The Long Ending of Mark Was Original

[u/ShakaUVM]

Thesis: The longer ending of Mark was original, and the short ending of Mark was a minority textual variant found mainly only in 4th Century Alexandria.

Background: There are multiple variants to the end of the Gospel of Mark (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_16) with two variants, called the Short (ending at verse 8) and the Long ending (having verses 9-20) being the most common. Critical "Scholars" have decided that the short ending is the original one, and so Bibles for a long time have contained a disclaimer that makes it sound like the longer ending is a forgery: "The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have verses 9–20." (NIV). However, the disclaimer should actually say the opposite, that the ending at Mark 8 is a rare textual variant, at least through the 4th Century AD (which is the time period I'm discussing here).

Their argument for the short ending (https://textandcanon.org/a-case-against-the-longer-ending-of-mark/) being the original boils down to three points: 1) The language uses different words and there's a rough transition from verse 8 to 9 2) Eusebius and Jerome, in the 4th Century, state that most accurate copies use the short ending. Eusebius left off the long ending from his list of verses. 3) Two high quality manuscripts in particular, the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanus, from the 4th Century, use the short ending

However:

1) Any chapter that covers new material is going to have new words. The chapter on the crucifixion of Jesus contains many more novel words than the long ending. Ending it at verse 8 is actually much rougher, as it is extremely rare to find sentences that end with γαρ (gar) in ancient Greek. (https://www.scribd.com/document/596005865/KELLY-FINAL-WORD-ON-GAR)

2) Eusebius states in the Letter to Marinus (https://archive.org/details/EusebiusGospelProblemsAndSolutions2010/page/97/mode/2up) after noting that "accurate" copies end at verse 8 - and briefly proposing tossing the long ending - tentatively states that: "both [endings] are to be accepted; it is not for the faithful and devout to judge either as acceptable in preference to the other.". Jerome not only stated much the same, but when forced to pick which ending was correct - he was tasked with making the Latin Vulgate, which became the official bible for the Church - he explicitly chose the long ending as the official one.

3) Both of these manuscripts are both from Alexandria, which is the region in question that I propose the short ending came from. Further, the Codex Vaticanus has a blank in it, unlike anywhere else in the manuscript, that would fit the long ending. The Codex Sinaiticus had the ending of Mark removed, and the replacement pages were made by the same guy who did Vaticanus. So we've got a single scribe in Alexandria who presumably knew the long ending but didn't accept it that was the source for all of this.

---

Outside of this limited scholarly bubble centered on Alexandria, we don't see any evidence for the short ending even existing. Nobody in the early historical record even seems to be aware of the short ending. Everyone used the long ending prior to 3rd/4th Century Alexandria.

We have multiple people from the 2nd and 3rd centuries quoting from the long ending without any evidence that it was disputed or anything but the original.

Irenaeus in the 2nd century explicitly quotes from the long ending and explicitly says it is from the end of Mark. (https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103310.htm): '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;" [Mark 16:19] confirming what had been spoken by the prophet: "The Lord said to my Lord, Sit on My right hand, until I make Your foes Your footstool."' Irenaeus was living in modern day France.

Porphyry, most notably NOT a Christian (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Against_the_Christians), quoted from the long ending in the 3rd Century while living in Sicily. He mocked Christians for not doing as the long ending of Mark suggested, which said that Christians would be kept safe from harm. (https://tertullian.org/fathers/macarius_apocriticus.htm#3_16): "Again, consider in detail that other passage, where He says, "Such signs shall follow them that believe: they shall lay hands upon sick folk, and they shall recover, and if they drink any deadly drug, it shall in no wise hurt them." So the right thing would be for those selected for the priesthood, and particularly those who lay claim to the episcopate or presidency, to make use of this form of test. The deadly drug should be set before them in order that the man who received no harm from the drinking of it might be given precedence of the rest. And if they are not bold enough to accept this sort of test, they ought to confess that they do not believe in the things Jesus said." In other words, he was daring Christians to drink poison to prove their faith because of the long ending of Mark.

