Fact-checking Wallace: GA 2346, 2812, and 137

            In two earlier posts, we saw that minuscules 138, 264, 1221 do not contain an asterisk at Mark 16:9 to convey scribal doubt about Mark 16:9-20, contrary to a claim spread by Daniel Wallace.  Another manuscript which Wallace says has an asterisk accompanying Mark 16:9-20 is GA 2346.  For some time, digital photographs of 2346 have been available to view at the website of the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts.  Mark 16:9 is on Image #376264.

GA 2346:  Mark 16:9 begins in
the ninth line of Scripture-text. 

            David Hester offered an analysis of the evidence in 2346 in his 2015 book Does Mark 16:9-20 Belong in the New Testament?, observing what you, too, can plainly see by consulting the photographs at CSNTM:  there is no asterisk in 2346 accompanying Mark 16:9-20.  Instead, there is a dot-lozenge between Mark 16:8 and 16:9, and in the left side-margin nearby are the symbols (τελος for “stop” and αρχη for “start”) which typically signify the beginnings and ends of lections.  At the top of the page, the rubric for the third Heothinon appears – “The third resurrection-gospel,” along with the incipit-phrase to be used by the lector when reading Mark 16:9 – “When Jesus rose early.” 

            The lack of an asterisk accompanying Mark 16:9 in 2346, and the presence of ordinary lectionary-related features in 2346, are just as obvious when consulting the reproduction of the relevant page in 2346 in the 1918 volume The Gospel Manuscripts of the General Theological Seminary (reproduced here, digitally enhanced). 

            If anyone still imagines that the dot-lozenge after Mark 16:8 in 2346 is not part of the lectionary-apparatus, let his doubts be dissolved via a consultation of

            ● the twelfth line of text in CSNTM Image 376496, where a dot-lozenge accompanies the beginning of John 1:43 (with τελος and αρχη in the margin),

            ● the ninth line of text in CSNTM Image 376499, where a dot-lozenge accompanies the beginning of John 2:12 (with τελος and αρχη in the margins), and   

            ● the first line of CSNTM Image 376511 – where a dot-lozenge accompanies the beginning of John 4:5, which is the beginning of chapter 5, the rubric of which appears at the top of the page, along with its incipit.

The next manuscript which Wallace claims to have an asterisk accompanying Mark 16:9-20 is GA 2812.  I described the relevant features of this manuscript in 2016, in the post Whatever Happened to the Zelada Gospels.  As I pointed out at the time, the Gospels-text in 2812 is accompanied in the margins by the Catena in Marcum (attributed in this case to Peter of Laodicea instead of Victor of Antioch).  A comet-symbol appears next to Mark 16:9, serving the same purpose as a footnote-number; in this case the symbol was intended to draw the reader’s attention to the note which accompanies the same symbol in the margin next to the end of Mark 16:20.  (The comet-symbol also appears at the foot of the page, probably to help guide readers to the next page to find the note about the marked passage on the preceding page.)  There we find the same part of the Catena in Marcum (already encountered in GA 138) that begins with Παρὰ πλείστοις ἀντιγράφοις οὐ κεῖται, and proceeds to advocate the inclusion of Mark 16:9-20, mentioning the presence of verses 9-20 in many accurate manuscripts, including the trustworthy Palestinian exemplar. 

For convenience I present here the Greek text of the note, line for line, as it is written in the margin of 2812:

Παρὰ πλείστοις ἀντιγράφοις οὐ

κεῖνται ταῦτα ἐπὶφερόμενα εν τῳ

κατ[α] Μαρκον ευαγγελιῳ ὡς νόθα νομί-

σαντες αὐτά τινες εἶναι.  Ἡμεῖς δε ἐξ ἀ-

κριβῶν ἀντ[ι]γράφων ὡς ἐν πλείστοις

εὑρόντες αὐτὰ, κατ[ὰ] τὸ Παλαιστι-

ναῖον εὐαγγέλι[ον] Μάρκου ὡς ἔχει ἡ ἀ-

λήθεια, συντεθείκαμ[εν] κ[αι] την ἐν

αὐτῶ ἐπὶφερομένην δεσποτικὴν

ἀνάστασιν μετὰ τὸ ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ. 

Those who may want examples of the use of the comet-symbol as a mark intended to draw readers’ attention to marginalia in 2812 may consult:

The page which has Mark 6:25, where the comet-symbol appears halfway through Mark 6:25, and in the margin at the beginning of the comments about the passage,

The page on which Mark 9 begins, where the comet-symbol appears at the beginning of a note about the Transfiguration in the lower margin,

The page which has Mark 13:24, on which the comet-symbol accompanies a brief note at the foot of the page, 

A page with the chapter-list for Luke, where the comet-symbol accompanies a numeral (150) in the left margin),  

           Let’s cover GA 137 today, too.  Wallace stated, “Parker, Living Text, 127, adds 137 to this list,” that is, the list of manuscripts which, he said, have an asterisk at Mark 16:9-20 to indicate scribal doubt.  Wallace was referring to David Parker, whose description of the testimony of GA 137 and 138 in his book The Living Text of the Gospels is as concise as it is inaccurate:  “Asterisks:  137 138.” 

            Page-views of GA 137 can be viewed at the website of the Vatican Library.  Unlike the page-views of GA 138, the photographs of GA 137 are in color.  The text of Mark in GA 137 is accompanied by the Catena in Marcum; the identity of the commentary can easily be made by consulting the note at the beginning of Mark 16 and confirming that it begins with Μετὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν ἤλθεν ὁ ἄγγελος, καὶ τὸν λίθον ᾗρεν διὰ τὰς γυναῖκας, and that is how the marginalia begins at the foot of the page on page-view 309.

            (It should be noticed that the commentator, in the course of the comment on 16:1ff., utilizes Mark 16:9:  on page-view 310, beginning in the commentary that appears directly above the Scripture-text (Mark 16:3), the commentator (or the author from whom he has gotten an extract) mentions that in certain copies, the Gospel of Mark says that Jesus appeared first to Mary Magdalene.) 

