Sheffield assiduously avoids ever answering that question. So I don’t know. Why should we believe the unverified dogmas of religious fanatics and polemicists? Beats me. Historians usually don’t. And shouldn’t.

It’s just all the worse that even if the dogma were true, it’s irrelevant. Tertullian still doesn’t say the LE was in these allegedly verified texts of Mark, and does not appear to know the LE even exists. The evidence suggests it did not then exist for him to know of it; or that if it did, it was not then a part of Mark.

I agree, Dr. Carrier. And it’s why I was trying to tease out Jonathan’s position. It does seem that Jonathan is reading a lot more into these texts than is justified. But, I’m interested to know what justification he accepts here. Is it simply that he’s a Christian first and accepted his conclusion before he started reviewing the evidence (and that does seem to be where the debate has led)? Or, does he have some criteria that at least logically lead to his conclusion (that Tertullian’s words are reasonably trustworthy)?

Tertullian presents no evidence anything he says is true. Simply because some churches claimed these things, is not evidence they were telling the truth or could even know what they were claiming was true. He is merely asserting a dogma: that the texts certain churches held in his day went back to “the Apostles.” He gives no evidence they ascertained that was actually true, or even had any skills or means capable of ascertaining that. And even if he had, it would be moot, as for all we can tell, the LE didn’t exist when Tertullian wrote. Tertullian never mentions it, even when he should have. No one of his era did. For all we know, the text of Mark Tertullian declared authentic in this fashion lacked the LE!

And John has Mary see Jesus first. That’s what it means to say Mary saw Jesus first. There is no evidence here Chrysostom meant anything other than what John said.

And Sheffield has still never stated what extant manuscript comes from an
“Apostolic church.”

Everything else is already refuted in my entries in this debate.

Thanks for replying Jonathan. I’d like to point out that your reply to my first question didn’t actually answer it. That’s not an indictment, I can see you’ve gone to lengths to get your research out and it’s easy to lose track in the middle of your comment. And you did ultimately answer under the second question’s response. But I’m not looking to have the same debate you just had with Dr. Carrier, only clarify some positions.

How much of your position regarding biblical authenticity comes from Tertullian’s claim to objective standards (older, coming from an apostolic church, ultimately authored by an apostle)?

Why is Tertullian’s claim considered reliable enough to base the rest of your interpretations on it, rather than just a statement of faith (which a church leader of any religion might claim)? Given the historical consensus is that the gospels are NOT eyewitness accounts (and indeed contain details/narratives that couldn’t have been witnessed by the assigned author), shouldn’t that cast doubt on Tertullian?

In a previous entry to the debate, you mentioned that apostolic churches had a correspondence that allowed them to verify correct readings of scripture. However, wouldn’t that also give them an easy avenue to spread changes?

Islamically all unknown chains or with breaks in them would be defectiv (malu:l) in hadeth/quran

mark must’v had numurus licenst (ijazah/authurised) studunts spred over a wide area which multiplies ie becums tawatur.

I understand any text wud’v been solely in the hands of the church not ordinry xtians and there was nevr an oral memrisation custum as that with the Quran.

Are there any interpolations in the the protestant bibl
text? if so, whot? how du u recunstruct the text without manuscripts – (which ar themselvs defectiv since any translation is hypothetical construct).

Thanx!

In regard to your first question “1) According to Tertullian in Against Marcion, the criteria to determine authenticity is time (older is more authentic). In the oldest versions of Mark that we have (from any source), does the LE exist or is it lacking?

First, I am delighted that you have taken the time to read through these sections of Tertullian. In order to answer your first question, I feel it is appropriate to review the entire quote.

Tertullian first states “On the whole, then, if that is evidently more true which is earlier, if that is earlier which is from the very beginning, if that is from the beginning which has the apostles for its authors, then it will certainly be quite as evident, that that comes down from the apostles, which has been kept as a sacred deposit in the churches of the apostles”

Therefore, when we review the criteria from Tertullian, he lays out several specific pieces of information:

For a text to be recognized as earlier, the copy has to trace back to the beginning, to an exemplar, that has Apostolic authorship.

Tertullian affirms these texts are found in the churches of the apostles, because they can establish a legal chain of custody back to the apostles (See Tertullian definition here Criteria to be deemed apostolic chap 32).