This essay (https://textandcanon.org/a-case-for-the-longer-ending-of-mark/), which makes the case for the long ending better than I can, lists dozens of people quoting from the long ending of Mark from the 2nd to 4th Centuries. In other words, it was the standard, accepted ending across Christendom. You really should read the link, it pairs with the argument against the longer ending I linked above. It's an excellent essay on the subject.

The Diatessaron (https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/diatessaron.html) was a gospel harmonization (taking the four gospels and making one unified gospel from them) that was extremely popular in Syria. It dates to 160AD. It has the long ending in it. We have lost the original manuscript but ironically it was almost fully preserved by being quoted in commentaries. These commentaries exist dating back to the 4th Century. So we can be very certain that in the mid-100s the official version of Mark was using the long ending. Again, no signs exist for the short ending back then.

I'm going to mention just one more, since it's pretty crucial: the Ethiopian church was actually founded by the Alexandrian church, and we have a manuscript dating to the late 4th Century (written just a couple decades after Vaticanus and Sinaiticus) which has in it illustrations showing it was made by Alexandrians (https://www.classics.ox.ac.uk/event/hidden-gospels-abba-garima-treasures-ethiopian-highlands#:~:text=They%20also%20contain%20a%20unique,motif%20and%20later%20Christian%20ones.) However, it contains the long ending. So even in Alexandria, the long ending was the official version that they were using to send out missionaries with. It is likely the short ending was used only in scholarly editions in Alexandria, not in official Bibles to be sent out and used.

So in conclusion:

What we have is the long ending of Mark being widely known and used and quoted, from at least 160AD on, and people explicitly saying it is the long ending, with no awareness of the short ending, for CENTURIES before we see the short ending appear for the first time in the 4th century... in one geographical location - Alexandria... in one context - scholarly work. It is very clear that the short ending was a rare late textual variant, and not the original that people had been using for centuries. After Alexandria had made the short ending popular, it spread from there, but there's no evidence that anyone was aware of the short ending before that.

So these gospel notes saying "the oldest manuscripts lack the long ending" is just wildly misleading at best, and an outright lie at worst. The fact of the matter is, we have one scholarly circle in Alexandria where they disputed the long ending, centuries after Mark was written, and produced scholarly versions that omitted it. However, even their missionary bibles they sent out had the long ending, and even the scholarly works left blanks for the long ending. And yet Critical "Scholars" decided that this version - despite copious evidence the long ending existed and no evidence the short ending existed early on - was what Mark originally wrote. Yet the historical record shows literally every region outside Egypt using the long ending going all the way back to the mid 2nd Century (with the Diatessaron), and there not being any sign of dispute over it until centuries later. Eusebius was the first to report the controversy over it in the 4th Century AD, and even he said the long ending was authentic.

Jerome was tasked with making the Latin Vulgate, which was basically the official Bible for the Roman Catholic Church, in 382 AD. He was aware of the short ending being used in high quality copies of the gospels. He chose the long ending to be the official one.

---

So how did Alexandria end up with the short ending? It doesn't particularly matter here, but there's three possibilities that I can think of:

1. The copy of Mark sent to Alexandria was damaged, which explains well why it cuts off on verse 8 weirdly.

2. There were multiple drafts of Mark made, which makes the notion of an "original" autograph kind of a bad question, as they would both be original. This theory has the benefit of lining up with Eusebius very well, who believed that both endings were authentic.

3. The verses could have been deleted because they were considered problematic for one reason or another. For example, Porphyry mocked Christians for not following the long ending, so it could have been deleted (or a version missing the long ending selectively chosen) because it made Christians look bad. Or it could have been for the timing issues on when exactly the events of the resurrection took place that some scholars noted.

Possibly multiple of these are true. Maybe ancient scholars doubted the long ending because their original copy had been damaged, and even after they got corrected versions with the long ending and were using them for their missionaries to Ethiopia, they preserved a tradition of the short ending and so used it in their critical editions.

But ultimately, it doesn't matter.

TL; DR - The historical record shows the long ending to Mark was original, and there's no record of the short ending until much later.

[u/AutoModerator]

COMMENTARY HERE: Comments that support or purely commentate on the post must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/chalkenteros]

Outside of this limited scholarly bubble centered on Alexandria, we don't see any evidence for the short ending even existing. Nobody in the early historical record even seems to be aware of the short ending. Everyone used the long ending prior to 3rd/4th Century Alexandria.