            On page-view 310, Mark 16:9 begins in the seventeenth line of text – the same line in which Mark 16:8 ends.  Between the end of verse 8 and the beginning of verse 9, written slightly above the text-line, there is a small red cross-symbol, resembling a “+” sign.  It is hard to imagine how such an ordinary symbol could ever be confused with an asterisk.  It serves the same purpose as a footnote-number, referring the reader to a note in the margin.  The note (accompanied by another red “+”) appears at the foot of the page two pages later, on page-view 312.  It is the same note – part of the Catena in Marcum – that we encountered in 138 and 2812, beginning with Παρὰ πλείστοις.    

            Thus, out of the five manuscripts which Dan Wallace described as if they have an asterisk next to Mark 16:9-20 to convey scribal doubt about the passage – 138, 264, 1221, 2346, and 2812 –  none of them really fit that description, and neither does 137.  Minuscules 137, 138 and 2812 have a note about the passage (part of the Catena in Marcum) which supports the inclusion of the passage, and 263, 1221, and 2346 have ordinary marks – not asterisks – that are part of the lectionary-apparatus, and which recur elsewhere in the manuscripts.

  

_______________

For David Parker’s statement see The Living Text of the Gospels, page 127, © David Parker 1997, published by Oxford University Press.

The Stavros Collection - More MSS at Jerusalem

            Among the manuscripts kept by the Jerusalem Patriarchate is the Hagios Stavros collection, which formerly (as far as I can tell) was housed on Cyprus.  Images of those manuscripts, except for some relatively young copies, have been released by the Library of Congress. (The images, taken in 1949-1950 by an expedition led by Kenneth W. Clark, are mostly from microfilm.)  Of the 90 photographed manuscripts, 16 contain substantial portions of the New Testament. Here is a list of the New Testament manuscripts in the Hagios Stavros (“Holy Cross”) collection, with embedded links to their online page-views:

This page of GA 1895 has
patristic commentary along
with the text.
Acts 28:29 is included.

GA 1349:  Hagios Stavros 45 – Four Gospels (1000’s/1100’s)

GA 1350:  Hagios Stavros 46 – Four Gospels (1100’s, 1300’s) This was catalogued as an Evangelion, but it is a continuous-text manuscript of the four Gospels.  Beginning of Matthew.  Beginning of Mark.  Beginning of Luke. Beginning of John. 

GA 1351:  Hagios Stavros 74 – Gospels (900’s) (Damaged; begins with Mark)

            Beginning of Luke.  Beginning of John.  (Arabic note precedes the chapter-list for John.)

            (Damaged at the end; last page with text ends near the end of John 5:4.)

GA 1352:  Hagios Stavros 94 – New Testament (1100’s/1300’s)

GA 1353:  Hagios Stavros 95 – Four Gospels (c. 1200)

            Beginning of Matthew.  Beginning of Mark.  Beginning of Luke.  Beginning of John.

            Pericope adulterae (follows John 7:52).

GA 1354:  Hagios Stavros 101 – New Testament (but not Revelation) (1300’s)

GA 1355:  Hagios Stavros 104 – Four Gospels (1300’s)

GA 1895:  Hagios Stavros 25 – Acts and General Epistles, with Commentary (800’s/900’s) The commentary includes excerpts from the writings of Athanasius, John Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, Basil of Caesarea, and others.  Scripture-texts, interspersed with the commentary, are indented and accompanied by diple-marks (>) in the margin.  Beginning of James. 

GA 1896:  Hagios Stavros 37 – Praxapostolos (without Galatians) (1300’s/1400’s) Beginning of James.

GA 1897:  Hagios Stavros 57 – Praxapostolos (c. 1200) Beginning of James.

Lectionaries:

Hagios Stavros 9 – Evangelion (A.D. 1534)

Hagios Stavros 26 – Evangelion (1000’s) Greek-Arabic in parallel columns

Hagios Stavros 44 – Evangelion (1000’s)

Hagios Stavros 51 – Evangelion (1000’s)

Hagios Stavros 67 – Apostolos (1000’s) An interesting copy with sporadic notes in the margin.

Hagios Stavros 110 – Evangelion (1200’s)

Also of note:

Hagios Stavros 96 – Psalter (800’s) This manuscript, written in a sloping uncial script, has an abundance of marginalia.    

Some of these manuscripts have not received much attention from researchers.  A few research-papers might be just waiting to happen as a result of the availability of these images.

Fortunatianus Speaks!

            Fortunatianus’ Latin commentary on the Gospels, written c. 350 – about the same time as the production of Codex Sinaiticus, “The world’s oldest Bible” – has been found, edited, and translated!  The announcement of its discovery by Dr. Lukas Dorfbauer in 2012 is old news to regular readers; that was mentioned here a couple of years ago, and Roger Pearse had spread the news about it before that.  But now its text has been thoroughly studied and edited, and it has been translated into English.  Dr. Hugh Houghton tells about what has been done with the commentary of Fortunatianus since its rediscovery in an article at The Birmingham Brief.
          

            This discovery is highly significant, because Fortunatianus quoted from the New Testament over and over.  A quick survey of the Scripture-index in Hugh Houghton’s translation of Fortunatianus’ Commentary on the Gospels indicates that he made over 300 utilizations of New Testament passages, especially from the Gospel of Matthew.  This abundance of Scripture-quotations allows analysts to get a pretty good idea of the kind of Latin text that was used by Fortunatianus.  Here are some passages in which Fortunatianus’ Scripture-citations involve passages in which textual variants occur:

            ● Mark 1:1 – Fortunatianus reads, “In Isaiah the prophet,” disagreeing with the reading in most Greek manuscripts, “in the prophets.”

            ● Matthew 1:25 – Fortunatianus reads “she gave birth to a son,” disagreeing with the reading in most Greek manuscripts, “she gave birth to her firstborn son.”

            ● Matthew 13:55 (or Mark 6:3) – Fortunatianus reads “Is this not the son of Joseph the craftsman [or, carpenter],” thus adding Joseph’s name.

            ● Matthew 2:18 – Fortunatianus reads “weeping and much wailing,” disagreeing with the reading in most manuscripts, “grieving and weeping and much wailing.”

            ● Matthew 8:28 – Fortunatianus reads “Gerasenes,” not “Gergasenes.”