Tertullian, in the next line then begins the examination for the original reading, by appealing to the texts that have come down from the churches in Corinth:

“Let us see what milk the Corinthians drank from Paul”,

Then Tertullian appeals to the text found at the churches at Galatia

“To what rule of faith, the Galatians were brought for correction”

Also the texts found at the churches in Philippi, Thessalonica & Ephesus

“what the Philippians, the Thessalonians, the Ephesians read by it;”

And finally, Tertullian appeals to the texts at Rome
“what utterance also the Romans give, so very near (to the apostles), to whom Peter and Paul conjointly bequeathed the gospel even sealed with their own blood.”

So the reading has to be both Apostolic (trace back to the beginning) and Catholic (have universal attestation from other churches that can also trace back to the apostles – therefore, a commonly received reading.

Tertullian then applies this principal into practice, when he says “We have also St. John’s foster churches. For although Marcion rejects his Apocalypse, the order of the bishops (thereof), when traced up to their origin, will yet rest on John as their author.”

In other words, we can establish a legal chain of custody for the text of Revelation, back to John, that independently witnesses to John as the Author. Do you see how objective that criteria is?

I understand why Dr. Carrier has to reject the polity of the Apostolic churches as a fantasy (though he has no credible tome from the ancient world rejecting what Irenaeus, Tertullian and Eusebius evinced in their writings).

Its because, if the apostolic churches are correct, then to have a text sourced back to a witness who wrote about the events testified in the Gospels, would be very problematic for his theories.

So, Dr. Carrier is unable to engage what Tertullian and Irenaeus said.

So the oldest versions of Mark we can appeal too come through the churches, which meets the criteria both Tertullian and Irenaeus documented in their writings.

This is why I appeal to Ambrose, which is the earliest witness to the Vetus Latin, who was a bishop of the Church of Milan –

While Dr. Carrier dismisses his testimony “since he never specifies what document he knew the LE From” Really? What text would the bishop of Milan have, obviously the text he is reading to his congregation at the church of Milan.

The same can be said for Augustine in North Africa.

A Deacon in Edessa in (Circa 337) quotes the passage as well.

While Chrysostom at Antioch, that even the New Advent Scholars references quotes Mark 16:19 as well as Burgon, Dr. Carrier has to dismiss it as a quote from John.

While I can see why Dr. Carrier could assume that, in the text of John, he doesn’t specifically say Mary was seen of Jesus First, that is only recorded in Mark, and Chrysostom is comparing in his homily where Paul says Jesus was seen first by Peter, that is was referring to the testimony of men, but shows from the Gospel that its specially says Mary was seen by Jesus first – which statement is only recorded in Mark, not John.

Regarding your second question “2) Do we have any text from an Apostolic Church that includes the LE prior to the 4th century?

As I stated in my conclusion, there is no extant manuscript of Mark 16 prior to the 4th century.
Vaticanus is the earliest (circa 325) – but the provenance of that text is unknown – it cannot be shown to establish a legal chain of custody to any of the Greek Apostolic Churches, just as Maricons readings couldn’t in the second century. Erasmus made that point, that Vaticanus readings didn’t represent the readings from known bishops of the churches (overseers of the text).

The Latin Vulgate, the Peshitta, and the Greek Text that have come down through the churches all basically witnesses to those readings, but Dr. Carrier and this school of thought would have us reject the Ecclesiastical texts, for texts of unknown provenance.

I’ll address your following two questions, in another post, since this conversation became rather lengthy.

Thanks,

Jonathan A. Sheffield

1) According to Tertullian in Against Marcion, the criteria to determine authenticity is time (older is more authentic). In the oldest versions of Mark that we have (from any source), does the LE exist or is it lacking?

2) Do we have any text from an Apostolic Church that includes the LE prior to the 4th century?

3) Does Birdsall “ignore what the Apostolic Churches have said for a postmodern narrative created in the late 18th century” (9th paragraph, first sentence)? Or, has he shown those postmodern narratives “have been falsified” (9th paragraph, second sentence)?

4) You employ copious citations of Burgon. Why do you feel his interpretations (from over a century ago, lacking modern discoveries and tools) are such a trustworthy source?