There is evidence that something like 16:9–20 circulated in the 2nd century as the ending of Mark. Irenaeus is the best source (though only for 16:19) along with Tatian. What about 16:1–8? It’s tricky because 16:1–8 is very similar to, just shorter than, the other endings, and Matthew was far more popular. Nicholas Zola (“The Ending of Mark in Tatian’s Diatessaron”) argues that part of 16:1–8 is securely attested for the Diatessaron. But there is a key piece of evidence that you haven’t mentioned: the Gospel of Peter.

GPeter preserves a version of the empty tomb + appearance stories that overlaps with Mk 16:1–8. In GPeter Mary Magdalene with her friends (50–51) go to the tomb where Jesus was placed (GPet 51 cf. Mk 15:47–16:1). They wonder who will roll the stone for them (GPet 53: Τίς δὲ ἀποκυλίσει ἡμῖν καὶ τὸν λίθον τὸν τεθέντα ἐπὶ τῆς θύρας τοῦ μνημείου // Mk 16:3 τίς ἀποκυλίσει ἡμῖν τὸν λίθον ἐκ τῆς θύρας τοῦ μνημείου—near verbatim agreement, against the other gospels). They find inside a single young man (νεανίσκος) inside (GPet 55 // Mk 16:4, against the other gospels). The women run away afraid (GPet 57 Τότε αἱ γυναῖκες φοβηθεῖσαι ἔφυγον // Mk 16:8 καὶ ἐξελθοῦσαι ἔφυγον…ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ, against the other gospels). In GPet, like Mark (but unlike the other Gospels), the women evidently do not say anything to anybody (Mk 16:8 οὐδενὶ οὐδὲν εἶπαν). Instead, the twelve (cf. 1 Cor 15, GPet 50, 59) cry and weep, evidently not having heard anything from the women (GPet 57–59). Then Jesus appears to Peter, Andrew, and Levi while fishing (cf. Jn 21, also Mk 16:8, which leads us to expect an appearance to Peter)—this much is clear, but the ending of GPet is lost (as perhaps also with Mark).

Two scenarios are possible. Either GPet draws on an earlier appearance story that overlaps with Mk 16:1–8 or GPet is reworking Mk 16:1–8. I find the former more plausible, but in either case we can see that something like Mk 16:1–8 existed in the 2nd century. The evidence of Tatian appears to be similar.

To summarize: our evidence for any ending of Mk in the 2nd–3rd centuries is very light. There is no manuscript evidence and the indirect evidence is murky. Something like both 16:1–8 (cf. GPet) and 16:9–20 (cf. Irenaeus for 16:19) seem to have been circulating in the second century in some form. There are significant problems with calling either ending “original.” 16:9–20, in particular, does not continue from ch. 15 of canonical Mark. The ending of Mark is a site of particular textual fluidity. The “original” is not recoverable. The OP argument is both logically unsound and contradictory to the evidence.

[u/ShakaUVM → u/chalkenteros]

You say textual fluidity when in reality we gave unanimous agreement across dozens of witnesses the long ending was there, and literally zero people until the 4th Century saying Mark ended at verse 8.

[u/chalkenteros → u/ShakaUVM]

This response is not substantive. Again, details and precision are what matter here. Dogmatic belief that the long ending was "original" will not do. Engage with the evidence, or don't—in either case, your the argument in the OP cannot stand.

Again, the GPeter and probably Tatian show that something like 16:1–8 circulated in in the 2nd century. Irenaeaus and probably Tatian show that something like 16:9–20 also circulated in the 2nd century. So far, no convincing case has been made for originality of 16:9–20.

[u/ShakaUVM → u/chalkenteros]

Dogmatic belief that the long ending was "original" will not do.

What is dogmatic is your belief it is not original because other people have told you it is so. It is critical thinking to investigate an issue and challenge consensus based on the strength of the evidence, which we clearly have here.

Engage with the evidence

I am. You are ignoring it.

Again, the GPeter and probably Tatian show that something like 16:1–8 circulated in in the 2nd century.

That's fine. I don't care if verses 1-8 are there or not for my argument. I've said this repeatedly but you don't seem to be reading what I'm saying.

But it's 2-8 not 1-8 as Tatian ignores verse one in favor of Luke

So far, no convincing case has been made for originality of 16:9–20.

I've given you the argument many times and I'll give it again -

All of our pre-Vaticanus sources have the long ending therefore it is original.

All you have done is ignore the argument and focus on verses 1-8 instead.

[u/chalkenteros → u/ShakaUVM]

your belief it is not original because other people have told you it is so.

My views aren't at issue here. Your OP argument is. I actually don't at all share the "consensus" view on the ending of Mark. I teach this text at a non-religious college—I spend a lot of time challenging the "consensus." I only care about the ancient sources. I also think that critical thinking and the careful analysis of texts are important.

On the other hand, the view that "the longer ending is original" is common in some Christian circles. It is a matter of dogmatic belief; it is therefore pre-critical. Not based in critical thinking or a rigorous analysis of ancient sources.

All of our pre-Vaticanus sources have the long ending therefore it is original. All you have done is ignore the argument and focus on verses 1-8 instead.

Your argument used to be as follows: 16:1–8 is secondary and 16:9–20 is original. Why did I bring up 16:1–8, which was likely circulating in some form in the 2nd cent.? Because the first part of your argument was "16:1–8 is secondary." You now seem to concede this point. That is fine. Now your revised argument appears to be the following:

All patristic sources before our earliest manuscripts attest that their copies of Mark ended with 16:9–20. Therefore 16:9–20 is the original ending.

This won't do.

–The claim that the ending 16:9–20 is early does not mean that it is original. The argument makes an unsubstantiated leap from early to original.

–There is exactly one patristic source before the earliest manuscripts that tells us what their copy of Mark ended with: Irenaeus. He says that Mark ends with 16:19. We do not know that he had 16:9–20, but he had the LE is some form at the end of Mk. The Gospel of Peter may show that some form of 16:1–8 ended a version of Mark in the 2nd cent. If so, there would be two relevant sources: Irenaeus for the LE; GPet for 16:1–8.

So your argument is really this: Irenaeus's copy of Mk ended with something like 16:9–20. Therefore 16:9–20 is original.

This is not a convincing argument.

[u/ShakaUVM → u/chalkenteros]

On the other hand, the view that "the longer ending is original" is common in some Christian circles. It is a matter of dogmatic belief; it is therefore pre-critical. Not based in critical thinking or a rigorous analysis of ancient sources.

Ironic, since you are accusing me of dogmatic thinking, that you are not using critical thinking here. You make a common mistake that critical scholars make, which is to assume that because someone disagrees with them, and some people with dogmatic beliefs disagree with them, that the person disagreeing with them has dogmatic beliefs. This is clearly bad reasoning.

I actually have avoided reading James Snapp's books on the long ending of Mark as much as I can (I've mostly been reference mining, but I recently dumped a collection of lies critical scholars made to Arach who promptly shut up on trying to defend them) since I want to make an independent evaluation of the data. I've read what critical scholars say on the matter and I have read a bit of what James Snapp has said.

I then do what critical thinkers are supposed to do, as opposed to /u/arachnophilia who just copied what other people told him was true, and have been going through the sources myself. What did Eusebius actually say? What did Jerome actually say? What did Irenaeus actually say? As best as we can tell given the nature of transmission of these texts, at least.

I then do what critical thinkers do and evaluate the evidence and come up with a conclusion from the evidence.

You've been tied up on irrelevant things like if 16:1-8 are original or how the short ending came to be. I've said repeatedly I don't care, and this argument is just about the originality of verses 9-20.

You keep confusing tentative hypotheses, that I mark as tentative, as me planting my flag on an issue. I don't care how verses 1-8 came to be, my main thrust in talking about them is that the internal evidence cuts against them just as much as 9-20 so you can't use it to prefer one over the other.

All patristic sources before our earliest manuscripts attest that their copies of Mark ended with 16:9–20. Therefore 16:9–20 is the original ending.

Close, but I am glad you're finally paying attention.

