Anglican scholar Jonathan Sheffield and I are debating whether the “long ending” of the Gospel of Mark (or “LE,” verses 16:9-20) is authentic or interpolated. For essential reading and references on the subject see chapter sixteen of Hitler Homer Bible Christ.

This is our eleventh and penultimate entry. For an index to all entries see my closing statement.

That the Long Was Original to Mark (VI)

Jonathan Sheffield

Birdsall is telling Sheffield we do not know the things Sheffield claims to know. — Richard Carrier (Fifth Reply)

As I bring my arguments to a close, I would like to draw Dr. Carrier’s attention to what is known, as it pertains to our examination of the LE, to determine originality.

First, we can document from Eusebius’s histories (here citing Williamson’s 1965 translation of Eusebius, History of the Church) the existence of Apostolic Churches in Africa (pp. 288, 404), Arabia (pp. 261, 314), Armenia (p. 286), Asia [Minor] (pp. 141, 145, 146, 166, 167-74, 186, 222, 225, 226, 229, 231), Bithynia (pp. 183, 332-34), Cappadocia (pp. 250, 266, 314), Cilicia (pp. 286, 314), Crete (pp. 181, 184), Egypt (pp. 89, 103, 124, 127, 154-60, 164, 181, 213, 229, 242, 266, 271, 298, 326), Galatia (pp. 260, 314), Gaul (pp. 193–205, 208, 406), Greece (pp. 110, 183), Italy (pp. 104, 107, 110, 124), Libya (p. 313), Palestine (pp. 229, 260, 267, 299), Phoenicia (p. 233), Phrygia (pp. 220, 231), Pontus (pp. 183, 299), Sicily (p. 405), Syria (pp. 128, 145, 181) and Thrace (p. 226). Furthermore, churches specific to those regions to include Corinth, Galatia, Philippi, Thessalonica, Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, and Smyrna, all originated in the first century (Ibid., pp. 205, 260, 89, 145, 104, 128). Thus, we know there were churches throughout the known world.

We can also document the polity of these churches, explaining how they were set up and organized (Tertullian, Prescription against Heretics 32). This is aided by the succession lists of bishops providing oversight of these churches going all the way back to an apostle as evinced in the writings of Irenaeus and Tertullian (Ibid. and Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.3).

Consequently, we know there was an organizational structure for these churches.

The letters of Paul, Ignatius of Antioch, and Polycarp of Smyrna establish early communication between the Apostolic Churches using a known system employed by Cicero in his letters to Atticus (see the Letters of Ignatius and the Letters of Polycarp). Therefore, we know how the churches communicated with each other.

We can even document a historical case study in the second century, where Marcion accused the Apostolic Churches of interpolating specific passages into the Gospel of Luke (Tertullian, Against Marcion 4.4), and how the Apostolic Churches authenticated its textual readings as the original wording of the text (Ibid. 4.5). So, we also know there was an historical criterion applied to scriptural readings to determine originality.

Both Tertullian and Irenaeus document that the authentic writings can be examined at the apostolic churches where they were publicly read to the congregations (Tertullian, Prescription against Heretics 36 and Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.3).

Since we know where these churches were located, how they were organized, who the bishops were that provided oversight, how the churches communicated with each other, what objective criterion was applied to readings to determine authenticity, and where the official scriptures were publicly read to the congregations, we have an objective framework to begin our investigation to determine the authenticity of the LE.

In the face of such an elaborately detailed and objective framework, it is puzzling why scholars like Birdsall, Metzger, Ehrman, and Dr. Carrier continue to ignore what the Apostolic Churches have said for a postmodern narrative created in the late 18th century (Burgon, Unholy Hands on the Bible, vol. 1, p. C-4; and see Pickering’s The Identity of the New Testament Text II, 3rd ed., 2003, p. 14). The only possible explanation leads us to believe that even though their theories have been falsified (J.N. Birdsall, “The Text of the Gospels in Photius,” Journal of Theological Studies 7 [1956], p. 43), it appears to indicate that the empirical data presented by the churches goes against their worldviews. All I have done is reiterate what the Apostolic Churches have documented in their writings, which cover the questions of who, what, when, where, and how; questions that have yet to be answered for their interpolation theories on the LE.  

Dr. Carrier has asked, “Where is this ancient documentation on the state of any Apostolic Church’s text of Mark?” Allow me to clarify several points for Dr. Carrier.  