            ● Matthew 9:13 – Fortunatianus reads “to repentance,” agreeing with the majority of manuscripts and disagreeing with the Alexandrian base-text of the ESV, NIV, NLT, etc.

            ● Matthew 10:8 – Fortunatianus includes the phrase “raise the dead.” 

            ● Matthew 10:10 – Fortunatianus reads “staff” instead of “staffs.”

            ● Matthew 16:2-3 – Fortunatianus confirms the inclusion of all of these two verses.

            ● Matthew 20:28 – Fortunatianus uses a text which, like Codex Bezae, contains a brief passage at this point resembling Luke 14:8-10.

            ● Matthew 21:31 – In the text cited by Fortunatianus, the answer to Jesus’ question is given as “The latter,” instead of “The first.”

            ● Matthew 24:26 – Fortunatianus’ Latin text had an apparently unique addition which referred to false claims of the Messiah’s appearance not only in the wilderness, and in inner rooms, but also “in the mountains.” 

            ● Matthew 24:36 – Fortunatianus’ text includes “or the Son,” and he expounds upon this reading in his commentary, proposing that this statement should not be taken literally.

John 1:18, quoted in Fortunatianus'
commentary, with "only-begotten Son."

            ● John 1:18 – Fortunatianus very clearly uses “only-begotten Son,” and not “only-begotten God.”

            ● John 1:28 – Fortunatianus reads “Bethany,” but – echoing Origen somewhat – he proposes that “Here, then, we find a mistake either of the Latin translator of the copyists.”  And he proceeds to mention that “Bethara” (rather than Bethabara) is the “house of preparation,” and is the name of the place where John began to baptize. 

            ● John 1:34 – Fortunatianus reads “the chosen one of God” instead of “the Son of God,” but then continues with something else:  “And I have seen and borne witness that this is the chosen one of God.  And this is the Son of the highest God, begotten of him.” 

Who Was Fortunatianus?

            How much is known about Fortunatianus?  Unfortunately, not much, except that he was a bishop in Aquileia in the mid-300’s.  Jerome mentions him in De Viris Illustribus, in chapter 97:  “Fortunatianus, an African by birth, bishop of Aquileia during the reign of Constantius [reigned 337-361], composed brief commentaries on the Gospels arranged by chapters, written in a rustic style.  And he is held in detestation because when Liberius, bishop of Rome, was driven into exile for the faith, he was induced by the urgency of Fortunatianus to subscribe to heresy.” 

            Depite giving such a negative appraisal of Fortunatianus’ theology, Jerome was willing to praise Fortunatianus’ commentary in Epistle X (To Paul of Concordia), as he requested a copy of it, stating, “You are asked to give me the pearl of the Gospel, the words of the Lord, pure words, even as the silver which from the earth is tried, and purified seven times in the fire; I mean the commentaries of Fortunatianus and – for its account of the persecutors – the History of Aurelius Victor, along with the Letters of Novatian, so that, learning the poison set forth by this schismatic, we may the more gladly drink of the antidote supplied by the holy martyr Cyprian.”  (This could be understood, I think, as a cautious compliment, as if to say that Fortunatianus’ commentary contains fine silver if one is willing to go through the trouble of refining it, or that it is a pearl, if one is willing to pick out the valuable part from the unclean material around it.)

Where Was Fortunatianus?

            Before describing the commentary, a brief description of Aquileia may be helpful.  During the time when Fortunatianus served as its bishop, the city of Aquileia, along the coast of the northeastern corner of Italy (on a modern map, northeast of Venice and northwest of Trieste), was one of the most prominent and prosperous cities of the Roman Empire.  An imperial palace was among its buildings, and Constantine himself visited there, and in 340, Constantine II was killed near the city.  It remained one of the empire’s finest cities until it was attacked and destroyed by the Huns in 452.

What Book Does Fortunatianus Comment on the Most?

            Fortunatianus focused mainly on the Gospel of Matthew.  His method of commenting is far from systematic or exhaustive.  Those who approach this Latin text – which is extant, mostly, in a manuscript which can be viewed page by page at the Codices Electronici Ecclesiae Coloniensis (CEEC) website – expecting a verse-by-verse analysis of all four Gospels will be disappointed.  Fortunatianus’ main focus is the Gospel of Matthew.  He spends hardly any time on the Gospel of Mark, and although he covers John chapter 1 very thoroughly, most of John’s Gospel receives only spotty attention.  The episodes in Luke which are not repeated in the Gospel of Matthew receive some attention from Fortunatianus; almost all the rest is set aside.  In addition, except for parenthetical uses, the chapters which one might assume would be a commentary’s zenith – those about Christ’s crucifixion and resurrection – do not receive close attention.

Does Fortunatianus Use John 7:53-8:11 or Mark 16:9-20?

               Fortunatianus gives no hint that he is aware of the pericope adulterae, but this should not be overplayed:  Fortunatianus only used a single verse from John 6, and a single verse from John 7, and four verses from John 8, none from John 9, and two from John 10, and none from John 11.  We do not therefore conclude that Fortunatianus was unaware of the healing of the man who was born blind, or of the resurrection of Lazarus.  Fortunatianus’ sequential, focused commentary on the Gospel of John stops after his description of Jesus’ first miracle.  After John 2:11, the rest of Fortunatianus’ utilizations of passages from the Gospel of John are fairly random and sporadic, not systematic. 

            Fortunatianus does not explicitly quote from Mark 16:9-20; however, in a passage which inexactly echoes the comments of Irenaeus about the symbols of the Evangelists, Fortunatianus states that “it is not inappropriate that he [that is, Mark] bears the image of an eagle, since he demonstrates that Christ flew to heaven.”  The only reference in the Gospel of Mark to Jesus’ ascent to heaven is, of course, 16:19.  And in another place, Fortunatianus writes, “Jesus showed that, after he had trampled down death, and risen from the dead, he himself would preach everywhere through his apostles” – which, while not a quotation of Mark 16:20, seems like a strong allusion to it.  And, near the start of his commentary, Fortunatianus mentions that the evangelist Mark “lists his [that is, Christ’s] Passion and Ascension and sitting at the right hand of the Father.”

How Does Fortunatianus Organize the Text?

            Fortunatianus begins his commentary with a summary of each Gospel’s thematic emphasis, metaphorically expressed as one of the faces of the cherubim (Matthew as a man, Luke as an ox, Mark as an eagle, and John as a lion) and as one of the rivers of Eden.  Fortunatianus proceeds to build an allegorical case for the inevitability that the apostolic gospel should be fourfold, arguing that a divine pattern, in which the gospel of the twelve apostles is displayed in four parts, is shown in the high priest’s breastplate (which had three rows of four gemstones) and in the shape of a walnut shell, and via various typologies in the Old Testament.    

            He then shifts directly into a interpretation of the first two chapters of Matthew, offering reasons why Matthew’s genealogy and Luke’s genealogy go in different chronological directions, and why Matthew mentions 42 generations but only names 41, and why Matthew 1:25 does not imply that Joseph and Mary were intimate, and so forth. 

            After finishing his comments on Matthew 1-2, Fortunatianus introduces a list of the sections of each Gospel which he proposes to interpret:  129 sections from Matthew (consisting of material from 1:17 to 27:51), thirteen sections from Luke (consisting of material from 2:1 to 5:12 (or 5:16, where the episode concludes)), and 18 sections from John (consisting of material from 1:1 to 2:11).  Fortunatianus mentions that he will also comment on a few things that the other Gospels do not cover.  Having this established the borders of the territory to be explored, he proceeds.

What Kind of Interpretation Does Fortunatianus Give?

            While Fortunatianus does not deny the historicity of the reports of events in the Gospels, he consistently interprets them so as to convey a spiritual, typological, or allegorical lesson; as he says in the course of commenting on Matthew 15:  “Even though we can see that these were fulfilled on a literal level, they also have a spiritual meaning” – and this spiritual meaning is his constant quarry. 

A few forms of
the quadrans.

           Two examples may illustrate the quality of Fortunatianus’ interpretive method.  Commenting on Matthew 5:26, he writes:  “The quadrans [the Roman coin that is called a “farthing” in the KJV] is the smallest sin.  It says that you will not come out from there except when the account of all your sins, even of the smallest, has been paid off.  For a quandrans has three dots on it. What do these three dots represent, if not the Trinity?  It is necessary that if anyone does not acknowledge wholeheartedly that the Trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is made of one substance, they are called to account for this.  For just as a quadrans consists of one, so the Trinity is of one substance.”

            Modern commentators of all theological persuasions may chuckle at the notion that the true lesson of Jesus’ statement in Matthew 5:26 is about the necessity of belief in the Trinity.  And yet, while we may prefer historically grounded commentaries, how many historically grounded commentaries have you read that mentioned the dots on a quadrans?  

            Occasionally Fortunatianus shares genuinely interesting data-nuggets, and makes some edifying connections.  However, most of what he sees requires some extreme squinting.  Commenting on Matthew 15:28, where Jesus addresses the foreign woman with the words, “O woman,” Fortunatianus perceives that Jesus’ answer began with the letter Ω (that is, in Greek, omega), and that because omega is the last letter of the Greek alphabet, this signifies that it is in the last days that the church has believed in the Son of God, and given Him his due worship.

What Is Fortunatianus’ Canon?

             Fortunatianus described the Septuagint with approval; he quoted Habakkuk 3:2 with its distinct reading; he utilized passages from Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, the Letter of Jeremiah, and Susanna.  This shows that he recognized an Old Testament canon broader than the 39-book canon; yet it cannot be safely assumed that he regarded texts such as First and Second Macabees as authoritative. 

            Fortunatianus utilized passages from Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, First Corinthians, Second Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, First Thessalonians, Second Thessalonians, First Timothy, Second Timothy, Titus, First John, and Revelation.  It is plausible that he simply did not have an occasion to quote from Philemon, Second John, Third John, and Jude – but the lack of quotations from Hebrews is interesting.  Fortunatianus took for granted the authority of Revelation, citing its contents 14 times.

What Theology Does Fortunatianus Promote?

            Fortunatianus affirms orthodox beliefs.  He describes Trinitarian theology as apostolic, and Arianism as deviant.  For the most part, he is more interested in drawing out intellectually stimulating or spiritually edifying lessons from specific passages, one by one.  Although the paths he takes to his conclusions are twisted – any occurrence of the number three will serve as the basis for a lesson about the Trinity – the conclusions themselves are orthodox or, at least, benign.  He affirms that baptism is for the remission of sins; commenting on John 1:12-13 he states that the church bears children of God “through the baptismal font.”

            Fortunatianus seems like a complete stranger to the tradition about the dormition of Mary, expressing a belief that Mary was put to death with a sword, as suggested by the prophecy of Simeon in Luke 2:35.  Another unusual belief to which he subscribes is that the John, though included among the twelve apostles, was quite young during Jesus’ ministry – young enough to be the little child mentioned in Matthew 18:2-4.

            It should probably be noted, in response to some sensationalistic and inaccurate news-reports about Fortunatianus and how he interpreted the Gospels, that Fortunatianus did not deny the historicity of the Gospels’ accounts about Jesus; he simply emphasized the spiritual lessons that he saw in the typological aspect of things.  (Peter Williams has made some brief comments on this theme.)       

                

How Can Fortunatianus’ Commentary Be Accessed?

Dr. Hugh Houghton describes some
of the work involved in translating
Fortunatianus' commentary in a short video.

            DeGruyter has released Dr. Lukas Dorfbauer’s critical edition of Fortunatianus’ commentary on the Gospels as Volume 103 in the Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum series.  It is currently priced at $114.99 and is described as “of extraordinary significance for patristics.”  A most welcome item for academic libraries.  A volume containing analytical essays about Fortunatianus’ work is also available.

            Dr. Hugh Houghton has completed an English translation of Fortunatianus’ commentary.  The translation is also distributed by DeGruyter, and hardcover copies of it may be purchased for $68.99.  The English translation was part of a project funded by the European Research Council, and its funds also made possible the provision of digital versions of Dr. Houghton’s English translation of Fortunatianus’ commentary on the Gospels which are available to download for free in Open Access via a series of links at their website (just scroll down a bit on that page to see the links).  Thank you to all concerned, and congratulations to Dr. Dorfbauer and Dr. Houghton upon the completion of this important work!

Defend Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:53-8:11 This Christmas

          Are you looking for a Christmas present for someone who rejects, or is unsure about, Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:53-8:11?  Do you know a preacher, seminary professor, student, or apologist who would enjoy spending a winter evening delving into detailed research involving manuscripts, patristic testimony, and internal evidence pertaining to the two most significant textual variants in the New Testament?

          If so, this Christmas may be the perfect time to provide your friends with resources to help them become thoroughly informed about these two passages.  A Fresh Analysis of John 7:53-8:11: With a Tour of the External Evidence is on sale now at Amazon – available as a Kindle e-book – for 99 cents.  The 2015 edition of Authentic: The Case for Mark 16:9-20 is also on sale for 99 cents.  Previews of both books can be read at the Amazon website.  

          In A Fresh Analysis of John 7:53-8:11, I advocate the theory that in the early church, a specific passage was selected to be read annually on Pentecost, consisting of John 7:39-52, with John 8:12 attached to give the passage a positive concluding flourish, and the intervening verses (7:53-8:11) were skipped because they were considered thematically alien to the celebration of the coming of the Holy Spirit to the church.  As a result, in a very early copy that was used in church-services by a lector (Scripture-reader), marks or notes were put in the margin, instructing the lector to skip from the end of John 7:52 to the beginning of John 8:12. This manuscript was then used by a copyist who was unfamiliar with the annual use of the text at Pentecost, and he interpreted the marks to mean that he, the copyist, should skip from the end of 7:52 to the beginning of 8:12, and that is exactly what he did, and thus the passage was lost in an influential transmission-line.  A substantial appendix at the end of A Fresh Analysis of John 7:53-8:11 describes major and minor witnesses for, and against, the passage.

          Here is a summary of the Table of Contents of A Fresh Analysis of John 7:53-8:11 –

PREFACE

EXTERNAL EVIDENCE:  

(1) Early Greek Manuscripts                                     

(2) Early Versions 

(3) Lectionaries                                                         

(4) Writings of the Early Church 

(5) Marks that Accompany John 7:53-8:11 or 8:3-11 in Some Copies 

(6) Notes About John 7:53-8:11 in Some Copies     

(7) Variations in the Location of the Passage   

(8) Augustine’s Theory of Excision

INTERNAL EVIDENCE:  

(1) Vocabulary                                                           

(2) Linguistic Style 

(3) The High Number of Variants in the Pericope Adulterae 

(4) The Continuity of John’s Narrative With or Without the Pericope Adulterae

FIVE MISCELLANEOUS CONCERNS 

CONCLUSION

Appendix:  A Tour of the External Evidence

          In Authentic:  The Case for Mark 16:9-20, I advocate the theory that Mark was interrupted as he was writing Mark 16:8, and his colleagues finished the otherwise unfinished narrative by attaching a brief summary about Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances that Mark had already written. Only after the narrative was thus completed did people begin to make copies of the Gospel of Mark for church-use. Thus, Mark 16:9-20 should be regarded as inspired, authoritative, canonical Scripture, just as the last two chapters of Proverbs are regarded as inspired, authoritative, canonical Scripture even though they were not added by the main author of Proverbs.  Along the way I demonstrate that many claims that have been spread by commentators and various other writers (including some Bible-footnote-writers) about this passage and the evidence pertaining to it are incorrect.

          Here is a summary of the Table of Contents of Authentic: The Case for Mark 16:9-20:

PART ONE: EXTERNAL EVIDENCE:  

(1)  External Evidence from the 100’s 

(2)  External Evidence from the 200’s 

(3)  Chapter 3: External Evidence from the 300’s 

(4)  External Evidence from the 400’s 

(5)  Some External Evidence from the 500’s and Later 

(6)  External Evidence with the Double-Ending 

(7)  Lectionary Evidence 

(8) Phantom Evidence

PART TWO: INTERNAL EVIDENCE

(9)  “Ephobounto Gar”
(10)  The Vocabulary and Style of Mark 16:9-20
(11)  Evidence of the Independence of Mark 16:9-20

PART THREE: PROPOSED SOLUTIONS

(12)  Four Theories about How the Ending was Lost
(13)  Why Mark 16:9-20 Was Excised in Egypt
(14)  Closing Thoughts

APPENDICES
(1)  The End of Mark and the Synoptic Problem
(2)  A Response to Dan Wallace’s Chapter in Perspectives on the Ending of Mark

          Also available at Amazon as Kindle e-books, and also 99 cents, are The Letter of James – Translation, Commentary, and Greek Text, and Assorted Essays on New Testament Textual Criticism.  Assorted Essays (though marred by typographical errors and font-glitches where some non-English terms occur) supplies two of my own essays and eight notable public-domain resources; here is its Table of Contents:

(1)  Equitable Eclecticism: The Future of New Testament Textual Criticism by James Snapp, Jr. (2010)

(2)  The Common Origin of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus by J. Rendel Harris (1893)

(3)  Selections from The Criticism of the New Testament (1902 – The St. Margaret Lectures)

(4)  Two Lectures on the Gospels by F. C. Burkitt (1901)

(5)  A Defense of “in the Prophets” in Mark 1:2 by James Snapp, Jr. (2010)

(6)  Selections from The Palaeography of Greek Papyri by Frederic G. Kenyon (1899)

(7)  Some Thoughts on the Textual Criticism of the New Testament by George Salmon (1897)

(8)  The Freer Gospels and Shenute of Atripe by Edgar Goodspeed (1909) 

(9)  Selections from Praxis in Manuscripts of the Greek Testament by Charles Sitterly (1898)

(10)  The 1897 Oxford Debate on N.T. Textual Criticism, in American English.

My response to Reza Aslan’s book Zealot is also available as an e-book, for $1.50 – Jesus: Zealous Savior of the World.

Ending Inaccurate Comments about the Ending of Mark

           Last month, Larry Hurtado, at his blog, recommended the late Bruce Metzger’s A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, stating that readers would find it “very helpful as a first resource to consult.”  Hurtado mentioned specifically that Metzger’s book should be consulted for information about “the data on the “Pericope of the Adulteress”” and “the thorny issue of the endings of Mark.”  I chimed in to protest, in a brief comment, that Metzger’s comments on both of those passages contain some false claims, and that throughout Metzger’s book, readers frequently receive one-sided propaganda in favor of the UBS Committee’s decision.  Important evidence routinely is not mentioned, simply because it favors a variant that the UBS Committee did not adopt.

          Another reader of Hurtado’s blog chimed it to briefly say that I was making an “attack on Dr. Metzger” and that my views have been shown to be erroneous.  To this I concisely responded that my views have not been shown to be erroneous; they have been ignored.  (For instance, I have demonstrated that Metzger’s claim that some non-annotated manuscripts of Mark have asterisks or obeli accompanying Mark 16:9-20 is false.  Nevertheless Dan Wallace, Larry Hurtado, Ben Witherington III, James White, and others keep spreading that false claim.)  I also said, “Metzger’s commentary is terrible one-sided and selective.  A far more informative resource is Wieland Willker’s online Textual Commentary on the Greek Gospels.”

          The following week, Hurtado told his blog-readers about Wieland Willker’s work. Better late than never, I suppose.  The data in Willker’s online textual commentary is a welcome remedy to the inaccuracies, falsehoods, and constant spin that one finds in the obsolete volume by Metzger that Hurtado had recommended just a week earlier.  I am delighted that Hurtado has, at last, discovered and acknowledged Willker’s superior text-critical commentary on the Gospels.  

          Unfortunately Hurtado did not deduce that the typographical error in my earlier comment about Metzger’s book was a typographical error (like all the times Hurtado mentions the “periscope” about the adulteress).  The word “terrible” in my sentence, “Metzger’s commentary is terrible one-sided and selective” should have been “terribly.”  This became the basis for the following sentence from Hurtado:   “I think that James Snapp was unkind and inaccurate to describe the Metzger textual commentary as “terrible” in the way it handles the questions about the ending of Mark a recent comment.”  

          I responded to explain that I meant to write the word “terribly” instead of “terrible.”  Here we are two weeks later, and no change has been made in Hurtado’s blog-entry (not even to add the word “in” to the sentence).  So I will clarify my meaning here.  

          Metzger’s A Textual Commentary on the New Testament is not terrible.  As a defense of the UBS Committee’s decisions to favor the Alexandrian Text more than 99% of the time in their allegedly eclectic approach, Metzger’s book is very good.  However, its readers should be warned that it mainly consists of terribly one-sided defensive arguments which very frequently minimize, misrepresent, or simply ignore important evidence and strong arguments for the readings which the UBS Committee rejected.

          The sad results of heavy reliance upon Metzger’s book can be seen in Hurtado’s own commentary on Mark.  He stated (in his 1983 volume on Mark in the New International Commentary series, reissued in 1989, and again in 2011 in Baker Books’ Understanding the Bible commentary-series) that “Readers of more modern translations will find these verses set off from the rest of Mark with an editorial note that they are not found in some of the most highly regarded manuscripts of the Gospel.”  By “some,” Hurtado meant two Greek manuscripts – Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. 

          Hurtado then wrote, “There is evidence in the ancient manuscripts of other material that may have formed two other endings of Mark in some editions of the Gospel.”  Hmm.  There is evidence of the “Shorter Ending” – a brief paragraph which states that the women who left the tomb reported to the disciples and to Peter, and that Jesus sent His followers to proclaim the eternal gospel from east to west.  Hurtado was referring to that little flourish when he wrote, “Several Greek manuscripts and other ancient witnesses insert a short block of material after 16:8, often followed by vv. 9-20.”  By “several,” he meant six.  In all six Greek manuscripts that have the Shorter Ending, Mark 16:9 also appears.

          But what did Hurtado mean by “often”?  He meant, in every such case except one (namely, in the Old Latin Codex Bobbiensis, in which an interpolation appears between Mark 16:3 and 16:4, and in which part of 16:8 has been removed).  Considering that Mark 16:9 appears in all six Greek manuscripts that have the Shorter Ending, and in the dozens of non-Greek copies that have the Shorter Ending, Hurtado’s statement is amusingly inaccurate:  the statement that when the Shorter Ending appears after Mark 16:8 it is often accompanied by verses 9-20 is like a statement that dead men often do not rise from the dead, eat food, and ascend to heaven.  There is only one exception.      

          And what is the second ending to which Hurtado referred by mentioning “two other endings”?  There is no such thing.  Hurtado was referring to the Freer Logion, but the Freer Logion is not another ending; it is an interpolation that appears between Mark 16:14 and 16:15 in one extant manuscript.  (I repeat:  One.  Not “Some” – the footnote about this in the New Living Translation is false and its author should issue a loud and clear apology for misleading the NLT’s readers about this.  Tyndale House Publishers should include the apology in the preface of the NLT for at least the next 20 years, to undo the damage their falsehood has done.  The NET’s false note about the Freer Logion also needs to be corrected.)  The Freer Logion is not “another ending,” and any commentator who presents it as one is mishandling the data and obscuring the evidence.

          To restate:  when Hurtado referred to “the several other endings that appear in the manuscript tradition,” he misrepresented the evidence so as to convey that rivals to verses 9-20 besides the Shorter Ending were written as continuations from Mark 16:8.  Other authors, such as Michael Holmes, have similarly juggled the formats in which Mark 16:9-20 and the Shorter Ending are presented, and have mistreated Codex W’s testimony.  

          Metzger knew that the Freer Logion was never an independent ending of the Gospel of Mark.  He described the Freer Logion as “probably the work of a second or third century scribe who wished to soften the severe condemnation of the Eleven in 16.14,” which would render the Freer Logion a piece of evidence in favor of verses 9-20 from the 100’s or 200’s.  This seems not to have registered at all upon those who are busy misrepresenting the Freer Logion as “another ending,” as if it began as a continuation of the narrative after 16:8.

The new edition of my defense
of Mark 16:9-20
as part of the original text.

          And consider Hurtado’s claim that “The testimony of the earliest “fathers” of the church (in the first four centuries) indicates that these verses were known only in a few copies.”  When we see utilizations of the contents of Mark 16:9-20 in Justin’s First Apology, in the Epistula Apostolorum, in Tatian’s Diatessaron, in Irenaeus’ Against Heresies Book Three (in which Irenaeus, in chapter 10, paragraph 5, specifically quotes Mark 16:19 from the Gospel of Mark, over a century before the production of the earliest surviving manuscript of Mark 16), in De Rebaptismate, in the pagan author Hierocles’ writings cited by Macarius Magnes, in Aphrahat’s First Demonstration (part 17), in Acts of Pilate/Gospel of Nicodemus, in the Gothic version, in the Apostolic Constututions, in the Peshitta, in the Vulgate, in Old Latin chapter-summaries, in four compositions by Ambrose, and in Greek manuscripts mentioned by Augustine – all from before the year 400 – all hope must be abandoned that a realistic appraisal of the evidence can be found in Hurtado’s work.

          Let future commentators take warning:  the days in which Metzger’s Textual Commentary could be cited as if it is a source of trustworthy and balanced information about the ending of Mark are over.  (The same should be true regarding Metzger’s comments on John 7:53-8:11.)  And so are the days when commentators could take reckless swipes at Mark 16:9-20, and spread all sorts of falsehoods, without expecting their competence to be called into question.     

          This week I released the 2016 edition of Authentic:  The Case for Mark 16:9-20 as a Kindle e-book, at a price which most researchers can easily afford.  Its new opening chapter includes numerous samples of the vague. misleading, and inaccurate (in some cases, bizarrely inaccurate) claims about Mark 16:9-20 which commentators have made.  Its appendix addresses some false claims promoted by Dan Wallace. 

          The old edition is still available for the researchers in Dallas, Wheaton, Edinburgh and elsewhere who prefer to rely on resources which are overpriced and obsolete.

The New International Commentary - Mark by Larry W. Hurtado is © 1983, 1989 by Larry W. Hurtado.  Published by Hendrikson Publishers and Paternoster Press.  

A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament by Bruce M. Metzger is  © 1971 by the United Bible Societies.

Minuscule 304, Theophylact, and the Ending of Mark

          Minuscule 304 is a medieval Greek manuscript which contains a commentary on Matthew and Mark, along with the text of those two Gospels.  Sometimes, medieval commentaries are formatted so as to surround the Gospels-text:  the Gospels-text is positioned in a small rectangle, near the inner edge of the page, and the commentary occupies the space on the three outer margins of the page.  In 304, however, the Gospels-text and the commentary-text are interspersed:  a segment of Scripture is followed by a segment of corresponding commentary, separated by a small dark circle. 
          304 is considered to be a very minor manuscript, in terms of its significance for textual criticism, with one exception:  its text of Mark concludes at the end of 16:8.  In the second edition of the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament, 304 was not mentioned; minuscule 2386, instead, was listed as if it is the only extant Greek manuscript which ends at the end of 16:8 in agreement with Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.
          In 1973, however, Kurt Aland deduced the reason why 2386 does not contain verses 9-20:  a thief has removed the page upon which those verses were written, in order to obtain the illustration of the Evangelist Luke which was on the opposite side of the page.  At that point, 304 was promoted, so that one now finds it mentioned in the textual apparatus as an ally of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus at Mark 16:8 in the fourth edition of the UBS Greek New Testament, and in the 27th edition of the Nestle-Aland compilation.
          Let’s take a closer look at 304.  This manuscript is housed at the Bibliothèque Nationale de France – the National Library of France, and page-views of the manuscript, from microfilm, were recently made available.
          The catalog-note near the beginning of 304 assigns it to the 13th century, which disagrees with Aland & Aland, who described it as if it was made in the 12th century.  At the beginning of the portion that contains the text of Mark, the title is not “The Gospel of Mark.”  It is, instead, “The  Explanation (Ερμηνεια) of the Gospel of Mark.”  This commentary came to the attention of researchers centuries ago, when a transcription of its contents was printed by Pierre Poussines (also known as Petrus Possinus) as “Codex Tolesanus” in 1673, in Catena Graecorum Patrum in Evangelium Secundum Marcum.

The title, above Mark 1:1-3, in 304:
"The Explanation of the Gospel of Mark."

          The Gospels-text of 304 is essentially Byzantine, and its commentary-material on the Gospel of Mark consists mainly of a commentary written by Theophylact of Achrida (or Ochrid) (c. 1050-1108), supplemented by comments from various patristic writers, including – according to name-abbreviations which appear in the margin next to the excerpts – Cyril, Origen, Photius, Eusebius, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and Apollinaris, and occasionally an excerpt is attributed to “Others.”   (Similar abbreviations also appear in the margins in the commentary on Matthew, in which Chrysostom’s works are cited very frequently.)

          In 1881, Hort mentioned the contents of 304, stating, “The third commentary printed by Poussin likewise comes to an end at v. 8 in the Toulouse MS employed by him.  But it is not yet known whether other MSS attest a similar text; and at all events the Toulouse scholia are here almost identical with those that are attributed to Theophylact, which certainly cover vv. 9-20.”

          Indeed, when we compare Theophylact’s commentary to 304, the text-divisions usually correspond exactly.  Most of the comments on Mark in 304 are derived from Theophylact, and this can be confirmed with certainty via direct comparisons between Theophylact’s comments and the comments found in 304.  To demonstrate this important point, here are translations of the beginnings of the comment-segments in 304, and the beginnings of the comment-segments in Theophylact’s commentary, throughout Mark chapter 15:

● After 15:15 –

304:  The Jews handed over Christ to the Romans. 

Theophylact:  The Jews delivered the Lord to the Romans.

● After 15:21 –

304:  Soldiers typically rejoice . . . 

Theophylact:  Soldiers typically rejoice . . .

● After 15:28 (which is not in the Alexandrian Text) – 

There is some difference in content and order, but in 304, sixteen lines into the comment, and in Theophylact’s commentary at the outset of this segment, we find this statement:

304 –There is an old tradition which says that Adam was buried in that place, where Christ was crucified, so that in the place where death began, it would also meet its end.

Theophylact – There is a tradition handed down from the holy fathers which says that Adam was buried in that place . . . so that where death began, there also death would be destroyed.
(This tradition, by the way, is why medieval illustrators sometimes drew a skull-and-crossbones at the base of the cross, representing the corpse of Adam.)

● After 15:32 –

304 – Not only did the soldiers blaspheme the Lord, but also those who were going by blasphemed him . . .

Theophylact – Even those who were going by, that is, along the road, blasphemed the Lord . . .

(The parallel continues throughout the comment, concluding with a reference to Luke’s observation about the repentant thief.)

After this, 304 has an excerpt which is assigned to Hesychius, beginning with Ακριβατε, about what Matthew and Luke say about the two thieves.  

● After 15:37 –

304 – The darkness was not in one place only, but over all the earth.  And at the end of the comment, there is a statement that Luke tells us the words of Jesus’ cry:  into your hands I commit my spirit.

Theophylact – The darkness was not only in that place, but over the whole earth.  And near the end of the comment, there is a statement that Luke tells us the words of Jesus’ cry:  into your hands I commit my spirit.

● After 15:41 –

304 – By the tearing of the curtain, it was shown by God that the spirit of grace had departed from the temple, and the Holy of Holies . . .     

Theophylact – By tearing the curtain, it was demonstrated by God that the grace of the Spirit had departed from the temple, and the Holy of Holies . . .

● After 15:47 –

304 – Joseph of Arimathea, though being a servant under the decrees of the law, understood Christ to be God . . .  

Theophylact – O Blessed Joseph!  Though a servant of the Law, he perceived the divinity of Christ . . .

          This very close relationship between Theophylact’s commentary and the commentary-material in 304 continues into chapter 16, as shown by this picture, in which the Greek text of Theophylact’s comments on Mark 16:1-8 are highlighted in blue when there is a verbatim correspondence in 304, and in yellow where the match is out of order or otherwise approximated. 

          When one looks at the final lines of the commentary-material in 304, the text ends as follows:  Η υπο του φοβου τον νουν απολεσασαι. (“Out of fear, they had lost their minds.”)  This corresponds to similar material in Theophylact’s commentary.  (In Theophylact’s commentary, there is another sentence after this, stating, And because of this they said nothing to anyone, ignoring even what they had heard. – Και δια τουτο ουδενι ουδεν ειπον,  επιλαθόμεναι και ων ηκουσαν.)   There the text of 304 ends, without any special marks (other than the usual dark circle that separates the commentary-material from the Scripture-text) – not even the “+” marks that appear in 304 at the end of the commentary on Matthew.  There is no closing-title.  There is not even an “Amen.”  (The opposite side of the page contains scrawled notes which are not part of the commentary.)

      There is, however, a faintly written note which indicates that this is where the exemplar of 304 ended.  Beginning on the very next line after the last line of commentary-text, and preceding the damage to the lower margin of the page, it runs as follows:

A two-line note -- faint but decipherable -- appears
in 304 below the last line of commentary.

ώσπερ ξένοι χαρουσι ιδειν πατρίδα

ουτω και η γράφοντες βιβλιον τελος 

As travelers rejoice on their homeland to look,

Thus also the scribe at the end of a book.

           Below this, in even fainter lettering, someone has repeated part of the first line of this little note, but then the damage takes over and nothing else is legible.

           A similar, slightly longer note is also found in 304 below the end of the commentary on Matthew.  (Similar notes are found in other medieval manuscripts, such as Lectionary 1663.)  There, the format is different:  the end of the commentary is signified by a plus-mark (“+”) at the end of the last line of text, followed by another line occupied solely by two additional plus-marks, before the note is written (followed by two more lines of text).

          All things considered, the following points should be clear:
          (1)  Pending further research, 304’s testimony to the ending of Mark at 16:8 should be considered highly dubious, inasmuch as Theophylact’s Explanation of the Gospels, the main source of 304’s Gospels-text and commentary-text, continues, not only with another sentence about Mark 16:1-8, but with two more segments, the first of which explains Mark 16:9-13 (beginning with a sentence descended from one that is also found in Eusebius’ Ad Marinum, stating that the opening phrase of 16:9 should be read with a pause) and the second of which explains Mark 16:14-20. 
          (2)  Considering the essentially Byzantine nature of the text in 304, it seems very likely that 304 was copied from a damaged exemplar which was missing its final pages, rather than that 304 echoes an exemplar which was designed to display Mark 16:8 as the final text of Mark with no further comment. 

          (3)  One cannot absolutely rule out the theory that (a) the exemplar of 304 contained a note similar to the one mentioned by Migne in a footnote in P.G. 123, found in “Codex 26”:  “Some who have commented on this passage say that Mark’s Gospel ends at this point [at 16:8] and that the remainder began its existence later.  An explanation of this passage is also necessary in order that no injury may be done to the truth,” and (b) on the basis of the first part of this note, the scribe of 304 boldly decided to abstain from copying any further text or comment.  However, this theory seems highly unlikely, inasmuch as the copyist displays no intention of altering the text according to patristic observations about variant-readings elsewhere in 304 (such as at Matthew 27:16-17 and Mark 1:2).

          (4)  If manuscripts which contain Theophylact’s commentary interspersed with the Gospels-text can be shown to share a particular collection of fairly unique readings (such as τον Ιησουν at the end of Mark 16:1), their weight should be considered collectively, rather than individually, and these manuscripts’ texts could plausibly be regarded as very extensive quotations made by Theophylact, rather than as continuous-text Gospels-manuscripts.

          (5)  More research on Theophylact’s Gospels-commentary would be welcome.  A good start (for any aspiring researcher) might involve a comparison of 304 and 2214.  2214 is another 13th-century copy of Theophylact’s commentary in which the Gospels-text and commentary-material are arranged in alternating segments.  It was thought to be lost in the 1980’s, but it is not lost; it resides as MS #233 at the Ivan Dujčev Research Center in Bulgaria.  Future investigators of Theophylact’s commentary and his Gospels-text should also look into minuscule 2879, which is at Oxford.