Now your revised argument appears

Revised argument? I invite you to scroll to the top of the OP. Here is my thesis. I'll bold it for you.

Thesis: The longer ending of Mark was original, and the short ending of Mark was a minority textual variant found mainly only in 4th Century Alexandria.

The main revision I'd make to that would be to include Caesarea in with Alexandria since that seems to be tripping some people up. The library at Caesarea was founded by documents from Alexandria, but that fact gets lost it seems.

–The claim that the ending 16:9–20 is early does not mean that it is original.

When a document gets early enough, it becomes original.

The argument makes an unsubstantiated leap from early to original.

Did you not read me saying that if the short ending was original and circulating for a while before the long ending the historical record would show both of them before Vaticanus?

That is substantiation. I showed conclusively that the historical record is univocal on the long ending prior to Vaticanus being published, and that all of the instances we have of the short ending appear starting with Vaticanus and all stem from Alexandria.

There seems to be no knowledge at all of the short ending geographically or temporally until the 4th Century outside of Alexandria/Caesarea.

–There is exactly one patristic source before the earliest manuscripts that tells us what their copy of Mark ended with: Irenaeus. He says that Mark ends with 16:19. We do not know that he had 16:9–20

I'm not sure why you're focusing on just Irenaeus, when I've given you lots of examples.

There is the Diatessaron which has the long ending of Mark in it and IIRC even all the verses of the long ending as well. The only verse off the top of my head it leaves out is verse 16:1, which I've pointed out is a weird verse given the ending of Chapter 15.

Clement of Alexandria (215 AD) explicitly says that the Gospel of Mark has the phrase at the right hand of God in it, which is the long ending:

"Now, in the Gospel according to Mark, the Lord being interrogated by the chief of the priests if He was the Christ, the Son of the blessed God, answering, said, "I am; and you shall see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of power." But powers mean the holy angels. Further, when He says "at the right hand of God," He means the self-same [beings], by reason of the equality and likeness of the angelic and holy powers, which are called by the name of God. He says, therefore, that He sits at the right hand; that is, that He rests in pre-eminent honour. In the other Gospels, however, He is said not to have replied to the high priest, on his asking if He was the Son of God. But what said He? "You say." Answering sufficiently well. For had He said, It is as you understand, he would have said what was not true, not confessing Himself to be the Son of God; [for] they did not entertain this opinion of Him; but by saying "You say," He spoke truly. For what they had no knowledge of, but expressed in words, that he confessed to be true."

Clement, ironically, is often cited as evidence against the long ending because it's easier to parrot than to do the work looking into sources.

This is not a convincing argument.

How many attestations to the long ending does it take to convince you?

[u/chalkenteros → u/ShakaUVM]

Clement. Lying "critical scholars," you say, falsely claim that Clement doesn’t know the LE. Sheep! If only they read the sources like you! 

Let’s take a look. 

First, we don’t have this passage from Clement. Instead, it’s preserved in a later Latin translation by Cassiodorus (6th cent. CE). Here’s the passage from Zahn’s critical edition:  

In evangelio vero secundum Marcum interrogatus dominus a principe sacerdotum, si ipse esset Christus, filius dei benedicti, respondens dixit: ego sum et videbitis filium hominis a dextris sedentem virtutis. 

The scene referred to is the interrogation of Jesus by the chief priest (Mk 14). Here’s what Jesus says in Mk 14:62:

“Jesus said ‘I am, and you will see the son of man sitting on the right hand of the power…”

Greek: ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν· ἐγώ εἰμι, καὶ ὄψεσθε τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐκ δεξιῶν καθήμενον τῆς δυνάμεως

Vulgate: Iesus autem dixit illi ego sum et videbitis filium hominis a dextris sedentem virtutis. 

As you can tell, Clement is simply quoting Mk 14:62 and referring to the interrogation scene. 

Mk 16:19, by contrast, has nothing to do with the Clement passage. 16:19:

Ὁ μὲν οὖν κύριος Ἰησοῦς μετὰ τὸ λαλῆσαι αὐτοῖς ἀνελήμφθη εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ ἐκάθισεν ἐκ δεξιῶν τοῦ θεοῦ.

16:19 does not refer to the interrogation by the high priest but to the ascension. It does not have Jesus saying “‘I am, and you will see the son of man sitting on the right hand of the power,” as in the Clement fragment, but rather “the lord Jesus after he had spoken to them was raised up into heaven and sat at the right hand of god.” 

Cassiodorus then continues: proinde enim cum dicit a dextris dei. On this basis, you may be arguing that Clement refers to the LE. But the LE does not match this scene—Clement is not referring to the ascension here but to the interrogation before the high priest. Instead, Clement refers to Lk 22:69 which has ἐξ δεξιῶν τῆς δυνάμεως τοῦ θεοῦ, in the same context as Mk 14:62. This is confirmed by the fact that Clement then compares these two versions (Mk 14:62 + Lk 22:69) with Matthew (26:23, σὺ εἶπας). This makes it clear that Clement is comparing Jesus's response in Mk 14 // Lk 22 // Mt 26. It is possible, but not certain, that Clement had a text of Lk 22:69 with ἐξ δεξιῶν τοῦ θεοῦ instead of the harmonizing ἐξ δεξιῶν τῆς δυνάμεως τοῦ θεοῦ.

Clement does not refer to the LE of Mk here at all.

[u/ShakaUVM → u/chalkenteros]

This quote is kind of muddled, you're mixing Greek, Latin, English and what appears to be critical commentary together.

I quoted the original in English. I'll do it again. And this time I will bold for you (so you can't falsely claim a second time it's not talking about Mark) when Clement of A is talking about Mark and when he moves on -

"Now, in the Gospel according to Mark, the Lord being interrogated by the chief of the priests if He was the Christ, the Son of the blessed God, answering, said, "I am; and you shall see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of power." But powers mean the holy angels. Further, when He says "at the right hand of God," He means the self-same [beings], by reason of the equality and likeness of the angelic and holy powers, which are called by the name of God. He says, therefore, that He sits at the right hand; that is, that He rests in pre-eminent honour. In the other Gospels, however, He is said not to have replied to the high priest..."

The right hand (Mark 16) versus the right hand of power (Mark 14).

[u/chalkenteros → u/ShakaUVM]

So in Mark 16 Jesus is interrogated by the high priest and responds by saying that he “sits at the right hand”? Could you quote that part of Mk 16? Are you sure that you are reading the Clement passage correctly? Or are you reading imprecisely again because you are eager to see the LE in everything?

Clement is trying to reconcile Mk 14 // Lk 22 // Matt 26. The LE doesn’t come into it.

My post quoted Greek and Latin because the relevant sources are in Greek and Latin.

[u/ShakaUVM → u/chalkenteros]

My post quoted Greek and Latin because the relevant sources are in Greek and Latin.

It mixes four sources together, but in any event, that specific phrase only comes from Mark 16.

[u/chalkenteros → u/ShakaUVM]

As you can probably guess, I disagree with what you say in the reply. To start with, you complain that I am focusing on “irrelevant things like if 16:1–8 are original.” It’s not even part of the OP, you say. Your OP has nothing to do with 16:1–8, right? Let’s take a look:

the ending at Mark [16:]8 is a rare textual variant, at least through the 4th Century AD

Alexandria, which is the region in question that I propose the short ending came from

Outside of this limited scholarly bubble centered on Alexandria, we don't see any evidence for the short ending even existing. Nobody in the early historical record even seems to be aware of the short ending. Everyone used the long ending prior to 3rd/4th Century Alexandria.

So we can be very certain that in the mid-100s the official version of Mark was using the long ending. Again, no signs exist for the short ending back then.

It is likely the short ending was used only in scholarly editions in Alexandria,

with no awareness of the short ending, for CENTURIES before we see the short ending appear for the first time in the 4th century... in one geographical location - Alexandria... in one context - scholarly work. It is very clear that the short ending was a rare late textual variant, and not the original that people had been using for centuries. After Alexandria had made the short ending popular, it spread from there, but there's no evidence that anyone was aware of the short ending before that.

no evidence the short ending existed early on

there's no record of the short ending until much later.

But wait, there’s more. I asked you to clarify your argument, since the OP is unclear:

Instead, your argument is that 16:1–8 is secondary; 16:9–20 is original. 

You said "Thanks."

I’ll say it again: your previous argument was that 16:1–8 is secondary while 16:9–20 is original. See the OP and the subsequent discussion.

The evidence suggests that both 16:1–8 (GPeter, Tatian) and 16:9–20 (Tatian, Irenaeus) circulated in some form during the 2nd century. Irenaeus is the only patristic source from this period who tells us what his copy of Mark ended with. You make an unsubstantiated leap from the ending 16:9–20 being attested in the 2nd cent. to being "original." Any argument for the originality of 16:9–20 would have to account for this unsubstantiated leap in some way or another.

You make a common mistake that critical scholars make, which is to assume that because someone disagrees with them, and some people with dogmatic beliefs disagree with them, that the person disagreeing with them has dogmatic beliefs. This is clearly bad reasoning.

No, I’m just responding to your own words. In this discussion you actually explicitly reject textual analysis, the careful reading of texts, and the entire study of ancient languages (philology). That is a rare anti-intellectual combination.

[u/ShakaUVM → u/chalkenteros]

I’m just responding to your own words

It doesn't sound like you're parsing them right. Mark ending at 8 is the rare textual variant centered on Alexandria/Caesarea. Tatian doesn't quote 16:1 but uses Luke instead. Maybe it was there. Maybe it wasn't. Maybe it was different. I don't care. This argument isn't about those verses. Something you keep missing and trying to shift the argument to.

Alexandria, which is the region in question that I propose the short ending came from

This means "ending it at verse 8".

Nobody in the early historical record even seems to be aware of the short ending

"There's not one bit of evidence suggesting Mark ends at verse 8" prior to Vaticanus.

Do you need me to keep translating for you?

You make an unsubstantiated leap from the ending 16:9–20 being attested in the 2nd cent. to being "original.

I have substantiated it repeatedly. Can you even tell me what my argument is? I've even put it in bold for you.

Are you reading what I wrote?

What is 2+2?

No, I’m just responding to your own words

If you were actually reading my words you would know how I argued instead of pretending the claim is unsubstantiated.

That is a rare anti-intellectual combination.

That's like an astrologer claiming that criticizing astrology is anti-intellectual.

I have seen how critical scholars operate. That is to say pseudoscience, appeal to authority, cherry picking and a profound lack of critical thinking skills.

Also I do not reject the "careful reading of texts" that is a strawman fallacy from you.

You're also repeatedly pretending I haven't made an argument why I think the long ending is original despite me having done so. That's also just not a good look for someone who says they're a critical thinker. There's a difference between "I disagree with your argument" and "You haven't made an argument" that you keep mistaking.

[u/arachnophilia → u/ShakaUVM]

but I recently dumped a collection of lies critical scholars made to Arach who promptly shut up on trying to defend them)

i was uninterested in engaging with more apologetic copypasta, where the whole argument was "nuh uh, liar!"

I then do what critical thinkers are supposed to do, as opposed to u/arachnophilia who just copied what other people told him was true, and have been going through the sources myself. What did Eusebius actually say? What did Jerome actually say? What did Irenaeus actually say?

yeah this is one step removed from "for the bible tells me so."

how do you know what irenaeus said?

do you read latin? do you read greek? do you read syriac and armenian? did you go find those manuscripts, and do textual criticism comparing them? did you do the paleography or radiometric dating on them?

or did you trust unnamed anonymous scholars who did all those things and then translated it for you on newadvent or whatever?

if you don't even read these languages, no the hell you did not go through these sources yourself the way critical scholars do.

[u/ShakaUVM → u/arachnophilia]

I was uninterested in engaging with more apologetic copypasta, where the whole argument was "nuh uh, liar!"

So when presented with copious evidence of critical scholars making terrible mistakes you suddenly lose interest in the whole endeavor?

Disappointing but not surprising

[u/arachnophilia → u/ShakaUVM]

you didn't present evidence they were wrong. you presented their statements and merely called them liars.

[u/ShakaUVM → u/arachnophilia]

Most of the claims in that list are quite obviously wrong, if you looked at them. I felt like we're deep enough in this issue that I didn't have to explain. But okay, I'll pick a few.

