tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-63464091817943310602024-03-19T05:04:53.961-04:00The Text of the GospelsA blog by James Snapp, Jr. about New Testament textual criticism, especially involving variants in the Gospels.James Snapp Jrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09493891380752272603noreply@blogger.comBlogger513125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6346409181794331060.post-80194905551445313212024-01-31T02:56:00.001-05:002024-03-09T01:49:44.191-05:00Books for Your Bookshelf in 2024<p><span style="font-family: trebuchet;"> <span style="font-size: medium;"> It's still January 31, 2024, and the following text-critical resources are now available on Amazon. Anyone who finds the price at Amazon prohibitively high is welcome to request a free digital text copy in the comments below or via an email to james.snapp@gmail.com .</span></span></p><p></p><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhX3TGI6A9NqugRXA7jC8zuv2b6rxyjzGnCuvAoPcAA_y58GxgbZSkJQvecWegXhverbF4zrjQEBJ-oLdkDbmmCsAmtHN5tOpW-beTcGyn5qyDenoy0i8k0WjiBDi8MfpV8Y9xETRCaCeqRKXXBS5XiIW6R08Lqxx1uBMx9XaHH-gMIrGFPu8lRIUlDGOY/s3044/COVER%20NTTC%202024.tif" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="3044" data-original-width="2312" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhX3TGI6A9NqugRXA7jC8zuv2b6rxyjzGnCuvAoPcAA_y58GxgbZSkJQvecWegXhverbF4zrjQEBJ-oLdkDbmmCsAmtHN5tOpW-beTcGyn5qyDenoy0i8k0WjiBDi8MfpV8Y9xETRCaCeqRKXXBS5XiIW6R08Lqxx1uBMx9XaHH-gMIrGFPu8lRIUlDGOY/w304-h400/COVER%20NTTC%202024.tif" width="304" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="color: #2b00fe; font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><b>Reviews welcome on Amazon<br />$9.99 US digital e-book<br />$19.50 US paperback</b></span></td></tr></tbody></table><p></p><p><span style="font-family: trebuchet; font-size: medium;"><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Testament-Textual-Analysis-James-Snapp/dp/B0CR6P4XMP"><b>New Testament Textual Analysis</b>.</a> That's what New Testament textual criticism is, minus the "art" that the dearly departed plagiarist Dr. Bruce Manning Metzger tries to smuggle in. <br /><br /><span style="background-color: white; color: #0f1111;"> In terms of authority in the Christian church on earth, textual analysts rank second to the men and women who produced the contents of the Bible, for it is through the work of Christian textual analysts that the form of the New Testament books' text written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit is recognized, verified, and protected from corruption.</span><br style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #0f1111;" /><span style="background-color: white; color: #0f1111;"> In this volume, written for adults, James Edward Snapp Jr. (that's me) systematically explains the materials and methods that are used to produce and, for lack of a better term, authenticate the text of the books of the New Testament. He also confronts the flawed reasoning that has, in much of academia, weakened many Christians' confidence in the New Testament's accuracy. He also exposes prominent false teachers both within and without church walls who have spread falsehoods about specific passages in the New Testament. Finally he summons aspiring textual analysts to dedicate themselves to this sacred enterprise using the equitable eclectic approach which he has developed.</span></span></p><p><span style="color: #0f1111; font-family: trebuchet; font-size: medium;">This 400-page volume is intended to render superfluous Bart D. Ehrman's strategically titled "The Text of the New Testament - Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration" and is an ideal resource for those who prefer not to have an atheist as their guide through the text of the New Testament.</span></p><p><span style="color: #0f1111; font-family: trebuchet; font-size: medium;"></span></p><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjFql5P1VTRcK2vvXMmrS-mlQz9MN6Y3gr8MmI1fDH306AGf7zIFNnR5ATWe_6AXBZsyVdbKXazFLlF7GQd-R-In7c3vDNkiYrzl9gI67PaRlIS6x_xHc61KMRqAqZTu8JjynSyXr01Wr7WSb2RgClrpgjjEoWg1mq5U2oxLsorKlxyAgIJ90gv7e5rcGg/s3052/COVER%20FRONT%20ECLECTICISM.tif" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="3052" data-original-width="2256" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjFql5P1VTRcK2vvXMmrS-mlQz9MN6Y3gr8MmI1fDH306AGf7zIFNnR5ATWe_6AXBZsyVdbKXazFLlF7GQd-R-In7c3vDNkiYrzl9gI67PaRlIS6x_xHc61KMRqAqZTu8JjynSyXr01Wr7WSb2RgClrpgjjEoWg1mq5U2oxLsorKlxyAgIJ90gv7e5rcGg/w296-h400/COVER%20FRONT%20ECLECTICISM.tif" width="296" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><b><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Eclectic-Examination-Reasoned-New-Testament/dp/B0CR1HRXKG"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><span style="background-color: white;"><i>Reviews on Amazon <br />Are Welcome</i></span><br />Is It Eclectic?<br />$12.88 Hardcover<br />$8.88 digital</span></a><br /><br /></b></td></tr></tbody></table><span style="color: #0f1111; font-family: trebuchet; font-size: medium;"><b><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Eclectic-Examination-Reasoned-New-Testament/dp/B0CR1HRXKG">Is It Eclectic?</a></b> is a devastating expose of the "reasoned eclectic" text that has been produced via the "reasoned eclectic" approach which has hypnotized/brainwashed (I don't have a word that's just right so those will have to do) so many American seminarians. The data in the page of this brief volume speaks for itself but I added some commentary to make sure even Wheaton graduates can't miss the point: the Nestle-Aland/UBS compilation in Matthew-Jude is 99% Alexandrian, and about 1% Byzantine. <br /></span><span style="background-color: white; color: #0f1111;"><span style="font-family: trebuchet; font-size: medium;">The Greek text that is the basis for the ESV, CSB, NRSV, NIV, NLT and other English versions of the New Testament is marketed as an "eclectic" text. But after textual analyst James Edward Snapp Jr. (that's me) examined it, he concluded that the idea that the results of the compilation-method used by the editors of the Nestle-Aland <i>Novum Testamentum Graece</i> and the UBS <i>Greek New Testament are</i> <b>NOT</b>, by any reasonable definition of the word, eclectic. The empirical evidence that compels this conclusion is presented in this book.</span></span><p></p><p><span style="background-color: white; color: #0f1111;"><span style="font-family: trebuchet; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></span></p><p><span style="color: #0f1111;"><span style="font-family: trebuchet; font-size: medium;"></span></span></p><span style="font-size: medium;"><b style="color: #0f1111; font-family: trebuchet;"><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Text-begr%C3%BCndeten-Eklektizismus-vern%C3%BCnftig-vielseitig-ebook/dp/B0CR76NCHX">Is It Eclectic?</a> </b><span style="background-color: white; color: #0f1111; font-family: trebuchet;">is also available in German, so the folks in Muenster can read it as they wonder why American Christians are beginning to wonder why the Greek base-text of their English Bibles (NIV, CEB, NLT, NRSV, CSB, etc) is being introduced by an ally of secular humanists. (Yes, in Germany, secular humanism is still a thing.) </span></span><p></p><p></p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgEzozEQ5REavAwDH_QNC6iHWvRza_Vbi8p6cvL6ACAGQjQeoBL1uD1I37K6u9iGYIUCJZWU02JnYl2UqgchPfKlTta-IzeDOq2Iqb-6nwZ--DeT0WotFpLcEqSuNu8lm6lYEgKcDkoevhpF-nhEMa2l_AVe1Xll_VJTua3DsfmWd7ortH1Di2RKGOixdc" style="background-color: white; clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img data-original-height="3096" data-original-width="2504" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgEzozEQ5REavAwDH_QNC6iHWvRza_Vbi8p6cvL6ACAGQjQeoBL1uD1I37K6u9iGYIUCJZWU02JnYl2UqgchPfKlTta-IzeDOq2Iqb-6nwZ--DeT0WotFpLcEqSuNu8lm6lYEgKcDkoevhpF-nhEMa2l_AVe1Xll_VJTua3DsfmWd7ortH1Di2RKGOixdc=w323-h400" width="323" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="color: #cc0000; font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><b style="background-color: white;">Reviews on Amazon are welcome.<br /><i>Is It Eclectic? </i><br />in German is<br />$9.80 US</b></span></td></tr></tbody></table><span style="font-family: trebuchet; font-size: medium;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #0f1111;">Der Basistext, der die edle deutsche Übersetzung der Heiligen Schriften der 27 Bücher des Neuen Testaments ersetzen wollte, wurde als „eklektische“ Zusammenstellung auf der Grundlage antiker Manuskripte vermarktet.</span><br style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #0f1111;" /><span style="background-color: white; color: #0f1111;"> Aber wir alle haben schon erlebt, wie alte Fußballspieler von jüngeren Spielern besiegt wurden. Die Qualität des Textes in einem Manuskript hängt nicht vom Alter des Pergaments oder Papyrus ab. Es hängt davon ab, wie gut die Kopisten ihre heilige Pflicht erfüllt haben.</span><br style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #0f1111;" /><span style="background-color: white; color: #0f1111;"> In diesem Buch untersucht James Edward Schniepf objektiv die neugriechische Zusammenstellung, die als „Nestle-Aland“ und als „Griechisches Neues Testament“ der United Bible Societies beworben wird, und entlarvt ihre Marketingpropaganda als authentische Propaganda. Meister Luther verfügte über jüngere Manuskripte, aber für den größten Teil des Neuen Testaments verfügten sie über einen besseren Text als die „älteren und besten Manuskripte“ als der Text, der wie schlechter Fußball aus Münster stammte. Es lebe der reife Martin Luther und möge seine deutsche Übersetzung wiederbelebt werden und möge auch die gläubige bekennende christliche Kirche in ganz Deutschland wiederbelebt werden.</span><br style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #0f1111;" /><span style="background-color: white; color: #0f1111;"> Dieses Buch enthält die Daten, die zeigen, dass Münsters „eklektischer Text“ nicht eklektisch ist!</span></span><p></p><p><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgAPVk34GRZ9CQuTRYdBIaW49IUzWtot0MwA17ITTno87dSRZZmEtk57mgxCKnTR5iJVwfkC0cH2UaLLpSWDmCFmjTub2mgOLRAkrs9Rodtsr_ezGzDNzVpWSiD_w0g4Hhqtowq00l-s4ap2qhyphenhyphen_XaCBCMB7-y3xbLL1VgPjroF8Grxjw3pGReDRGK6lHc/s3068/COVER%20FRONT%20ECLECTICISM%20PORTUGUESE.png" style="clear: left; display: inline; float: left; font-family: trebuchet; font-size: large; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: center;"><img border="0" data-original-height="3068" data-original-width="2276" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgAPVk34GRZ9CQuTRYdBIaW49IUzWtot0MwA17ITTno87dSRZZmEtk57mgxCKnTR5iJVwfkC0cH2UaLLpSWDmCFmjTub2mgOLRAkrs9Rodtsr_ezGzDNzVpWSiD_w0g4Hhqtowq00l-s4ap2qhyphenhyphen_XaCBCMB7-y3xbLL1VgPjroF8Grxjw3pGReDRGK6lHc/s320/COVER%20FRONT%20ECLECTICISM%20PORTUGUESE.png" width="237" /></a><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="color: #0f1111; font-family: trebuchet;"><b><a href="https://www.amazon.com/ECL%C3%89TICO-ecl%C3%A9tico-Nestl%C3%A9-Aland-Testamento-Portuguese/dp/B0CSKDMLZV">I</a></b></span><span style="color: #0f1111; font-family: trebuchet;"><b><a href="https://www.amazon.com/ECL%C3%89TICO-ecl%C3%A9tico-Nestl%C3%A9-Aland-Testamento-Portuguese/dp/B0CSKDMLZV">s It Eclectic?</a></b> is also available in Portuguese. </span><span style="background-color: white; color: #0f1111; font-family: trebuchet;">Você já ouviu afirmações como essa dos editores do seu novo e moderno Novo Testamento em português? Então você foi enganado. Neste volume, o analista textual James Edward Snapp Jr. oferece uma crítica sincera ao texto base "eclético e fundamentado" sobre o qual vários.</span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: trebuchet;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #0f1111; font-size: medium;">Um exame do texto base "eclético e racional" da Nestlé-Aland do Novo Testamento.</span><br style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #0f1111;" /><br style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #0f1111;" /><span style="background-color: white; color: #0f1111; font-size: large;">Seu Novo Testamento é baseado no texto grego encontrado em mais de 5.000 manuscritos gregos, todos cuidadosamente considerados pelos maiores especialistas do mundo. Você pode ter certeza de que todas as evidências foram cuidadosamente examinadas antes do início da tradução do seu Novo Testamento em português.<br /></span></span><br /><span style="font-family: trebuchet; font-size: medium;"><b><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Apakah-Ini-Eklektik-Eclectic-Indonesian-English-ebook/dp/B0CSLFCVMS"></a></b></span></p><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: trebuchet; font-size: medium;"><b><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEigRjvYP0XiS0lVEFwl4GagZmo4XLVb3PEzBNrChdu60zVlP2gptjCPVeMg6E-qy9wiZSemfGEJeTWaClk0nGGd5u1uqF6ggUsQVcygN7nKbw23b-i1fiw25dsd8qCeANGMHP6q6148T-xfRCo4ouuyZUklUFrmFXwTo3l1tPylEwaDokIShNEC3raYEVQ/s3032/COVER%20FRONT%20INDONESIAN%20ECLECTICISM.tif" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="3032" data-original-width="2272" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEigRjvYP0XiS0lVEFwl4GagZmo4XLVb3PEzBNrChdu60zVlP2gptjCPVeMg6E-qy9wiZSemfGEJeTWaClk0nGGd5u1uqF6ggUsQVcygN7nKbw23b-i1fiw25dsd8qCeANGMHP6q6148T-xfRCo4ouuyZUklUFrmFXwTo3l1tPylEwaDokIShNEC3raYEVQ/s320/COVER%20FRONT%20INDONESIAN%20ECLECTICISM.tif" width="240" /></a>I<b><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Apakah-Ini-Eklektik-Eclectic-Indonesian-English-ebook/dp/B0CSLFCVMS">s It Eclectic?</a></b> is also available in Indonesian. (Due in part to a dream I had which involved Indonesian chicken wings. So delicious.)</b></span></div><p></p><p><span style="font-family: trebuchet; font-size: medium;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #0f1111;"> Kompilasi Perjanjian Baru Yunani Nestle-Aland/UBS adalah dasar utama untuk terjemahan Perjanjian Baru di seluruh dunia dan untuk terjemahan bahasa Inggris seperti ESV, NIV, NLT, dan NRSV.</span><br style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #0f1111;" /><span style="background-color: white; color: #0f1111;"> Ini dipasarkan sebagai kompilasi "eklektik yang beralasan" berdasarkan lebih dari 5.000 manuskrip Yunani.</span><br style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #0f1111;" /><span style="background-color: white; color: #0f1111;"> Apakah itu deskripsi akurat dari teks Yunani NA/UBS?</span><br style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #0f1111;" /><span style="background-color: white; color: #0f1111;">Dalam pemeriksaan analitis yang cermat terhadap kompilasi NA/UBS, peneliti James Edward Snapp Jr. menunjukkan bahwa ini BUKAN merupakan deskripsi yang akurat menurut definisi normal istilah "eklektik".</span><br style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #0f1111;" /></span><br style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #0f1111; font-family: "Amazon Ember", Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;" /><span style="font-family: trebuchet; font-size: medium;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #0f1111;">The Nestle-Aland/UBS compilation of the Greek New Testament is the primary basis for translations of the New Testament around the world and for English translations such as the ESV, NIV, NLT, and NRSV.</span><br style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #0f1111;" /><span style="background-color: white; color: #0f1111;">It is marketed as a "reasoned eclectic" compilation based on over 5,000 Greek manuscripts.</span><br style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #0f1111;" /><span style="background-color: white; color: #0f1111;">Is that an accurate descriptions of the NA/UBS Greek text?</span><br style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #0f1111;" /><span style="background-color: white; color: #0f1111;">In this meticulous analytical examination of the NA/UBS compilation, researcher James Edward Snapp Jr. demonstrated that it is NOT an accurate description by any normal definition of the term "eclectic."</span></span><br /><br style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #0f1111; font-family: "Amazon Ember", Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;" /><br /></p><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgCLu0mKEpQNCCzkfP_VWE2putwWcj3d_XWODaIXJH6rf1BHcij5yeTJn1fyue5QxuaLbHIHiKLhrIOdQNpNenanO_41O9jr4HlYrefkTHmnz_zV-9zuZ9hoGDOGHRC9HOl86SoIWswosQma4gMnt2mNQCzPQWpG5ZZM9BUhqKRTAO9Tv3vxaubdV1x24Y/s1012/TWOBROL%20Front%20Cover%202023.tif" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1012" data-original-width="689" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgCLu0mKEpQNCCzkfP_VWE2putwWcj3d_XWODaIXJH6rf1BHcij5yeTJn1fyue5QxuaLbHIHiKLhrIOdQNpNenanO_41O9jr4HlYrefkTHmnz_zV-9zuZ9hoGDOGHRC9HOl86SoIWswosQma4gMnt2mNQCzPQWpG5ZZM9BUhqKRTAO9Tv3vxaubdV1x24Y/s320/TWOBROL%20Front%20Cover%202023.tif" width="218" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><b><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="color: #990000;">Codex Sinaiticus:</span><br /><span style="color: #990000;">Reliable or a Liability?</span><br /><span style="color: #990000;">$8.88 paperback</span><br /><span style="color: #38761d;"><i>Reviews on Amazon<br />are welcome</i></span></span></b></td></tr></tbody></table><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: trebuchet;"><b><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Worlds-Oldest-Bible-Reliable-Liability/dp/B0CQPKBSX1/ref=sr_1_2?crid=139U0K5YCZY9W">The World's Oldest Bible: Reliable or a Liability?</a></b> is a close (but not exhaustive) look at the message conveyed by the main text of Codex Sinaiticus (called "The World's Oldest Bible" in the title of Dr. D. C. Parker's book "Codex Sinaiticus - The Story of the World's Oldest Bible"). </span><span style="background-color: white; color: #0f1111; font-family: trebuchet;">In this concisely worded volume, James Edward Snapp Jr. - citizen of the kingdom of God and specialist in the field of New Testament textual analysis (and definitely </span><b style="background-color: white; color: #0f1111; font-family: trebuchet;">NOT </b><span style="background-color: white; color: #0f1111; font-family: trebuchet;">a KJV-Onlyist) - tests the claim that the text of one of the "the oldest and best manuscripts" of the Bible means the same thing that a typical medieval Byzantine manuscript of the Gospels means. Collecting 60 translation-affecting variants from Matthew, 60 translation-affecting variants from Mark, 60 translation-impacting variants from Luke, and 100 translation-impacting variants from John, brother James offers an irrefutable answer to the question, "Is Codex Sinaiticus' text as reliable as the Byzantine text in the Gospels?". James R, White fanboys take note.</span></span></p><p></p><p><span style="background-color: white; color: #0f1111;"><span style="font-family: trebuchet; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: trebuchet; font-size: medium;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #0f1111;"><span><b></b></span></span></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: trebuchet; font-size: medium;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #0f1111;"><span><b><br /></b></span></span></span></div><span style="font-family: trebuchet; font-size: medium;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #0f1111;"><span><b><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiSUpcXof0VfqVT3GFmXu4h9kw0EpJYkgiqWGYIndjGAuYPZ3pEwje9LSA6xHfWij1jWSqY9DLm6Gri272dphH3hg_qXo4s3TGX-Czfa-xoxb4Xe-Kagvq_5r4ktertCsRwFyns8OAkQwSX3pmQDvNocv5YV9H0JK2LP9wKlqeeQ0AmX9T1_c44oHWIpLw" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="710" data-original-width="494" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiSUpcXof0VfqVT3GFmXu4h9kw0EpJYkgiqWGYIndjGAuYPZ3pEwje9LSA6xHfWij1jWSqY9DLm6Gri272dphH3hg_qXo4s3TGX-Czfa-xoxb4Xe-Kagvq_5r4ktertCsRwFyns8OAkQwSX3pmQDvNocv5YV9H0JK2LP9wKlqeeQ0AmX9T1_c44oHWIpLw" width="167" /></a></div><a href="https://www.amazon.com/MacArthur-Regarding-False-Claims-About/dp/B0CQHLJ7LT">A Word to John MacArthur Regarding His False Claims about Mark 16:9-20</a></b> is, as the title, suggests, a</span></span><span style="background-color: white; color: #0f1111;"> straightforward word to John MacArthur of Grace Community Church (in Sun Valley California USA addressing some of the erroneous claims he has shared (and, as of December 2023) continued to share via the Grace To You organization, pertaining to Mark 16:9-20 - twelve verses of the inspired and inerrant word of God.</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #0f1111;"> This comes in large print so that even someone as blind to the evidence as John MacArthur can easily read the proof that Grace To You has spread, and continues to spread, ridiculous lies (did I say that out loud?) about 12 verses of inspired Scripture. With the data in this book, the average congregation-member in John MacArthur's congregation will be well-equipped to refute MacArthur's preposterous claims, and to compose a stern rebuke to the Masters Seminary faculty for their failure to inform their boss that he sounded like a braying donkey who has no business attempting to teach textual criticism from the pulpit.</span></span><p></p><p><span style="font-family: trebuchet; font-size: medium;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #0f1111;"><b><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Authentic-Case-Mark-9-20-Fourth-ebook/dp/B0CQ6KXLXN"></a></b></span></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: trebuchet; font-size: medium;"><b><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiWpZQcQU66kBWCTXqmi8_0TrtYkAViO67UCsXGenQG01zKN82lULTzS1UGuy5WxmwuuDGjzMOTa7V3nlcNvYYo5cE9GAGdvak8fLjDGgAqRGXaKvFZIZ-crmVqm4rySizXnytgu1CrDCrmoaNHNkaFw7-rqbR0LIgempq_BblXBV-fMTjAn_u5SVD-34M/s1003/AUTH%20FRONT%20COVER.png" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1003" data-original-width="753" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiWpZQcQU66kBWCTXqmi8_0TrtYkAViO67UCsXGenQG01zKN82lULTzS1UGuy5WxmwuuDGjzMOTa7V3nlcNvYYo5cE9GAGdvak8fLjDGgAqRGXaKvFZIZ-crmVqm4rySizXnytgu1CrDCrmoaNHNkaFw7-rqbR0LIgempq_BblXBV-fMTjAn_u5SVD-34M/s320/AUTH%20FRONT%20COVER.png" width="240" /></a></b></span></div><span style="font-family: trebuchet; font-size: medium;"><b><br />Authentic: The Case for Mark 16:9-20 (Fourth Edition)</b> is also available on Amazon in two formats: digital e-book($9.99) and paperback ($25.00).<br />You may have read statements like these from trusted scholars: <br /></span><span style="font-family: trebuchet; font-size: medium;"><span style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #0f1111;">"Mark 16:9-20 is not in many of the oldest and most reliable manuscripts.”</span><span style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #0f1111;"><br style="box-sizing: border-box;" />"Mark 16:9-20 is not found in any manuscript until the 800s."<br style="box-sizing: border-box;" />"Mark 16:9-20 was added over two centuries after the Gospel of Mark began to circulate.”</span><span style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #0f1111;"><br style="box-sizing: border-box;" />"Clement of Alexandria and Origen affirm that the Gospel of Mark ended at 16:8."<br style="box-sizing: border-box;" /><br style="box-sizing: border-box;" /> <b>STOP TRUSTING THEM.</b> </span></span><p></p><p><span style="font-family: trebuchet; font-size: medium;"><span style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #0f1111;"><b> Those are all lies.</b><br style="box-sizing: border-box;" /><br style="box-sizing: border-box;" /> In this book James Edward Snapp Jr. identifies some of the liars who have misled American and European readers, students, and congregations about Mark 16:9-20 - twelve verses of sacred Scripture. He also demonstrates the numerous errors committed by "parrot pseudo-scholars" -- individuals who basically paraphrase Bruce Metzger without conducting their own research -- and shows how incompetent and irresponsible (or just plain dense) authors such as James R White, John MacArthur, Craig Evans, James Edwards, N. T. Wright, Norman Geisler, Bart D. Ehrman and the late Bruce Manning Metzger have been in the course of leading astray (knowingly or unknowingly) many readers, students, and congregations about Mark 16:9-20.<br style="box-sizing: border-box;" /> By thoroughly analyzing the evidence in Greek manuscripts, church writings, and more, James E. Snapp Jr. presents a decisive case for retaining Mark 16:9-20 in the Gospel of Mark, and for interpreting it and applying it reasonably to the lives of all believers, as the Christian church has done since the first century of her existence.</span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: trebuchet; font-size: medium;"><span style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #0f1111;"><br /></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: trebuchet; font-size: medium;"><span style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #0f1111;">More titles and more translations (French, Arabic, Japanese, Korean, and more) editions are planned. If you would like to write a review - just make sure it's honest, favorable or unfavorable - please contact me for a free text file; be sure to name the book you intend to review.</span></span></p><p><br /></p><p><span style="font-family: trebuchet; font-size: medium;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #0f1111;"><br /></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: trebuchet; font-size: medium;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #0f1111;"><br /></span></span></p><p><span style="background-color: white; color: #0f1111;"><span style="font-family: trebuchet; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></span></p><p><span style="color: #0f1111; font-family: trebuchet; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="color: #0f1111; font-family: trebuchet; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><br /></p><p><span style="color: #0f1111; font-family: trebuchet; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="color: #0f1111; font-family: trebuchet; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="color: #0f1111; font-family: trebuchet; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="color: #0f1111; font-family: trebuchet; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="color: #0f1111; font-family: trebuchet; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="color: #0f1111; font-family: trebuchet; font-size: medium;"><br /><br /><br /></span><br /><br /></p>James Snapp Jrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09493891380752272603noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6346409181794331060.post-51745051841599123262024-01-18T15:44:00.002-05:002024-01-19T21:27:52.230-05:00Memo to Mormons: Your Prophet was a Fake<p>I love the dedication that many members of the "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints" have. Even though their ridiculous bogus "revelation" given by the phenomenally false prophet and teacher of lies Joseph Smith Jr. has been debunked and demonstrated to be nothing but a tall tale dreamed up on the basis of a dime-store novel back in the early 1800s, they still insist that they can't be wrong because of a "burning in the bosom" they have. <br /><br />That "burning in the bosom" might be indigestion, or heartburn, or a psychosomatic semi-euphoria elicited by a person's desire to belong to the elite members of the family of God. Your mileage may vary, but I suspect that in very many cases, a Mormon's conversion to Mormonism was elicited by peer pressure from family members or friends or a cute Mormon girl whose modesty and promise of eternal faithfulness were enough to push a brother's brain off a cliff. Oh the things we do for love.</p><p>But I digress: what I wish to point out here is a little textual detail in the Book of Mormon - supposedly translated by Joseph Smith Jr. from golden plates he dug up in New York state - which bear a suspicious resemblance to the King James Version's text of Mark 16:9-20: Here's the quotation from the Book of Mormon 9:22-25:<br />"For behold, thus said Jesus Christ, the Son of God, unto his disciples who should tarry, yea, and also to all his disciples, in the hearing of the multitude: Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature; And he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be damned; And these signs shall follow them that believe - in my name they shall cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; they shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick and they shall recover; And whosoever shall believe in my name, doubting nothing, unto him will I confirm all my words, even unto the ends of the earth."<br /><br />This material (which was the focus of an essay by Jeff Lindsay in the Mormon journal Interpreter - A Journal of Mormon Scripture (Vol. 25 - 2017, pp. 283-321, <i>"The Book of Mormon vs. the Consensus of Scholars: Surprises from the Disputed Ending of Mark, Part 1"</i>)) brings to mind Mark 16:15-18, with a little bit of Joseph Smith Jr.'s sanctimonious and-it-came-to-pass blubbering thrown in. The two passages are so similar when one compared the King James Version's English rendering to what Joseph Smith Jr. claimed to have translated from golden plates - I seriously doubt if that blatant liar and blasphemer had any idea how heavy a golden plate is - that I personally can attest that the prophecy he gave has come true: the nature of all his words is indeed confirmed to me, and I have no doubt about it whatsoever: JOSEPH SMITH JR. WAS A FALSE PROPHET and the sooner you realize it, the better.</p><p>Zoom in on the part of the Book of Mormon chapter 9 where it says "they shall take up serpents." This would be a perfectly adequate rendering of the Byzantine text, which is basically what the King James Version was translated from (with about 1,005 reading that are not attested by a majority of Greek manuscripts - technically the KJV's base-text is the printed <i>Textus Receptus</i>). In the first half of Mark 16:18, the King James Version says, "They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing it shall not hurt them." Well lo and behold: the Book of Mormon 9:24 aligns perfectly with the English translation that was available to Joseph Smith Jr. It's almost as if the English text of the Book of Mormon was derived from the King James Version.</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhBjzH0Gv0ttZYDAserPW7MthmWOVjWyulvnbSYpkehV7e4lAu9vBZ-4rOkX3TUuY_xuvHbHr8GP7R6uZ3rUpYgM9vmOBZzA5V-az1aQGCNOtD5xmQhcqlGVM6LfkaeAKCl_J5jlwdpswLZe7Tnklj8IsOJMUzXGLkayTh9QXktFb0QZLjRdQ5A6-GE09o/s959/Mk%2016%2018%20Codex%20019.png" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="959" data-original-width="903" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhBjzH0Gv0ttZYDAserPW7MthmWOVjWyulvnbSYpkehV7e4lAu9vBZ-4rOkX3TUuY_xuvHbHr8GP7R6uZ3rUpYgM9vmOBZzA5V-az1aQGCNOtD5xmQhcqlGVM6LfkaeAKCl_J5jlwdpswLZe7Tnklj8IsOJMUzXGLkayTh9QXktFb0QZLjRdQ5A6-GE09o/s320/Mk%2016%2018%20Codex%20019.png" width="301" /></a></div><p>And therein lies a problem for the poor gullible Mormons who think Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were authentic prophets instead of lying manipulators who enjoyed taking other men's wives. There is a little bit of text that is missing from both the Book of Mormon 9:24, and from the KJV's English rendering of Mark 16:18. In quite a few manuscripts, there is more text: the Greek equivalent of "and in their hands" belongs in the text after "they shall take up serpents."</p><p>The Greek words that are missing in the Byzantine text are "καί ἐν ταῖς χερσὶν." The editors of the Nestle-Aland/UBS compilation don't seem to have been very sure what to do with this phrase ("And in their hands"); it's in the 27th edition but not in the previous edition. Perhaps they did not give it much attention and treated it as a matter of trivial importance since they double-bracketed the entire section of Mark 16:9-20. It wasn't in Griesbach's compilation. But it is, though not the majority reading (not even close!), very well-attested in the Alexandrian transmission-stream. <br /><br />It is super-obvious that Joseph Smith Jr. committed the moral equivalent of plagiarism and fraud when he took the KJV's words and made them part of the narrative of the Book of Mormon. <br /><br />More examples of his immoral and dishonest use of the KJV - including the KJV's inaccuracies in its rendering of some fine details in the Hebrew and Greek base-texts - could no doubt be provided; others are welcome to provide them in the comments. But considering that the only acceptable definition of a true prophet is that all his prophecies come from God, this should serve as a demonstration that Joseph Smith Jr. was not a true prophet.<br /><br /> (<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyhD4b1ZuTo">On a pastoral note, watch the video here for more information about the roots of Mormonism</a>.)<br /><br /><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p> </p>James Snapp Jrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09493891380752272603noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6346409181794331060.post-51757902737203726512023-12-17T23:20:00.001-05:002023-12-18T03:22:36.697-05:00Christmas Gifts and Stocking Stuffers for Textual Critics (and their kids)<p> It's almost Christmas 2023 - </p><p>the only such Christmas there will ever be - </p><p>So why not give your seminary friend</p><p>a book he/she can read and lend?<br /><br /> I have three volumes available on Amazon, for the Kindle e-reader (or Kindle app) and also available in paperback: (click the link to go to Amazon for more information)<br /><br /><a href="https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0CQ6KXLXN"><b>Authentic: The Case for Mark 16:9-20 (Fourth Edition)</b><br /></a><br /><a href="https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00DP7BIXI"><b>The Epistle of James - English Translation, Commentary, and Greek Text</b><br /></a><br /><a href="https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0CQHLJ7LT"><b>A Word to John MacArthur Regarding His False Claims About Mark 16:9-20.</b></a> (Large Print)</p><p>And don't forget: I am available to speak about the reliability of the New Testament text at any church, anywhere (okay, not in North Korea yet, but almost anywhere) that can pay for my travel expenses and room and board. (Yes, this includes Apologia Church.)<br /><br />Have a joyous Advent season and a happy new year 2024 (and please buy my books)!<br /><br />Coming soon: <b>A Word to James R. White About His False Claims About the Text of the Gospels.</b><br /><br />And if you want something for the youngsters, I have also published (with very little direct application to New Testament textual criticism) these two little gems:<br /><br /><a href="https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0CQ1ZP68Z">S<b>aint Brigid and the Fairy Gates (Youth Edition)</b></a><br /><br /><a href="https://www.amazon.com/dp/B005E4IPZ4"><b>The Enormous Dragon</b></a> (co-authored with my elder son Peregrine Kirk Snapp) - a book about an orphan, for orphans and other earthling children.</p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgPrbHLg6HYIBaaGOfKW1O9VlCTTwLA5yR162ek2wXiQmgrJ_1DluhB1gBZkTobQtwMblZZF2qhR8068KnoGRzf3hLdyhIc0fpxUwi2p6DzBBzY6qAxyjUrzEYZARwrLaY8I_pkB-zHVq2xf8PutDlOdk9QGg0d-Hd48Utdx12trS5jVizkW0QoHaeRYqo" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="1005" data-original-width="717" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgPrbHLg6HYIBaaGOfKW1O9VlCTTwLA5yR162ek2wXiQmgrJ_1DluhB1gBZkTobQtwMblZZF2qhR8068KnoGRzf3hLdyhIc0fpxUwi2p6DzBBzY6qAxyjUrzEYZARwrLaY8I_pkB-zHVq2xf8PutDlOdk9QGg0d-Hd48Utdx12trS5jVizkW0QoHaeRYqo" width="171" /></a></div><br /><br /><p></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>As of December 14, 2023, Authentic: The Case for Mark 16:9-20 (Fourth Edition) is ranked 1,752 in the Christian Reference section. </p><br /><br /><p></p><p><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjv6lQWF0L6-DZXye7MPgYvLMDGOFYeTKhZuDOLEk1-CfDlZdcL5v-TDj8hlyYOfIO5hH21eSW6ZpzDG7dvBMDm0Vq4VF0p5YYrMvvUPs0HA9T5hKaYBVSZ9VSKiStOH6qHZ4uo2zb0Yg6tPXWboF75mxij4A6qgScqgfCmZexorxpdONfek9zLWpNcn_8" style="clear: right; display: inline !important; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em; text-align: center;"><img alt="" data-original-height="1000" data-original-width="632" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjv6lQWF0L6-DZXye7MPgYvLMDGOFYeTKhZuDOLEk1-CfDlZdcL5v-TDj8hlyYOfIO5hH21eSW6ZpzDG7dvBMDm0Vq4VF0p5YYrMvvUPs0HA9T5hKaYBVSZ9VSKiStOH6qHZ4uo2zb0Yg6tPXWboF75mxij4A6qgScqgfCmZexorxpdONfek9zLWpNcn_8" width="152" /></a><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjaixAki1dWCYfUqBTUrS6ZwhOOedqr1_Sq22k3NFR1zbuuKdUjnGOv7uKhb5R_GMX9qv76zX2R0Tb6XXxap0I0k8VCCEuqHTHckuw36xtd7Hd1gwD-fciQM6aVttre7rWBll7yJeFprmRBLM6RFKZqsp2z5SG7uWKVAB6bYuej-BNhHJZxXh5ftvWn104" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="2316" data-original-width="1828" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjaixAki1dWCYfUqBTUrS6ZwhOOedqr1_Sq22k3NFR1zbuuKdUjnGOv7uKhb5R_GMX9qv76zX2R0Tb6XXxap0I0k8VCCEuqHTHckuw36xtd7Hd1gwD-fciQM6aVttre7rWBll7yJeFprmRBLM6RFKZqsp2z5SG7uWKVAB6bYuej-BNhHJZxXh5ftvWn104" width="189" /></a></div><br /><br /><br /><br /><p></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p>James Snapp Jrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09493891380752272603noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6346409181794331060.post-64492016909887359182023-11-09T21:53:00.000-05:002023-11-09T21:53:05.859-05:00Improvement: BAR's Updated Article on Codex Sinaiticus<p> <span style="font-size: 14pt;"> </span><span style="font-size: 14pt;">At the </span><a href="https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/bible-versions-and-translations/absent-from-codex-sinaiticus-oldest-new-testament/" style="font-size: 14pt;">Biblical
Archaelogy website</a><span style="font-size: 14pt;">, an article titled “What’s Missing from Codex
Sinaiticus, the Oldest New Testament?” originally published by “Biblical
Archaeology Society staff” on August 12, 2015, contained several false
statements.</span><span style="font-size: 14pt;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 14.0pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> A heading in the article still refers to </span></span><span style="font-size: 14.0pt;">“Mark
16:1-14.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That is false.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(In real life, Mark 16 continues to verse 20,
as the verse-numbers in BAS’ article further down the page plainly show.)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 14.0pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> In general however the article has been greatly improved. </span></span> <span style="font-size: 14pt;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 14.0pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Those who want to get some idea of the differences between
Codex Sinaiticus and the text of most manuscripts of the Gospels may explore
the comparisons I have made in <a href="https://www.thetextofthegospels.com/2019/03/sinaiticus-and-byzantine-text-same.html">Matthew</a>,
<a href="https://www.thetextofthegospels.com/2019/03/sinaiticus-and-byz-same-message-in-mark.html">Mark</a>,
<a href="https://www.thetextofthegospels.com/2019/04/comparing-sinaiticus-to-byzantine-text.html">Luke</a>,
and <a href="https://www.thetextofthegospels.com/2019/04/comparing-sinaiticus-and-byz-in-john.html">John</a>.
