Wrong Again Dr. Head - PSA is NOT a Witness to the Abrupt Ending of Mark

 Dr Peter Head, in a 2022 article at Text & Canon Institute, claimed that "The earliest evidence we have for the Christian Palestinian Aramaic version of Mark (Codex Sinaiticus Rescriptus in St Petersburg, Syr. No. 16) ends at 16:8."

In real life, as Steven Avery has stated, Codex Sinaiticus Rescriptus in St Petersburg, Syr. No. 16 has a lacuna near the beginning of verse 8.  The manuscript is simply a silent witness.  

While on the subject of correcting Dr. Head, his claim that Hesychius of Jerusalem weighs in against Mark 16:9-20 must also be addressed.  In the composition In Christi Resurrectionem (also attributed to Severus of Antioch) Eusebius' statements to Marinus are recycled - but further along in the composition the author stated, "But likewise also that which has been written by Mark, 'The Lord therefore on the one hand, after he had spoken to them was received into the heaven and sat down at the right hand of God.'"

Let it be noted that the number of inaccuracies in Dr. Head's initial article are accumulating:   he is flatly incorrect regarding the Diatessaron, regarding the CPA, and regarding Hesychius - and no retraction has been forthcoming.  He is invited to use the comments-section.

News: Silver Amulet Found in Frankfurt - Philippians 2:10-11 in Text

          Ulf von Rauchhaupt has reported this week about the publication of the discovery and treatment of an artefact from the third century in Frankfurt, Germany:  a small amulet, or phylactery that was found in a grave in 2018 in the district of Praunheim.  The grave itself is dated between 230 and 270 AD, so this convenient gives us the latest possible date for the inscription.

          Following the discovery of the amulet, scholars were reluctant to unroll it due to its fragility.  The solution, as described by Markus Scholz of Goethe University, was to utilize anew kind of x-ray scanning - a "tomographic" scanning of the object in small slivers, culminating in combining them.  Dr. Ivan Calandra was closely involved in the process of solving the mystery of how to read the silver foil scroll's text without destroying the ancient material.   

          The inscription:  "(In the name?) of Saint Titus. Holy, holy, holy! In the name of Jesus Christ, Son of God! The Lord of the world resists with [strengths?] all attacks(?) / setbacks(?). The God(?) grants entry to well-being. May this means of salvation (?) protect the man who surrenders himself to the will of the Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, since before Jesus Christ every knee bows: those in heaven, those on earth and those under the earth, and every tongue confesses (Jesus Christ)."

          Considering that the text concludes with a utilization of Philippians 2:10-11, it is likely to receive a Beuron identification number.  It is among our earliest witnesses to the passage.  

John 14:14 - Praying to the Son?

          In John 14:14 there is an interesting translation-impacting textual puzzle:  did Jesus tell his followers to pray to him?

ESV:   If you ask me^[a] anything in my name, I will do it. [footnote:  Some manuscripts omit me]

NIV:  You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it.
CSB:  If you ask me^[a] anything in my name, I will do it.^[b]  [footnotes:  Other mss omit me - Other mss omit all of v. 14
NASB:   If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it.
NLT:  Yes, ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it!
EHV:  If you ask me^[a] for anything in my name, I will do it. [footnote:  Some witnesses to the text omit me.]

WEB:  If you will ask anything in my name, I will do it.

KJV:   If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.

EOB:  “If you will ask anything in my name, I will accomplish it.”  [footnote:  Several ancient authorities (P66, ﬡ, B, W, D, Q read: “whatever you ask me in my Name”]

          The Byzantine Text is not uniform.  2005 Robinson-Pierpont Byzantine Textform has με in the text and non-inclusion noted in the side-margin.  The Hodges-Farstad 1982 Majority Text does not have με in the text; inclusion is noted in the apparatus.  Antoniades’ 1904 compilation does not have με.

          What’s the external evidence say?  Did John write εάν τι αἰτήσητέ με ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί μου ἐγὼ ποιήσω, or  εάν τι αἰτήσητέ ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί μου ἐγὼ ποιήσω?

          A, D, G, K, L, M, P, Ψ, 69, 157, 706 866 100 114 129 164 177 184 200 204 205 236 237 238 239 260 275 276 298 299 1071 1241 and 1424 and Coptic versions do not have με.

          In addition, X, L*, 0141, f¹, 565, pc, b, vg^ms, the Sinaitic Syriac and the  Palestinian Aramaic and Armenian versions omit the entire verse – which I regard as an effect of simple parablepsis.

Old Latin witnesses suporting non-inclusion:  a, aur, b, d, e, q, r1 vg^mss .

A smattering of witnesses replace με with a reference to the Father, mimicing John 16:23.  GA 167 uniquely reads, after μου, ἐγω ποιήσω ἵνα δοξάσθη ὁ πατὴρ ἐν τῷ υίῷ.

After μου Codex M/021 (Campianus) has the conflate reading ἐγὼ τοῦτο.

P66c reads τοῦτο ἐγὼ (a different conflate reading).  

Witnesses supporting με include p⁶⁶ א B E H S U W Δ Θ 060 f¹³ 28 33 579 700 892 1006 1230^vid 1242 1342 1646 some lectionaries (including 64, 284, 329, 514, 547, 672, 813, 1231)  and it^c it^f vg syr^p syr^h and the Gothic version and Fulgentius.

          There is an issue regarding the testimony of P75.  A sizeable lacuna prevents the firm establishment of the testimony of P75 for either inclusion or non-inclusion.