  • First, it was only noticed in the 4th century (circa 320) that there were copies of Mark that didn’t have the LE (Carrier, Hitler Homer, p. 236), which was duly recorded by a Church Historian, Eusebius, and passed on as a footnote. The Greek Texts of Vaticanus (circa 325) and Sinaiticus (circa 350) confirm this point (Ibid. 270); but these texts cannot establish a legal chain of custody to the official Greek Apostolic Churches. Therefore, these texts cannot be shown to witness to the received readings of the church.
  • Erasmus references the Vaticanus manuscript in the Preface to his 1535 edition of the Textus Receptus, and he condemns it. 350 readings from it were made available to him, and he rejected them on the grounds that they did not follow the Scripture citations of the orthodox fathers like Chrysostom, Gregory Nazianzus, and Gregory of Nyssa (see Erasmus Rejection of Vaticanus). In other words, it did not represent the commonly received readings of the Greek Orthodox Churches, which is why, to understand the state of Mark as it applies to the LE; we need to examine the commonly received texts that have come down through the apostolic churches, instead of texts of unknown provenance.
  • Remember, there is no extant manuscript that dates earlier than Vaticanus containing any portion of Mark Chapter 16 (Carrier, Hitler Homer, p. 270). So, when Dr. Carrier asserts it was a rare reading prior to the fourth, and almost nonexistent in the second, he is only speculating based on several manuscripts of unknown provenance from the 4th century, and his interpretation of Eusebius (in Hitler Homer, p. 307) as opposed to Burgon’s interpretation of the same (in Unholy Hands on the Bible, vol. 1, p. C-24).  

While Dr. Carrier asserts he has proved the LE witnessed in the manuscripts of Irenaeus and the Diatessaron have been interpolated (see Dr. Carrier’s last reply & Hitler Homer, pp. 293, 295-300), Metzger looks at the same evidence and states, “The earliest patristic witnesses to part or all of the long ending are Irenaeus and the Diatessaron” (see Bruce Metzger’s Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, for his comments on Mark 16:9-20: p. 124).

In regard to the internal evidence, Burgon goes through the same evidence and comes to the opposite conclusion (Unholy Hands on the Bible, vol. 1, pg. C-75 to C-106), which further demonstrates its subjectivity or confirmation bias.

But when we appeal to the textual traditions which have come down from the apostles, and is guarded by the successions of bishops in the churches, the following testimony is revealed:

  • Ephraem Syrus, a deacon at the Church of Edessa (c. 375) quotes the LE (Hitler Homer, p. 307), as well as an earlier Syriac father, Aphraates, in 337 (Ibid.). Yet, Dr. Carrier would have us believe the LE appeared in most of the Apostolic Churches’ texts in the 4th century Ex-Nihlo, which is just magical thinking. Is Dr. Carrier claiming supernatural intervention?
  • Within the Church of Milan in the 4th century, Ambrose, a bishop in apostolic succession who had access to the official text using the Vetus Latin and not the Vulgate, quotes the LE many times without reservation (Ibid., p. 308).
  • When we look to the North African Church of Hippo during the late 4th century, Augustine, a bishop in apostolic succession whose churches go back to at least the second century, quotes the passage (James Snapp, Authentic: The Case for Mark 16:9-20 [2016], pp. 12-13), confirmed Jerome’s translation of the Gospel, and found no problem with the LE or the PA [or Pericope Adulterae] (as excerpted from the Letters of Augustine [No. 28, 71, 82] and the Letters of Jerome [No. 112] in A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, translated into English under the supervision of Henry Wace and Philip Schaff, and published by Parker in Oxford and New York between 1890-1900).
  • Jerome affirms in the preface to his Gospel revision that the Latin was revised in comparison with only old Greek manuscripts (see Jerome’s Prologue to the Gospels), and the object of his revision had been to restore the Latin to the form of the Greek original (Letter to Marcella 1). While Jerome was aware of Eusebius’s footnote (see Hitler Homer, p. 308), the LE passed the evaluation criteria to make it into his edition (Hitler Homer, p. 278), as well as the PA; two readings which are deficient in Dr. Carrier’s, so called, best and earliest manuscripts.

In summary, when we examine the official versions of the Apostolic Churches (i.e. Vulgate, Peshitta, Greek Text), the public readings of scripture found in the ancient lectionaries (Unholy Hands on the Bible, vol. 1, pg. C-75 to C-106), the quotations of fathers over a vast geographical area, and the overwhelming majority of extant manuscripts in different languages and churches (1800 Greek, 8000 Latin, 1000 Syriac: see Pickering’s The Identity of the New Testament Text II, 3rd ed., 2003, pp. 163-64), the overwhelming empirical evidence is that the LE is original.

I do want to thank Dr. Carrier for allowing myself as a member of the Anglican Communion to share my views on the LE and wish him all the best in his future endeavors.

-:-

My closing is here.

Discover more from Richard Carrier Blogs

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading