permeated a significant portion of the MS tradition,
which it of course did not, following "normal" transmissional processes.

I would not claim the Matthean passage as a parallel to or refutation of 
the pious expansion hypothesis.

>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.

This raises the interesting spectre of transmissional history and the
question whether early errors were simply never caught and corrected. It
takes far more credulity in my opinion to believe in light of the
quantity of material preserved to us in MSS, Versions, and Fathers, that
a primitive error would so totally escape notice and correction as to
overwhelm the entire manuscript tradition. "Normal" transmission would
expect errors to have a short half-life, and this is evidenced by the
thousands of "singular" readings found among our extant MSS -- they
simply were not perpetuated,else they would not be singular. The same
would apply to dual readings found in only two extant MSS -- accidental
coincidence or direct dependence could be the cause, but the perpetuation
simply did not occur. This can continue to creep upward with virtually
the same results, simply based on known data from the MS tradition. Why
then should it be logical or reasonable to presuppose early error which,
contrary to "normal" transmission, would permeate virtually all known
witnesses, especially given the *general* overall accuracy and fidelity
of scribes. They make errors, but few of these perpetuate, and most of
those for only a brief time. I have faith, but not enough to believe the
historically unlikely regarding the transmission of individual variants..

>I don't think the internal evidence for opting for KURIOS over KURIOS 
>IHSOUS in Mk 16:19 is conclusive in either direction. 

Please feel free to provide what internal evidence is significant in
favor of the longer reading. All I have heard so far is the (highly
unlikely) possibility of homoioteleuton affecting the near-totality of
the MS tradition. 

> 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.

Actually the "combined evidence" is even stronger (if you choose to call
it such):
add to K Delta f1 f13 33 565 579 892c 1241 1424 2427 L-2211 al it vg-cl
sy cop Ir-lat.
the witnesses supporting  Variant1 (omitting OUN but retaining KURIOS
IHSOUS) -- C* L (W) L-844 pc (not sure whether to count W among this
crowd, since it reads KURIOS IHSOUS CRISTOS). "Early" is somewhat
relative: it sy cop Ir-lat and C* are "early", but the remaining
witnesses are not so, though they coincidentally or transmissionally
happen to concur with the expansion. 

But _why_ is this external evidence so "compelling" in light of the
strong case for its secondary nature on internal grounds?  The
Alexandrian addition at Mt 27:49 is "strong" (Aleph B C L Gamma pc vg-mss
mae) but hardly "compelling," and this on internal contextual,
contradictory and harmonization grounds.

But I hardly "dismissed" the external evidence; indeed that was my main
point when discussing the homoioteleuton argument. The external as well
as internal evidence is indeed quite compelling in favor of KURIOS alone
as the original reading of the long ending (regardless of whether one
favors authenticity of inauthenticity).

>Therefore, I feel that there are reasonable grounds to argue for the 
>stylistic evidence of "Lord Jesus" pertaining to Mk 16:9-20. 

You and the Nestle/UBS committee obviously do; my question remains, "on
what good grounds" as opposed to the arguments in favor of the other
alternative. 

==============================================================
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]