          Considering that in John 15:16, Jesus says plainly “The Father will give you whatever you ask him in my name,” and the meaning of this passage is uniform in all transmission-streams, it is unlikely that John would represent Jesus saying both things – with the Father, and himself, as the person to whom the apostles were to address their prayers.  (John 16:23 affirms the same point.)   The possibility exists that με originated deliberately, due to a desire to enhance the deity of Christ – augmenting the Son’s role in answering prayer.  An alternative explanation is that με originated as an error of dittography – a careless repetition of the final syllable of αἰτήσητέ – and instead of correcting via the simple removal of the extra τέ, it was changed to με.  However this early error arose, it managed to affect Byzantine and Alexandrian witnesses.

          Some people may accuse those who use versions without “me” in John 14:14 of downplaying the Trinity.  However, historically both forms of the verse have been used by champions of orthodoxy.  Chrysostom, in Homily 74 on the Gospel of John, utilized a text without με.  

John 17:9 - A Glitch in the Matrix

          In John 17:8 there is an interesting textual variant which, as far as I know, receives no attention in the footnotes of any major English translation.  It is not noticed in the UBS Greek New Testament (4^th edition), although Metzger made a brief commend about it in his Textual Commentary on the GNT.

          Following ἔλαβον, the words καὶ ἔγνωσαν (“and knew”) are absent in ﬡ*, A, D, W, 0211, pc, a, d, e, q, ac², vg^ms, pbo, and the Gothic version.  The Old Latin presented with Beuron numbers = VL 3 (Vercellensis), VL 5 (Bezae), VL 2 (Palatinus) VL 13 (Frisingensis/Monacensis) and VL 16 (Fragmenta Curiensa).

          This has to have been a very early variant, considering that it somehow spread to early representatives of Alexandrian, Western, and Byzantine transmission-lines. Since there is more or less no way to connect these particular witnesses closely through a textual relationship, logic seems to require positing a scenario in which the omission of καὶ ἔγνωσαν was elicited in the minds of two or more scribes independently in separate transmission-lines.  In other words, more than one early scribe fell to the temptation to relieve a perceived difficulty by removing the ostensibly problematic text.  The suspicion of Marie-Joseph Lagrange – that καὶ ἔγνωσαν was omitted because it seemed to collide with John 6:69 – is probably correct.

John 17:1 - "The Son" or "Your Son"?

There’s a small textual variant in John 17:1 that impacts translation.  At the beginning of his high priestly prayer, did Jesus say, “Glorify your Son that the Son may glorify you,” or did he say “Glorify your Son that your Son may glorify you”?

          Did John write ὁ υἱος or did he write καὶ ὁ υἱος σου or did he write ὁ υἱος σου?
          The English versions are not in unison:

 ESV:  “Glorify your Son that the Son may glorify you,”

CSB:  “Glorify your Son so that the Son may glorify you”

NASB 95:   “Glorify Your Son, so that the Son may glorify You”

NRSV:  “Glorify Your Son so that the Son may glorify You.” 

EHV:  “Glorify your Son so that your Son may glorify you”

NET:  “Glorify your Son, so that your Son may glorify you – ”

NIV:  “Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you.”

 

KJV:   “glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee”

NKJV:  “Glorify Your Son, that Your Son also may glorify You”

EOB:  “Glorify your Son, so that your Son may also glorify you”

WEB:  “Glorify your Son, that your Son may also glorify you.”

(The NLT blurs the translation as if a pronoun is in the base-text, yielding “NLT:  “Glorify your Son so he can give glory back to you.”)

 

          In his Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Bruce Metzger defended the UBS Committee’s choice by  stating, “On the basis of the weight of p60^vid ﬡ B C* W 0109 it d e ff² al the shorter text is preferred.”

          [Papyrus 60, assigned to the 600s/700s, was found at  Nessana (Nitzana, on the border of Egypt and Israel).  GA 0109 is assigned to the 600s/700s.]

          In favor of reading ὁ υἱος we have a smattering of witnesses:  P60^vid ﬡ B C* W 0109 it^d it^e it^ff2  Origen (1 of 2) Victorinus of Rome Hilary of Poitiers (4/6) Ambrose (2/4), and Augustine (1/10).

          Weighing in for ὁ υἱος σου we have A D Θ 0250 1 579 it^{a aur b c f r1} Vulgate Sinaitic Syriac Peshitta Palestinian Aramaic Sahidic Bohairic Achmimic² Armenian Georgian Slavic Origen (½). 

           In favor of καὶ ὁ υἱος σου:  C³ G K L M N S U Γ Δ Λ Π Ψ 0141 f13 2 28 33 118 157 180 205 597 700 1006 1010 1071 1241 1243 1292 1342 1424 1505 Byz [E H] Lect it^q some Vulgate copies Ethiopic Origen (½) (Lat ½) Didymus^dub Chrysostom Cyril Theodoret Ambrose (1/4) Quodvultdeus Varimadum Pseudo-Vigilius.

           We begin with two possibilities:  either scribes unnecessarily added σου, or scribes unnecessarily removed σου.  I think that scribes removed σου, considering it superfluous so close to σου τὸν υἱον.   

          Καὶ was either added or removed twice in the verse, after οὐρανον and before ὁ υἱος σου.  Apparently an early scribe – early enough to affect the Alexandrian and Western transmission-lines – economized by removing the και before ὁ υἱος, regarding it as unnecessary to preserve the meaning of the sentence.  An opposite tendency was also at work in the early Byzantine transmission-line – και was added after οὐρανον.

          The same Alexandrian tendency to economize the text elicited the omission of  σου, but it was never popular in Egypt, as the support for σου from the Sahidic version and all copies other than ﬡ B C* W shows.       

          The UBS Committee appears (again) to have too easily embraced the shorter reading.

____________________

This post is dedicated to James Bechtel.