<br /><br /> Thank you, BAS staff, for improving this article.<o:p></o:p></span></p>James Snapp Jrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09493891380752272603noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6346409181794331060.post-74640858523506945992023-10-13T19:31:00.010-04:002023-10-15T19:03:36.732-04:00The Interpolation in Matthew 27:49: Why?<p> “Two
suppositions alone are compatible with the whole evidence. First, the words ἄλλος δὲ κ. τ. λ. may
belong to the genuine text of the extant form of Mt, and have been early
omitted (originally by the Western text) on account of the obvioous difficulty. Or, secondly, they may be a very early
interpolation, absent in the first instance from the Western text only, and
thus resembling the Non-Western interpolations in Luke xxii xxiv except in its
failure to to obtain admission into the prevalent texts of the third and fourth
centuries. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>“The <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">prima facie</i> difficulty of the second
supposition is lightened by the absence of the words from all the earlier
versions, though the defectiveness of African Latin, Old Syriac, and Thebaic evidence
somewhat weakens the force of this consideration.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We have thought it on the whole right to give
expression to this view by including the words in double brackets, though we
did not feel justified in removing them from the text, and are not prepared to
reject altogether the alternative supposition.” </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>(Hort, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Notes on Select Readings</i>, p. 22)</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p> What was
F.J.A. Hort talking about? Most
Americans who are acquainted with the NIV, ESV, CSB, and NASB have no clue,
because these versions have no footnote at Matthew 27:49. The Tyndale House Greek New Testament does
not have an apparatus-listing at Matthew 27:49.
(Dr. Dirk Jongkind, Tyndale House GNT editor, discussed it in <a href="https://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2018/02/matthew-2749-was-jesus-pierced-before.html">February
2018 at the Evangelical Textual Criticism blog</a>). </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>The CSB is
particularly strange in this regard, because it features a textual footnote
pointing out trivial textual variants nearby, but not for this one which
involves a drastic change in meaning and in doctrine.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Let us take
a closer today.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span></p><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhS6nBUNQqfPfz6GcTqoELyH26Ksad1HhAkSfpVeBghOpMZVvrnYoZAHzyGMsQFUD1jPKn4fx226yUHLhCc3MpnJLJjXL0ynIZuUGbOaQ4fj_Mda0YWQ4FBR9vfD7zAG_z9hI6bP8QVpsjoubBwx5pxOLP5D_o1yiwHxFotcHgtUuN6Hj6GEzZngnkExm4/s531/Mt%2027%2049%20Oct%202023.png" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="179" data-original-width="531" height="135" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhS6nBUNQqfPfz6GcTqoELyH26Ksad1HhAkSfpVeBghOpMZVvrnYoZAHzyGMsQFUD1jPKn4fx226yUHLhCc3MpnJLJjXL0ynIZuUGbOaQ4fj_Mda0YWQ4FBR9vfD7zAG_z9hI6bP8QVpsjoubBwx5pxOLP5D_o1yiwHxFotcHgtUuN6Hj6GEzZngnkExm4/w400-h135/Mt%2027%2049%20Oct%202023.png" width="400" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><b>From Westcott & Hort's 1881 Greek text</b></span></td></tr></tbody></table><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222;">ἄλλος δὲ λαβὼν λόγχην ἔνυξεν αὐτοῦ τὴν
πλευρὰν καὶ ἐξῆλθεν ὕδωρ καὶ αἷμα is supported by Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, C L U
Γ and by about 35 minuscules MSS (specifically, 5 26 48 67 115 127 160 175 364
782 871 1010 1011 1057 1300 1392 1416 1448 1555 1566 1701 1780 2117 2126 2139
2283 2585 2586 2622 2680 2766 2787).</span><span style="color: #222222;"> </span><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222;">The
first hand of minuscule 2437 (</span><a href="https://www.thetextofthegospels.com/2018/11/lessons-from-ga-2437.html">previously
examined here in 2018</a><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222;">) should be included in this list, despite having had
the words erased by a corrector.</span><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: white; color: #222222;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Also supporting the inclusion of
these words (in some cases with ὕδωρ and αἷμα transposed) are Palestinian
Aramaic copies, the Ethiopic version, Middle Egyptian, quite a few Irish Vulgate
and Old Latin copies (the list includes the <a href="https://www.tcd.ie/library/early-irish-mss/launch-of-the-digital-book-of-mulling/">Book
of Mulling</a> and the <a href="https://stella.catalogue.tcd.ie/iii/encore/record/C__Rb20677113__SBook%20of%20Kells__Ff%3Afacetcollections%3A4%3A4%3AManuscripts%20and%20Archives%3A%3A__P0%2C1__Orightresult__X7?lang=eng&suite=cobalt">Book
of Kells</a> and the <a href="https://www.tcd.ie/library/early-irish-mss/launch-of-the-digital-book-of-dimma/">Book
of Dimma</a>).<br />
<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>I will not review the details
of what Hort, in 1881, and more recently, Willker has written regarding
Macedonius and Chrysostom and Severus and the ancient (alleged) autograph of
the Gospel of Matthew found on <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Cyprus</st1:place></st1:country-region>
in the late 400s.<br />
<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> The </span>Revision Committee in
1881 heeded Hort’s advice somewhat, and as a result the 1881 RV featured a margin-note linked to Matthew 27:49 which stated, “Many ancient authorities add <i>And another took a spear and pierced his side, and there came out water and blood. </i> See John xix. 34.</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222;">”</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #202020; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;"> </span><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222;"> </span><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222;">If the men who
translated and edited the 1984 NIV had done what they did 99% of the time – <i>i.e</i>.,
follow the Nestle-Aland compilation – then the NIV, too, would say “And someone
else, taking a spear, pierced his side and there came out water and blood” in
Matthew 27:49.</span><span style="color: #222222; mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222;">The same can be said
regarding the creators of the NASB, ESV, NNIV (that’s how I refer to the 2011
NIV, which varies <b><i>drastically</i></b> from the 1984 NIV), and CSB. </span><span style="color: #222222; mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222;">I cannot of course judge their motives but
they seem awfully fickle at this particular point.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: white; color: #222222;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Perhaps their fickleness is due to
reluctance to admit into the text, even in double brackets or in a footnote, a
textual variant which would destroy the doctrine of inerrrancy (which I have
already discussed <a href="https://www.thetextofthegospels.com/2022/06/do-any-textual-variants-impact-doctrine.html">here</a>).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Philip Comfort acknowledgd in <i>Encountering the
Manuscripts</i> (2005) that the inclusion of ἄλλος δὲ λαβὼν λόγχην ἔνυξεν αὐτοῦ τὴν
πλευρὰν καὶ ἐξῆλθεν ὕδωρ καὶ αἷμα would appear to create “a jarring
contradiction.” <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: white; color: #222222;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>(Notice, by the way, that there is
no distigmai in Vaticanus here – <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">because
Sepulveda would not have pointed out to Erasmus such an erroneous reading in
his (Sepulveda’s) prized ancient codex</i>.)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: white; color: #222222;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Operating on the premise that
editors of the NIV, ESV, CSB, etc., have held (that it is an interpolation),
what would motivate an early scribe to create and into the text these words?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: white; color: #222222;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>A desire to show that some Romans,
or some Jews, were merciful to Jesus as he was dying on the cross.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Crucifixion is a painful experience.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It can last for days.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A person who ended Jesus’ torture would be
understood by his contemporaries to be acting mercifully.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: white; color: #222222;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>There is a slight anti-Judaic
tendency in the Western text of Acts.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I
propose that there was a slight pro-Jewish tendency at work in the Alexandrian
Greek transmission-line, which carried over into the Old Latin transmission-line
that is represented in some Irish Old Latin copies of the Gospel of
Matthew.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Before the
four Gospels were collected together, our interpolator could point to his
interpolation and say “Look!<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Not all of
the Jews on the scene were bad.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Sure,
God destroyed Jerusalem forty years later, but there was a remnant there on
Calvary; there was at least one noble Jew who defied the Romans and showed
mercy to Jesus on the cross – not giving him a drink to prolong his suffering,
but spearing him, in defiance of the Roman soldiers, in order to end his
suffering.”</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Or, the
interpolation might have been made by an early pro-Roman scribe, who wished to
convey that the Romans who crucified Jesus were just following orders, and had
no personal vendetta against Jesus (something most first-century readers of
Matthew would naturally assume), and that one of them, in an act of
insubordination, speared Jesus, causing his immediate death and an end to his
sufferings.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in; text-indent: -0.5in;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span></p><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEipFbF78xndxz0Llvg4GrIgULp6HZfJpNOMiBN1i0UbEL69x6wXt7T_jV0bsF-6Jkx_ybuxKRw0SLR77pS0KHEvq7fhyePSRWvRkARcOSwjzKYRpe1SCVq7VDAcHUGX2-O1mALrru4Fq1ebvTjfzgQBN_hB36a81u1ec9mPXRz4S6-OIRK8sDb_speFmSY/s446/Longinus%20Oct%2013%202023.png" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="446" data-original-width="435" height="369" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEipFbF78xndxz0Llvg4GrIgULp6HZfJpNOMiBN1i0UbEL69x6wXt7T_jV0bsF-6Jkx_ybuxKRw0SLR77pS0KHEvq7fhyePSRWvRkARcOSwjzKYRpe1SCVq7VDAcHUGX2-O1mALrru4Fq1ebvTjfzgQBN_hB36a81u1ec9mPXRz4S6-OIRK8sDb_speFmSY/w347-h369/Longinus%20Oct%2013%202023.png" width="347" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="color: #444444; font-family: arial;"><b>Picture from the Rabbula Gospels<br /><br /></b></span></td></tr></tbody></table><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span> The
traditions about Saint Longinus may thus become more relevant – was he Roman,
or Jewish? Or both?<p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p> The
<a href="https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/gospelnicodemus-roberts.html">earliest traditions</a> about <a href="https://www.oca.org/saints/lives/2012/10/16/102980-martyr-longinus-the-centurion-who-stood-at-the-cross-of-the-lord">Longinus</a> consistently portray him as a Roman centurion,
as far as I can tell. On that premise,
the interpolation in the Alexandrian text of Matthew 27:49 was created in order
to excuse the Romans. The Romans could
argue that as legitimate agents of the Roman Empire, they should be forgiven
for crucifying Jesus – and, with this interpolation, offer an extra
consideration: they didn’t even allow
Jesus to suffer on the cross longer than what was required to carry out the
orders of Pontius Pilate – barely enough time to crucify Jesus, and enough time
to allow all the bystanders to read the inscription Pilate ordered them to post
on the cross, and enough time to finish gambling.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p> (As it
turned out, it only took Jesus six hours to suffer and die for the sins of the
whole world, but the Roman soldiers couldn’t have known that.)</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p> I consider it very likely that John, when he wrote the fourth Gospel in <st1:city w:st="on">Ephesus</st1:city>, was aware of
this interpolation and either read it, or heard about it.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p> Notice the explicit words of John 19:35
- “The one who saw it [i.e., John] has testified , and his testimony is
true. He knows that he is telling the
truth, so that you also may believe.”
What could be the motivation for such explicitness, except to respond to
an interpolation that John detected in his own copy of the Gospel of Matthew,
or a copy that someone had told him about?</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p> So: after walking through the
external and internal evidence carefully and slowly, I conclude that the words
ἄλλος δὲ λαβὼν λόγχην ἔνυξεν αὐτοῦ τὴν πλευρὰν καὶ ἐξῆλθεν ὕδωρ καὶ αἷμα in the
Alexandrian text (and whatever other texts) are an interpolation, and may
confidently be treated as the interpolation they are. That is, they are an interesting display of
an early scribe’s concern, but as a representation of the autograph of the
Greek text of the Gospel of Matthew, they should be entirely ignored.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><br /></p><p class="MsoNormal"><br /></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></p>James Snapp Jrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09493891380752272603noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6346409181794331060.post-25499918948101395462023-10-04T12:23:00.004-04:002023-10-04T23:05:40.812-04:00John 5:3b-4: Original or Not?<p></p><p class="Default"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Metzger’s observation that 5:3b
contains two “non-Johannine” words is lightweight, considering that John had
few other occasions to use either ἐκδέχεσθαι or κίνησις.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="Default"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>(I commend to readers both the
article written by <a href="https://faithlife.com/store/product/159123/bibliotheca-sacra-volume-136">Zane
Hodges in 1979 in <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Bibliotheca Sacra</i></a>
136, pp. 25-39, and the article by Gordon Fee which appeared in <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><a href="https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/eq/1982-4_207.pdf">Evangelical
Quarterly<span style="font-style: normal;"> 54 (pp. 207-218</span></a></i>.)<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="Default"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Before reaching a conclusion about
John 5:3b, let’s investigate 5:4.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><a href="https://www.billmounce.com/monday-with-mounce/where-did-v-4-go-john-5-4">Dr.
Bill Mounce addressed this variant briefly</a>, but his treatment is extremely
oversimplified. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>More is required.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>First, we must get an idea of how much
textual variation there is within this verse.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>In A K L Y Δ Π, κυρίου (<u>ΚΥ</u>) appears after αγγελος γαρ (or, in L,
αγγελος δε).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And instead of κατέβεινεν,
A K Π Ψ 579 have ἐλούετο.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And A (supported
by some Bohairic manuscripts) has ουν between δήποτ’ and κατείχετο.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Instead of δήποτε, K and Π have δ’ αν.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In C<sup>c</sup> H M U Y Δ Λ Π 078 and at
least 17 lectionaries, instead of ἐτάρασσεν, the text reads ἐταράσσετο.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Ethiopic version also supports
ἐταράσσετο.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Swanson erroneously lists Δ
as if it reads ἐταράσσετο <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">and</i>
ἐτάρασσεν; <a href="https://www.e-codices.unifr.ch/en/csg/0048/333/0/Sequence-255">a check of
the manuscript show that it supports <span style="color: black; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">ἐταράσσε το (the το being the το before ὕδωρ).</span>
</a><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="Default"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"></span></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiICZ9U8ipnYFdpoiEYKcPWtw40otqt4tFITyQMwCXlwRwarRM1nDQSCgMZYhjYrJzBPtQzONyiDNymChSSwnRBwgbgSgMXfwE7a6OJ7SlgZk4J8AXmAX2NZsIE92MzUbGBLGotVTab1WcU2t8xo0a84ml45rXWDZDEw-9FQnwxm9Mk3dTrrHYjbWy1aR0/s1052/John%205%204%20Delta.png" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="546" data-original-width="1052" height="166" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiICZ9U8ipnYFdpoiEYKcPWtw40otqt4tFITyQMwCXlwRwarRM1nDQSCgMZYhjYrJzBPtQzONyiDNymChSSwnRBwgbgSgMXfwE7a6OJ7SlgZk4J8AXmAX2NZsIE92MzUbGBLGotVTab1WcU2t8xo0a84ml45rXWDZDEw-9FQnwxm9Mk3dTrrHYjbWy1aR0/s320/John%205%204%20Delta.png" width="320" /></a></div> Plus, in S Λ Π 047, and 72 minuscules,
the passage is marked with asterisks.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>The Harklean Syriac also features the verse marked with asterisks.<o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="Default"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The external evidence mostly aligns with the
external evidence for 5:3<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">b</i> – but not
quite. D W<sup>supp</sup> 33, 2718, and the Armenian and Georgian versions,
which include 4:3b, do not imclude 5:4.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>5:4
is supported by Tatian’s <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Diatessaron</i>
(as demonstrated by a comment by Ephrem in his commentary ), by Ambrose, by
Tertullian, by Chrysostom (who was listed in UBS1 as a witness for both
inclusion and non-inclusion), and Cyril.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="Default"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Tertullian, in <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><a href="https://www.tertullian.org/articles/souter_orat_bapt/souter_orat_bapt_04baptism.htm">De
Baptismo<span style="font-style: normal;"> 5</span></a></i>, near the end of the
chapter, wrote, “<span style="background: white;">If it seems an unheard-of thing
that an angel should interfere with water, there was a precedent for that which
was to be. The pool of <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:city w:st="on">Bethsaida</st1:city></st1:place>
‘was stirred’ by the intervention of ‘an angel.’<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Those who complained of their health used to
watch for him. For anyone who had first descended there ceased to complain after
a bath. This picture of bodily cure was prophetic of spiritual cure, according
to the practice by which things carnal always precede, being a picture of
things spiritual. As, therefore, the grace of God spread among men, greater
power was added to the waters and the angel.”<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="Default"><span style="background: white; font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Tertullian goes on to say, “Those
who healed bodily defects now heal the spirit.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Those who worked temporal salvation now restore for us everlasting
salvation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Those who freed one once a
year, [this indicates how Tertullian understood κατά καιρόν] now daily
save communities, death being destroyed by the washing away of sins.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Tertullian clearly had no problem reading
this verse and applying it to the life of the church.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="Default"><span style="background: white; font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Chrysostom commented on 5:3b-4 in
detail in his <a href="https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/240136.htm">commentary
on John</a>, perceiving in the paralytic’s healing a thematic template of
baptism and salvation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="Default"><span style="background: white; font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span></span><span style="background: white; font-family: "Book Antiqua"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Tertullian,
in Latin, and Chrysostom, in Greek, demonstrate the antiquity of the passage in
the text, as early as two papyri from c. 200 and c. 400 would.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Chrysostom also shows that John 5:4 was read
in the text of the church in <st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Byzantium</st1:place></st1:city>
during his bishopric.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><a href="https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01438a.htm">Amphilochius of Iconium</a> (340-403;
bishop after 374) – cousin of Gregory of Nazianzus – does not include 5:4 in
the text he used.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Both the non-inclusion
and inclusion of 5:4 are very early readings. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="Default"><span style="background: white; font-family: "Book Antiqua"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>What
phenomenon, occurring sometime between 90 (when the Gospel of John was written
– unless John Robinson’s redating to pre-70 – in light of (among other things)
5:2 – is adopted) and 200, could elicit one transmission-stream to include John
5:4 (in the case of Tertullian’s text of John), and another transmission-stream
to not include John 5:4 (in the case of P75, </span><span style="background: white; font-family: Symbol; mso-ascii-font-family: "Book Antiqua"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-char-type: symbol; mso-hansi-font-family: "Book Antiqua"; mso-symbol-font-family: Symbol;"><span style="mso-char-type: symbol; mso-symbol-font-family: Symbol;">À</span></span><span style="background: white; font-family: "Book Antiqua"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">, and B)?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="Default"><span style="background: white; font-family: "Book Antiqua"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>I
am willing to posit that an anomaly in the autograph of the Gospel of John
itself elicited different treatments of John 5:3<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">b</i>-4.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Picture John reading
chapter 5 to his listeners from the autograph for the very first time – without
5:3<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">b</i>-4.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Inevitably, someone would ask, “John, why
were these sick, blind, lame, and paralyzed people waiting near the pool
instead of swimming in its water?”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And I
can imagine that John added an explanatory note in the margin, “waiting for the
moving of the waters.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="Default"><span style="background: white; font-family: "Book Antiqua"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>And
then someone asked, “What agitated the pool’s water?”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And John, realizing that his listeners in <st1:city w:st="on">Ephesus</st1:city> were oblivious to the background of the pool at <st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Bethesda</st1:place></st1:city>, added another
note – and thus verse 4 came into existence as a second marginal note. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>When John died, the autograph was entrusted to
the Christian community at <st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Ephesus</st1:place></st1:city>
– and they treated the annotations in three different ways in the next
generation:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="Default"><span style="background: white; font-family: "Book Antiqua"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>In
the ancestor of Byzantine manuscripts, the notes were either blended into the
main text (as John 21 has been), or else copies just the way they appeared in
the autograph, in the margin with symbols to connect them to John 5:3-5.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In the ancestor of Alexandrian manuscripts,
receiving the text of the autograph slightly later (being in <st1:country-region w:st="on">Egypt</st1:country-region>, not <st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Ephesus</st1:place></st1:city>),
the notes were assumed to have originated with someone other than John, and
were therefore not considered worthy to be included in either the main text or
in the margin.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="Default"><span style="background: white; font-family: "Book Antiqua"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Another
consideration might have been in play in the mind of the early Alexandrian
scribe who decided not to include verse 4:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>a desire to protect John from the charge of promoting superstition.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A scribe who thought he knew that water in
the pool of Bethesda was agitated by entirely natural forces could easily
persuade himself that the marginal note in his exemplar, stating that an angel
of the Lord bathed in the pool of Bethesda, could not have been written by an
inspired author; in addition, he did not wish to appear to commend
Asklepieions.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="Default"><span style="background: white; font-family: "Book Antiqua"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>The
testimony of </span><span style="background: white; font-family: Symbol; mso-ascii-font-family: "Book Antiqua"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-char-type: symbol; mso-hansi-font-family: "Book Antiqua"; mso-symbol-font-family: Symbol;"><span style="mso-char-type: symbol; mso-symbol-font-family: Symbol;">P</span></span><span style="background: white; font-family: "Book Antiqua"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> and its relatives which have John 5:4 with asterisks
commends family </span><span style="background: white; font-family: Symbol; mso-ascii-font-family: "Book Antiqua"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-char-type: symbol; mso-hansi-font-family: "Book Antiqua"; mso-symbol-font-family: Symbol;"><span style="mso-char-type: symbol; mso-symbol-font-family: Symbol;">P</span></span><span style="background: white; font-family: "Book Antiqua"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> as an excellent representative of the autograph of the text
of the Gospels.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The form of verse 4 that
appears in Codex </span><span style="background: white; font-family: Symbol; mso-ascii-font-family: "Book Antiqua"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-char-type: symbol; mso-hansi-font-family: "Book Antiqua"; mso-symbol-font-family: Symbol;"><span style="mso-char-type: symbol; mso-symbol-font-family: Symbol;">P</span></span><span style="background: white; font-family: "Book Antiqua"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> is the form which should be adopted, instead of the readings
found in the majority of manuscripts.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="Default"><span style="background: white; font-family: "Book Antiqua"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>An
addition question is sure to be asked:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>what should English Bible editors do with John 5:3-4?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I have no objection to the inclusion of 5:3-4
in the main text, or in the margin, with a note stating that the passage
appears in the margin, or not at all, in a few early manuscripts.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But to omit it entirely would guarantee that
English readers would perpetually ask, as John’s first listeners did, “Why
weren’t they all swimming?” or, “Who or what stirred up the waters?”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="Default"><span style="background: white; font-family: "Book Antiqua"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Another
question may be on the minds of some readers:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span><i>Would an inspired author expand on his own narrative in this way, adding
marginalia?</i><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I see no reason why not.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Many a Spirit-led preacher reading from a manuscript he wrote has spontaneously
clarified himself mid-sermon.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> E</span>ven <st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Saint Paul</st1:place></st1:city>, in First
Corinthians 1:16, clarified that he had baptized the household of Stephanas
(who, according to tradition, was the jailor in Acts 16), right after saying,
“I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I Cor. 1:16 may have originally been a note
in the margin added by Paul as he proof-read the letter; no one at <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:city w:st="on">Corinth</st1:city></st1:place>, however, would
have doubted its veracity.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="Default"><span style="background: white; font-family: "Book Antiqua"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></p><br /><p></p>James Snapp Jrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09493891380752272603noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6346409181794331060.post-86013569015481249722023-08-09T10:02:00.001-04:002023-08-09T10:02:40.849-04:00Looking into the Alexandrian Text at John 12:12<p class="MsoNormal"> <span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: large;"> War – what is it good for?
“<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01-2pNCZiNk">Absolutely nothing</a>,” many have answered.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: large;"> And when
the question is asked, “What is the Alexandrian text good for?”, quite a few
people have responded with the same answer.
Independent Fundamentalist Baptists tend to insistently subscribe to the
<i>Textus Receptus</i>, and <a href="https://fundamental.org/kjv-church-directory/kjv-independent-fundamental-baptist-churches-in-the-usa/">some KJV-Onlyists</a> even make it a formal condition of church fellowship to use the
KJV or versions in languages other than English that conform to the meaning of
the KJV New Testament.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: large;"> Simultaneously
you might think, listening to other folks, that the Alexandrian text is the
greatest invention since sliced bread.
The text of the New Testament portion of the ESV, NIV, CSB, and NRSV are
all based primarily on the Alexandrian Text – the “critical text” that is
published in the Nestle-Aland <i>Novum
Testamentum Graece</i> and the UBS Greek New Testament. (And why is <i>this</i> compilation referred to as <b>the</b> critical text? Weren’t <i>all</i> compilations critical, <i>i.e.,</i>
thoughtfully compiled? Are we supposed
to be given the impression that other compilations are not critical, and merely
reproduce the text found in a particular manuscript??) </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: large;"> I reckon
that 99% of American preachers who promote English versions based on the NA/UBS
compilation(s) still get their justification for using it, at any given point
of variation, from Bruce Metzger’s <i>Textual
Commentary of the Greek New Testament</i> – apparently never realizing that
Metzger’s <i>Textual Commentary </i>was made
with the intention of promoting the UBS compilation. (So if you’re looking for an <i>objective</i> textual commentary,
Metzger-readers, or for one written by an author who wasn’t writing under the
influence of the Lucianic recension delusion, you’re digging in the wrong
place.)</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: large;"> Meanwhile,
advocates of the Byzantine Text tend to reject the Alexandrian text as a matter
of course; if they didn’t, they wouldn’t be majority-text advocates. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: verdana;"> I would
argue, though, that the Alexandrian text excels in at least one area: the preservation of the original
grammar. For example: there’s a little variation-unit in John 12:12
that doesn’t get attention often, because its effect on translation is so
slight: between τη επαύριον and ἐλθὼν, did
John write </span><b><span style="font-family: times;">ὄχλος πολὺς ὁ</span> </b><span style="font-family: verdana;">or </span><b><span style="font-family: times;">ὁ ὄχλος πολὺς</span></b><b style="font-family: verdana;"> ὁ</b><span style="font-family: verdana;"> or simply </span><b><span style="font-family: times;">ὄχλος πολὺς</span></b><span style="font-family: verdana;">? The Byzantine text has ὄχλος πολὺς ὁ, and its
allies include Codex Alexandrinus, D K W X Π Ψ </span><i style="font-family: verdana;"><span style="letter-spacing: 2.0pt;">f</span></i><sup style="font-family: verdana;">1</sup><span style="font-family: verdana;"> 579 700
1424 (</span><i style="font-family: verdana;">etc</i><span style="font-family: verdana;">.) plus the Peshitta, the
Sahidic version, and the Gothic version.
Even Origen is cited in the UBS GNT as support for </span><span style="font-family: times;">ὄχλος πολὺς ὁ</span><span style="font-family: verdana;"> – apparently
the only patristic reference the editors considered worth mentioning. Papyrus 2</span><sup style="font-family: verdana;">vid</sup><span style="font-family: verdana;">, assigned to the
500s, also supports </span><span style="font-family: times;">ὄχλος πολὺς ὁ</span><span style="font-family: verdana;">.</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjM8Dywv4whIGQ_e5UygJRgfYDn8eDyFJ_77lwF7n9MGFPzDxUhfof3cRsjo7nFwOOTmQ12eR1k-zVHZSJlKpJ-hjWYRgHwuZowTtso08aHH4W2O2Sl1eGOItjft3dRtfC7SpulCxCwfd63wU_incsIKEYW3L_wC0YrNVUIKqgaaNP75-3ciylUASG_LTg/s975/P66%20John%2012%2012.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: large;"><img border="0" data-original-height="263" data-original-width="975" height="108" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjM8Dywv4whIGQ_e5UygJRgfYDn8eDyFJ_77lwF7n9MGFPzDxUhfof3cRsjo7nFwOOTmQ12eR1k-zVHZSJlKpJ-hjWYRgHwuZowTtso08aHH4W2O2Sl1eGOItjft3dRtfC7SpulCxCwfd63wU_incsIKEYW3L_wC0YrNVUIKqgaaNP75-3ciylUASG_LTg/w400-h108/P66%20John%2012%2012.png" width="400" /></span></a></div><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: large;"> Codex
Sinaiticus initially read </span><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">ὄχλος πολὺς</span><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: verdana;"> but a corrector has conformed its text to
the Byzantine/Western/Caesarean
reading. </span></span><span style="font-family: Symbol; font-size: 14pt;">D</span><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: verdana;"> 565 892 and 1195 agree
with </span></span><span style="font-family: Symbol; font-size: 14pt;">À</span><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: verdana;">’s
initial reading. But that’s not the true
Alexandrian reading. The Alexandrian
reading here is what Vaticanus has: </span><span style="font-family: times;">ὁ
ὄχλος πολὺς ὁ</span></span><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: large;">. And Codex B is allied
with P75 P66<sup>vid</sup> B L 1241, the Sinaitic Syriac, and the Bohairic
version. (The UBS apparatus listed <i><span style="letter-spacing: 2.8pt;">f</span></i><sup>13</sup>
as if it supports </span><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">ὁ ὄχλος πολὺς ὁ</span><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: large;">; Swanson lists <i><span style="letter-spacing: 2.8pt;">f</span></i><sup>13 </sup>as support
for </span><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">ὄχλος πολὺς ὁ</span><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: large;">).</span><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: large;"> Bruce
Metzger, a few verses earlier, treated support from multiple
transmission-streams as a strong indicator of a reading’s genuineness (“the
overwhelming manuscript support for the verse seemed to a majority of the
Committee to justify retaining it in the text,” wrote Metzger). That’s a general principle with which I
enthusiastically agree. But in this
case, despite the shallowness of the external evidence in favor of the minority
reading, there’s a valid reason for favoring it: the internal evidence. It’s the reading more likely to have been
written by John, and it’s the reading more likely to have been altered by
scribes. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: large;"> Metzger’s
colleagues seem to have had some misgivings about the Alexandrian reading here,
giving their decision a “C” rating.
Metzger wrote, “The expression </span><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">ὁ ὄχλος πολὺς</span><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: large;"> serving as the subject of a
verb [in verse 9] is such unusual Greek (with </span><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">πολὺς</span><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: large;"> in the predicate position)
that serious doubts arise whether the evangelist could have written it
thus.” The counter-argument should be
obvious: are later scribes likely to
have changed the text from </span><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">ὄχλος πολὺς ὁ </span><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: large;">to </span><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">ὁ ὄχλος πολὺς ὁ</span><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: large;">?</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: large;"> Granting
that some Alexandrian scribes were not particularly attentive in the vicinity
of this variant-unit (P75’s scribe skipped the second part of verse 8), I am
content to accept the Alexandrian reading, not on the grounds that its external
support is stronger, but on the grounds than internal considerations are in its
favor. There are many other examples
that could be selected to show the Alexandrian tendency to preserve original
grammatical quirks – not errors; just grammatical quirks, like when a baseball
umpire correctly says, <i>“That ain’t a
strike”</i> – but this one may suffice for today.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: large;"> </span></p>James Snapp Jrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09493891380752272603noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6346409181794331060.post-68921762134249732632023-07-25T20:59:00.009-04:002023-07-26T09:20:00.061-04:00Mark 13:14 - Who Said What?<p><span style="font-size: large;"><span> <span style="font-family: times;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><span>"But when ye see the abomination of desolation standing where he ought not (let him that readeth understand), then let them that are in Judaea flee unto the mountains." Thus read the words of Jesus in Mark 13:14 in the Revised Version (1881). But in the KJV, NKJV, EOB-NT, MEV, and WEB, the verse is a bit longer: before the word "then" is the phrase, "spoken of by Daniel the prophet," based on the words τὸ ῥηθὲν ὑπὸ Δανιὴλ τοῦ προφήτου, which appears in the <i>Textus Receptus</i> and in the vast majority of Greek manuscripts (including A K M U Y </span>Γ Δ Θ Π 157)<span>, as well as in the Peshitta, the Harklean Syriac, and six Old Latin copies (aur, c, e, k, l, q). </span></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> The basis for "spoken of by Daniel the prophet" is not supported by </span><span style="font-family: Symbol;">À</span><span><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> (</span></span><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Sinaiticus) B D </span><span><span style="font-family: helvetica;">L W</span><span style="font-family: times;"> </span></span>Ψ<span><span style="font-family: times;"> </span><span style="font-family: helvetica;">and </span></span><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><span> 565 700 892. Nor are the words found in the Old Latin copies d, ff</span><span style="vertical-align: super;">2</span><span>, i, n, and r</span><span style="vertical-align: super;">1</span><span>, or the Vulgate (though the phrase is included in some copies of the Vulgate), or in the Sahidic version, the Armenian version, and the Old Georgian version (according to Wieland Willker, who covered this variant-unit in his Textual Commentary on the Gospels).</span></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: times;"></span></p><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi_cPGvX0TXYs9wZLGixzRCpTVMulxt6U9e8KYCkIBtNOM7tMh1ChVF_uVt_dI7lWDM6YuMfx9spmgUFlMQRYcgKNzIMcuWqRhkHiRBiZLdz92lwJyXtLq8fVdtvEw3tkL8AobVSn_KEW4QStUBdsFOwZwVdOgskSgc_gsFfxxXkkBJ7nDJtUpqTMQHYPk/s1064/Mark%2013%2014%20Codex%20034.png" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="479" data-original-width="1064" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi_cPGvX0TXYs9wZLGixzRCpTVMulxt6U9e8KYCkIBtNOM7tMh1ChVF_uVt_dI7lWDM6YuMfx9spmgUFlMQRYcgKNzIMcuWqRhkHiRBiZLdz92lwJyXtLq8fVdtvEw3tkL8AobVSn_KEW4QStUBdsFOwZwVdOgskSgc_gsFfxxXkkBJ7nDJtUpqTMQHYPk/w400-h180/Mark%2013%2014%20Codex%20034.png" width="400" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><b><a href="https://cudl.lib.cam.ac.uk/view/MS-ADD-06594/245">Codex Macedonianus (Y/034), shown here,<br />includes the words in Mark 13:14 that are<br />not included in the Alexandrian Text</a></b></span></td></tr></tbody></table><span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: large;"> Neither the UBS <i>Greek New Testament </i>(4th edition) nor the Nestle-Aland <i>Novum Testamentum Graece</i> (27th edition) mention this six-word variant. That's right: a six-word Byzantine variant goes entirely uncovered in the GNT and NTG, as if it never existed.</span><p></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><span><span style="font-family: times;"> </span><span style="font-family: helvetica;">What has happened here in Mark 13:14? The editors of the Greek New Testament apparently felt that the Byzantine reading is a harmonization to Matthew 24:15. The phrase in Matthew is similar; Matthew 24:15 has </span></span><span style="font-family: helvetica;">διὰ instead of <span>ὑπὸ. Some members of f</span><span style="vertical-align: super;">1</span><span> read </span>διὰ, and so do 28 579 and 1424. It seems to me the theory that a harmonizer added <span>τὸ ῥηθὲν ὑπὸ Δανιὴλ τοῦ προφήτου is not very tenable, partly because a harmonizer would be unlikely to be so picky as to change </span>διὰ into <span>ὑπὸ.</span></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: large;"><span> But how can the omission of </span><span>τὸ ῥηθὲν ὑπὸ Δανιὴλ τοῦ προφήτου be explained, especially considering that it missing not only in the Alexandrian? Therein lies a tale:</span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span> In the 200s, the authorship of certain portion of Daniel and Susanna in the Septuagint (LXX) were debated; <a href="https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0414.htm">Origen</a> and his colleague <a href="https://godwords.org/a-letter-to-origen-from-africanus-about-the-history-of-susanna/">Julius Africanus</a> exchanged letters about Susanna. In addition, the third-century pagan author <a href="https://www.attalus.org/translate/daniel.html">Porphyry</a> argued (as many interpreters still argue today) that the entire book of Daniel was composed in intertestamental times, during the reign of the Syrian ruler Antiochus Epiphanes. No Christians seem to have objected to Christ's reference to Daniel in Matthew 24:15 as the source of Daniel 9:27. But in the first centuries of Christianity, when copies of the Gospels were being circulated individually, a thoughtful copyist of the Gospel of Mark, seeing a reference to the book of Daniel coming from the mouth of Jesus, may have thought that source of the words </span><span>τὸ ῥηθὲν ὑπὸ Δανιὴλ τοῦ προφήτου was a marginal note that an earlier copyist, or an individual who supervised copyists, had inserted into the text </span>‒ and, satisfied with the thought that the phrase was not original, declined to include it in subsequent copies. </span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: large;"><span> That this happened, and happened early enough to influence some Old Latin copies, the text of the Sinaitic Syriac, and the text of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, is more probable than the idea that someone creating the Byzantine text, selecting readings from the Alexandrian and Western copies, threw </span><span>τὸ ῥηθὲν ὑπὸ Δανιὴλ τοῦ προφήτου into Mark 13:14, especially considering that the words are not in Mark 13:14 in the earliest representatives of the Alexandrian or Western Greek text.</span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: large;"> This implies that the Alexandrian Text of the Gospel of Mark was not mechanically copied by scribes. It implies that the Alexandrian Text of the Gospel of Mark was (slightly) edited by an editor who removed features that appeared to him to run the risk of inviting objections from outsiders. Lest this might seem to be a conspiracy theory, I leave you with the words of Bruce Metzger (from <i>The Text of the New Testament</i>, 4th edition, p. 312) that the Alexandrian Text is considered "on the whole the best ancient recension."</span></p><p><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></p><p><br /></p>James Snapp Jrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09493891380752272603noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6346409181794331060.post-81945703464327462672023-06-25T16:47:00.001-04:002023-06-25T22:46:19.999-04:00Matthew 26:28: My Blood of the New Covenant<p> In Matthew 26:28, did Jesus say, "This is my blood of the new covenant"? Or did he say, "This is my blood of the covenant'? The contest, in Greek, is between τὸ τῆς καινῆς and τῆς. The external evidence - as presented in the apparatus of Wayne Mitchell's <u>The Greek New Testament</u>, 4th edition - shows that representatives of multiple text-types support τὸ τῆς καινῆς or τῆς καινῆς: the Byzantine text finds allies in A, C, D (without the τὸ), E, F, G. H. K, M, S, U, W, Γ, Δ, Π Ω 074<span style="vertical-align: super;">vid </span><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 2.1pt;">f</span></i><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">1</span></sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;"> <i><span style="letter-spacing: 2.4pt;">f</span></i><sup>13 </sup></span>28 205 565 579 597 700 892 1006 1071 1241 1243 1342 1505 1582 <i>Lect</i> the Old Latin and Vulgate, the Peshitta, Palestinian Aramaic, Sahidic and Bohairic versions (except for one Bohairic copy, and Schenke's Middle Egyptian), Armenian, Ethiopic, and part of the Old Georgian version. The Byzantine reading also has support from Irenaeus (in Latin), Origen (in Latin), Theophilus of Alexandria, Theodoret, Jerome, and Augustine.</p><p> P45 (damaged, but with space-considerations taken into account) and P37 agree with Vaticanus and Sinaiticus (and 019 035 038 33) on the shorter reading. Irenaeus (as preserved in Armenian) agrees with the shorter reading, and so do Cyprian and Cyril.<br /> Both readings are clearly ancient.<br /> Looking at the parallel in Mark 14:24, the longer reading is paralleled word for word in the Byzantine Text. Meanwhile, the passage without "new" is supported by Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, and L D P W Z Θ Ψ and Old Latin Codex Bobbiensis. </p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 16pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p><p> Metzger proposed that the longer reading in Mt. 26:28 originated via a harmonization to Luke 22:20. I propose, however, that something else has affected the text of Matthew 26:28. And it wasn't Marcionism. It could be imagined that Marcion or a Marcionite created the shorter reading because to Marcion, Jesus Christ did not introduce a <b>new</b> covenant; to Marcion, the one true God had nothing to do with the covenant of the Law. <br /> Metzger asserted that if καινῆς had been present in the original text of Matthew 26:28, "there is no good reason why anyone would have deleted it." Some might insist that a Marcionite's theology would be, to him, a reason to delete it. But can a Marcionite's influence upon the Alexandrian text of <i>Matthew</i> have been so strong? Marcion himself only accepted his own edited text of the Gospel of Luke. So the idea that Marcionism was a factor seems unlikely. <br /> But the flimsiness of an arrow thrown at the shorter reading does not really prove the strength of the shorter reading. If the shorter reading is regarded as original, then the text of Matthew 26:28 must have been harmonized to Luke 22:20 in multiple transmission-streams (affecting the Byzantine Text, the Old Latin and Vulgate, the Sahidic, the Sinaitic Syriac, Armenian, Ethiopic, and Slavic versions). Neither Lachman nor Tregelles seems to have thought that was a plausible option.</p><p><span> A less sinister mechanism than Marcionism seems to have been at work in the Alexandrian text of Matthew 26:28: simple parablepsis. A scribe beginning with </span>τῆς καινῆς before διαθήκης could skip καινῆς by accidentally jumping from the -<b>ῆς</b> in τῆς to the -<b>ῆς</b> at the end of καινῆς. Perhaps slightly facilitating the omission of καινῆς was the influence of scribes' recollection of Exodus 24:8 as written in the Septuagint, where Moses "took the blood, sprinkled it on the people, and said, 'This is the blood of the covenant which the LORD has made with you according to all these words.'" There is no καινῆς in Exodus 24:8, the passage that Christ's words in Matthew 26 reflect. Contrary to Metzger's assertion that "there is no good reason" for a deletion in Matthew 26:28, it is easy to see that a mechanism of deliberate harmonization (to Exodus 24:8) and a mechanism of accidental omission could both contribute to the creation of the shorter reading. (Whenever an accidental omission occurs, aren't observations about the lack of motive superfluous?)</p><p> A wild card should not be overlooked: the word <b>τὸ</b> before τῆς καινῆς in the Byzantine Text. Non-Greek scribes might not have bothered with this; Greek scribes may have naturally added τὸ, regarding the resultant reading to be a slight stylistic improvement not affecting the meaning of the text. (Conversely, Alexandrian scribes might have considered it unnecessary.) This detail need not be resolved to maintain the conclusion that <b>καινῆς</b> was part of the original text of Matthew 26:28.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p>James Snapp Jrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09493891380752272603noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6346409181794331060.post-16673951181558156782023-05-06T13:46:00.002-04:002023-05-06T19:58:52.103-04:00Mark 16:9-20 - Why Egyptian Scribes Removed It<p> The last 12 verses of Mark are
attested in over 1,650 Greek manuscripts, early and abundant patristic
evidence, and in multiple transmission-streams.
It is not a Byzantine reading which fell into its neighbors, as shown by
the following features in the Western, Caesarean, and Alexandrian texts:</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Western</b>
(represented by Codex Bezae, D/05):<br />
<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>εφανερωσεν πρωτοις instead of
εφανη πρωτον<i> </i>in 16:9,</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><b><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span></b>αυτοις after απηγγειλεν in
16:10,</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><b><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span></b><span lang="EL" style="mso-ansi-language: EL;">και ουκ επιστευσαν αυτω </span>instead<span style="mso-ansi-language: EL;"> </span>of<span lang="EL" style="mso-ansi-language: EL;"> ηπιστησαν </span>in<span lang="EL" style="mso-ansi-language: EL;"> 16:11,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><b><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span></b>και at the beginning of 16:12,</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><b><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span></b>προς αυτους instead of αυτοις in
16:15,</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><b><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span></b><span style="mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">the omission of<b> </b></span>απαντα in 16:15, and</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><b><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span></b>και before κηρυξατε in 16:15.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Caesarean:<o:p></o:p></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>family-13 omits δε and inserts the
contracted name “Jesus” after Αναστας in 16:9.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>(A lectionary-influenced reading)</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><b><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span></b>Codex Θ (038) has μαθηταις in
16:10 instead of μετ’ .</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><b><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span></b>Codex Θ (038) has εφανη instead
of εφανερωθη in 16:12.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><b><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span></b>Codex Θ (038) has πορευθεντες
instead of απελθοντες in 16:13.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><b><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span></b><span style="mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">F</span>amily-1, family-13, 28, and 565 (and A, Δ, and C) add εκ νεκρων
after</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;">εγηγερμενον
in 16:14.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(This reading may be supported
by Justin Martyr in <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">First Apology</i> ch.
50 as well.)</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Alexandrian:</b><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>C*, L, 33, 579, and 892 (and D and
W) have παρ’ instead of αφ after</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;">Μαρια
τη Μαγδαληνη in 16:9.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><b><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span></b>C*, L, Δ, and Ψ (044) omit
καιναις at the end of 16:17. 099 also</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;">omits
γλωσσαις λαλησουσιν, probably due to accidental lineskipping.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>This implies that 099’s exemplar
read:</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 2;"> </span><span lang="EL" style="mso-ansi-language: EL;">δαιμονια εκβαλ<b>ουσιν<o:p></o:p></b></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 2;"> </span><span lang="EL" style="mso-ansi-language: EL;">γλωσσαις λαλησ<b>ουσιν<o:p></o:p></b></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 2;"> </span><span lang="EL" style="mso-ansi-language: EL;">και εν ταις χερ<b>σιν </b></span>etc<span lang="EL" style="mso-ansi-language: EL;">.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><b><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span></b>C, L, Δ, Ψ (044), 099, 579, and
892 have και εν ταις χερσιν at the beginning of 16:18.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><b><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span></b><span style="mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">Why, then, are some influential scholars still insisting that Mark
16:9-20 is not original, or is somehow, despite having plenty of distinct
features, a “pastiche”?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This is due, I
suspect, because of dependence on outdated materials, and because of an
inability to satisfactorily answer the question, “Why would scribes omit these
12 verses if they were original?”<br />
<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>But this is not a difficult
question.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Egyptian scribes did not
excise vv. 9-20 in their capacity as scribes.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>They excised vv. 9-20 in their capacity as framers of the apostolic text.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"><o:p> </o:p></span> It ought to be remembered that Eusebius
of Caesarea, in <i>Church History </i>Book Three, chapter 39, preserves Papias’
statement that “The Elder” reported the following: <i>“Mark, who had been
Peter’s interpreter, wrote down accurately, though not in order, whatever he
remembered of the things said or done by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord
nor followed him, but afterward, as I said, he followed Peter, who adapted his
teaching to the needs of those who listened to him, but with no intent to give
a sequential account of the Lord’s discourses. So that Mark committed no error
while he thus wrote some things as he remembered them. For he was careful of
one thing: not to omit any of the things which he had heard, and not to state
any of them falsely.”</i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>In <i>Church History </i>Book Five,
chapter 8:1-3, Eusebius quotes from the beginning of the third book of
Irenaeus’ <i>Against Heresies </i>(where Irenaeus seems to rely on Papias’
writings): <i>“Matthew published his Gospel among the Hebrews in their own
language, while Peter and Paul were preaching and founding the church in <st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Rome</st1:place></st1:city>. After their
departure (έξοδον), Mark the disciple and interpreter of Peter also transmitted
to us in writing those things which Peter had preached.”</i><b><span style="font-size: 7.5pt;"> <o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>In addition, in <i>Church History </i>Book
Six, 14:5-7, Eusebius presents a statement that he attributes to Clement of
Alexandria:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><i>“Clement gives the
tradition of the earliest presbyters, as to the order of the Gospels, in the following
manner: the Gospels containing the genealogies, he says, were written first.
The Gospel according to Mark had this occasion: as Peter had preached the Word
publicly at Rome, and declared the gospel by the Spirit, many who were present
requested that Mark, who had followed him for a long time and remembered his
sayings, should write them out. And having composed the Gospel he gave it to
those who had requested it. When Peter learned of this, he neither directly
forbade nor encouraged it.”</i><b><span style="font-size: 7.5pt;"> <o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>The accounts of Irenaeus and Clement
seem to conflict: Irenaeus states that Mark wrote after the departure of Peter
and Paul, but Clement states that Mark was distributing the Gospel while Peter was
still alive. This should be compared to what Jerome, recollecting earlier compositions,
wrote in the eighth chapter of <i>De Viris Illustribus</i>:</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><i><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>“Mark, the disciple and interpreter
of Peter, wrote a short gospel at the request of the </i><i>brethren
at <st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Rome</st1:place></st1:city>,
embodying what he had heard Peter tell. When Peter heard this, he approved </i><i>it
and published it to the churches to be read by his authority, as Clement in
Book 6 of his </i><i>Hypotyposes,
and Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, record. Peter also mentions this Mark in his </i><i>first
epistle, figuratively indicating <st1:city w:st="on">Rome</st1:city> under the
name of <st1:city w:st="on">Babylon</st1:city>: “She who is in <st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Babylon </st1:place></st1:city></i><i>elect
together with you salutes you, and so does Mark my son.”</i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><i><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>“So, taking the gospel which he
himself composed, he </i><span style="mso-bidi-font-style: italic;">[Mark]<i>
went to <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:country-region w:st="on">Egypt</st1:country-region></st1:place>.
And first </i></span><i>preaching
Christ at <st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Alexandria</st1:place></st1:city>,
he formed a church so admirable in doctrine and continence of </i><i>living
that he constrained all followers of Christ to his example. Philo – most learned of the </i><i>Jews
– seeing the first church at Alexandria still Jewish in a degree, wrote a book
on their </i><i>manner
of life as something creditable to his nation, telling how, as Luke says, the
believers had </i><i>all
things in common at <st1:city w:st="on">Jerusalem</st1:city>, so he recorded
what he saw was done at <st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Alexandria</st1:place></st1:city>
under </i><i>the
learned Mark. He died in the eighth year of Nero and was buried at <st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Alexandria</st1:place></st1:city>, Annianus </i><i>succeeding
him.”</i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Jerome was clearly relying on
earlier accounts, including Eusebius’ <i>Church History</i>; the statement
about the year of Mark’s death seems to be drawn directly from Eusebius’ <i>Church </i><i>History</i>,
Book Two, chapter 24: <i>“When Nero was in the eighth year of his reign,
Annianus </i><i>succeeded
Mark the evangelist in the administration of the parish of <st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Alexandria</st1:place></st1:city>.” </i><b><span style="font-size: 7.5pt;"> </span></b>Eusebius provides a second
affirmation of the year of the beginning of the bishopric of Annianus in <i>Church
History</i>, Book Three, chapter 14: <i>“In the fourth year of Domitian, Annianus,
the first bishop of the parish of <st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Alexandria</st1:place></st1:city>,
died after holding office twenty-two years, and was succeeded by Abilius, the
second bishop.”</i><b><span style="font-size: 7.5pt;"> </span></b>Figuring
that Domitian’s reign began in September
of 81, adding four years brings us to September of 85. By subtracting 22 from
85, we arrive
at the year 63. If Annianus served as bishop for a bit more than 22 years but
less than 23 full
years, Eusebius’ two statements agree.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>On the question of whether Mark
wrote his Gospel before Peter’s death, or afterward, the accounts
are divided. Their discord may decrease a little if Jerome’s statement is
understood as an
incorrect deduction based on Eusebius’ statement that Annianus succeeded Mark
in the eighth year
of Nero’s reign. If Eusebius’ statement means that Mark, instead of dying in
that year, departed
from <st1:city w:st="on">Alexandria</st1:city> to go to <st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Rome</st1:place></st1:city>, then if Nero’s eighth year is
calculated to be 62 (since his
reign began on October 13, in the year 54), the emerging picture is that Mark
established a Christian
community in <st1:city w:st="on">Alexandria</st1:city>, and then went to <st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Rome</st1:place></st1:city>, possibly at the
urging of Timothy (see
Second Timothy 4:11). According to this hypothesis, Peter and Mark were both
ministering in <st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Rome</st1:place></st1:city> in the year 62.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>In the mid-60s, severe persecution
against Christians arose in the city of <st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Rome</st1:place></st1:city>,
and Paul and
Peter were martyred. What then happened to Mark? He apparently did not remain
in <st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Rome</st1:place></st1:city>; as
Peter’s assistant he would have been a natural choice to lead the congregation
there; yet a man named
Linus is reported by Eusebius (in <i>Church History </i>Book Three, 3:2) to
have been the first bishop
of <st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Rome</st1:place></st1:city> after
the martyrdoms of Paul and Peter. A detailed tradition is found in the medieval
composition <i>History of the Patriarchs of the Coptic Church of Alexandria </i>by
Severus of
Al-Ushmunain (in the mid-900s), who stated that he accessed source-materials
from the monastery
of St. Macarius and other monasteries in <st1:country-region w:st="on">Egypt</st1:country-region>,
and from <st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Alexandria</st1:place></st1:city>.
Severus of Al-Ushmunain
states that Mark was martyred in <st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Alexandria</st1:place></st1:city>.<b><sup> </sup></b><b><span style="font-size: 7.5pt;"> </span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>When this is compared to the report
from Irenaeus that Mark composed his Gospel-account after the departure – that
is, the martyrdoms – of Peter and Paul, the situation becomes more clear: after
assisting Barnabas and Paul on Paul’s first missionary journey (as related in
Acts 12:25-13;13, and after assisting Barnabas in Cyprus (as related in Acts
15:36-39), Mark established
churches in <st1:country-region w:st="on">Egypt</st1:country-region> in the
50s, and traveled from there to <st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Rome</st1:place></st1:city>
in 62, leaving behind Annianus
in <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Egypt</st1:place></st1:country-region>.
Immediately after the deaths of Paul and Peter, Mark left <st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Rome</st1:place></st1:city> and returned to <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Egypt</st1:place></st1:country-region>.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>The martyrdoms of Paul and Peter are
generally assigned to the year 67. Eusebius of Caesarean,
in Book Two, chapter 25 of <i>Church History</i>, states that Paul was beheaded
in <st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Rome</st1:place></st1:city>, and
that Peter was crucified in the reign of Nero. He also reports that they were
both martyred at the
same time, and cites as his source for this information a man named Dionysius
of Corinth. Dionysius
of Corinth is a fairly early source. Eusebius
reports that he served the church in the early
170s. Jerome, in the first and fifth chapters of <i>De Viris Illustribus</i>,
echoes Eusebius’ information,
stating that Peter and Paul were both martyred “in the fourteen year of the
reign of Nero,
which is the 37th year after the Lord’s Sufferings.”<b><sup> </sup></b><b><span style="font-size: 7.5pt;"> </span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>The account preserved by Severus of
Al-Ushmunain specifically states that Mark was seized by unbelievers in
Alexandria on Easter, when one of their religious festivals, dedicated to the
deity Serapis, occurred, on the 29th day of the month called Barmudah (the
eighth month of the Egyptian calendar), and that he died the next day.<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><sup> </sup></b><b><span style="font-size: 7.5pt;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></b>Although this is a
late document, its author states that he relied upon earlier sources. One such
earlier text, although it does not say anything about the specific date of
Mark’s martyrdom, agrees regarding the location: the author of <i>The Martyrdom
of Peter of Alexandria </i>(a bishop who was martyred in 311) states, “They
took him up and brought him to the place called Bucolia, where the holy St.
Mark underwent martyrdom for Christ.” The same author states that Peter of
Alexandria entreated his persecutors “to allow him to go to the tomb of St.
Mark.”<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><sup> </sup></b><b><span style="font-size: 7.5pt;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Only in certain years would Easter
coincide on the calendar with the festival of Serapis, and the year 68 is one
of those years. Thus, it appears Mark was martyred in 68, in <st1:city w:st="on">Alexandria</st1:city>,
less than a year after Paul and Peter were martyred in 67 in <st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Rome</st1:place></st1:city>. If the gist of the tradition preserved
by Irenaeus is followed, then Mark must have had only a small window of
opportunity, if any, after the martyrdoms of Paul and Peter to finish his
Gospel-account.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>This does not mean that the
tradition reported by Clement of Alexandria is entirely untrue.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>After Mark had been in <st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Rome</st1:place></st1:city> long enough to be recognized as Peter’s
assistant and interpreter, he would have had opportunities to respond to
requests for copies of collections of Peter’s sayings. These collections,
though, may have been shorter than the final form of the Gospel of Mark. A
definitive collection of all of Peter’s remembrances would not be feasible
until after Peter stopped recollecting.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>The tradition preserved by Irenaeus
is not likely to be a later invention; creative tradition inventors would tend
to emphasize the apostolic authority of the text. Clement’s tradition, by stating
that Peter neither approved nor disapproved Mark’s undertaking, certainly does
not seem to
have been designed to ensure that readers would regard the Gospel of Mark as
apostolically approved,
but Irenaeus’ tradition, by stating that Mark wrote the Gospel of Mark after
Peter had departed
(that is, died), is even less positive, inasmuch as the martyred apostle Peter
cannot even acquiesce
to the text’s contents.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>If we thus accept Irenaeus’ basic
version of events, and assign a date in 67 for the martyrdom
of Peter in <st1:city w:st="on">Rome</st1:city>, and a date in 68 for the
martyrdom of Mark in <st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Alexandria</st1:place></st1:city>,
then the date
for the composition of the Gospel of Mark must be somewhere in between.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>All this provides the background for
the following hypothesis:</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>In the second half of the year 67,
following the martyrdoms of Peter and Paul, as Mark was almost finished writing
his Gospel-account, he was in imminent danger and had to suddenly stop writing
his nearly-complete text, leaving it, and whatever else he had written, in the
hands of his colleagues. Thus, when Mark left <st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Rome</st1:place></st1:city>, his definitive collection of Peter’s
remembrances was unfinished and unpublished.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Mark’s Roman colleagues were thus
entrusted with an incomplete and unfinished text. They had no desire to insert
material of their own invention into Mark’s text, but they also had no desire
to publish a composition which they all knew was not only unfinished, but which
would be recognized as unfinished by everyone who was familiar with Peter’s
preaching – indeed, by everyone acquainted at all with the message about Jesus.
Therefore, rather than publish the Gospel of Mark without an ending (that is,
with the abrupt ending), they completed it by supplementing it with a short
text which Mark, at an earlier time, had composed about Jesus’ post-resurrection
appearances. Only after this supplement was added did the Roman church begin to
make copies of the Gospel of Mark.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><o:p> </o:p> Now let us turn to the subject of
scribes in <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Egypt</st1:place></st1:country-region>
as canon-framers.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>B. H. Streeter, in his influential
book <i>The Four Gospels</i>, made an insightful surmise about Mark 16:9-20:
“The hypothesis that Mark 16:9-20 was originally a separate document has the additional
advantage of making it somewhat easier to account for the supplement in the
text of W known as the “Freer logion.” A catechetical summary is a document
which lends itself to expansion;
the fact that a copy of it had been added to Mark would not at once put out of existence
all other copies or prevent them suffering expansion. No doubt as soon as the
addition became
thoroughly established in the Roman text of Mark, it would cease to be copied
as a separate
document. But supposing that a hundred years later an old copy of it in the
expanded version
turned up. It would then be mistaken for a fragment of a very ancient
manuscript of Mark,
and the fortunate discoverer would hasten to add to his copy of Mark – which,
of course, he
would suppose to be defective – the addition preserved in this ancient
witness.”<b><sup> </sup></b><b><span style="font-size: 7.5pt;"> </span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>That seems to me a very plausible origin
for the Freer Logion. Slightly adapted, Streeter’s theory implies that the
Freer Logion did not originate as an expansion in the Gospel of Mark, but as an
expansion of the freestanding Marcan summary of Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances
which Mark’s colleagues incorporated into the text of the Gospel of Mark.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>But what was such a text doing in <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:country-region w:st="on">Egypt</st1:country-region></st1:place>?
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is possible that Mark composed it
earlier, during the period in the 50s-62 when he was in <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Egypt</st1:place></st1:country-region> – the
only locale in which the Freer Logion is known to have existed.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(Jerome may have seen the Freer Logion in
Didymus’ church’s copies.)</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>If Mark’s brief summary of Jesus’
post-resurrection appearances was already used in Egypt as a freestanding
composition, then when the Gospel of Mark arrived from Rome in the late 60s, it
would not be difficult for them to compare it to their copies of the Marcan
composition about Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances, and immediately see
that the final portion of the text from Rome was not, and could not be, part of
the Petrine Memoirs.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Some of the first individuals in <st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Alexandria</st1:place></st1:city> to read the
Gospel of Mark would thus be
inclined to regard 16:9-20 as a distinct Marcan composition which, though
valuable as a Marcan
text, simply did not belong in the memoirs of the apostle Peter. As a result,
they declined to
perpetuate it in their copies of the Gospel of Mark, thinking that it lacked apostolic
approval. Everywhere else, the verses were
accepted as part of Mark’s Gospel.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><o:p> </o:p></p><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhi_-RjvkvIIdPNkdOvx__sweVpjd4BQrWstBeIRO50OviD-dyHesyE68VLwFlHxeYFretdmMEAlI9ft29GjPf8POvUT9P6eldIVOwt2MjW2CMdxRBxqPp3qGohENPIxErlso8yup8taO4SkjB-YCrT9zK5CF1OAYeHwDDAXaWN9Y7YRbdiB1xDZqnQ/s737/Ultraviolet%20End%20of%20John%202021.png" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="737" data-original-width="638" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhi_-RjvkvIIdPNkdOvx__sweVpjd4BQrWstBeIRO50OviD-dyHesyE68VLwFlHxeYFretdmMEAlI9ft29GjPf8POvUT9P6eldIVOwt2MjW2CMdxRBxqPp3qGohENPIxErlso8yup8taO4SkjB-YCrT9zK5CF1OAYeHwDDAXaWN9Y7YRbdiB1xDZqnQ/w346-h400/Ultraviolet%20End%20of%20John%202021.png" width="346" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><b><span style="font-family: arial;">Replica based on an image in a booklet<br />from the British Museum.</span></b><br /><br /></td></tr></tbody></table><br /> P.S.
The tendency to apply a sort of higher criticism to justify the excision
of verses that did not seem to come from the primary author was apparently
shared by one of the copyists of Codex Sinaiticus. At the end of John, Scribe A
finished the text at the end of 21:24, and followed this with the decorative
coronis and the subscription. Then he had second thoughts, erased the decorative
design and subscription, and added 21:25, followed by a new decorative design
and a new subscription. Tischendorf had detected this in the 1800s, but it was
not until the page was exposed to ultraviolet light in research overseen by
Milne and Skeat that the evidence of what the copyist had done literally came
to light.<p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>The initial excision of John 21:25
in Sinaiticus was probably not an altogether isolated case; Theodore of
Mopsuestia (350 to 428), in a statement preserved in Ishodad of Merv’s Commentary
on the Gospels, claimed that the extra material in the Septuagint version of
Job, and the
sentence about the angel moving the waters in John 5:4, and this verse, John
21:25, are “Not the
text of Scripture, but were put above in the margin, in the place of some
exposition; and afterwards,
he says, they were introduced into the text by some lovers of knowledge.” Theodoret may have been repeating a theory of
an earlier writer which was also known to Scribe A of Sinaiticus.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span></p>James Snapp Jrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09493891380752272603noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6346409181794331060.post-56576948155758866682023-05-02T17:46:00.001-04:002023-05-03T10:51:29.815-04:00The Other Samson<p> <span style="font-size: 14pt;">Another
Samson?</span><span style="font-size: 14pt;"> </span><span style="font-size: 14pt;">Yes; today we shall look into
the life of Samson of Dol, a Welsh saint (from Dyfed) who was known as one of
the seven founder-saints of </span><st1:state style="font-size: 14pt;" w:st="on">Brittany</st1:state><span style="font-size: 14pt;"> (in </span><st1:country-region style="font-size: 14pt;" w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">France</st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-size: 14pt;">).</span><span style="font-size: 14pt;"> </span><span style="font-size: 14pt;"><a href="https://www.celticchristianity.infinitesoulutions.com/Life_St_Samson_of_Dol.html">His biography</a> is preserved in </span><i style="font-size: 14pt;">Vita Sancti Samsonis</i><span style="font-size: 14pt;">, composed sometime
in 610-820.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: black; font-size: 14pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgr7AZXrdYeK5SIHuTv43RwTJH9OViCLcWK_yqAu1BT9DxKf9wdgEX96wSaajI-F_fY5ZYt5WDuSHaIANT0C8JO44fGbaVBXr3dSq5SRgonCnXAdWvTWVQxVyoYmr03oZqYJUcWe9jmsW988Y1Um_26gRy1peoevq8Tw41eFxxaq9jX0KTTaJFNljjL/s667/Samson%20of%20Dol.png" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="667" data-original-width="368" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgr7AZXrdYeK5SIHuTv43RwTJH9OViCLcWK_yqAu1BT9DxKf9wdgEX96wSaajI-F_fY5ZYt5WDuSHaIANT0C8JO44fGbaVBXr3dSq5SRgonCnXAdWvTWVQxVyoYmr03oZqYJUcWe9jmsW988Y1Um_26gRy1peoevq8Tw41eFxxaq9jX0KTTaJFNljjL/s320/Samson%20of%20Dol.png" width="177" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><b>Samson of Dol</b></span></td></tr></tbody></table><span style="font-size: 14pt;"> </span><span style="font-size: 14pt;">After growing up as a child of Amon of
Demetia and Anna of Gwent, Samson was raised by Illtud, the abbot in Llantwit
Fawr, </span><st1:country-region style="font-size: 14pt;" w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Wales</st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-size: 14pt;">.</span><span style="font-size: 14pt;"> </span><span style="font-size: 14pt;">When Pyr, abbot of a monastery on Caldey
Island, died after falling into a well – being very drunk – </span><span style="font-size: 14pt;"> </span><span style="font-size: 14pt;">Samson, who abstained from alcoholic drinks, temporarily
took on himself the responsibilities of abbot there, but resigned because the
monks of the place had become ungovernable under Pyr’s guidance (or
misguidance). </span><span style="font-size: 14pt;"> </span><span style="font-size: 14pt;">Samson then traveled to </span><st1:country-region style="font-size: 14pt;" w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Ireland</st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-size: 14pt;">.</span><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: black; font-size: 14pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>In 521, Samson was ordained a bishop,
and his industry in evangelism was remarkable.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Samson founded monastic communities in <st1:city w:st="on">Cornwall</st1:city>,
and in the Scilly Isles, and in <st1:place w:st="on">Guernsey</st1:place>, at
Dol (for which he is named, and where he was buried).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: black; font-size: 14pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span><span style="font-size: 14pt;">More information
about Samson of Dol can be found at <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_of_Dol">Wikipedia</a>.
But I want to zoom in now on a little incident that is recorded about
him in Book 1, ch. 16 of his biography: </span><span style="font-size: 14pt;">the author states that Samson, aware that a cup set
before him had been poisoned, remembered the word of the Gospel where Christ
says concerning his faithful who trust in him, <i>“If they shall drink any
deadly thing it shall not hurt them,” </i>and so Samson happily entered the
refectory, made the sign of the cross over his own vessel, drank it dry without
any wavering of mind, and never felt the slightest heartache from it.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: black; font-size: 14pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span><span style="font-size: 14pt;">I do not recommend Samson’s
decision to others.</span><span style="font-size: 14pt;"> T</span><span style="font-size: 14pt;">his
little incident is mentioned as yet another example of the full acceptance of Mark 16:9-20
in the Latin text used in </span><st1:place style="font-size: 14pt;" w:st="on">Western Europe</st1:place><span style="font-size: 14pt;">.</span></p>James Snapp Jrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09493891380752272603noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6346409181794331060.post-89916547254079778712023-04-14T08:12:00.003-04:002023-04-14T13:51:55.262-04:00Hippolytus and Mark 16:9-20<p> </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">Hippolytus </span>(d. 235) was a leader of
the church in the city of <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:city w:st="on">Rome</st1:city></st1:place>
in the early 200s.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He had an interesting
career, challenging some decisions which he saw as indicators of laxity on the
part of the bishop of <st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Rome</st1:place></st1:city>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Hippolytus eloquently opposed the false
doctrine of modalism no matter where it originated.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Near the end of his life, Hippolytus even let
himself be considered an alternative to Urban I and Pontian I, and then Roman
persecutors stepped in and sent Hippolytus and Pontian both to the mines on
the island of Sardinia.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There Hippolytus
died, but not before being recognized as a brother by his fellow-saints in <st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Rome</st1:place></st1:city>; his body was
brought in peace to a Roman cemetery in 236.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></p>
<p style="background: white; margin-bottom: 6.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 6.0pt; margin: 6pt 0in;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Several compositions are attributed to Hippolytus,
including <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Apostolic Tradition</i>, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Against Noetus</i>, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">On Christ and Antichrist</i>, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Peri
Charismaton (About the Gifts)</i>, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Commentary
on Daniel</i>, and segments of some works better known by different titles,
such as the composite <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Apostolic
Constitutions</i>. <a href="http://www.dec25th.info/Textual%20Tradition%20of%20Hippolytus%20Commentary%20on%20Daniel.html">Hippolytus is known for proposing December 25th as the day of Christ's birth</a>.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"></span></p><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhDSuq_qBkTvMM2JcLDQtvQGdu0OMFDR_b3JWpj8uFQ7EY7lPOeKI24bdSZ2GkXgoRzQ8RxCvGy6AbSFL5Wle8LysTkHzf2YbMR2gmDWT_10lBIzBKTYXoanHwbWCVTLnb6e5E1xoW9PLP-GtpL90YDG7cBl8GvlC75UbBoY6BYe6GrZLQF_f5BSfMS/s383/Hippolytus%20Feb%202018.png" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="383" data-original-width="222" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhDSuq_qBkTvMM2JcLDQtvQGdu0OMFDR_b3JWpj8uFQ7EY7lPOeKI24bdSZ2GkXgoRzQ8RxCvGy6AbSFL5Wle8LysTkHzf2YbMR2gmDWT_10lBIzBKTYXoanHwbWCVTLnb6e5E1xoW9PLP-GtpL90YDG7cBl8GvlC75UbBoY6BYe6GrZLQF_f5BSfMS/s320/Hippolytus%20Feb%202018.png" width="185" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><b>Hippolytus </b></span></td></tr></tbody></table> Hippolytus, like <a href="https://www.thetextofthegospels.com/2023/03/irenaeus-and-mark-1619.html">Irenaeus</a> and
<a href="https://www.thetextofthegospels.com/2022/08/tatian-and-mark-169-20.html">Tatian</a>, has been effectively ignored by Bible footnote-writers who refer to two
manuscripts made in the 300s but fail to mention earlier patristic support for
Mark 16:9-20. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>What does Hippolytus say
about Mark 16:9-20?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Several things. <p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>First, Hippolytus made a strong
allusion to Mark 16:18 in <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Apostolic
Tradition</i> 32:1:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>“Let every one of
the believers be sure to partake of communion before he eats anything else. For
if he partakes with faith, even if something deadly were given to him, after
this it cannot hurt him.” </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>The evidence for <i>Apostolic
Tradition </i>32:1 is not limited to works in which it has been absorbed and
edited. This particular part of the composition is extant in four non-Greek
transmission-lines of the text of <i>Apostolic Tradition</i>: in Latin, in
Ethiopic, in Sahidic, and in Arabic. (When Hort formed his opinion of the
authorship of this part of the text, he was not aware of this.)<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><i>Apostolic Tradition </i>32:1 is also preserved
in Greek.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In the 1992 edition of Gregory
Dix’s book on <i>Apostolic Tradition</i>, revised by Henry Chadwick, the reader
is informed of the following:</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>“Two new Greek fragments have to be
reported here. The first is preserved in a dogmatic florilegium
of patristic quotations contained in two manuscripts, cod. Ochrid.86 (saec.
XIII) f.192
and Paris.gr.900 (saec. XV) f. 112. The discoverer, Professor Marcel Richard,
printed the excerpt
from the <i>Apostolic Tradition </i>in <i>Symbolae Osloenses </i>38 (1963),
page 79 . . . . This new fragment
preserves the original Greek of chapter xxxii.1 (= Botte 36):</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span><span lang="EL" style="mso-ansi-language: EL;">’Εκ των διατάξεων των αγίων αποστόλων∙ </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>πας
δε πιστος πειράσθω, προ του τινος γεύσασθαι,</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span lang="EL" style="mso-ansi-language: EL;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>ευχαριστίας
μεταλαμβάνειν<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span lang="EL" style="mso-ansi-language: EL;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>·
ει γαρ πίστει μεταλάβοι [</span>v<span lang="EL" style="mso-ansi-language: EL;">. </span>l<span lang="EL" style="mso-ansi-language: EL;">.: μεταλάβη], ουδ’ αν <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">θανάσιμόν</b> τις<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span lang="EL" style="mso-ansi-language: EL;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>δώη
αυτω μετα τουτο, ου κατισχύσειαυτου (</span>cf<span lang="EL" style="mso-ansi-language: EL;">. </span>Mark<span style="mso-ansi-language: EL;"> </span>xvi<span lang="EL" style="mso-ansi-language: EL;">. 18).” </span><b><span lang="EL" style="font-size: 7.5pt; mso-ansi-language: EL;"><o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>The term θανάσιμόν, which refers to
a “deadly thing,” is the same word that is used in Mark 16:18. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It appears nowhere else in the New Testament.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>In the
1870s, John Burgon regarded a statement made by <span style="mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">Hippolytus in<b> </b></span><i>On Christ and Antichrist</i>, part 46, as
if it includes a reference to Mark 16:19.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>In <i><a href="http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/hippolytus-dogmatical.html">Homily
on Noetus</a></i>, Hippolytus wrote, “This is the One who breathes upon the
disciples, and gives them the Spirit, and comes in among them when the doors
are shut, and is taken up by a cloud into the heavens while the disciples gaze
at Him, and is set down on the right hand of the Father, and comes again as the
Judge of the living and the dead.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This
looks like a simple credal statement, but Burgon claimed, “In the creeds,
Christ is invariably spoken of as ανελθόντα: in the Scriptures, invariably as αναληφθέντα.
So that when Hippolytus says of Him, <span lang="EL" style="mso-ansi-language: EL;">αναλαμβάνεται</span><span lang="EL"> </span><span lang="EL" style="mso-ansi-language: EL;">εις</span><span lang="EL"> </span><span lang="EL" style="mso-ansi-language: EL;">ουρανους</span><span lang="EL"> </span><span lang="EL" style="mso-ansi-language: EL;">και</span><span lang="EL"> </span><span lang="EL" style="mso-ansi-language: EL;">εκ</span><span lang="EL"> </span><span lang="EL" style="mso-ansi-language: EL;">δεξιων</span><span lang="EL"> </span><span lang="EL" style="mso-ansi-language: EL;">Πατρος</span><span lang="EL"> </span><span lang="EL" style="mso-ansi-language: EL;">καθίζεται</span>,
the reference must needs be to St. Mark 16:19.”</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Hippolytus also quoted Mark 16:16-18
in material incorporated into the beginning of Book Eight of <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Apostolic Constitutions </i>(which was put
together mainly as an edited combination of already-existing materials in 380).:
“<i>With good reason did he say to all of us together, when we were perfected
concerning those gifts which were given from him by the Spirit, ‘Now these
signs shall follow those who have believed: in my name they shall cast out
demons; they shall speak with new tongues; they shall take up serpents; and if
they happen to drink any deadly thing, it shall by no means hurt them; they
shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.’ These gifts were first
bestowed on us the apostles when we were about to preach the gospel to every creature.”<o:p></o:p></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Samuel Tregelles commented about
this: “Amongst the works of Hippolytus, enumerated as his on the ancient marble
monument now in the Vatican, is the book περι χαρισμάτων αποστολικη παραδοκις [<i>Peri
Charismaton Apostolike Paradokis</i>], in which this part of St. Mark’s Gospel
is distinctly quoted: (<i>apostoli loquuntur</i>) ως αν τετελειωμένων ημων <span lang="EL" style="mso-ansi-language: EL;">φησιν</span> [<span lang="EL" style="mso-ansi-language: EL;">ο</span><span lang="EL"> </span><span lang="EL" style="mso-ansi-language: EL;">κύριος</span>] <span lang="EL" style="mso-ansi-language: EL;">πασιν</span><span lang="EL"> </span><span lang="EL" style="mso-ansi-language: EL;">αμα</span><span lang="EL"> </span><span lang="EL" style="mso-ansi-language: EL;">περι</span><span lang="EL"> </span><span lang="EL" style="mso-ansi-language: EL;">των</span><span lang="EL"> </span><span lang="EL" style="mso-ansi-language: EL;">εξ</span><span lang="EL"> </span><span lang="EL" style="mso-ansi-language: EL;">αυτου</span><span lang="EL"> </span><span lang="EL" style="mso-ansi-language: EL;">δια</span><span lang="EL"> </span><span lang="EL" style="mso-ansi-language: EL;">του</span><span lang="EL"> </span><span lang="EL" style="mso-ansi-language: EL;">πνεύματος</span><span lang="EL"> </span><span lang="EL" style="mso-ansi-language: EL;">διδομένων</span><span lang="EL"> </span><span lang="EL" style="mso-ansi-language: EL;">χαρισμάτων</span>,” followed
by the Greek text of Mark 16:17 through 18 (with καιναις transposed before λαλησουσιν, and without και εν ταις
χερσιν at the beginning of verse
18).</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Tregelles maintained that although a
later writer, in the course of incorporating Hippolytus’ work into the
fourth-century work known as <i>Apostolic Constitutions </i>so as to make it
all appear to consist of words spoken by the apostles, “The introductory
treatise is certainly, in the main, genuine,” and, “This citation is almost
essential to introduce what follows,” and, “I see no occasion for supposing
that the compiler made other changes in this treatise, except putting it into
the first person plural, as if the apostles unitedly spoke.”</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Hort disagreed, stating, “Even on
the precarious hypothesis that the early chapters of the Eighth
Book were founded to some extent on the lost work, the quotation is untouched
by it, being introduced in direct reference to the fictitious claim to
apostolic authorship which pervades the Constitutions themselves (τούτων των <span lang="EL" style="mso-ansi-language: EL;">χαρισμάτων</span><span lang="EL"> </span><span lang="EL" style="mso-ansi-language: EL;">προτέρον</span><span lang="EL"> </span><span lang="EL" style="mso-ansi-language: EL;">μεν</span><span lang="EL"> </span><span lang="EL" style="mso-ansi-language: EL;">ημιν</span><span lang="EL"> </span><span lang="EL" style="mso-ansi-language: EL;">δοθέντων</span><span lang="EL"> </span><span lang="EL" style="mso-ansi-language: EL;">τοις</span><span lang="EL"> </span><span lang="EL" style="mso-ansi-language: EL;">αποστόλοις</span><span lang="EL"> </span><span lang="EL" style="mso-ansi-language: EL;">μέλλουσι</span><span lang="EL"> </span><span lang="EL" style="mso-ansi-language: EL;">το</span><span lang="EL"> </span><span lang="EL" style="mso-ansi-language: EL;">ευαγγέλιον</span><span lang="EL"> </span><span lang="EL" style="mso-ansi-language: EL;">καταγγέλλειν</span><span lang="EL"> </span><span lang="EL" style="mso-ansi-language: EL;">πάση</span><span lang="EL"> </span><span lang="EL" style="mso-ansi-language: EL;">τη</span><span lang="EL"> </span><span lang="EL" style="mso-ansi-language: EL;">κτίσει</span><span lang="EL"> </span><span lang="EL" style="mso-ansi-language: EL;">κ</span>.<span lang="EL" style="mso-ansi-language: EL;">τ</span>.<span lang="EL" style="mso-ansi-language: EL;">λ</span>.).<span style="letter-spacing: 1pt;">”</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>To allow a full understanding of
this disagreement between Tregelles and Hort, the paragraph
from Book Eight of <i>Apostolic Constitutions </i>which Tregelles and Hort
quoted is provided
here in English:</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><i><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>“With good reason did he say to all
of us together, when we were perfected concerning </i><i>those
gifts which were given from him by the Spirit, ‘Now these signs shall follow
those who have </i><i>believed:
in my name they shall cast out demons; they shall speak with new tongues; they
shall </i><i>take
up serpents; and if they happen to drink any deadly thing, it shall by no means
hurt them; </i><i>they
shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.’ These gifts were first
bestowed on us </i><i>the
apostles when we were about to preach the gospel to every creature, and
afterwards were of </i><i>necessity
afforded to those who had by our means believed, not for the advantage of those
who </i><i>perform
them, but for the conviction of unbelievers.”</i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Tregelles’ point seems valid to me: <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>erase the features of this text which give it
the appearance of being an address from the apostles, and the quotation of Mark
16:17-18 are still entirely appropriate in a treatise on spiritual gifts.
Hort’s objection is not a strong one, because the second sentence is more plausible a reworked statement rather than an insertion. In other words,
Hort’s objection does not stand in the way of the idea that Hippolytus cited
Mark 16:17-18 and commented on it by saying something like, “These gifts were
first bestowed to the apostles when they were about to preach the gospel to
every creature,” etc., and that this was reworded in <i>Apostolic Constitutions</i>.
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Although it is currently impossible
to separate the voice of Hippolytus from the mild <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>interference that has been introduced by those
who altered his compositions, the evidence from <i>On Christ and Antichrist</i>,
<i>Homily on Noetus</i>, the reworked opening paragraph of <i>Apostolic
Constitutions</i>, and <i>Apostolic Tradition </i>32:1 effectively shows that
Hippolytus knew and used Mark 16:9-20.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><b><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span></b><span style="mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">Hippolytus’ comment in <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Apostolic
Tradition</i> 32:1 may reflect a sentiment that is also found in the writings
of Justin Martyr:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>that for a Christian
who is sincerely resolved in his heart and aware of his sanctification, no experience, not even
suffering and death, can be ultimately harmful.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>James Snapp Jrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09493891380752272603noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6346409181794331060.post-8809139751155211362023-04-09T23:05:00.001-04:002023-04-12T21:11:07.544-04:00Some Interesting "Minor Agreements"<p>Usually there is no overlap between the field of textual (lower, or post-production) criticism
and higher (pre-production) criticism.
Usually. But overlap does
sometimes occur. Today, we shall briefly
investigate the Synoptic Problem, and look into a few “Minor Agreements” (i.e.,
readings shared by Matthew and Luke, but not by Mark) and consider the
possible/probable implications of these readings for the production of the
Gospel of Mark.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>To those
who are entirely new to the Synoptic Problem, the first thing to know is that
the term “Problem,” in this context, simply means “a puzzle to ponder,” not
something that is a troublesome difficulty that threatens to undermine the
Christian faith.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(Similarly, the “criticism”
the terms “textual criticism” and “higher criticism” simply means “analysis;”
these fields are not platforms for promoting personal critiques of the contents
of the books of the New Testament, or any other book.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>The second
thing to know is that the “Synoptic Problem” orbits the answer to one
question:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>how do the Synoptic Gospels
(Matthew, Mark, and Luke) relate to one another?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Did each author write entirely independently
of the other two?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Did two of them use
the other?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Did one of them make use of
the other two?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Or did all three use a
shared source?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>The third
thing to know is that the Synoptic Problem has been solved <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">for the most part</i>:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>although
it was consistently held in early Christianity that Matthew wrote first,
researchers such as William Sanday, B.H. Streeter and John Hawkins have made a
very strong case that the Gospel of Mark (or something that resembled the
Gospel of Mark) was used by Matthew and Luke, and that Matthew and Luke both
used a second source (known as Q, which stands for <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Quelle</i>, the German word for “Source”), and that Matthew and Luke
each made use of source-materials that were accessed only by Matthew, or only by
Luke.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>The
Four-source Hypothesis – that Matthew used Q + Mark + extra source-material, and
Luke used Q + Mark + extra source-material (for a total of four sources of
material) has a lot going for it, as <a href="https://bible.org/article/synoptic-problem">Daniel Wallace concisely
explains here</a><span style="color: black;"> and as <span style="background: white;"><a href="https://www.crivoice.org/synoptic.html">Dennis Bratcher
explains not so concisely here</a></span>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>The ship of
the simple Four-Source Hypothesis, seaworthy as it may seem, cannot survive the
reefs it faces in the “Minor Agreements” – readings shared by Matthew and Luke
but not shared by Mark – especially in cases where the “Minor Agreements” occur
smack-dab in to middle of the triple-tradition (i.e., material shared by
Matthew, Mark, and Luke).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Something more complex has happened.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="text-align: left;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjNoMit_4pDmXgrPKdQG65r7qhiCORXCzpJp2AJYZqyT1Df4vrLWIKqlzTJXwuJZgqL9QQA1xpo92sh-c2qCzQr_4o1XObz-EvD527_gzxZ_g58VwyFwW_IiI5-3oHPE6Wowm7pC7AZyXVklkPaWjs0RON3dFBENEnsoLofmH-Env_dctjA0_n9nP6S/s614/Synoptic%20Diagram%202023.png" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="519" data-original-width="614" height="338" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjNoMit_4pDmXgrPKdQG65r7qhiCORXCzpJp2AJYZqyT1Df4vrLWIKqlzTJXwuJZgqL9QQA1xpo92sh-c2qCzQr_4o1XObz-EvD527_gzxZ_g58VwyFwW_IiI5-3oHPE6Wowm7pC7AZyXVklkPaWjs0RON3dFBENEnsoLofmH-Env_dctjA0_n9nP6S/w400-h338/Synoptic%20Diagram%202023.png" width="400" /></a></div> </span><span style="text-align: left;">The diagram
I have made here offers a simple picture of how to account for the evidence,
including the “Minor Agreements.”</span><span style="text-align: left;"> </span><span style="text-align: left;">I
propose that neither Matthew nor Luke used the Gospel of Mark in its full
canonical form; rather; Luke used an early form, and Matthew used a later form.</span><span style="text-align: left;"> </span><span style="text-align: left;">Mark, serving as Peter’s amanuensis, did not
create one definitive text of the Gospel of Mark right away:</span><span style="text-align: left;"> </span><span style="text-align: left;">as Peter continued to preach and teach about
Jesus, his testimony – written down in the Gospel of Mark – continued to
expand.</span><span style="text-align: left;"> </span><span style="text-align: left;">Not until Peter’s martyrdom did
a definitive text of the Gospel of Mark come into being.</span></div><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>In the
course of creating the definitive text of the Gospel of Mark, Mark added and
subtracted a variety of details that had been in earlier forms of his record of
Peter’s testimony, and this resulted in “Minor Agreements.” We shall now zoom
in on some of these points which are like chords in a song which is sung by all
three Synoptic writers, where Matthew and Luke sing in harmony but Mark sings a
different note all by himself.</p><p class="MsoNormal"> First,
let’s look at the chord that occurs in Matthew 9:18, Luke 8:40, and Mark
5:21. The scene depicted by all three
Evangelists is the famous opening of the account of the raising of Jairus’
daughter. The first interesting feature
is that<b> when we use the Western text (extant in D 05)</b>, only in the Gospel of Mark (5:22) do we find Jairus identified by name. This detail, if it had been known to Luke,
would not be something he would have omitted.
It was probably added by Mark in the course of preparing the final form
of his Gospel-account. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>The second
interesting feature in that in Matthew 9:20 and<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Luke 8:44, there is an explicit reference to the hem of Jesus’ garment;
meanwhile Mark 5:27 does not.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The
parallel and non-parallel is easily shown in Greek:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Matthew:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>ἥψατο τοῦ κρασπέδου τοῦ ἱματίου αὐτοῦ</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Mark:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>ἥψατο τοῦ ἱματίου αὐτοῦ</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Luke:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>ἥψατο τοῦ κρασπέδου τοῦ ἱματίου αὐτοῦ</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">It looks as if Matthew and Luke both perpetuated a Markan
text which had τοῦ κρασπέδου after ἥψατο, but in the final form of the Gospel
of Mark, τοῦ κρασπέδου had fallen out of the text, perhaps via simple
parablepsis.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Again, this implies that a
distinction must be maintained between the Markan texts (“Ur-Mark” or “Proto-Mark”) used by
Matthew and by Luke, and the final definitive form of the Gospel of Mark. Again:
whatever Markan texts were used by Matthew, and by Luke, were not the
same as the final form of the Gospel of Mark.
At least two extra steps were yet to be taken before the Gospel of Mark
was finished: Jairus’ name was added,
and τοῦ κρασπέδου was omitted.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p> Throughout
the text of Mark, isolated “Minor Agreements” occur at points where it appears
that Mark added or modified small details that were not in Ur-Mark. Some examples: <i>(1)</i>
the detail in Mark 1:13 that Jesus was tempted by Satan, σατανᾶ, not by “the
devil” (διαβόλου),</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">(2)</i> the detail in
Mark 1:39 that Jesus cast out demons (τά δαιμόνια ἐκβάλλων), </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">(3)</i> the detail in
Mark 2:2 that Jesus preached the word, </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">(4)</i> the detail in
Mark 1:45 that Jesus gave strict instructions to the leper he had cleansed </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">(5)</i> the detail in
Mark 2:27 that Jesus said, “The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the
Sabbath” </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">(6)</i> The detail in
Mark 3:5 that Jesus looked around with anger </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">(7)</i> the detail in
Mark 3:20-32 that Jesus’ mother and brothers came to him because they thought
he was out of his mind </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">(8)</i><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>the detail in Mk 9:32 that Jesus spoke openly
the word concerning his sufferings, death, and resurrection </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">(9) </i>the details in
Mark 9:21-27 about Jesus’ questions to the father of the young man with an
unclean spirit, </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">(10)</i> the detail in
Mark 10:50 that Bartimaeus cast away his garment as soon as he heard that Jesus
was calling for him.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">More examples could be given, but these ten should
sufficiently show that there is a difference between Ur-Mark used by Luke,
Ur-Mark used by Matthew, and the final form of the Gospel of Mark.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>This has an effect on another issue: the ending of Mark. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ai1G-hQICDY">Stephen Boyce recently chimed in about this</a>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Several of the unique details in
the Gospel of Mark are the sort of thing an eyewitness could add as expansions
of an episode he had described previously; but they are not the sort of thing a
non-eyewitness would throw in arbitrarily. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(Jairus’ name, for example, might not have
been known by Peter when he composed Ur-Mark, but Peter and/or Mark may have
discovered it prior to the composition of the Gospel of Mark.)<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>While nothing about this brings anything new
against the idea that Mark 16:9-20 was composed by Mark as a freestanding text,
and was then attached to 16:8 by Mark’s colleagues in Rome, it must also be
granted that nothing stands in the way of a somewhat simpler solution:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>that Mark, on the same occasion when he
tidied up Ur-Mark and thus produced the Gospel of Mark, composed verses 9-20,
and the narrative disconnect in vv. 9-10 is simply an effect of leaving the
narrative thread dangling, so to speak, on an earlier occasion, or else it is
an effect of replacing a now-lost ending of Ur-Mark with a fuller summary of
the post-resurrection appearances of the risen Lord Jesus Christ.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>All three
possibilities lead to an embrace of Mark 16:9-20 as part of the canonical text
of the Gospel of Mark.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>James Snapp Jrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09493891380752272603noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6346409181794331060.post-6404896411228406172023-03-26T00:11:00.004-04:002023-03-27T08:23:19.831-04:00The Ethiopic Version and Mark 16:9-20<p></p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span><span><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; font-size: x-large; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEid3OYZBZM9YLph-FR3p8V1b5MiY7z2j0w_wvJkZmdy9FApkbXWA8Qs3bCGFE61MkPffCu4lLhZ6hii6uLNo0ugUOvib_YiUkaKkWGYh_GBSlhc4HTGj59NcMzEqkC26EjaLriq5wSAFWmPPCop5ITkG-Qqt84IkY638nmNxR11QniR9CLH1x9KUgqm/s1000/Ethiopic%2011%20John.png" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="680" data-original-width="1000" height="218" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEid3OYZBZM9YLph-FR3p8V1b5MiY7z2j0w_wvJkZmdy9FApkbXWA8Qs3bCGFE61MkPffCu4lLhZ6hii6uLNo0ugUOvib_YiUkaKkWGYh_GBSlhc4HTGj59NcMzEqkC26EjaLriq5wSAFWmPPCop5ITkG-Qqt84IkY638nmNxR11QniR9CLH1x9KUgqm/s320/Ethiopic%2011%20John.png" width="320" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><b><span style="font-family: arial;"><a href="https://www.loc.gov/resource/amedmonastery.00271073823-jo/?sp=7&q=ethiopic+">Ethiopic MS 11, Image 7 <br />(Gospel of John)</a></span></b></td></tr></tbody></table><span style="font-size: x-large;"> The
Ethiopic version of the Gospels (note: the Ethiopic language is Ge'ez, the language of the Ethiopian people), like the Arabic version, seems to become a
little more significant every time a fresh investigation is made into its
origins. </span></span><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="font-size: x-large;"><span><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span><span style="color: black;">In the
fourth edition of <i><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Text-New-Testament-Transmission-Restoration/dp/019516122X">The Text of the New Testament</a></i>, on p. 322 (repeating what was on p. 226 of the first edition, written in 1964), Bruce Metzger and Bart
Ehrman state,<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>“A number of manuscripts
of the Ethiopic version” do not contain Mark 16:9-20</span>. (Full title: <i>The Text of the New Testament:
Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration</i><span style="mso-bidi-font-style: italic;"><i>).</i><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>The late esteemed apologist Norman Geisler wrote that not only are </span></span><span style="background-color: white;">verses
9-20 “are lacking in many of the oldest and most reliable manuscripts,” (see </span><span style="background-color: white;">pp. 377-378 of </span><i style="background-color: white;">The
Big Book of Bible Difficulties</i><span style="background-color: white;">, © 1992, a.k.a. <i><a href="https://www.amazon.com/When-Critics-Ask-Handbook-Difficulties/dp/0801011426/">W</a></i></span><i style="background-color: white;"><a href="https://www.amazon.com/When-Critics-Ask-Handbook-Difficulties/dp/0801011426/">hen Critics Ask</a></i><span style="background-color: white;">), but he also repeated the statement about Ethiopic MSS, writing, </span><span style="background-color: white;">“These
verses are lacking in many of the oldest and most reliable Greek manuscripts,
as well as in important Old Latin, Syriac, Armenian, and Ethiopic manuscripts.” (Neither statement is altogether true , as we shall see shortly. Only two unmutilated Greek MSS do not support Mark 16:9-20, and only one undamaged Old Latin manuscript, and only one unmutilated Syriac MS. <a href="https://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2023/01/houghton-ga-239-304-do-not-attest-short.html">See here for information on GA 304 and GA 239</a>.)</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"></p><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgwyd7TnSxX-rwIqbvMFTqXG_nwXqMiV7AYS7gK9x1BiLvo34SjnEPv2b1fVx8bagm2aNvW7OZW7XqUiWjxFL3cTAjwqoXvWE-L102CagNAn5jWFQNUrTblCJqxxhzpvBbDy-VeRObt8T52BGao-3u5rTCBF9pjl3ZTp8GWQAukD7QuuWoDMZu6H3Wj/s2716/Ethiopic%20A.jpg" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><span style="font-size: x-large;"><img border="0" data-original-height="2596" data-original-width="2716" height="306" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgwyd7TnSxX-rwIqbvMFTqXG_nwXqMiV7AYS7gK9x1BiLvo34SjnEPv2b1fVx8bagm2aNvW7OZW7XqUiWjxFL3cTAjwqoXvWE-L102CagNAn5jWFQNUrTblCJqxxhzpvBbDy-VeRObt8T52BGao-3u5rTCBF9pjl3ZTp8GWQAukD7QuuWoDMZu6H3Wj/s320/Ethiopic%20A.jpg" width="320" /></span></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><b>Another example of Ge'ez script<br />(from my collection)</b></span></td></tr></tbody></table><span style="font-size: x-large;"><span><span style="color: black;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span></span></span><span>Eugene Nida, on p. 506 of <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Translators-Handbook-Gospel-Mark/dp/B000HYL80A/"><i>A Translator’s Handbook on the Gospel of Mark </i>(1961)</a> (a book written for Bible-translators), referred to those Ethiopic manuscripts that omit Mark 16:9-20 as “important” Ethiopic copies. </span><span>It would appear to readers of such statements that the non-inclusion of Mark 16:9-20 is supported by important Ethiopic manuscripts. </span></span><div><span style="font-size: x-large;"> </span><span style="font-size: xx-large;">But there’s just one problem:</span><span style="font-size: xx-large; mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="font-size: xx-large;">all of these statements are incorrect.</span><p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="font-size: x-large;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Dr. Geisler’s claim that Mark
16:9-20 is “<span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">lacking in many
of the oldest and most reliable Greek manuscripts” is wrong – it’s lacking in
only two ancient Greek manuscripts (Vaticanus and Sinaiticus).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And the entire claim about Ethiopic
manuscripts ending the Gospel of Mark at 16:8 is also wrong.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In 1980, Bruce Metzger himself acknowledged
that his earlier claim (in <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Text of
the New Testament</i>, p. 226, 1964) was incorrect.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(Not to detour from the subject of Ethiopic
manuscripts, but on the same page, Metzger also wrote, erroneously, that
Eusebius shows no knowledge of the existence of<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Mark 16:9-20.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This was quietly altered
in subsequent editions by replacing the name “Eusebius” with Ammonius – which
is also incorrect as I explained in a recent post).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="font-size: x-large;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>In 1980, in the scholarly journal New
Testament Tools and Studies, Metzger published an essay called <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">“T<span style="mso-bidi-font-style: italic;">he
Gospel of St. Mark in Ethiopic Manuscripts.”</span></i> In this essay he
demonstrated that in 1889 William Sanday had perpetuated errors made by two
other researchers (D. S. Margoliouth and A. C. Headlam) in a collation of
twelve Ethiopic manuscripts made by D. S. Margoliouth and edited by A. C. Headlam.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As a result, a claim was spread to the effect
that “three Ethiopic manuscripts in the <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:placename w:st="on">British</st1:placename> <st1:placetype w:st="on">Museum</st1:placetype></st1:place>
(namely codices Add. 16,190, Or. 509, 513) omit the longer ending (Mark
16:9-20), and that seven other manuscripts (namely Or. 510, 511, 512, 514, 516,
517, 518) “conclude the Gospel of Mark with only the Shorter Ending.” </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="font-size: x-large;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>But when Metzger personally checked
the listed MSS, he discovered that “The three manuscripts which are said to omit
verses 9 to 20 in reality contain the passage. Furthermore, an examination of
the seven manuscripts disclosed that, instead of replacing the longer ending
with the shorter ending, these witnesses actually contain both the shorter
ending and the longer ending.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He also
affirmed, after combining his own results with the research of William F. Macomber,
S. J., that “Of the total of 194 (65 + 129) manuscripts, all but two (which are
lectionaries) have Mark 16:9-20, while 131 manuscripts contain both the Shorter
Ending and the Longer Ending.”</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="font-size: x-large;"><span> </span><span>In other words, all of the
commentators who have been saying that some Ethiopic MSS end Mark at 16:8 are
wrong.</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="font-size: x-large;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Some other points that Metzger
mentioned in 1980 are worth noticing, to appreciate the weight of the Ethiopic
version in general: </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="font-size: x-large;"><span><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span></span>● The oldest dated Ethiopic MS that contains the Shorter Ending was made in 1343.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="font-size: x-large;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>● The oldest undated Ethiopic MS
that that contains the Shorter Ending between 16:8 and 16:9 was made in the 1200s.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="font-size: x-large;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>● One Ethiopic MS at the Chester
Beatty Library (Ethiopic Manuscript 912), made in the 1700s, ends the Gospel of
Mark near the end of 16:8, but Metzger explains that “it is certain that the
manuscript in its present state is fragmentary and that originally it continued
with additional textual material.”<b><o:p></o:p></b></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="font-size: x-large;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"><br /></span></span></p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj2Xy3rOXlPJkZo0fGASlFdQJPuMt-rAV3rXN5oRlqTGWtn8HWUev2B2KNIOWQJTlZzSAJ4g-hr6cou8Cq39uZ-U38LD9nOrrSRsdYooUEG8dVkRv_s0tjbZZfjHczVKzctHWYo93RFim5K8pTp9cejKQYCgKTx6xZN4qpYRdNo0Z6D2maudkUxNWAA/s2200/Metzger%20Ethiopic%20doublespeak.png" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1232" data-original-width="2200" height="358" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj2Xy3rOXlPJkZo0fGASlFdQJPuMt-rAV3rXN5oRlqTGWtn8HWUev2B2KNIOWQJTlZzSAJ4g-hr6cou8Cq39uZ-U38LD9nOrrSRsdYooUEG8dVkRv_s0tjbZZfjHczVKzctHWYo93RFim5K8pTp9cejKQYCgKTx6xZN4qpYRdNo0Z6D2maudkUxNWAA/w640-h358/Metzger%20Ethiopic%20doublespeak.png" title="We all make mistakes. Perhaps this sort of carelessness makes a good case against the mistake of entrusting the revision of your book about the text of the New Testament to an apprentice who is busy becoming an atheist." width="640" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><b>We all make mistakes.<br />Perhaps this sort of carelessness makes a good case against making<br />the mistake entrusting the revision of your book on the text of the New <br />Testament to an apprentice who is busy becoming an atheist.</b></span></td></tr></tbody></table><p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><br /><span style="font-size: xx-large; mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span><span style="font-size: x-large;">The value of the Ethiopic version
has increased since the <a href="http://www.visual-arts-cork.com/history-of-art/garima-gospels.htm#summary">Ethiopic
Garima Gospels</a> were dated (via radiometric analysis) to no later than the
mid-600s (and I think the Garima Gospels was probably made a bit earlier, in the mid-500s).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(And the Ethiopic version continues to be
given attention at the <a href="https://hmml.org/stories/researcher-identifies-second-oldest-ethiopian-manuscript-in-existence-in-hmmls-archives/">Hill
Museum and Manuscript Library</a>, and new discoveries continue to be made.)<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Unfortunately this does not seem to have
elicited a desire to withdraw the erroneous claim that important Ethiopic
manuscript omit Mark 16:9-20 – a claim that was disseminated in academia since Tischendorf
and Warfield – and which was still disseminated in the third and fourth
editions of Metzger’s <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Text of the New
Testament</i> (see <span style="color: black;">p. 275 of Bruce Metzger’s <i>The
Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, 1992</i><span style="mso-bidi-font-style: italic;">, and p</span>age 322 of the fourth edition.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Yes; the fourth edition, co-edited with Bart
Ehrman, says two different things, depending on which page you’re reading.) and
<a href="https://defendinginerrancy.com/bible-solutions/Mark_16.9-20.php">which
can be read online right now at the Defending Inerrancy website</a>, along with
other obsolete erroneous claims taken from the 1964 edition of Metzger’s book.</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="font-size: x-large;"><span><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>The evidence described by Metzger
shows that all unmutilated Ethiopic MSS of </span><span>Mark
known to exist contain Mark 16:9-20. It also suggests that some time after the
Gospel of Mark </span><span>was
translated into Ethiopic (with Mark 16:9-20 immediately following 16:8), the
Shorter Ending intruded into the Ethiopic text-stream (probably from the
Secondary Alexandrian transmission-stream represented in Mark 16 by 019 044</span><span> 099 </span><i>etc</i><span>.) and was adapted as a liturgical flourish
to conclude a lection-unit which would have otherwise concluded at the end of
16:8.</span><span> </span><span>(I suspect that at first the Shorter
Ending – in its later form, with the variant “appeared to them” – was in the
margin, like in </span><span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huntington_MS_17">Bohairic MS Huntington 17</a>.)</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="font-size: x-large;"> Anyway: I am sure that Metzger and Nida etc. would
not want to go on spreading false information.
Of course authors cannot undo the damage after they die. So if you happen to find a book claiming that
<span style="color: black;">“A number of manuscripts of the Ethiopic version do
not contain Mark 16:9-20,” the authors would no doubt thank you for writing in
the margin, in ink, <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">“This is false. See
Metzger’s retraction in <i>Tools & Studies</i> X, 1980.” </b><span style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Because that number is <b>ZERO</b>.</span></span></span><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><o:p></o:p></b></p></div>James Snapp Jrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09493891380752272603noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6346409181794331060.post-80779886953508588032023-03-22T15:26:00.001-04:002023-03-22T15:33:32.052-04:00Irenaeus and Mark 16:19<p><span style="font-family: georgia;"><span style="font-size: medium;"> </span><span style="font-size: large;"> Irenaeus. Ever hear of him? You won’t see his name mentioned in the NET’s
notes about Mark 16:9-20, or in footnotes about Mark 16:9-20 in the ESV, NLT,
CSB, NIV, NKJV, and NRSV. (The
footnote-makers for all these versions seem to have had a strange aversion to
mentioning patristic evidence, even when it is earlier than the earliest
extant manuscripts of the text being supplemented.) <a href="https://www.christianity.com/church/church-history/timeline/1-300/irenaeus-johns-spiritual-grandson-11629607.html">Irenaeus</a>
was a very important patristic writer.
Born around 120, Irenaeus grew up in the city of <st1:city w:st="on">Smyrna</st1:city>
in <st1:place w:st="on">Asia Minor</st1:place>, and he reports that in his
youth he heard the teachings of Polycarp (who had, in turn, been a companion of
Papias, and had heard John). When we
walk with Irenaeus, so to speak, we are chronologically barely two generations
away from the apostles themselves.</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-eVqKmwZec">Irenaeus</a> went on to serve
as a presbyter at Lyons (Lugdunum), in <st1:place w:st="on">Gaul</st1:place>,
around 170.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In 177, Irenaeus visited <st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Rome</st1:place></st1:city>, where he advised
Eleutherius about how to deal with Montanism.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>When he returned from <st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Rome</st1:place></st1:city>
to Lugdunum, Irenaeus found that in his absence, the church there had been the
target of persecution.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Many Christians
had been martyred, including <a href="https://www.christianity.com/church/church-history/timeline/1-300/blandina-a-faithful-witness-11629606.html">Blandina</a>
and the church’s bishop, Pothinus.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Irenaeus was chosen to take Pothinus’ place as bishop, an office in
which he remained for the remainder of his life.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>As
bishop of <st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Lyons</st1:place></st1:city>,
Irenaeus would later counsel Victor of Rome in 190 regarding the Quartodeciman
Controversy, recommending the allowance of liberty regarding how to settle a
question related to the church’s liturgical calendar which had not been settled
in earlier times.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But Irenaeus
best-known work is one he composed earlier, in five books:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Against
Heresies</i>, <span style="mso-bidi-font-style: italic;">in which he exposed the
errors of various false teachers, including Marcion.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Irenaeus tells his readers when he
composed Book Three of <i>Against Heresies</i>, in <a href="https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm">chapter three, paragraph 3</a>:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>it was during the same time that Eleutherius
was presiding at Rome, <i>i.e.</i>, approximately between 174 and 189.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><span style="font-size: large;"> Irenaeus explicitly quotes Mark
16:19 in Book 3 of <i>Against Heresies</i> (in <a href="https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103310.htm">chapter 10, paragraph 5</a>),
stating, “Also, towards the
conclusion of his Gospel, Mark says: ‘So then, after the Lord Jesus had spoken
to them, He was received up into heaven, and sits on the right hand of God.’” This portion of <i>Against Heresies</i> in extant only in Latin (as “</span><i><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-size: large;">In fine autem euangelii ait Marcus: Et quidem Dominus
Iesus, postquam locutus est eis, receptus est in caelos, et sedet ad dexteram
Dei.”</span><span style="font-size: medium;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></i></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><span style="font-size: large;"> Dr.
Craig Evans, in 2013, claimed (in the <i>Holman Apologetics Commentary</i>) that “</span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-size: large;">it is far from certain that Irenaeus, writing c. 180, was
acquainted with Mark’s so-called Longer Ending,” apparently imagining that the
Latin translator of <i>Against Heresies</i>
“may have incorporated this verse from much later manuscripts.” Dr. Evans is wrong. In
real life, not only is there no evidence that the Latin translation of
Book 3 has been interpolated at this point, but there is clear evidence against
the idea. Irenaeus’ use of Mark 16:19 in
Book 3 of <i>Against Heresies</i> is
mentioned in Greek in a marginal notation that appears in several copies of the
Gospel of Mark, including GA 1582, <a href="https://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/Viewer.aspx?ref=harley_ms_5647_f138v">72</a>, and the recently catalogued 2954.</span><span style="font-size: medium;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-size: large;"></span></span></span></p><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhJ7IveZ4SaN4RolWAIIKgLCitQKdQNt3nOduJD7JC26gel1aSOaaY9dv98ZeuCGUC2PIobCTjO-5Xkzc-Y_BsSPDxbrpAsCZr2_Mey1JlXtfLOz42T5S_UghozIP6ELtHQxFKYnMWFQtPouk2A_KLCoID24Pml2BjSUifg0hYB-sNcYcRiIZhFiseK/s1121/Mk%2016%20Irenaeus%20Note%2072.png" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="415" data-original-width="1121" height="237" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhJ7IveZ4SaN4RolWAIIKgLCitQKdQNt3nOduJD7JC26gel1aSOaaY9dv98ZeuCGUC2PIobCTjO-5Xkzc-Y_BsSPDxbrpAsCZr2_Mey1JlXtfLOz42T5S_UghozIP6ELtHQxFKYnMWFQtPouk2A_KLCoID24Pml2BjSUifg0hYB-sNcYcRiIZhFiseK/w640-h237/Mk%2016%20Irenaeus%20Note%2072.png" width="640" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><b>The margin-note about Irenaeus' quote of Mark 16:19.<br />Viewable at the British Library's website.</b></span></td></tr></tbody></table><span style="font-family: georgia;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-size: large;"> </span><span style="font-size: large;">Page-views
of GA 1582 and GA <a href="https://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/Viewer.aspx?ref=harley_ms_5647_f138v">72</a> are online. GA 1582 is a core representative of family 1 (which would be better-named
“family 1582”), a small cluster of MSS which can be traced back an ancestor-MS
made in the 400s. The margin-note says, </span></span><span style="font-size: large;">“Irenaeus, who lived near the time of the
apostles, cites this from Mark in the third book of his work <i>Against
Heresies</i>.” <span lang="EL">(</span>In Greek<span lang="EL">:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="color: black;">Ειρηναιος ο των αποστόλων
πλησίον εν τω προς τας αιρέσεις Τριτωι λόγωι τουτο </span></span>ανήνεγκεν
το ρητον ως Μάρκω ειρημένον.) Thus
there should be no doubt that the Greek text of <i>Against Heresies</i> Book 3 known to the creator of this margin-note
contained the reference to Mark 16:19. Dr. Craig Evans is invited to retract his statement.</span></span><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>The copy of Mark
used by Irenaeus in <st1:place w:st="on">Lyon</st1:place>, had it survived,
would have been older than Codex Vaticanus by a minimum of 125 years.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In addition, Irenaeus was familiar with the
text of Mark used in three locales – Asia Minor, <st1:city w:st="on">Lyons</st1:city>,
and <st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Rome</st1:place></st1:city> (the
city where the Gospel of Mark was composed); yet, although he comments on a
textual variant in Revelation 13:18 (in <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><a href="https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103530.htm">Against Heresies<span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Book 5</span></a></i>,
ch. 29-30) - a passage from a book written a few decades before Irenaeus was born - </span></span><span style="font-family: georgia;">he never expresses any doubt whatsoever about Mark 16:19.</span><span style="font-family: georgia;"> </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">It may be safely concluded that Irenaeus knew
of no other form of the Gospel of Mark except</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">
</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">one that contained Mark 1:1-16:20.</span><span style="font-family: georgia;"> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: transparent;"> </span><span style="background-color: transparent;">As
a secondary point, evidence of </span><span style="background-color: transparent;">Irenaeus’ familiarity
with Mark 16:9-20 might also be found in <i><a href="https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103232.htm">Against Heresies<span style="font-style: normal;"> Book Two, chapter 32</span></a></i>, paragraphs 3-4
(which was quoted by Eusebius of Caesarea in <i>Church History </i>5:7). Close verbal connections are lacking here
(Irenaeus does not say, in Book Two at this point, that he is referring
specifically to what Mark wrote; he points false teachers to “the prophetical
writing”), but thematic parallels abound:
Irenaeus states:</span></span></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>“Those
who are truly his disciples, receiving grace from him, do <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">in his name</b> <i>(cf. Mk 16:17)</i> perform
[signs], so as to promote the welfare of others, according to the gift which
each one has received from him. For some do certainly and truly <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">drive out devils</b> <i>(cf. Mk. 16:17)</i>, so
that those who have thus been cleansed from evil spirits frequently
both believe, and join themselves to the church <i>(cf. Mk. 16:16)</i>. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="line-height: 12.5pt; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Others have foreknowledge of what is
to come.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They see visions, and utter
prophetic expressions. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Yet others <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">heal the sick by laying their hands upon
them, and they are made whole</b> <i>(Cf. Mk. 16:18)</i>. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in; mso-line-height-alt: 12.5pt;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Yea, moreover, as I have said, even the
dead have been raised up, and have stayed among us for many years. And what
shall I more say? It is not possible to name the number of the gifts which
the church, throughout the whole world <i>(cf. Mk. 16:15)</i>, has received
from God, in the name of Jesus Christ.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in; mso-line-height-alt: 12.5pt;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Irenaeus concludes Book 2, chapter 32
(<a href="https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103232.htm">which can be read in
English at the New Advent website</a>) by stating the the Christian church, “directing
her prayers to the Lord . . .and calling upon the name of our
Lord Jesus Christ, has been accustomed to work miracles for the
advantage of mankind, and not to lead them into error,” in contrast
to the false teachers Simon, Menander, and Carpocrates.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in; mso-line-height-alt: 12.5pt;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"> If there are to be English
Bible-footnotes about Mark 16:9-20 (a passage which is attested in all Greek
manuscripts of Mark (over 1,650) except two - GA 304 should no longer be considered a legitimate witness to the non-inclusion of vv. 9-20), they should certainly mention the testimony of
Irenaeus. The present footnotes in the
ESV, NIV, NLT, CSB, and NASB (to name a few), like the notes in the NET, do not give readers an accurate picture of the
evidence regarding Mark 16:9-20, and, imho, seem designed (by selecting which
witnesses are allowed to speak, and which witnesses are silenced) to provoke
doubts about the passage. One could almost think that the footnote-writers did not want readers to know about the evidence for Mark 16:9-20 from the 100s.</span></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in; mso-line-height-alt: 12.5pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p>James Snapp Jrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09493891380752272603noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6346409181794331060.post-32081565393756728642023-03-19T22:45:00.002-04:002023-03-21T22:23:31.289-04:00The Phantom of Ammonius (Misinformation about Mark 16:9-20)<p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: trebuchet; font-size: large;">Who was Ammonius and what did he write about Mark 16:9-20?</span></p><p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: trebuchet; font-size: large;"> Ammonius Saccas of Alexandria (175-242) was a philosopher. He might possibly have been (like, it’s remotely possibly conceivable) the Ammonius I am about to discuss. But Ammonius of Alexandria is probably not Ammonius Saccas. Our Ammonius is an individual mentioned by Eusebius of Caesarea in his brief letter <i>Ad Carpianus</i>.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: trebuchet; font-size: large;"> So let’s ask another question: What is Eusebius’ letter to Carpian about, and what does he say about Ammonius?</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: trebuchet; font-size: large;"><i>Ad Carpianus</i> (or, <i>To Carpian</i>) is a brief instruction-manual about how to use the Eusebian Canons – Eusebius’ cross-reference system for the Gospels. <i>To Carpian</i> is featured near the beginning of many Greek Gospels-manuscripts, and is still reproduced on pages 84*-85* of the Nestle-Aland <i>Novum Testamentum Graecae</i> (27th ed.). Ammonius is mentioned at the outset. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: trebuchet; font-size: large;"> Using Mark DelCogliano’s translation of Eusebius’ letter (which is in the public domain (thanks, Mark!)) as the basis for the following (with minimal adjustments) we may see the relevant portion in English: </span></p><pre><span style="font-family: trebuchet; font-size: large;"> “Eusebius to Carpianus his beloved brother in the Lord: greetings.</span></pre><p style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;"><span style="font-family: trebuchet; font-size: large;">Ammonius the Alexandrian, having
exerted a great deal of energy and effort as was necessary, bequeaths to us a
harmonized account of the four gospels. Alongside the Gospel according to
Matthew, he placed the corresponding sections of the other gospels. <br />
But this had the inevitable
result of ruining the sequential order of the other three gospels, as far
as a continuous reading of the text was concerned. Keeping, however, both the body and sequence
of the other gospels completely intact – in order that you may be able to know
where each evangelist wrote passages in which they were led by love of
truth to speak about the same things – I drew up a total of ten
tables according to another system, acquiring the raw data from the
work of the man mentioned above. These tables are set out for you below.”<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: trebuchet; font-size: large;"> Eusebius proceeded to
describe his own cross-reference system, in which Eusebius divided the text of
the four Gospels into sections, and each section was assigned a number, and
each number was arranged in ten lists.
But today we are not concerned with the testimony of Eusebius; I am
looking at the testimony of Ammmonius. (Those
who wish to learn more about Eusebius’ Gospels-cross-reference system are
welcome to watch <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38X0snHT8XY">my video
about the Eusebian Canons</a> which I made several years ago.)</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: trebuchet; font-size: large;"> What
Eusebius says about Ammonius’ attempt to harmonize the Gospels is enough to
demonstrate that Ammonius’ material is not represented by Eusebius’
Section-divisions. This was demonstrated
by John Burgon in 1871 in his book <i><a href="https://books.googleusercontent.com/books/content?req=AKW5Qafw7BNyIS4bZs1UahfaKvam3WHW8nu3dV8zi59rfh1D8ri894tpxAUZZVf5f87YBs3UC-bs88F8vz4ypEtDkCsAV7Zs_HIVaWEfH0ocq_pXZyNqVyye9m9YTSd1PTk3PiijKOwMyvow22CPlNvn9fy4_CC8s62BEsOpE-Gsh0XKfBZxa5LWfJT4IXCabY7kfHUBtF">The
Last Twelve Verses of Mark Vindicated</a></i>.
Burgon observed that Ammonius’
Matthew-centered cross-reference system would not be capable of featuring
passages in Mark, Luke, and John for which there is no parallel section in
Matthew. Referring to those sections,
Burgon wrote, “Those 225 Sections can have found no place in the work of
Ammonius. And if (in some unexplained way) room was found for those parts of
the Gospels, with what possible motive can Ammonius have sub-divided them into
exactly 225 portions? It is nothing else but irrational to assume that he did
so.” (See pages 295 to 312 (Appendix G),
especially page 302, of John Burgon’s 1871 book <i>The Last Twelve Verses of
the Gospel According to Saint Mark Vindicated Against Recent Critical
Objectors.)</i> </span></p><p>
</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: trebuchet; font-size: large;"></span></span></p><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgvBxXv4ruRZj4ZhFRR4nKPZUo5KpPmWcpBqkq9D5LdP7n6ZGXGVj2iYsZmQ7OuCH2wqrjLtrUpOSYSrnPCX6GuMWrnNNg6QTwVyPrqUUYDLkAMgbhqYPTUuBnVv19XQ3w0hOFGdBfJrIWHS3pWgPZqWFkEMsKGKtHDKWqs-oN3MbQmHCZTgvrOEw9o/s1061/Metzger%20Eusebius%20Ammonius%20Comparison.png" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="609" data-original-width="1061" height="184" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgvBxXv4ruRZj4ZhFRR4nKPZUo5KpPmWcpBqkq9D5LdP7n6ZGXGVj2iYsZmQ7OuCH2wqrjLtrUpOSYSrnPCX6GuMWrnNNg6QTwVyPrqUUYDLkAMgbhqYPTUuBnVv19XQ3w0hOFGdBfJrIWHS3pWgPZqWFkEMsKGKtHDKWqs-oN3MbQmHCZTgvrOEw9o/s320/Metzger%20Eusebius%20Ammonius%20Comparison.png" width="320" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><b><span style="font-family: arial;">Bruce Metzger, I try to take it easy on <br />you, since you're dead, but ... <br />did you expect this to just slide by?</span></b></td></tr></tbody></table><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: trebuchet; font-size: large;"> Nevertheless, Bruce
Metzger, in his highly influential handbook <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The
Text of the New Testament, </i>(in the third edition, 1992) on page 226, as he
commented on this passage, Metzger wrote, “Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and
Ammonius show no knowledge of these verses.” The same sentence appears in the
fourth edition (2005), co-edited by Bart Ehrman, on p. 322.</span></span><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: trebuchet; font-size: large;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>(This particular
sentence constituted a departure from how Metzger had previously described the
evidence in 1964; for details see the 1:50-mark in the three-minute video <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkgokZPJlEA">Mark 16:9-20 and The Parrot
Problem</a></i>.)<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="font-family: trebuchet; font-size: large;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Also, in his
influential </span><i><span style="color: black;">A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament</span></i><span style="color: black;">, Metzger wrote,<i> </i></span><span style="color: black;">“The original form of the Eusebian
sections (drawn up by Ammonius) makes no provision for numbering sections of
the text after 16.8.”<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: trebuchet; font-size: large;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Metzger was writing as if he had
access to something to which he had no access.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>While it would be correct to state that the original form of the
Eusebian sections did not make any provision for numbering sections of Mark
16:9-20, it is incorrect to say that the original form of the Eusebian sections
were “drawn up by Ammonius.”<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: trebuchet; font-size: large;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>The Eusebian Sections include, in
Canons (<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">i.e.</i>, Tables) Eight, Nine,
and part of Ten, sections which are not paralleled in Matthew and thus would
have had no place in Ammonius’ cross-reference system.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span><span><span style="color: black; font-family: trebuchet; font-size: x-large;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Ammonius cannot be considered a valid
witness for the inclusion or non-inclusion of Mark 16:9-20. We simply do not
have any data from Ammonius one way or the other regarding this.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Ammonius is a phantom witness – contrary to
the Bruce Metzger, and contrary to the textual apparatus of the first, second,
and third editions of the UBS GNT.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If
you own a commentary that spreads Metzger’s and Ehrman’s falsehood about
Ammonius, I recommend that you add, in the margin, in ink, “This claim about Ammonius
is false.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: trebuchet; font-size: large;"> </span><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><span style="font-family: arial;">[Readers are encouraged to test the data in this post and are invited to explore the embedded links.]</span></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span><span><span style="font-family: arial;"><br style="mso-special-character: line-break;" /></span></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--></span><br style="mso-special-character: line-break;" />
<span style="font-size: large;"><!--[endif]--></span><span style="font-family: Book Antiqua; font-size: x-large;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></p><p></p>James Snapp Jrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09493891380752272603noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6346409181794331060.post-82839323591224465692023-03-18T01:50:00.000-04:002023-03-18T01:50:02.974-04:00Aphrahat and the Final Section of the Gospel of Mark<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 14pt;"><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhdqKPkwU0ihS4DaD4BPy6AbxZRbPLcVe-AtLA8zvEpd4Ku4cezLbSxpIEGsNlRjk6_h6TXcGyiR83j2i9GnmppD21YWCXZUK2-DAgcfwJ187gzSKIh-DVrQgCf6EI4r8ye8DDPoUVtee1gsS2Khw7ehlUjXAYBvRyMP-9I6XWvj7uIkvPxllD_viPM/s389/Aphrahat.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="333" data-original-width="389" height="274" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhdqKPkwU0ihS4DaD4BPy6AbxZRbPLcVe-AtLA8zvEpd4Ku4cezLbSxpIEGsNlRjk6_h6TXcGyiR83j2i9GnmppD21YWCXZUK2-DAgcfwJ187gzSKIh-DVrQgCf6EI4r8ye8DDPoUVtee1gsS2Khw7ehlUjXAYBvRyMP-9I6XWvj7uIkvPxllD_viPM/s320/Aphrahat.png" width="320" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: medium;"><b>Aphrahat (The Persian Sage)</b></span></td></tr></tbody></table> </span></b><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 14pt;">Aphrahat the Persian Sage, also known
as Aphraates (280-345), was a church leader in Syria who wrote a lengthy series
of sermons in acrostic form, called <i>Demonstrations – </i>one composition for each of the 22 letters
of the Syriac alphabet. This was completed by A.D. 337, and was supplemented by a 23rd homily in 345.
Aphrahat was a contemporary of Eusebius of Caesarea, and from
a distance he heard of the spiritual transition of those in charge of the government of
the <st1:place w:st="on">Roman Empire</st1:place> (from prohibiting
Christianity as <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2-pPpWC7Is">Diocletian</a>
did, to embracing it, as <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0GCJfhjEYw">Constantine
I</a> ostensibly did).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 14pt;"> Among the implications of this is
that neither the <a href="https://www.thetextofthegospels.com/2018/07/the-sinaitic-syriac-now-in-color.html">Sinaitic
Syriac MS</a>, nor the <a href="https://ia800907.us.archive.org/26/items/remainsofveryant00cure/remainsofveryant00cure.pdf">Curetonian
Syriac MS</a>, nor the Syriac <a href="https://www.thetextofthegospels.com/2016/02/early-syriac-versions-of-gospels.html">Peshitta</a>
(if its Gospels-text is correctly assigned to the late 300s), constitutes the
earliest extant Syriac evidence regarding how the Gospel of Mark concluded, for
Aphraates lived before any of those witnesses were produced. It may be worthwhile to draw attention here to
Aphrahat’s testimony regarding the final portion of Mark (which has been
utterly ignored by many commentators).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 14pt;"> In the 17th paragraph of <i><a href="https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/370101.htm">Demonstration One: Of Faith</a></i>,
Aphrahat wrote, <i>“And when our </i></span><i><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 14pt;">Lord gave the
sacrament of baptism to His apostles, He said to them, ‘ Whosoever believes and </span></i><i><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 14pt;">is baptized shall
live, and whosoever believes not shall be condemned.’”</span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 14pt;"> </span></i><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 14pt;">Thus
Aphraates used what we know as Mark 16:16 in Syriac in 337. He expressed no doubts about it whatsoever.<i>
</i> (Non-Syriac-reading English readers
may consult, to see the context, John Gwynn’s English translation of <i><a href="https://www.google.com/books/edition/A_Select_Library_of_Nicene_and_Post_Nice/wsMUAAAAQAAJ">Demonstration
One<span style="font-style: normal; mso-bidi-font-style: italic;">, (in Volume 13
of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series</span></a></i>), which I rely
upon for these quotations.)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 14pt;"> A</span><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 14pt;">t the end of the same
paragraph, Aphrahat writes, “<i>He also said thus, ‘This shall be the sign for
those who believe; they shall speak with new tongues and shall cast out demons,
and they shall place their hands on the sick and they shall be made whole.’” </i><b> </b>Although
the passage is quoted very imprecisely (notice the absence of any reference to
the signs being done “in my name,” and the absence of any reference to
serpent-handling and poison-drinking),<b> </b>what Aphrahat quotes here
is clearly based on Christ’s words in Mark 16:16-18.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 14pt;"> Aphrahat is regarded as a frequent
user of Tatian’s <i>Diatessaron</i>, but his quotation is significantly
different from the passage found in the Arabic Diatessaron. The differences may be <b>very</b> probably attributed to the later conformation of the Arabic
Diatessaron to the text of the Syriac Peshitta. (The Arabic Diatessaron is
itself an echo of a Syriac source.)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 14pt;"> Let us accept, for the moment, that
Aphrahat was utilizing the Diatessaron when he wrote the 17th paragraph of <i>Demonstration
One: Of Faith</i>. <b>In which case, we have here, embedded in Aphrahat’s writings, a
quotation from a source no later than 175 (namely, Tatian’s <i>Diatessaron</i>). </b>(To put this another way: Aphrahat quoted from Tatian's <i>Diatessaron</i>, which - if the completion of the Gospel of Mark is correctly assigned to the year 68 - was made by Tatian less than 110 years after the autograph of the Gospel of Mark was written, using copies of the Gospels earlier than any complete copies that have survived to the present day.]<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 14pt;"> (Not to detour, but, another
neglected author, the Armenian known as Eznik of Golb (also known as Yesnik Koghbats‘i), also
used Mark 16:17-18 in the first half of the 400s, writing in his composition <i>De Deo</i> (a.k.a. “<i><a href="https://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/scanned/yeznik_refutation.htm">Against
the Sects</a></i>”) </span><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 14.0pt;">1:25,
“<i>And again, ‘Here are signs of believers: they will dislodge demons, and they will take
serpents into their hand, and they will drink a deadly poison and it will not
cause harm.’” </i>This appears to be a
citation that Eznik made from memory. Notice, by the way, Eznik's inclusion of the words "into their hand" in v. 18.)
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 14pt;"> Some additional evidence that
Aphrahat, writing in Syriac, was using Tatian’s <i>Diatessaron</i> is found in <i>Demonstration 2</i>, paragraph 20, where
he states that Jesus “showed the power of his greatness when he was cast down
from a high place into a valley, yet was not harmed.” <b> </b>This
statement is not based on anything in the canonical Gospels as we know them; it
is based on a quirky rendering of Luke 4:29-30 which recurs when the episode is
described by other writers who used the <i>Diatessaron</i>. (It is not in the
Arabic Diatessaron; at this point the Arabic Diatessaron’s exemplar has been,
again, conformed to the text of the Peshitta).
A few decades after Aphrahat wrote, Ephrem Syrus wrote (I rely on others
for the English translation), “When they cast him down from the hill, he flew
in the air.” (More has been written
about this interesting detail (by the late <a href="https://www.google.com/books/edition/Tatian_s_Diatessaron/E_NufgoxSasC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=When+they+cast+him+down+from+the+hill,+he+flew+in+the+air.++Tatian&pg=PA313&printsec=frontcover">William
Petersen</a> for instance), but I focus here upon Aphrahat’s testimony.)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 14pt;"> If it is granted that Aphrahat wrote
<i>Demonstration 23</i> in 345 (shortly
before he died), then he must have had more than Tatian’s Diatessaron to work
with, because <i>(a)</i> it is generally
granted that the Diatessaron, as produced by Tatian, did not include Jesus’
genealogies, and <i>(b)</i> in <i>Demonstration 23</i>, paragraph
20, Jesus’ genealogy is quoted as it appears in Matthew 1:13 to 16.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 14pt;"> Whether or not Aphrahat is regarded
as the author of Demonstration 23, Aphrahat was definitely the author of <i>Demonstration
One: Of Faith</i> and thus, his testimony from 337 (prior to the production of
Codex Sinaiticus) provides us with a window on a Syriac text that existed in
his lifetime.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 14pt;"> </span><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 14pt;"> </span><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 14pt;">(A good transcript of Aphrahat’s </span><i style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 14pt;">Demonstrations 1-10</i><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 14pt;">, produced in 474,
exists today as British Museum Add. MS. 17182.</span><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 14pt;">
</span><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 14pt;">The same MS includes </span><i style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 14pt;">Demonstrations
11-23, </i><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 14pt;">written down in 510.)</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 14pt;"> </span><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 14pt;">Aphrahat has been confused with
another Syriac author, Jacob of Nisibis, partly because Aphrahat took the name
“Jacob” at his baptism.</span><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 14pt;"> </span><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 14pt;">(Jacob of
Nisibis was among those who attended the Council of Nicea in 325.)</span><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 14pt;"> </span><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 14pt;">Although John Burgon, in 1871, pointed out
that Aphahat’s </span><i style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 14pt;">Demonstrations</i><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 14pt;"> were
wrongly attributed to Jacob of Nisibis (Burgon pointed this out on p. 26 of </span><i style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 14pt;">The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel of Mark,
</i><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 14pt;">calling Aphrahat “Aphraates”). Nevertheless Jacob of Nisibis was named in
the textual apparatus of the first edition of the UBS Greek New Testament (1966).</span><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 14pt;"> </span><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 14pt;">This may be an indication of how
little attention was paid to John Burgon by the compilers of the Nestle-Aland NTG
and the UBS GNT in its first and second editions.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 14pt;"> Rather than replace Jacob of
Nisibis’ name with Aphrahat’s name, the textual apparatus for Mark 16:17-18 in the fourth and fifth editions of the UBS GNT features <b>neither</b>. For those who rely on the textual apparatus
of the UBS GNT4 and <a href="https://www.amazon.com/UBS-5th-Revised-Greek-Testament/dp/3438051184">UBS GNT5</a>, it is as if Aphrahat’s support of Mark 16:16-18 in <i>Demonstration One</i>, instead of being changed from an incorrect
identification (as Jacob of Nisibis) to a correct identification (as Aphrahat),
<i>has blinked out of existence. </i> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 14pt;"> No doubt this
was merely an editorial oversight; certainly Carlo Martini and Kurt Aland and Bruce Metzger would
never have thought of attempting to evade or silence an important voice such as
Aphrahat’s. (I would like to
imagine that Aphrahat’s name did not
appear in the textual apparatus of NA27 simply because there was not enough room on the page to include it – but, alas, I cannot, because half of the page of
NA27 that features Mark 16:17b-20 is entirely blank. The editors of NA27 found room to include <a href="https://goodspeed.lib.uchicago.edu/ms/index.php?doc=0972&obj=001">GA 2427</a>
(which has turned out to be a forgery made in the 1800s) in the apparatus for Mark 16:18, and <a href="https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10723024v/f16.item">GA 579</a> (from the 1200s), but somehow they did not find room to include Aphrahat’s name.) (A novice reader, unfamiliar with the complex nuances of evidence-citation and apparatus-making, could get the impression that the selection of witnesses in the apparatuses of the Nestle-Aland NTG and UBS GNT has been somewhat biased.) <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 14pt;"> The GNT’s current editors are
welcome to express their penitence (or serve as proxy-voices for previous
editors) by including Aphrahat’s name in the textual apparatus of the yet-to-be-released
6<sup>th</sup> edition. Perhaps someone by then
will still dare to rely on such an unreliable source for patristic evidence as
the UBS GNT’s textual apparatus has been.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 14pt;"> (A final note about Aphrahat: he believed strongly that baptism is central
in conversion – that is, he did not treat it as an optional afterthought. In his <i>Demonstration</i>
6, <i>Concerning Monks</i> – in which Aphrahat’s
writing seeps with Scripture-references like a dead skunk smells like skunk – he
writes, in the 14th paragraph, the following (translated into English from
Syriac): “Remember the warning that the
apostle [St. Paul in Ephesians 4:30] gives us:
‘Grieve not the Holy Spirit whereby ye have been sealed unto the day of
redemption.’ For from baptism do we
receive the Spirit of Christ. For in
that hour in which the priests invoke the Spirit, the heavens open and it
descends and moves upon the waters [cf. Gen. 1:2]. And those that are baptized are clothed in it. For the Spirit stays aloof from all that are
born of the flesh, until they come to the new birth by water, and then they
receive the Holy Spirit. For in the
first birth they are born with an animal soul which is created within man and
is not thereafter subject to death, as he said, ‘Adam became a living
soul.’ [Cf. Gen. 2:7] But in the second
birth, that through baptism, they received the Holy Spirit from a particle of
the Godhead, and it is not again subject to death.”)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p><b> </b></p>
<p> </p>James Snapp Jrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09493891380752272603noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6346409181794331060.post-2566866397495436532023-03-15T13:47:00.001-04:002023-03-18T10:47:04.801-04:00Peter Chrysologus (Who?) and the Final Section of the Gospel of Mark<p><span style="font-size: 14pt;"></span></p><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; font-family: arial;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEizWgcPkGMJdAPY08emzYOjmAwcPZVLPtgqgHvIYNV1F3Loh7C-PzER6Bm3oDXH8ypMAEN40P0V9c7o0Q3_80yejYlGQxONEfgI6SZMGipY7wbYWpeEs_gMEa6BqAVbf1I7JfEl_Z_IDj-gclHcU7bdsXhprs64SS435dtsYt_uhKKwTRINur7b-XTO/s495/Chrysologus.png" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="450" data-original-width="495" height="291" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEizWgcPkGMJdAPY08emzYOjmAwcPZVLPtgqgHvIYNV1F3Loh7C-PzER6Bm3oDXH8ypMAEN40P0V9c7o0Q3_80yejYlGQxONEfgI6SZMGipY7wbYWpeEs_gMEa6BqAVbf1I7JfEl_Z_IDj-gclHcU7bdsXhprs64SS435dtsYt_uhKKwTRINur7b-XTO/s320/Chrysologus.png" width="320" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><b>Peter Chrysologus</b><br /><br /></td></tr></tbody></table><span style="font-size: 14pt;"><span style="font-family: arial;"> Peter Chrysologus is not as famous to most Americans as his
contemporaries Augustine and Patrick, but in his day he was highly influential,
for Peter was<b> </b></span></span><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: 14pt;">bishop of <st1:city w:st="on">Ravenna</st1:city>, in <st1:country-region w:st="on">Italy</st1:country-region>,
from 433 to 450, when <st1:city w:st="on">Ravenna</st1:city> was the capital of
the <st1:place w:st="on">Western Roman Empire</st1:place>. (It was in <st1:city w:st="on">Ravenna</st1:city> that the last emperor of the <st1:place w:st="on">Western
Roman Empire</st1:place> was deposed in 476.)
Both the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church honor him
as a capital-S saint. He was declared to
be a doctor of the Roman Catholic Church in 1729, which seems to have caused
generations of modern-day Protestants and American evangelicals to ignore his works. (The fourth edition of the UBS GNT, at least, fails to mention him.) </span><span style="font-size: 14pt;">His
traditional surname “Chrysologus” means </span><i style="font-size: 14pt;">“of the Golden-Word,”</i><span style="font-size: 14pt;"> on account of his many concise yet insightful sermons.</span><span style="font-size: 14pt;"> </span></span><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="font-size: 14pt;"><span style="font-family: arial;"> A selection of Peter Chrysologus’ sermons were
translated into English by George E. Ganss in 1953, and published as Volume 17
in the <i>Fathers of the Church </i>series. More recently (in 2004-2005), Chrysologus’ sermons
were again published in English, having been translated by William B. Palardy,
and quite a bit of Palardy’s translation (in <a href="https://www.google.com/books/edition/Selected_Sermons_Volume_2/ExM3PilnpqIC?gbpv=1">three</a>
<a href="https://www.scribd.com/document/420727187/Fathers-of-the-Church-William-Palardy-St-Peter-Chrysologus-Selected-Sermons-Volume-3-Catholic-University-of-America-Press-2005-pdf">volumes</a>)
can be viewed online. <o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: 14pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Using
Ganss’ translation (Copyright</span><span style="font-size: 14pt;"> 1953, Fathers of the Church, Inc., NY), we may turn to Peter Chrysologus’
83rd Sermon and observe that his text for this concise composition was Mark
16:14-18.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He began by stating, <i>“Thus
the holy Evangelist has told us today that within the very time of the
Crucifixion the Apostles were concerned with the table; that they were gazing
at foods, concerned about banquets, and forgetful of the Lord’s Passion. He
states: ‘<b>He appeared to the eleven as they were reclining at table.’”</b></i><b><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></b><span style="mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">(Cf.
Mk. 16:14a)<b><o:p></o:p></b></span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><b><span style="font-size: 14pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span></span></b><span style="font-size: 14pt; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">The implication of this
seemingly unremarkable opening should not be overlooked:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span><span style="font-size: 14pt;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Chrysologus clearly was not introducing a new
text to his listeners.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="font-size: 14pt;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>As
Chrysologus continues, he briefly criticizes Peter and the other apostles for
seeming to enjoy a meal so shortly after Jesus’ death, inviting his listeners
to imagine Jesus returning to the land of the living to find that his followers
have already resumed going about their own business.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He then quotes Mark 16:14 in full.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="font-size: 14pt;"><span style="font-family: arial;"> Then
Chrysologus’ portrayal of the apostles takes on a more sympathetic tone: using John 20:19 to set the stage, he
explains that the apostles’ meal was not festive, but mournful and despairing,
as if they themselves still tasted the vinegar and gall that had been given to
Jesus. The apostles were locked in. But when Jesus appeared to them He set their
hearts free, Chrysologus explains, and he sent them back into the world via the
words, <b>“Go into the whole world and preach the gospel to every creature.”</b><b> </b> (Cf. Mark 16:15. The Latin text: <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Ite in
mundum universum, praedicate Evangelium universa creaturae</i>. It should be noted that this is slightly
different from the usual Vulgate text, which reads “<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">omni</i>” instead of “<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">universa</i>.”
) <o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="font-size: 14pt;"><span style="font-family: arial;"> Chrysologus
pictures how these words stirred the apostles, and then resumes quoting the
text: <b>“‘He who believes,’ He continues,
‘and is baptized will be saved.’</b><b> </b>
Brethren, faith is to baptism what the soul is to the body. Hence it is that he who is generated from the
font lives by faith: “He who is just
lives by faith.” Therefore everyone who
lacks faith dies.”<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="font-size: 14pt;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>He then
briefly diverges to emphasize that the convert is to believe <i>correctly</i>; he
should not just believe whatever he happens to have already believed, but he
should believe in one triune God, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,
co-equal.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He proceeds to delineate what
should be believed in a somewhat creedal sequence – that Christ arose for our
sake, that Christ, though already everywhere, will return to rule over the
earth, that through Christ sins are forgiven, that man should believe in the
resurrection of the body (“that is, that it is the man himself who arises”),
and in eternal life (“to keep a second death from occurring”).<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: 14pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>“In
addition to this,” writes Chrysologus, as he begins to wrap up, “the greatest
indication of firm faith consists in the following signs.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The devils, that is, the ancient foes, get
exorcised from human bodies.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>One
language intelligible in many others comes forth from one mouth.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Serpents grasped in the name of Christ lose
the power of their venom.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Through
Christ, cups of poison have no power to harm those who drink them.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Bodily diseases are cured at the touch of one
who preaches Christ.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And he then quotes
Mark 16:17-18 – <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">“</i></span><span class="latin"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="background: white; color: black; font-size: 14pt;">Signa
credentes haec sequantur:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>in nomine meo
daemonia ejicient, linguis loquentur novis, serpentes tollent, et si quid
mortiferum biberint, non<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>nocebit
eos,<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>super agros manus imponent, et bene
habebunt.”</span></i></span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-size: 14pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></i></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="font-size: 14pt;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Lest
anyone misunderstand his words as an invitation to recklessness, Chrysologus
concludes, “Therefore, O man, be a<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>physician to yourself through your faith,” and he instructs his
listeners to pray so that “we may be free from anxiety and exult because of our
good conscience.”<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="font-size: 14pt;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Very clearly,
the final section of the Gospel of Mark was regarded by Peter Chrysologus and
his congregation in <st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Ravenna</st1:place></st1:city>
as sacred and inspired Scripture. <o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="font-size: 14pt;"><o:p><span style="font-family: arial;"> </span></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="font-size: 14pt;"><o:p><span style="font-family: arial;"> </span></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="font-size: 14pt;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>(The
<a href="https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_B1LIM0Wk87UC/page/n5/mode/2up">1750
edition of Peter Chrysologus’ sermons</a>, prepared by Sebastianus Pauli <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">et al</i>, <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>was used to access the Latin Text.) </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="font-size: 14pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="font-size: 14pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>James Snapp Jrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09493891380752272603noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6346409181794331060.post-39268801859587144962023-03-14T20:19:00.003-04:002023-03-16T13:29:19.628-04:00Saint Patrick and Mark 16:15-16<p><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 14pt;"></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiQmFyqtxl0hLwgT8RVSMD7zfatunyJhFAzEXDFont2Mq7THdYveSE4oLbKCIXro81vhABg9r0gfKy5eUgNRtQcPcb_V2QH5U1nrnr6yPJ0YNpSWj-isukwEqHsdXP6FYo-8qhdSHUQPRtGAhXFM8N2tPZVM7mFUcaiT5GgGoKKtLKUCAPk1O1YQF5x/s512/Patrick%20March%202023.png" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="476" data-original-width="512" height="298" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiQmFyqtxl0hLwgT8RVSMD7zfatunyJhFAzEXDFont2Mq7THdYveSE4oLbKCIXro81vhABg9r0gfKy5eUgNRtQcPcb_V2QH5U1nrnr6yPJ0YNpSWj-isukwEqHsdXP6FYo-8qhdSHUQPRtGAhXFM8N2tPZVM7mFUcaiT5GgGoKKtLKUCAPk1O1YQF5x/s320/Patrick%20March%202023.png" width="320" /></a></div> <span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: 14pt;"> <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIphXep4nSQ">Saint Patrick</a> was not a
leprechaun. He was a historical person,
a missionary in the 400s who was instrumental in the conversion of the Irish
people to Christianity. Two compositions
by St. Patrick survive to the present day:
</span><i><span style="font-size: 14pt;"><a href="https://www.ancienttexts.org/library/celtic/ctexts/p02.html">The Letter
to Coroticus</a> </span></i><span style="font-size: 14pt;">and <i><a href="https://files.romanroadsstatic.com/uploads/2015/06/StPatrickConfession-V2-0.pdf">Confession</a></i>. One interesting detail in both of these
compositions is that Patrick makes use of material in Mark 16:9-20.</span></span><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: 14pt;"> In </span><span style="color: black; font-size: 14pt;">R. P. C. Hanson’s book <i>The Life and
Writings of the Historical Saint Patrick</i>, pp. 44-45 (© 1983 R. P. C.
Hanson, published by the Seabury Press, New York),</span><span style="font-size: 14pt;"> the author observed that “There
is no clear evidence that Patrick knew or used Jerome’s Vulgate. But he certainly
knew the Latin Bible used by the British church supremely well.” <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Therefore
Patrick’s citations should be regarded as echoes of an Old Latin text which was
in use in <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Ireland</st1:place></st1:country-region>
in the mid-400s.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="font-size: 14pt;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>In
<i><a href="https://www.ancienttexts.org/library/celtic/ctexts/p02.html">Letter
to Coroticus</a></i>, paragraph 20, (according to the English translation by John
Skinner), in the course of denouncing Coroticus for attacking a group of new
Christian converts, Patrick wrote, “I bear witness before God and his angels
that it shall be just as he signified to me, unskilled though I am. That which
I have set out in Latin is not my words but the words of God and of apostles
and prophets, who of course have never lied. <b>He who believes shall be saved,
but he who does not believe shall be damned.</b> God has spoken.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Patrick thus quoted Mark 16:16.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="font-size: 14pt;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>In
<i><a href="http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/celtic/ctexts/p01.html">Confession</a>,
</i><span style="mso-bidi-font-style: italic;">paragraph </span>40, Patrick assembled
several Biblical passages as he wrote, “We are strictly bound to spread out our
nets, so that an abundant multitude and a crowd should be caught for God and
that there should be clergy everywhere who should baptize and preach to the
needy and expectant masses, just as the Lord says in the gospel, he warns and
teaches in the text, <i>Go therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in
the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to
observe all things, whatever I have taught you. </i>And in another place he
says, <i>Go therefore into the whole world and <b>preach the gospel to every
creature; whoever believes and is baptized will be saved but whoever does not
believe will be damned</b></i>” (Cf. Matthew 28:19, Mark 16:15-16).<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="font-size: 14pt;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Just
something to remember the next time you read a commentary that tells you that the Old
Latin did not include Mark 16:9-20. Have a happy Saint Patrick's Day!<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="font-size: 14pt;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="font-size: 14pt;"><span style="font-family: arial;"> </span><b style="font-family: Calibri;"><o:p></o:p></b></span></p>James Snapp Jrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09493891380752272603noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6346409181794331060.post-59647666970705700972023-03-06T12:11:00.001-05:002023-03-14T11:44:22.705-04:00Saint Augustine and Mark 16:18<p> <b><span style="font-family: "Book Antiqua"; font-size: 14pt;"> </span></b><span style="font-family: "Book Antiqua"; font-size: 14pt;">Saint Augustine of Hippo (354-430) is known far and wide for his work in theology, and for his book <i>Confessions</i>
and <i>City of <st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">God</st1:place></st1:city></i>.
Less well-known is his interpretation of part of Mark 16:18. This is not surprising, since although his
name appears in the UBS GNT’s textual apparatus for this verse, his composition
<i>On the Soul</i> <i>and Its Origin</i> is not often consulted by
modern commentators. Too many modern
commentators do not offer any comment on Mark 16:9-20, except to say that it is
a late and spurious passage. (I know not
why they might imagine that the verdict of “late and spurious” is supported by
the evidence from the 100s, which is earlier than any manuscript of Mark 16
known to exist. More about that, God
willing, in a future post.)</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="font-family: "Book Antiqua"; font-size: 14pt; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>But unlike the commentators who
are chronologically further away from Saint Mark, Saint Augustine, who was chronologically
much closer, expressed no doubt about recognizing Mark 16:9-20 as authoritative
Scripture.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Some people might wonder, <i>“We
have heard Papias’ report that Justus (Joseph Barsabas) was compelled by
unbelievers to drink snake-poison, and we have read Luke’s report that Paul was
not harmed when a viper struck him on the <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:placetype w:st="on">island</st1:placetype> of <st1:placename w:st="on">Malta</st1:placename></st1:place>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But it is not as if Justus prepared his own
goblet of poison, and Paul had been looking for sticks, not a viper.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Christian congregations throughout the world
have not become famous for putting the LORD to the test by picking up snakes or
by drinking deadly poison, which is done at some congregations in American
Appalachia – sometimes with disastrous consequences.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>How did <st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Saint
Augustine</st1:place></st1:city> interpret Mark 16:18?”</i><br />
<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>To find out, we need only take
in hand Augustine’s book and turn to the second chapter (or, book), and read.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Augustine cited Mark 16:15 in the second
chapter of his <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Fourth Homily on First
John, To the Parthians,</i> but for now, let’s focus on his interpretation of
Mark 16:18.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Each chapter of <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">On the Soul and Its Origin</i> is a letter.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In the first letter, written to Augustine’s
colleague Renatus, Augustine identified and diagnosed some doctrinal errors he
had found in two books written by an author named Victor, which Augustine had
received from Renatus.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In the second
letter, written to a presbyter named Peter, Augustine informed Peter of the
false teachings he found in Victor’s two books, and he counsels Peter to work
with Renatus to guide Victor away from his erroneous beliefs.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="font-family: "Book Antiqua"; font-size: 14pt; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>That is the context of Book 2, chapter
23.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As
Augustine advised Peter to vocally and openly guide Victor away from the false
beliefs he has expressed – and after he pointed out that Peter might find
additional falsehoods that Augustine has not covered – Augustine compared
Victor’s teachings to a goblet of poisoned wine:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>mostly good, but deadly if consumed.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="font-family: "Book Antiqua"; font-size: 14pt; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Just as poisoned wine might be served
in a beautiful goblet, Augustine wrote, harmful doctrines can be delivered in
well-crafted words.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And if Peter were to
keep silent about what he has read, some people, after observing that Peter has
read Victor’s books, might read them for themselves, and not know which parts
Peter digests, and which parts he leaves in the cup.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="font-family: "Book Antiqua"; font-size: 14pt; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Here I turn directly to the text of
Augustine’s <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">On the Soul and Its Origin, </i>which
I have slightly paraphrased (Book 2 of <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">On
the Soul and Its Origin</i> can be read in English at the New Advent
website):<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="font-family: "Book Antiqua"; font-size: 14pt; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>“They do not know what you have drunk,
and what you have left untasted, and so, in light of your wholesome character,
they assume that whatever is drunk out of this fountain will make them
healthy.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For what are hearing, and
reading, and memorizing what has been read, than different processes of
drinking.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>However, the Lord foretold,
concerning his faithful followers, that even if they might drink any deadly
thing, it would not harm them.<br />
<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>“And thus, those who filter what
they read with discernment may give their approval to what is consistent with
the standards of our faith, and they may disapprove of things that should be
rejected.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And thus, although they commit
to memory statements which are declared to be worthy of disapproval, they
receive no harm from the sentences that are by nature poisonous and depraved.”</span><span style="background: white; font-family: "Book Antiqua"; font-size: 14pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri;"> </span><span style="font-family: "Book Antiqua"; font-size: 14pt; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="font-family: "Book Antiqua"; font-size: 14pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This is a correct way to apply the
passage.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Such an interpretation never
occurs to many commentators today, I suspect, because either <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">(a)</i> English-speakers mainly think of drinking
as something done to a physical liquid (although people still might
occasionally say things like, “Soak up this lesson,” or “Savor your victory”),
or <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">(b)</i> the commentators fail to
interpret all of Mark 16:9-20 because they have not taken a close look at the
voluminous evidence in its favor. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="font-family: "Book Antiqua"; font-size: 14pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Some
people might object, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">“But brother Snapp, Christ
the living Word does not speak in
riddles.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And the Holy Spirit does not
speak in riddles.”</i> But I <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>commend to them
to perceive the meaning of the parables that Jesus told, to listen again to
statements such as Luke 12:49-50 (where Jesus refers to the Holy Spirit as a
fire, and to his sufferings as a baptism), and to consider that the
words of Psalm 78:2 are repeated in Matthew 13:35. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><b><span style="font-family: "Book Antiqua"; font-size: 14pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span></span></b><span style="font-family: "Book Antiqua"; font-size: 14pt; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">While we are on the subject of Augustine’s use of
the final portion of the Gospel according to Mark (which was received in the
early church as Mark’s presentation of the memoirs of Saint Peter the apostle),
let us take a look at another composition by Augustine:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>his <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Harmony
of the Gospels</i>, which he composed before the year 400.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="font-family: "Book Antiqua"; font-size: 14pt; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">“But
brother Snapp,”</i> someone might say, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">“Those
who study the manuscripts scientifically know that the Western Old Latin text
is notorious due to its expansions.” </i><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That is true.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>It is also true that the most of the changes found in the Western Old
Latin text are benign (usually attempting to clarify or specify the authors’
meaning, although occasionally the attempt is very poorly made, like in <a href="https://www.thetextofthegospels.com/2016/03/mark-141-why-niv-is-wrong.html">Mark 1:41</a>) and where the changes are substantial, they
tend not to amount to more than a few <span style="color: red;"><a href="https://www.google.com/books/edition/Twenty_five_Agrapha/l6IOAAAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=agrapha&printsec=frontcover">agrapha</a></span>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Also . . . .” Keep reading.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="font-family: "Book Antiqua"; font-size: 14pt; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"><o:p> </o:p></span><span style="font-family: "Book Antiqua"; font-size: 14pt;"> </span><span style="font-family: "Book Antiqua"; font-size: 14pt;">In Book Three of Augustine’s</span><span style="font-family: "Book Antiqua"; font-size: 14pt;"> </span><i style="font-family: "Book Antiqua"; font-size: 14pt;"><a href="https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1602325.htm">Harmony of the Gospels</a></i><span style="font-family: "Book Antiqua"; font-size: 14pt;">,
in the 24</span><sup style="font-family: "Book Antiqua";">th</sup><span style="font-family: "Book Antiqua"; font-size: 14pt;"> and 25</span><sup style="font-family: "Book Antiqua";">th</sup><span style="font-family: "Book Antiqua"; font-size: 14pt;"> chapters, Mark 16 is covered in detail.</span><span style="font-family: "Book Antiqua"; font-size: 14pt;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="font-family: "Book Antiqua"; font-size: 14pt; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Before focusing on the Gospel of Mark,
though, Augustine comments on Luke 24 (showing the “Western” arrangement of the
Gospels, Matthew-John-Luke-Mark), only briefly mentioning that “</span><span style="background: white; font-family: "Book Antiqua"; font-size: 14pt;">Mark
likewise mentions that He appeared first to Mary Magdalene; as also does John,”
thus referring to Mark 16:9) and Augustine quotes the Gospel of Luke
24:13-24.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>After offering his explanation
of how Luke’s account interlocks with the accounts from Matthew and John,
Augustine turns to what Paul wrote in his first letter to the church at <st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Corinth</st1:place></st1:city>:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">“</i></span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Book Antiqua"; font-size: 14pt;">He was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>After that He was seen of above five hundred
brethren at once.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></i><span style="font-family: "Book Antiqua"; font-size: 14pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="font-family: "Book Antiqua"; font-size: 14pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Augustine proceeds to explain why Paul would say <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">“the twelve”</i> rather than <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">“the eleven.”</i> <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He noticed a textual variant, saying that some
copies of First Corinthians 15:5 read “eleven” rather than “twelve.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>[There are a few Greek-Latin copies, D* F G, which
display this reading, which shows how the Old Latin text invaded the “Western”
Greek manuscripts.]<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Granting that there
were just eleven apostles after the death of Judas, Augustine explains that
there are three options:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">(a)</i> either the reading “eleven” is
correct, or <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">(b)</i> Paul was referring to
twelve other disciples, or <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">(c)</i> <span style="background: white;">Paul used the term ”the twelve” as a symbolically
significant number, the twelve apostles being the counterpart to the twelve
tribes of Israel (i.e., the ten sons of Jacob + Jacob’s two grandsons
Ephraim and Manasseh). By time time Luke wrote, Judas’ place had been taken by
Matthias (as Luke reports in Acts 1:15-26).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="background: white; font-family: "Book Antiqua"; font-size: 14pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "Book Antiqua"; font-size: 14pt; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">When Augustine reached
the passage known today as Mark 16:12, he stated that Mark reports, “</span><i><span style="font-family: "Book Antiqua"; font-size: 14pt;">And after that He appeared
in another form unto two of them, as they walked and went to a country-seat.’” </span></i><span style="font-family: "Book Antiqua"; font-size: 14pt; mso-bidi-font-style: italic;">(It
should not be overlooked that Augustine does not attribute this to Peter, but
to Mark.)<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Augustine proceeds to
write:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>“In the Greek codices, indeed,
the reading which we discover is ‘estate’ rather than ‘country-seat.’” <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>To make sure everyone grasps and understands
the significance of the statement from Augustine, I repeat:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Greek copies of the Gospels in North Africa
that were used by Augustine in <st1:place w:st="on">North Africa</st1:place>
show that Mark 16:9-20 was included in the text in those Greek copies. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="font-family: "Book Antiqua"; font-size: 14pt; mso-bidi-font-style: italic;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Also, Augustine’s use of Old Latin
copies shows that Mark 16:9-20 was included in Old Latin copies of the Gospels
– contrary to what has been claimed by commentators such as Ron Rhodes (see his
error on page <span style="color: black;">31 of </span></span><i><span style="color: black; font-size: 14pt;">The Complete Book of Bible Answers </span></i><span style="color: black; font-size: 14pt;">by Ron Rhodes, © 1997 by Ron Rhodes,
published by Harvest House Publishers, republished in 2007 as <i>What Does the
Bible Say About…?) </i><span style="mso-bidi-font-style: italic;">and </span></span><span style="font-family: "Book Antiqua"; font-size: 14pt; mso-bidi-font-style: italic;">James
Edwards (see his error on pages 497-498 of his commentary on the Gospel
According to Mark in the <i>Pillar Commentary Series, </i></span><span style="font-family: "Book Antiqua"; font-size: 14pt;">© 2002 Wm. B. Eerdmans
Publishing Co.).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="font-family: "Book Antiqua"; font-size: 14pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>(I do not wish to depart from the subject of Augustine here,
but it should be noted that two Old Latin copies lack Mark 16:9-20:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>the copy known as Codex Bobbiensis (VL 1, <i>k</i>), which has
a very strange text at the end of Mark – it features an interpolation between
Mark 16:3 and 16:4, and its text concludes with a truncated text of verse 8
followed by the “Shorter Ending” – and Codex Vercellensis (VL 3, <i>a</i>), which, due to
damage, does not have the pages with text after Mark 15:15 that the codex had before it was
damaged.)<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span><i><span style="color: blue;"><o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><i><span style="font-family: "Book Antiqua"; font-size: 14pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span></span></i><span style="font-family: "Book Antiqua"; font-size: 14pt; mso-bidi-font-style: italic;">Augustine’s name appeared in the textual apparatus
of the fourth edition of the UBS GNT, but an acknowledgment of the testimony of
Augustine’s Greek manuscripts did not.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>This oversight should be amended.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Greek copies possessed by Augustine in the year 400 provide substantial
early testimony about what Greek text of the Gospels was transmitted in <st1:place w:st="on">North Africa</st1:place>.<i><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span></i><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><i><span style="font-family: "Book Antiqua"; font-size: 14pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></i><span style="font-family: "Book Antiqua"; font-size: 14pt;"> Readers who </span><span style="font-family: "Book Antiqua"; font-size: 14pt;">see
Augustine’s testimony in favor of the inclusion of Mark 16:9-20, and the
testimony of Augustine’s Greek manuscripts in favor of the inclusion of Mark
16:9-20 should also observe a beautiful theme that Augustine mentions:</span><span style="font-family: "Book Antiqua"; font-size: 14pt;"> </span><span style="font-family: "Book Antiqua"; font-size: 14pt;">the parallel between the twelve tribes of
Israel and the twelve apostles.</span><span style="font-family: "Book Antiqua"; font-size: 14pt;"> </span><span style="font-family: "Book Antiqua"; font-size: 14pt;">The
children of </span><st1:country-region style="font-family: "Book Antiqua"; font-size: 14pt;" w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Israel</st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-family: "Book Antiqua"; font-size: 14pt;">
would have been made of ten tribes eligible to have land (the tribe of Levi had
cities, not territory), if Joseph’s two sons had not been added into the
picture (in Genesis 48).</span><span style="font-family: "Book Antiqua"; font-size: 14pt;"> </span><span style="font-family: "Book Antiqua"; font-size: 14pt;">Only after
Joseph, Jacob’s favorite son, was removed from the picture, and his place was taken by his
two sons, Ephraim and Manasseh, </span><span style="font-family: "Book Antiqua"; font-size: 14pt;">did the
number of tribes reach twelve.</span><span style="font-family: "Book Antiqua"; font-size: 14pt;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="font-family: "Book Antiqua"; font-size: 14pt; mso-bidi-font-style: italic;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>And a counter-part to that is seen in
the twelve apostles:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>they were initially
twelve in number, but Judas betrayed Jesus (a thematic counterpart to the
opposition to Jesus by the high priest Caiaphas, of the priestly tribe of
Levi), reducing the number of apostles to eleven.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Then James, the brother of John, was killed
by Herod according to Luke’s report in Acts 12:2.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That reduced the number of apostles to ten. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="font-family: "Book Antiqua"; font-size: 14pt; mso-bidi-font-style: italic;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Matthias took Judas’ place (as Luke
reports in Acts 1).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And later on, after
Jesus called Paul of Tarsus to be his witness, the number of apostles was
restored to twelve.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Thus there is a
parallel between Ephraim-and-Manasseh and Matthias-and-Paul:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Manasseh was firstborn and had the right to
receive the firstborn son’s blessing (and Joseph, in Genesis 48, said that this
was his right).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Yet Jacob insisted that
while Manasseh would also be great (see Genesis 48:19), he knew that Ephraim would be greater and that his descendants would become “a multitude of nations.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="font-family: "Book Antiqua"; font-size: 14pt; mso-bidi-font-style: italic;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Likewise, although James the son of
Zebedee was a great apostle, and was chosen first (cf. Mark 1:19), Saint Paul (the
last<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>apostle to be chosen) was greater,
for after he heard Jesus’ call, he shared the good news about Jesus Christ to
many nations, and wrote epistles which are included among the books of the New
Testament, and his spiritual offspring have grown into a multitude of nations
all over the world where the good news of Jesus Christ is proclaimed.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="font-family: "Book Antiqua"; font-size: 14pt; mso-bidi-font-style: italic;"><br /></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="font-family: "Book Antiqua"; font-size: 14pt; mso-bidi-font-style: italic;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>James Snapp Jrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09493891380752272603noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6346409181794331060.post-91691832211762263632023-02-20T21:53:00.001-05:002023-02-21T10:47:26.086-05:00Revelation of the Magi: More Support for Mark 16:9-20<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhWIlbEYJI7XQuT2r6eB1R_5Fkr_I5CpQTRjZ9_eDgEotmBQ3lMxXlh4Y8NgNPcEGaAV0yxoCuavNyv999CYQ4yaruXTIRIAgSvzs9IFTE914RgecNle92GZj80K0WcAw2cCgIltUKpfuwGi2zlgbVYTcTYRlR-4tIDXuPw9f7iiqSSySy8hUb71fP9/s662/Rev%20Magi%20Book%20Cover.png" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="662" data-original-width="451" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhWIlbEYJI7XQuT2r6eB1R_5Fkr_I5CpQTRjZ9_eDgEotmBQ3lMxXlh4Y8NgNPcEGaAV0yxoCuavNyv999CYQ4yaruXTIRIAgSvzs9IFTE914RgecNle92GZj80K0WcAw2cCgIltUKpfuwGi2zlgbVYTcTYRlR-4tIDXuPw9f7iiqSSySy8hUb71fP9/s320/Rev%20Magi%20Book%20Cover.png" width="218" /></a></div> <span style="font-family: "Book Antiqua"; font-size: 14pt;"> In the Vatican Library, there is a
little-known manuscript, <a href="https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.sir.162">Sir.
162</a>, from the 700s, which is the sole surviving copy of a composition
called <i>Revelation of the Magi</i>. <a href="https://liberalarts.utexas.edu/rs/faculty/bl23254">Dr. Brent Landau</a>
(Th. D., <st1:placename w:st="on">Harvard</st1:placename> <st1:placename w:st="on">Divinity</st1:placename>
<st1:placetype w:st="on">School</st1:placetype>), of the <st1:placetype w:st="on">University</st1:placetype>
of <st1:placename w:st="on">Texas</st1:placename> at <st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Austin</st1:place></st1:city>, has studied this text in detail, and
translated it into English. His
translation was published in 2010 by HarperCollins as part of the book </span><i><span style="font-family: "Book Antiqua"; font-size: 14pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri;">The Revelation of the Magi – The
Lost Tale of the Wise Men’s Journey to Bethlehem</span></i><span style="font-family: "Book Antiqua"; font-size: 14pt;">. </span><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Book Antiqua"; font-size: 14pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Manuscript Sir. 162 was studied in the
mid-1860s by Otto Tullberg, a Swedish scholar, and <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Revelation of the Magi</i> was described by M.R. James in 1927 under
the name <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Liber de Nativate Salvatoris</i>.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Book Antiqua"; font-size: 14pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>A
similar composition is embedded in the Latin composition known as <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><a href="https://manipulus-project.wlu.ca/OpusImperfectum.pdf">Opus Imperfectum in
Matthaeum</a></i>, which was produced in the 400s.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Book Antiqua"; font-size: 14pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>When
was <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Revelation of the Magi</i>
composed?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Dr. Landau has proposed that <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Revelation of the Magi</i> was composed in
Syriac in the late 100s or early 200s, with a later expansion (mainly consisting of the final episode of the book) made in the 300s or 400s.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="font-family: "Book Antiqua"; font-size: 14pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span></span></p><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjzyQ1l1de9paqBFy_W38DUhy4q9KW585IpvrYxzmspGr2NcB6WnQqW-RffLdREAurKYbmYPr9RfZoD6MrLvNnHLm4IW2qmcRsTcOVOTpfYlT8klTwLjNozrNi-VizrjxcdQAcYd5YDpvO8WjiP4k5WGwvWcUCL0R8BvmN2lU3pw9WkSKdMv-1MYaBc/s327/Landau.png" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="327" data-original-width="233" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjzyQ1l1de9paqBFy_W38DUhy4q9KW585IpvrYxzmspGr2NcB6WnQqW-RffLdREAurKYbmYPr9RfZoD6MrLvNnHLm4IW2qmcRsTcOVOTpfYlT8klTwLjNozrNi-VizrjxcdQAcYd5YDpvO8WjiP4k5WGwvWcUCL0R8BvmN2lU3pw9WkSKdMv-1MYaBc/s320/Landau.png" width="228" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><b>Dr. Brent Landau</b></span></td></tr></tbody></table><span style="font-family: "Book Antiqua"; font-size: 14pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>It is an interesting narrative.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Readers who want to learn more about it may
read <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Revelation-Magi-Lost-Journey-Bethlehem/dp/0061947032">Dr.
Landau’s book</a>, or the summary <a href="https://www.tonyburke.ca/wp-content/uploads/Landau-Revelation-of-the-Magi.pdf">here</a>
(the summary of the translation begins on p. 20 of the PDF) or his dissertation (<a href="https://www.academia.edu/207910/The_Sages_and_the_Star_Child_An_Introduction_to_the_Revelation_of_the_Magi_An_Ancient_Christian_Apocryphon">here</a>).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>My focus is on a specific feature:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>its use of the contents of Mark 16:9-20.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>In <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Rev. Magi</i> 15:8, there is a
reference to Christ as “</span><span style="font-family: "Book Antiqua"; font-size: 14pt; mso-bidi-font-family: GoudyOldStyleT-Regular;">the one in whose name signs and
portents take place through his believers.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>This alone would be a strong allusion to Mark 16:17.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But even clearer is a passage in 31:10 – part
of the portion which was added in the 300s – where the apostle Thomas (called
“Judas Thomas” in <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Rev. Magi</i>) is
depicted saying ““Therefore, my brethren, let us fulfill the commandment of our
Lord, who said to us:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>‘Go out into the
entire world and preach my Gospel.’”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>This is a plain utilization of Mark 16:15 (although in Landau’s
dissertation a footnote treats it as a utilization of Matthew 28:18).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="font-family: "Book Antiqua"; font-size: 14pt; mso-bidi-font-family: GoudyOldStyleT-Regular;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>None of which you would learn about
from the apparatus of the Nestle-Aland NTG, or<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>the UBS GNT, or the Tyndale House GNT (which breaks from its strange practice of presenting no patristic evidence by inserting, between Mark 16:8
and 16:9, an annotation which is taken from minuscule 1.)<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Yet again the apparatus of Nestle-Aland’s NTG
and the apparatus of UBS’s GNT and the apparatus of the Tyndale House GNT are
silent about a significant piece of early evidence supportive of Mark
16:9-20.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="font-family: "Book Antiqua"; font-size: 14pt; mso-bidi-font-family: GoudyOldStyleT-Regular;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>It is no wonder that many preachers
in Europe and <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">America</st1:place></st1:country-region> still reject Mark 16:9-20:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>they have been
misled for over a century by commentators who relied on selective presentations
of the relevant evidence.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But hopefully
they will not be so gullible as to continue to trust sources that have
demonstrated their untrustworthiness again and again and again.</span><span style="font-family: "Book Antiqua"; font-size: 14pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>James Snapp Jrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09493891380752272603noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6346409181794331060.post-45094830419195834812023-02-18T10:28:00.000-05:002023-02-18T10:28:27.391-05:00Meet GA 473<p> GA 473 is
the same manuscript that was known to F. H. A. Scrivener in 1853 as Lambeth
Palace MS 1178 when he collated it (as Gospels-MS “d”) for his book about <a href="https://archive.org/details/MN41408ucmf_5"><i>A Full and Exact Collation of About Twenty
Greek Manuscripts of the Holy Gospels</i>. </a></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>“It is one
of the most splendid manuscripts extant,” Scrivener wrote about GA 473.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He also mentioned that GA 473’s text
“contains many remarkable variations, such as Scholz would refer to his
Alexandrian recension.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><a href="https://www.skypoint.com/members/waltzmn/Manuscripts1-500.html#m473">Robert
Waltz has briefly updated Scrivener</a>, noting that GA 473 is part of von
Soden’s “family I<sup>KC</sup>,” and thus an imperfect representative of Family
Π, which constitutes, for the most part, the earliest stratum of the Byzantine
Text of the Gospels. </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjrQuKCB6T1aoo6rh8UWmb5o0R-rIHuSUFMhqFhCT9YZ3QLdd8WNQ6RgDXurR7hSpIFj1dr2EMAXIq2kODtEVqcx7EdWC6rCkgm2U1To_zPFMMpa06jIRprjVBwxvAuzFh-HP11qtb-r5PVxGMzjeJ52KaZtnSMKkdCopnr7n09DEybxQUvr8Rxt0XM/s1173/Luke%2022%2043%20GA%20473.png" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="803" data-original-width="1173" height="274" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjrQuKCB6T1aoo6rh8UWmb5o0R-rIHuSUFMhqFhCT9YZ3QLdd8WNQ6RgDXurR7hSpIFj1dr2EMAXIq2kODtEVqcx7EdWC6rCkgm2U1To_zPFMMpa06jIRprjVBwxvAuzFh-HP11qtb-r5PVxGMzjeJ52KaZtnSMKkdCopnr7n09DEybxQUvr8Rxt0XM/w400-h274/Luke%2022%2043%20GA%20473.png" width="400" /></a></div> Scrivener stated that Luke
22:43-44 is obelized, but the passage is accompanied by asterisks, not obeli, in the margin. And the manuscript features more than what
Scrivener shared with his readers: in
the margin of GA 473, alongside Luke 22:43-44, there is also a note referring
to part a Maundy Thursday lection. (This lection begins in Matthew 26; jumps to John 13:1-17, jumps back to Matthew 26, and then jumps to Luke 22:43-44, and then jumps back to Matthew 26:40 (i.e., to Section 296 of Matthew). The hundreds-unit in the margin of GA 473 is an error; the expected
hundreds-unit is 200 (ς) rather than 100 (ρ). Other than this misprint, or rather, miswriting, the marginalia in GA 473 shows how the text was used at Eastertime in the lectionary. (The asterisks need not convey scribal doubt.) (In
the core members of family 13, Luke 22:43-44 is embedded within the text of
Matthew, which is one of the strongest proofs of lectionary influence upon
family 13’s text.) <br /> Scrivener
listed 32 notable unusual readings attested by GA 473. Because he collated the entire text, there is
no need to go through them all here, but a few may be pointed out as examples: <p></p><p class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>At Matthew 23:27, GA 473 reads
τοῖς ἀνθρώποις after φαίνονται, a reading shared by F and 33 (sorta).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><br />
<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>At Mark 16:19, GA 473 reads ἐν
δεξια instead of ἐκ δεξιῶν, a reading shared by C and Δ.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>At Luke
14:32, GA 473 reads εις before πρεσβείαν, yielding a minor tweak of the
meaning.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>At Luke
17:17, GA 473 reads ευκοποτερον (relieved) instead of the usual εκαθαρίσθησαν
(cleansed).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Perhaps an overly scrupulous
scribe did not think that those who did not express thanks for the miraculous
healing Jesus had given merited being called clean.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>At John
2:14, GA 473 is missing the words καὶ περιστερὰς (and doves).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This was very extremely probably due to simple parablepsis from the καὶ before περιστερὰς to the καὶ that comes after
περιστερὰς.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi0M7dVstYYwHmwTwIoYP92vMWDmOByQouwXujix1BNgZbKxBcwyo8Vkx_yz9JcmbuiU1Z5XUJahIBU7j97rHLSqnMDISLcfpcBjRh1_xmwt_ZeJCjeP8_BwQ7vn2wZaXkQ-1DBeR8LpVBs-mBg3YWhT9EEf0rzFkLmBPIufCIy3Skn9ra6Ah2MCZPD/s677/John%205%204%20GA%20473.png" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="628" data-original-width="677" height="371" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi0M7dVstYYwHmwTwIoYP92vMWDmOByQouwXujix1BNgZbKxBcwyo8Vkx_yz9JcmbuiU1Z5XUJahIBU7j97rHLSqnMDISLcfpcBjRh1_xmwt_ZeJCjeP8_BwQ7vn2wZaXkQ-1DBeR8LpVBs-mBg3YWhT9EEf0rzFkLmBPIufCIy3Skn9ra6Ah2MCZPD/w400-h371/John%205%204%20GA%20473.png" width="400" /></a></div><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>At John
13:15, GA 473 reads ποιω instead of ἐποίησα.<p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>At John
19:21, GA 473 is missing the first occurrence of τῶν Ἰουδαίων.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This is probably not accidental, but a case
of stylistic adjustment to remove perceived superfluity.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <a href="https://manuscripts.csntm.org/manuscript/View/GA_473_Lambeth22?OSIS=John.5.4">Digital
page-views of GA 473 at the CSNTM website</a> have been fully indexed. Readers are invited to look over this
manuscript for themselves to view its other interesting features (such as the
obeli in the margin alongside <a href="https://manuscripts.csntm.org/manuscript/View/GA_473_Lambeth22?OSIS=John.5.4">John
5:4</a>, as well as the readings within John 5:4 itself).</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></p>James Snapp Jrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09493891380752272603noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6346409181794331060.post-53541719945508679892023-02-08T00:50:00.001-05:002023-02-08T08:24:36.923-05:00Matthew 21:31 - Who Did the Father's Will?<p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Calibri; font-size: 14pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>“</span><span style="color: black; font-family: Calibri; font-size: 14pt; mso-fareast-font-family: ComicSansMS;">Overall
this is a very difficult problem.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Thus
wrote Wieland Willker, in his <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><a href="http://www.willker.de/wie/TCG/TC-Matthew.pdf">Textual Commentary on the Greek Gospels</a></i>, about the variation-units in Matthew 21:29-31,
to which he devoted eight pages of analysis before concluding that “a fu</span><span style="color: #00000a; font-family: Calibri; font-size: 14pt; mso-fareast-font-family: ComicSansMS;">lly convincing solution is currently not available.”</span><span style="color: black; font-family: Calibri; font-size: 14pt; mso-fareast-font-family: ComicSansMS;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: black; font-family: Calibri; font-size: 14pt; mso-fareast-font-family: ComicSansMS;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>“Verses 29-31 involve a rather complex and difficult
textual problem.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Thus begins the NET’s
note on the same subject – one of the longest notes in the NET.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: black; font-family: Calibri; font-size: 14pt; mso-fareast-font-family: ComicSansMS;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>But you wouldn’t know that there is a very tough textual
variant here from most of our English Bibles.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>The CSB, ESV, NASB, NIV, NLT, EHV, MEV, NRSV, and NKJV all say that the
answer to Jesus’ question was “The first,” and they have no footnote here.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(The EOB-NT is a rare exception; the EOB-NT
has “The first” in the text and a footnote says, “A few manuscripts, notably D,
read “the second” which is unlikely but presents the Jews as spoiling the
parable by giving (seemingly deliberately) the wrong answer.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The EOB’s note could be improved, though, by
replacing “the second” with “the last.”)<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: black; font-family: Calibri; font-size: 14pt; mso-fareast-font-family: ComicSansMS;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>I think one has to go back to J.B. Phillips’
version to find, in English, anything other than “the first” (or, in the CEV, “the
older one”) as the answer that was given to Jesus’ question in Matthew 21:31.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(In Phillips’ version, the answer is given as
“The second one,” echoing the variant </span><span style="color: black; font-size: 14pt; mso-fareast-font-family: ComicSansMS;">δευτερω.</span><span style="color: black; font-family: Calibri; font-size: 14pt; mso-fareast-font-family: ComicSansMS;"> <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A different reading, </span><span style="color: black; font-size: 14pt; mso-fareast-font-family: ComicSansMS;">ὁ</span><span style="color: black; font-family: Calibri; font-size: 14pt; mso-fareast-font-family: ComicSansMS;"> </span><span style="color: black; font-size: 14pt; mso-fareast-font-family: ComicSansMS;">ὕστερος, </span><span style="color: black; font-family: Calibri; font-size: 14pt; mso-fareast-font-family: ComicSansMS;">was in the
text of the 25<sup>th</sup> edition of the Nestle-Aland compilation, and was
also adopted by Westcott & Hort and Tregelles.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(The 1881 Revised Version reads “The
first.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Perhaps the Revision Committee
was unimpressed with Westcott and Hort’s divided opinion.)<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(The
Tyndale House GNT deviates from Tregelles’ compilation, adopting the usual
reading ὁ πρῶτος, with an exceptionally thorough apparatus-entry.) <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: black; font-family: Calibri; font-size: 14pt; mso-fareast-font-family: ComicSansMS;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Hort, in 1881, devoted over two full pages (in <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Notes on Select Readings</i>) to Mt.
21:28-31, and mentioned the view of Lachmann that the Jews’ answer to Jesus in
Mt. 21:31 is “an early interpolation” (along with the four words which follow
it).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Westcott inserted a note of his own
into Hort’s analysis, stating, “Considering the difficulty of the Western
combination of readings it seems not unlikely that Lachmann is substantially
right.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: black; font-family: Calibri; font-size: 14pt; mso-fareast-font-family: ComicSansMS;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>The array of readings in this passage is
interesting:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>first comes a contest in
verse 29:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>οὐ θέλω, ὔστερον δέ μεταμεληθεὶς
ἀπῆλθεν is read by the Byzantine Text, and by C L M W Π 157 565 579; </span><span style="color: black; font-family: Symbol; font-size: 14pt; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-char-type: symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: ComicSansMS; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-symbol-font-family: Symbol;"><span style="mso-char-type: symbol; mso-symbol-font-family: Symbol;">À</span></span><span style="color: black; font-family: Calibri; font-size: 14pt; mso-fareast-font-family: ComicSansMS;">* has almost the same reading but without the δέ).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Codex Vaticanus has, instead, ἐγώ <u>κε</u>
καὶ οὐκ ἀπῆλθεν (“I go, lord, and did not go”).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Third, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="letter-spacing: 2pt;">f</span></i><sup>13</sup> and 700 (<a href="https://www.google.com/books/edition/A_Full_Account_and_Collation_of_the_Gree/pigNAAAAYAAJ?hl=en">Hoskier’s
604</a>) read ὕπαγω κύριε καὶ οὐκ ἀπῆλθεν.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Fourth, Θ (038) has ὕπαγω καὶ οὐκ ἀπῆλθεν.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Fifth, Codex Bezae (05) reads οὐ θέλω ὔστερον
δέ μεταμεληθεὶς ἀπῆλθεν but adds εἰς τὸν ἀμπελωνα (repeating the words from v.
28).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: black; font-family: Calibri; font-size: 14pt; mso-fareast-font-family: ComicSansMS;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>There are other textual contests (Byzantine witnesses
have και before προσελθὼν; Alexandrian witnesses tend to have προσελθὼν δε, and
the scribe of </span><span style="color: black; font-family: Symbol; font-size: 14pt; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-char-type: symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: ComicSansMS; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-symbol-font-family: Symbol;"><span style="mso-char-type: symbol; mso-symbol-font-family: Symbol;">À</span></span><span style="color: black; font-family: Calibri; font-size: 14pt; mso-fareast-font-family: ComicSansMS;"> skipped ὁ δὲ ἀποκριθεὶς ειπεν
in v. 30), but the main contest near the beginning of v. 30 is between ἑτέρω
(another) and δευτέρω (second).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: black; font-size: 14pt; mso-fareast-font-family: ComicSansMS;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span></span><span style="color: black; font-family: Calibri; font-size: 14pt; mso-fareast-font-family: ComicSansMS;">Δευτέρω (second) is supported by B L M S Ω and by most Greek manuscripts,
and by 28 33 700 892 and 1424.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The
Byzantine Textform is somewhat split here, though:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>δευτέρω is in the text and ἑτέρω is in the
margin.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: black; font-family: Calibri; font-size: 14pt; mso-fareast-font-family: ComicSansMS;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Ἡτέρω (the other) is supported by </span><span style="color: black; font-family: Symbol; font-size: 14pt; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-char-type: symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: ComicSansMS; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-symbol-font-family: Symbol;"><span style="mso-char-type: symbol; mso-symbol-font-family: Symbol;">À</span></span><span style="color: black; font-family: Calibri; font-size: 14pt; mso-fareast-font-family: ComicSansMS;">*, D, </span><span style="color: black; font-family: Symbol; font-size: 14pt; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-char-type: symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: ComicSansMS; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-symbol-font-family: Symbol;"><span style="mso-char-type: symbol; mso-symbol-font-family: Symbol;">Q</span></span><span style="color: black; font-family: Calibri; font-size: 14pt; mso-fareast-font-family: ComicSansMS;">, K, Π, W, Y, Δ, 157, 565,
579, et al.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In Codex </span><span style="color: black; font-family: Symbol; font-size: 14pt; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-char-type: symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: ComicSansMS; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-symbol-font-family: Symbol;"><span style="mso-char-type: symbol; mso-symbol-font-family: Symbol;">À</span></span><span style="color: black; font-family: Calibri; font-size: 14pt; mso-fareast-font-family: ComicSansMS;">, someone creatively changed ἑτέρω by putting δ in the left margin
and υ between the first<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>ε and τ, thus
producing the variant δευτέρω.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: black; font-family: Calibri; font-size: 14pt; mso-fareast-font-family: ComicSansMS;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Those two textual contests must be kept in mind as we
approach the main textual contest in verse 31, where we see (after another variation-unit
in v. 31:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>after λεγουσιν, most MSS have αυτω
but not B </span><span style="color: black; font-family: Symbol; font-size: 14pt; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-char-type: symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: ComicSansMS; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-symbol-font-family: Symbol;"><span style="mso-char-type: symbol; mso-symbol-font-family: Symbol;">À</span></span><span style="color: black; font-family: Calibri; font-size: 14pt; mso-fareast-font-family: ComicSansMS;"> L D Θ 33 <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="letter-spacing: 2pt;">f</span></i><sup>13</sup> 788) the answer that
Jesus’ listeners gave:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: black; font-family: Calibri; font-size: 14pt; mso-fareast-font-family: ComicSansMS;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Codex B and some Ethiopic copies support ὁ ὕστερος (“the
later [one]”).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: black; font-family: Calibri; font-size: 14pt; mso-fareast-font-family: ComicSansMS;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Almost all manuscripts support ὁ πρῶτος (“the first”).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgxlPm012xeq4eVtCvq5LKDoqvdRjf86iQfBk9eUyeuprWnaduf7JRIl-z0PjTMcNHgTh6jAabvi0eMAl5wLepvb-AxZEZZwkUVK8uYiB-hvN69pGUY3CqKK7GWKXYuWFyZAhuG-wAWcrji2-RMavpGBea3oRA3LExD7syAOK8yBl77HJoO_TPK_EUB/s794/Mt%2021%2031%20Theta%20038.png" style="clear: left; display: inline; float: left; font-family: Calibri; font-size: 14pt; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: center;"><img border="0" data-original-height="794" data-original-width="730" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgxlPm012xeq4eVtCvq5LKDoqvdRjf86iQfBk9eUyeuprWnaduf7JRIl-z0PjTMcNHgTh6jAabvi0eMAl5wLepvb-AxZEZZwkUVK8uYiB-hvN69pGUY3CqKK7GWKXYuWFyZAhuG-wAWcrji2-RMavpGBea3oRA3LExD7syAOK8yBl77HJoO_TPK_EUB/s320/Mt%2021%2031%20Theta%20038.png" width="294" /></a><span style="color: black; font-family: Calibri; font-size: 14pt; mso-fareast-font-family: ComicSansMS;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Codex D and <a href="https://manuscripts.csntm.org/manuscript/Group/GA_038_digital?OSIS=Matt.21.31">Θ</a> 700 <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="letter-spacing: 2pt;">f</span></i><sup>13</sup> and several Old Latin
copies (a, b, d, e, ff<sup>2</sup>, h, l) and the Sinaitic Syriac and the
Armenian version support ὁ ἔσχατος (“the last”).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: black; font-family: Calibri; font-size: 14pt; mso-fareast-font-family: ComicSansMS;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Let’s remember one of the canons of textual
criticism:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">prefer the more difficult reading</i></b>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The reading of Codex Bezae is the more
difficult reading here – but it also makes Jesus’ hearers appear idiotic; it is
obvious that the son who told his father that he would go, but did not go, did
not do what the father wanted him to do.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: black; font-family: Calibri; font-size: 14pt; mso-fareast-font-family: ComicSansMS;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Jerome’s Vulgate supports ὁ πρῶτος.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But in his <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><a href="https://isidore.co/CalibreLibrary/Jerome,%20St_/Commentary%20on%20Matthew%20(7526)/Commentary%20on%20Matthew%20-%20Jerome,%20St_.pdf">Commentary
on Matthew</a></i>, Jerome said something about the variant in verse 31: “one
should know that with respect to what follows: ‘Which of the two did the
father’s will? And they said, ‘the last,’ the authentic copies do not have ‘the
last’ but ‘the first.’”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Jerome proposed that “If we want to read ‘the last,’ the interpretation is plain.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We would say that the Jews indeed understood
the truth, but they are evasive and do not want to say what they think.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In other words, to Jerome, the reading ὁ ἔσχατος
(“the last”) makes the Jews seem not stupid, but duplicitous.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: black; font-family: Calibri; font-size: 14pt; mso-fareast-font-family: ComicSansMS;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Bruce Metzger, in his <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Textual
Commentary</i>, rejected the very difficult reading of Codex Bezae, stating
that “it is not only difficult, it is nonsensical” – and explained that the UBS
committee judged that D’s reading originated “due to copyists who either
committed a transcriptional blunder or who were motivated by anti-Pharisaic
bias.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Whatever the mechanism was, the
range of its effect must have extended not only to Codex D but to several Latin
copies, to the Sinaitic Syriac, and to Jerome’s “authentic” Latin manuscripts – most of which are major representatives of the Western Text.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 14pt;">[But not the Curetonian
Syriac.</span><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 14pt;"> </span><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 14pt;">As Willker notes, the Curetonian
Syriac was erroneously cited in NA27 as if it supports ὁ ἔσχατος.</span><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 14pt;"> </span><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 14pt;">Willker supplies Peter Williams’ rendering of
the Curetonian Syriac, which concludes with “The first/former”.]</span><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 14pt;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 14pt;">[Another oddity in the
apparatus of NA27 is that </span><span style="font-size: 14pt;">Θ</span><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 14pt;"> is assigned two
readings in v. 31: ἔσχατος and ὕστερος.] </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 14pt;">[A mistake might have been
made by Kurt and Barbara Aland in their
<i>Text of the New Testament </i>where they took
a close look at this passage (beginning on p. 233), and they zoom in on Mt.
21:31 (beginning on page 235). The Alands stated
that ὁ ὕστερος is supported by Codex Vaticanus “and other Greek manuscripts as
well as in some Sahidic manuscripts and the whole Bohairic tradition.” What are the “other Greek manuscripts” here? The apparatus of NA27 lists B </span><span style="font-size: 14pt;">Θ</span><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 14pt;"> <i><span style="letter-spacing: 2pt;">f</span></i><sup>13</sup> 700 <i>al</i>;
however, this seems to refer to the reading ὕστερο</span><span style="font-size: 14pt;">ν</span><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 14pt;"> near the end of v. 30; Swanson gives ὁ ἔσχατος as the reading of </span><span style="font-size: 14pt;">Θ</span><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 14pt;"> <i><span style="letter-spacing: 2pt;">f</span></i><sup>13</sup> 700 in v. 31 before </span><span style="font-size: 14pt;">λέγει</span><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 14pt;">. If there are any other
Greek manuscripts that read ὁ ὕστερος other than Codex Vaticanus, I do not know
what they are. If anyone knows of any, please mention them in the comments.] </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 14pt;"></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgusXGzJ8n4_PHNSc1HSrL0IhUAFCfp-jI2n0rPNtURBX0L5PTO7vd1C_4om1K9XpLOcxHzcXTbZVifioh__BqE8zmajA0GSBNWH3DNATcfapC4kYcJLwciT1R8kGKsB3Zv5lAxNGlKDncF7bYMCZfNilVl8Nt3zDR2LL1EDtpHgccixl-yU4TEPvVw/s1220/Mt%2021%2031%20GA%20700.png" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="674" data-original-width="1220" height="221" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgusXGzJ8n4_PHNSc1HSrL0IhUAFCfp-jI2n0rPNtURBX0L5PTO7vd1C_4om1K9XpLOcxHzcXTbZVifioh__BqE8zmajA0GSBNWH3DNATcfapC4kYcJLwciT1R8kGKsB3Zv5lAxNGlKDncF7bYMCZfNilVl8Nt3zDR2LL1EDtpHgccixl-yU4TEPvVw/w400-h221/Mt%2021%2031%20GA%20700.png" width="400" /></a></div> <span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 14pt;">Now let’s apply another canon:</span><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 14pt;"> </span><b style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 14pt;"><i>prefer the variant which accounts for its
rivals better than they account for it</i></b><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 14pt;">.</span><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 14pt;">
</span><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 14pt;">The reading in Mt. 21:31 adopted in the UBS compilation – ὁ πρῶτος – does
not explain ὁ ὕστερος.</span><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 14pt;"> </span><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 14pt;">And ὁ ὕστερος can
account for ὁ πρῶτος and</span><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 14pt;"> </span><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 14pt;">ὁ ἔσχατος.</span><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 14pt;"> </span><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: black; font-family: Calibri; font-size: 14pt; mso-fareast-font-family: ComicSansMS;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>As as answer to Jesus’ question, ὁ ὕστερος is a somewhat
fluid answer; to someone whose first language was Latin, ὁ ὕστερος might be
misunderstood as if it means “the latter.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>And such a misunderstanding explains the origin of the Western reading;
there is no need to suppose that an “anti-Pharisaic bias” was involved here. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: black; font-family: Calibri; font-size: 14pt; mso-fareast-font-family: ComicSansMS;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span></span><span style="color: black; font-size: 14pt; mso-fareast-font-family: ComicSansMS;">Ὁ</span><span style="color: black; font-family: Calibri; font-size: 14pt; mso-fareast-font-family: ComicSansMS;"> ὕστερος also explains
ὁ πρῶτος:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The answer “The later one”
refers to the first son, not initially (when he said that he would not go), but
later (after he changed his mind).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>An
early scribe who perceived that ὁ ὕστερος could be misunderstood as a reference
to the second son could easily avoid the misunderstanding that mars the Western
Text by making the wording clearer, and he did so, creating the reading ὁ πρῶτος.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: black; font-size: 14pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;"> </span><span style="font-family: arial;">This internal evidence – <i>(1)</i> ὁ ὕστερος is difficult but not nonsensical, and <i>(2)</i> ὁ ὕστερος accounts for ὁ πρῶτος
better than ὁ πρῶτος accounts for ὁ ὕστερος, and <i>(3)</i> ὁ ὕστερος accounts for ὁ
ἔσχατος – compels the adoption of ὁ ὕστερος.
<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: black; font-size: 14pt;"><span style="font-family: arial;"></span></span></p><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg0R-rgkvW_jczMXGsrbsZbSVi-d4bZVGAvfyM7eq6bCLMEHxTZNen4il3WJfrp0zgjZG_86dp8zgyOZHDD2N53nILMOKKGZeqTGKivquIsVgCWAi3qtNOTGTWuQU9DAKPB2BpBEV-FG4v8BNq4UCmpdEMywZp38elP2bh20pzN2VPurE_yYl2cDfQT/s441/Mt%2021%2031%20NA25.png" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="91" data-original-width="441" height="66" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg0R-rgkvW_jczMXGsrbsZbSVi-d4bZVGAvfyM7eq6bCLMEHxTZNen4il3WJfrp0zgjZG_86dp8zgyOZHDD2N53nILMOKKGZeqTGKivquIsVgCWAi3qtNOTGTWuQU9DAKPB2BpBEV-FG4v8BNq4UCmpdEMywZp38elP2bh20pzN2VPurE_yYl2cDfQT/s320/Mt%2021%2031%20NA25.png" width="320" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><b><span style="font-size: medium;">NA 25</span></b></td></tr></tbody></table><span style="color: black; font-size: 14pt;"><span style="font-family: arial;"> Whatever other shortcomings Vaticanus’ Gospels-text has,
here in Matthew 21:31, it preserves the original wording. This
was the verdict of Tregelles, and it should be the reading in future
editions. <br />
<br />
By the way, I adopted ὁ ὕστερος
over a decade ago in my <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Gospel-Matthew-Equitable-Eclectic-Annotated-ebook/dp/B005USIOF0/">Equitable
Eclectic English Edition of the Gospel of Matthew</a>, rendered as “The later
one.” EEEE Matthew, as I call it, is available
as a Kindle e-book on Amazon for $1.99.<o:p></o:p></span></span><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="color: black; font-size: 14pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span><span style="font-size: 14pt;"> </span><span style="font-size: 14pt;">In closing, I
recommend that that the Armenian and Ethiopic evidence in Matthew 21:31 should be
double-checked.</span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span></p><br /><p></p>James Snapp Jrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09493891380752272603noreply@blogger.com13tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6346409181794331060.post-21018770199270568892023-01-30T22:02:00.000-05:002023-01-30T22:02:15.455-05:00Pseudo-Cyril: More Support for Mark 16:9-20<p><span style="font-size: 14pt;">Sometimes it is tempting to
dismiss patristic witnesses whose names begin with “Pseudo-.”</span><span style="font-size: 14pt;"> </span><span style="font-size: 14pt;">After all, “pseudo” means “false,” and such a
name might convey that the reader is encountering the work of an imposter.</span><span style="font-size: 14pt;"> </span><span style="font-size: 14pt;"> </span><span style="font-size: 14pt;">Yet, just as the devil can
quote Scripture for his own purpose, imposters in ancient times could also do
so, allowing the reader to get a look at the Scriptural text the imposter was
using.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 14pt;">Pseudo-Cyril, the author of </span><i style="font-size: 14pt;"><a href="https://www.nasscal.com/e-clavis-christian-apocrypha/homily-on-the-assumption-of-the-virgin-by-pseudo-cyril-of-jerusalem/">Homily on the Virgin Mary and Her Birth and Her Dormition</a></i><span style="font-size: 14pt;">,
might initially appear to be one such imposter.</span><span style="font-size: 14pt;">
</span><span style="font-size: 14pt;">(The Cyril being referenced is Cyril of Jerusalem, who died in
386.)</span><span style="font-size: 14pt;"> </span><span style="font-size: 14pt;">But he does not describe himself
as Cyril of Jerusalem, and he refers to Cyril of Jerusalam in the course of his
homily.</span><span style="font-size: 14pt;"> Pseudo-Cyril i</span><span style="font-size: 14pt;">s simply an anonymous writer
whose homily is thrown in with the works of Cyril of Jerusalem.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 14pt;">I think that Pseudo-Cyril</span><span style="background-color: white; font-size: 18.6667px;">’</span><span style="font-size: 14pt;">s homily has been assigned to the first half of the 500s.</span><span style="font-size: 14pt;"> (His manuscript o</span><span style="font-size: 14pt;">f the
Gospels, if it was brand new when he used it, was about 225 years younger than
Codex Vaticanus.)</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 14pt;">E.A.W. Budge translated
Pseudo-Cyril’s homily into English in 1915; the translation can be found online </span><a href="https://sites.google.com/site/christanitystudies/home/cyril-of-jerusalem-homily-on-the-dormition" style="font-size: 14pt;"><span style="color: black;">here</span></a><span style="font-size: 14pt;">.</span><span style="font-size: 14pt;">
</span><span style="font-size: 14pt;">Budge used the text in </span><span style="background: white; font-size: 14pt;">Brit. Mus. MS.
Oriental No. 6784 as the basis for his translation. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 14pt;">After a </span><span style="background-color: white; font-size: 18.6667px;">verbose beginning, Pseudo-Cyril </span><span style="font-size: 14pt;">mentions the widow’s
two mites, and the fish that Peter was commanded to catch. Pseudo-Cyril zooms
in on the heresies that had been spread by Ebion and Harpocratius (Carpocrates?).</span><span style="font-size: 14pt;"> </span><span style="font-size: 14pt;">He then presents an
account of Mary’s family.</span><span style="font-size: 14pt;">
</span><span style="font-size: 14pt;">Mary the mother of Jesus is identified as Mary Magdalene.</span><span style="font-size: 14pt;">
</span><span style="font-size: 14pt;">It must be emphasized that Pseudo-Cyril is <b>not</b> saying that Mary the
mother of Jesus is the same individual who is named “Mary Magdalene” in the Gospels.</span><span style="font-size: 14pt;"> </span><span style="font-size: 14pt;">Pseudo-Cyril is merely claiming that Mary the
mother of Jesus was born in the </span><st1:place style="font-size: 14pt;" w:st="on"><st1:placetype w:st="on">village</st1:placetype>
of <st1:placename w:st="on">Magdala</st1:placename></st1:place><span style="font-size: 14pt;">.</span><span style="font-size: 14pt;"> </span><span style="font-size: 14pt;">Mary the mother of Jesus and Mary Magdalene
are pictured as two distinct individuals in the course of Pseudo-Cyril’s
homily.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 14pt;">Pseudo-Cyril proceeds to
relate the story of Mary’s birth to her parents Joakim (who is also named Cleopas by Pseudo-Cyril) and Anna (relying in part on the <i><a href="https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0847.htm">Protevangelium of James</a></i>).</span><span style="font-size: 14pt;"> </span><span style="font-size: 14pt;">He then relates a brief account of the
childhood of Mary and her service in the temple.</span><span style="font-size: 14pt;"> </span><span style="font-size: 14pt;">(The veracity or non-veracity of
Pseudo-Cyril’s account is not my focus here.)</span><span style="font-size: 14pt;">
</span><span style="font-size: 14pt;">He then changes the subject and tells about Cyril’s encounter with </span><span style="background: white; font-size: 14pt;">Annarikhus, a monk who had been mislead by
the books written by Ebion and Harpocratius.
Cyril and Annarikhus discuss whether the Gospel of the Hebrews ought to
be a fifth Gospel along with the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. (Cyril says no; Annarikhus says yes.)</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background-color: white; font-size: 14pt;">Pseudo-Cyril
then attributes to Cyril of Jerusalem a few quotations of New Testament
material (Matt 12.24, Second John v. 7 and Second John v. 10) in the course of
opposing the Gospel of the Hebrews.</span><span style="font-size: 14pt;">
</span><span style="background-color: white; font-size: 14pt;">Annarikhus, in the anecdote in Pseudo-Cyril’s homily, promptly repents,
and invites Cyril to burn Annarikhus’ books.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: white; color: black; font-size: 14.0pt;">Pseudo-Cyril relates that Cyril, after doing so, taught Annarikhus against the
Ebionite heresy that Mary had been the incarnation of some kind of mystical
force, and then Annarikhus, upon receiving Cyril’s teaching, repented of being fooled by Ebion and Harpocrates’ books.<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhfuHwGZ5M1Zg4s1LxM3XhWG68NiRn4pJgQ2ZW4sduDjNFOrwsNgP26ymocC8B9dosfTmKmh-ZiThwdSakXk2p5WZPv1nULAiuoyIxYGntKlvKHliYo74rasRwyjNnXmjz6s-e1VJ0wdH3_R_K4g1ecRvYikj1vE3CwBL2yA-3-yS9-awS-B84pYlnX/s774/Dormition%20of%20Mary.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><b><img border="0" data-original-height="378" data-original-width="774" height="195" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhfuHwGZ5M1Zg4s1LxM3XhWG68NiRn4pJgQ2ZW4sduDjNFOrwsNgP26ymocC8B9dosfTmKmh-ZiThwdSakXk2p5WZPv1nULAiuoyIxYGntKlvKHliYo74rasRwyjNnXmjz6s-e1VJ0wdH3_R_K4g1ecRvYikj1vE3CwBL2yA-3-yS9-awS-B84pYlnX/w400-h195/Dormition%20of%20Mary.png" title="The Dormition of Mary pictured in a cathedral's apse in Rome by Jacopo Torriti (1296)," width="400" /></b></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><b><span style="font-family: arial;">The Dormition of Mary, as depicted by Jacopo Torriti <br />in a cathedral-apse in Rome in 1296.</span><br /><br /></b></td></tr></tbody></table></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background-color: white; font-size: 14pt;">Pseudo-Cyril
then turns to the subject of the death/departure/dormition of Mary (quoting
Luke 1.36 along the way), and he says that he is informed that John and Mary
“lived in the same house in </span><st1:city style="font-size: 14pt;" w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Jerusalem</st1:place></st1:city><span style="background-color: white; font-size: 14pt;">.”</span><span style="font-size: 14pt;"> </span><span style="background-color: white; font-size: 14pt;">He relates that Mary called for Peter and James
to come to her there.</span><span style="font-size: 14pt;"> </span><span style="background-color: white; font-size: 14pt;">Several passages of
the Gospels (and Acts 1) are used in this part of the homily, as Mary is
depicted speaking to John, Peter, and James.</span><span style="font-size: 14pt;">
</span><span style="background-color: white; font-size: 14pt;">Mary Magdalene then enters the picture, “out of whom the Christ had cast
several devils.”</span><span style="font-size: 14pt;"> </span><span style="background-color: white; font-size: 14pt;">After Peter, James, and
John have told a group of virgins that Mary the mother of Jesus has announced
that she is about to “depart to the </span><st1:city style="font-size: 14pt;" w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Jerusalem</st1:place></st1:city><span style="background-color: white; font-size: 14pt;">
of heaven,” Mary Magdalene begins preparations for Mary’s
funeral-observance.</span><span style="font-size: 14pt;"> </span><span style="background-color: white; font-size: 14pt;">Most of the rest of
the homily is an account of the dormition of Mary.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background-color: white; font-size: 14pt;">Getting
back to what Pseudo-Cyril attributed to Annarikhus:</span><span style="font-size: 14pt;"> </span><span style="background-color: white; font-size: 14pt;">at one point, Pseudo-Cyril says that Cyril asked
Annarikhus, “Who sent thee to teach about these things,” and that the answer that Annarikhus gave was,
<b>“The Christ said, “Go ye forth into all the world, and teach ye all the nations
in my name in every place.”</b></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background-color: white; font-size: 14pt;">This
is a blended use of Mark 16:15 and Matthew 28:19.(with possible indirect use of Mark 16:17 (for "in My name") and 16:20 (for "in every place")).</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background-color: white; font-size: 14pt;">So: Annarikhus-according-to-Pseudo-Cyril should be added to the list of individuals
whose copies of Mark included Mark 16:9-20. </span><span style="font-size: 14pt;"> </span><span style="background-color: white; font-size: 14pt;">(As a contemporary of Cyril of Jerusalem,
Annarikhus lived in the 300s, and his copy of Mark, if it was brand
new, would have been about as old as Codex Sinaiticus.) </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background-color: white; font-size: 14pt;">Also, Pseudo-Cyril should be included in the textual apparatus’ list of patristic
writers who cite Mark 16:15 (or, at least, whose writings affirm Mark 16:9-20).
</span><span style="font-size: 14pt;"> </span><span style="background-color: white; font-size: 14pt;">(Pseudo-Cyril, along with Palladius and
Fortunatianus, is one of numerous patristic writers whose names have been overlooked
in the UBS and N-A apparatuses - and by Christian teacher <a href="https://biblethinker.org/">Mike Winger</a>, among others.)<br /><br />(I note, in passing, that if it was known to Mark</span><span style="background-color: white; font-size: 18.6667px;">’</span><span style="background-color: white; font-size: 14pt;">s readers that Mary the mother of Jesus was from Magdala, then Mark would have a very good reason for mentioning (in Mark 16:9) that Mary Magdalene was the person from whom Jesus had cast out seven demons: to avoid giving the impression that Jesus</span><span style="background-color: white; font-size: 18.6667px;">’</span><span style="background-color: white; font-size: 14pt;"> mother Mary was the individual visiting the tomb.)</span><span style="background-color: white; font-size: 14pt;"> <br /><br />(I also note, in passing, that the unnamed companion of Cleopas in Luke 24 may have been Mary herself - which would be a subtle confirmation by Luke of his </span><span style="background-color: white; font-size: 14pt;">use of Mary</span><span style="background-color: white; font-size: 18.6667px;">’</span><span style="background-color: white; font-size: 14pt;">s own testimony as one of his sources.)</span><span style="background-color: white; font-size: 14pt;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: white; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 14.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>James Snapp Jrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09493891380752272603noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6346409181794331060.post-27972309049841308232023-01-26T20:42:00.004-05:002023-02-24T19:45:27.284-05:00The Longer Reading in Matthew 25:13<p> <span style="font-size: 14pt;"> </span><span style="font-family: "Book Antiqua"; font-size: 14pt;">A
textual variant in Matthew 25:13 may shed some light on a mechanism that
elicited some expansions in the Byzantine Text.
In the EOB-NT, Matthew 25:13 reads, “</span><span style="font-family: "Book Antiqua"; font-size: 14pt;">Watch, therefore, for you do not know the day or the hour that the Son
of Man is coming.” The words “that the
Son of Man is coming” are framed by “<” and “>.” The WEB, based on the Majority Text, says
similarly, “</span><span style="font-family: "Book Antiqua"; font-size: 14pt;">Watch therefore, for you don’t
know the day nor the hour in which the Son of Man is coming.” The KJV reads similarly, and the <i>Textus Receptus </i>agrees with the Byzantine Textform at this point. </span><span style="font-family: "Book Antiqua"; font-size: 14pt;">In the EHV, Matthew 25:13 only says, “Therefore, keep watch, because
you do not know the day or the hour.”
There is no footnote in the EHV to indicate the existence of the longer
Byzantine reading. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Book Antiqua"; font-size: 14pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-font-style: italic;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>The ESV, CSB, NIV, and NASB all end
the verse at the word “hour.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The NLT,
apparently abandoning its base-text, continues with “of my return.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Book Antiqua"; font-size: 14pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-font-style: italic;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>What’s going on here?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Did Matthew write the words </span><span style="color: black; font-size: 14pt; mso-bidi-font-style: italic;">ἐ</span><span style="color: black; font-family: "Book Antiqua"; font-size: 14pt; mso-bidi-font-style: italic;">ν</span><span style="color: black; font-family: "Book Antiqua"; font-size: 14pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-font-style: italic;"> </span><span style="color: black; font-size: 14pt; mso-bidi-font-style: italic;">ἧ</span><span style="color: black; font-family: "Book Antiqua"; font-size: 14pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-font-style: italic;"> </span><span style="color: black; font-size: 14pt; mso-bidi-font-style: italic;">ὁ</span><span style="color: black; font-family: "Book Antiqua"; font-size: 14pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-font-style: italic;"> </span><span style="color: black; font-family: "Book Antiqua"; font-size: 14pt; mso-bidi-font-style: italic;">υ</span><span style="color: black; font-size: 14pt; mso-bidi-font-style: italic;">ἱὸ</span><span style="color: black; font-family: "Book Antiqua"; font-size: 14pt; mso-bidi-font-style: italic;">ς</span><span style="color: black; font-family: "Book Antiqua"; font-size: 14pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-font-style: italic;"> </span><span style="color: black; font-family: "Book Antiqua"; font-size: 14pt; mso-bidi-font-style: italic;">το</span><span style="color: black; font-size: 14pt; mso-bidi-font-style: italic;">ῦ</span><span style="color: black; font-family: "Book Antiqua"; font-size: 14pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-font-style: italic;"> </span><span style="color: black; font-size: 14pt; mso-bidi-font-style: italic;">ἀ</span><span style="color: black; font-family: "Book Antiqua"; font-size: 14pt; mso-bidi-font-style: italic;">νθρ</span><span style="color: black; font-size: 14pt; mso-bidi-font-style: italic;">ώ</span><span style="color: black; font-family: "Book Antiqua"; font-size: 14pt; mso-bidi-font-style: italic;">που </span><span style="font-family: "Book Antiqua"; font-size: 18.6667px;">ερχεται </span><span style="font-family: "Book Antiqua"; font-size: 14pt;">or not?</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Book Antiqua"; font-size: 14pt; mso-bidi-font-style: italic;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Short
answer:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Not.<br /><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Book Antiqua"; font-size: 14pt; mso-bidi-font-style: italic;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>The
Byzantine/Majority Text supports the inclusion of “</span><span style="color: black; font-family: "Book Antiqua"; font-size: 14pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Segoe UI";">in which the Son of Man is coming,” but t</span><span style="color: black; font-family: "Book Antiqua"; font-size: 14pt; mso-bidi-font-style: italic;">he Peshitta does not.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Codices A,
D, L, W, Δ, and Σ end the verse with </span><span style="color: black; font-size: 14pt; mso-bidi-font-style: italic;">ὥ</span><span style="color: black; font-family: "Book Antiqua"; font-size: 14pt; mso-bidi-font-style: italic;">ραν (hour). <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So do some minuscules, including 33, the first
hand of 157, 892, and the first hand of 1424.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span><span style="color: black; font-family: "Book Antiqua"; font-size: 14pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Segoe UI";">The Alexandrian codices </span><span style="color: black; font-family: Symbol; font-size: 14pt; mso-ascii-font-family: "Book Antiqua"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Segoe UI"; mso-char-type: symbol; mso-hansi-font-family: "Book Antiqua"; mso-symbol-font-family: Symbol;"><span style="mso-char-type: symbol; mso-symbol-font-family: Symbol;">À</span></span><span style="color: black; font-family: "Book Antiqua"; font-size: 14pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Segoe UI";"> and B weigh in for the shorter reading, and so do P35 and Codex
D, and patristic witnesses such as Chrysostom, Athanasius, and Augustine.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Vulgate and the Old Latin also solidly
support the shorter reading here.</span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh-pWTA7beppl9q_zpHF7AN1coYuAI7WlAYQy9wnA9Oux_RV4OdKkhNyeaeI-x-sV_3sWhVTxQUZkWJ_okjidZk8gS5lJkosBPlOMF9XgpMy8LVhWx6Do6s3-YV9n7QUQvDEzbQ5xKRL7QPpkU0np90WT4xIxIr05PfDtdFNf4V82n1uL3Ydy6f-x9n/s1263/Mt%2025%2013%20in%20032.png" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="683" data-original-width="1263" height="216" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh-pWTA7beppl9q_zpHF7AN1coYuAI7WlAYQy9wnA9Oux_RV4OdKkhNyeaeI-x-sV_3sWhVTxQUZkWJ_okjidZk8gS5lJkosBPlOMF9XgpMy8LVhWx6Do6s3-YV9n7QUQvDEzbQ5xKRL7QPpkU0np90WT4xIxIr05PfDtdFNf4V82n1uL3Ydy6f-x9n/w400-h216/Mt%2025%2013%20in%20032.png" width="400" /></a></div><p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Book Antiqua"; font-size: 14pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Segoe UI";"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span></span><span style="color: black; font-family: "Book Antiqua"; font-size: 14pt;">To perceive
what has happened here, it is helpful to know that Matthew 25:1-13 <span style="mso-bidi-font-style: italic;">was the lection assigned to the 17th
Saturday after Pentecost in the Byzantine lectionary.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(It is also a lection in Lectionary 846, to
be read in honor of female virgins and martyrs.)<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>When this segment is read separately from the
rest of the chapter, the final sentence was expanded to tell listeners what day
and hour were referred to (perhaps using Mt. 24:42 and 24:44 as a model).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: black; font-size: 14pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span></span><span style="color: black; font-family: "Book Antiqua"; font-size: 14pt;">This expansion can be seen happening in
Byzantine manuscripts.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I</span><span style="color: black; font-family: "Book Antiqua"; font-size: 14pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Segoe UI";">n Codex Y (<a href="https://cudl.lib.cam.ac.uk/view/MS-ADD-06594/123">034</a>),
the verse ends </span><span style="color: black; font-size: 14pt; mso-bidi-font-style: italic;">ὥ</span><span style="color: black; font-family: "Book Antiqua"; font-size: 14pt; mso-bidi-font-style: italic;">ραν in the text, but someone –
apparently the same person who supplemented the manuscript for lection-reading
– added in the margin, “εν η </span><span style="color: black; font-size: 14pt; mso-bidi-font-style: italic;">ὁ</span><span style="color: black; font-family: "Book Antiqua"; font-size: 14pt; mso-bidi-font-style: italic;"> <u>υς</u> του <u>ανου</u>
ερχεται.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There’s the longer variant.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Book Antiqua"; font-size: 14pt; mso-bidi-font-style: italic;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"></span></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEilxdo-WAT2iYhk0FBdY7FFrLaHIfnu4OupNNXznffeZ0oijHiZE_0QX6DZyIB1Ulv9VzORj3wdQioz48xNaEGoiy1I_egFULhXEGVUI02p_DPq72XXDZPHCLhCcv4OrjdwTxeoOwmIQfFWvs1oYHKv6ee3lw5SpcRATWP3dsFEH9nM37XPhATx1-4Y/s570/Mt%2025%2013%20Lect%20846.png" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="570" data-original-width="520" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEilxdo-WAT2iYhk0FBdY7FFrLaHIfnu4OupNNXznffeZ0oijHiZE_0QX6DZyIB1Ulv9VzORj3wdQioz48xNaEGoiy1I_egFULhXEGVUI02p_DPq72XXDZPHCLhCcv4OrjdwTxeoOwmIQfFWvs1oYHKv6ee3lw5SpcRATWP3dsFEH9nM37XPhATx1-4Y/s320/Mt%2025%2013%20Lect%20846.png" width="292" /></a></div> Bruce
Metzger’s dismissal of the longer reading is correct, but his explanation for
its existence (as a “pedantic addition”) seems to show little appreciation for
the influence of the lectionary on the Byzantine Text.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>When Metzger wrote his <i>Textual Commentary</i>,
he was all-in on Hort’s now-defunct theory of the Lucianic Recension.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A more mature Metzger would probably adjust
his wording, acknowledging the longer reading as having been made under the
influence of lectionary-usage.<o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Book Antiqua"; font-size: 14pt; mso-bidi-font-style: italic;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>When
was the longer reading introduced?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> Probably s</span>ometime after Codex A (400s), and before 017 (<a href="https://manuscripts.csntm.org/manuscript/View/GA_017">Cyprius</a>) (800s)
and the marginalia in 034 (800s, if the marginalia is of the same date as the
main text). <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> [Update: Andy Vogan has observed that 07, assigned to the 700s, also has the longer reading.] </span>Someone influenced by a
lectionary, wishing to benignly introduce an expansion at the end of Mt. 25:13
to wrap up a lection, created the longer reading, and it was so edifying that so many scribes adopted it that it eventually became the majority reading. The removal of such intrusions into the text can be achieved relatively easily by filtering the majority text against the Alexandrian Text, the Western Text, and the text of family </span><span style="font-size: 14pt;">Π.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Book Antiqua"; font-size: 14pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-font-style: italic;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>James Snapp Jrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09493891380752272603noreply@blogger.com2