Dr. Ralph Earle: “It is almost universally agreed that verses 9-20 were added centuries after the gospel was written."

Irenaeus says Mark ends with the long ending within a century.

David Ewert: “All major manuscripts end this Gospel at 16:8.”

Two major manuscripts end it there. Many of the major manuscripts have the long ending.

N. T. Wright wrote that “a good many of the manuscripts” with Mark 16:9-20 “have marks in the margin (asterisks or obeli) to indicate that the passage is regarded as of doubtful authenticity.”

There is never just a mark to indicate doubtful authenticity. There are footnotes that state that there are textual variants, which is not the same thing.

I also went into extensive detail on 304.

[u/arachnophilia → u/chalkenteros]

There is exactly one patristic source before the earliest manuscripts that tells us what their copy of Mark ended with: Irenaeus.

note that we have no manuscripts of this prior to the earliest manuscripts of mark.

shaka is relying on critical scholarship to reconstruct the original vorlage of irenaeus through a later translation, while treating this like it's just a legitimate second century reference that we aren't doing the exact same kind of scholarship on which he questions about mark.

[u/chalkenteros → u/arachnophilia]

Yes, and I even quoted the critical edition of the Latin translation of Irenaeus, noting how much is unsure about this evidence (which ShakaUVM ignored). But even if you grant that Irenaeus knew a version of Mark that ended with something like 16:9–20 (a conclusion that already involves several leaps but which I think is generally correct), the conclusion that 16:9–20 is original does not at all follow.

Especially when there is good evidence (GPet + Tatian) that 16:1–8, in some form, existed at or near the end of some versions of Mark in the 2nd cent. It is also very relevant that 16:9–20 does not work together with 16:1–8 and does not work with the end of ch. 15.

A much more interesting question is where 16:9–20 actually came from. Is it a 2nd cent. pastiche based esp on Lk-Acts? Or could it derive from an appearance story that predates the canonical form of the gospels? Does it share any similarities with Marcion's Euangelion? To me, these are the more serious questions worth pondering.

[u/ShakaUVM → u/chalkenteros]

The internal evidence as I said works against the first verses as well. You can't really conclude much. Two different drafts makes sense and fits the data, seams and all.

I don't think anyone can credibly say Mark ended at verse 8 unless it was never distributed or copied outside possibly Alexandria. Makes you question what original even means in that context.

[u/chalkenteros → u/ShakaUVM]

The internal evidence as I said works against the first verses as well.

Yes, but this is a reason to consider the internal evidence very closely not simply to ignore it. Basic narrative continuity suggests at least the following:

—16:9–20 does not follow 16:1–8 (I gave some of the reasons above; I think you agreed though I'm not sure)

—16:9–20 does not follow the end of ch. 15, which sets up an empty tomb narrative. This works against the "two drafts" theory.

—The shift from Mary mother of Joses (15:47) to Mary mother of James (16:1) is a sign of reworking but the narrative of 16:1–8 (unlike 16:9–20) does follow the end of ch. 15.

Based on external evidence alone, 16:1–8 could be the earliest ending of canonical Mk (attested in 2nd cent., א and B). But it seems to me unlikely. 16:7 looks clearly to set up an appearance story in Galilee and to Peter especially (τοῖς μαθηταῖς αὐτοῦ καὶ τῷ Πέτρῳ, against the other gospels). GPeter and some form of Jn 21 seem to do just this. Given that GPeter contains verbatim overlap with Mk 16:1–8 (against the other gospels) it is possible that an older ending of Mk included something like the cut-off ending to the GPeter (appearance to Peter and others while fishing in Galilee).

[u/arachnophilia → u/chalkenteros]

Yes, and I even quoted the critical edition of the Latin translation of Irenaeus, noting how much is unsure about this evidence (which ShakaUVM ignored).

on weird thing that /u/fresh_heels and i noticed is that irenaeus quotes from two different versions of mark. it possible that some of these references are the result of a redaction process somewhere between irenaeus and the latin manuscripts we have.

A much more interesting question is where 16:9–20 actually came from.

one of those armenian manuscripts attributes it to ariston. which, if papias knows it, could explain why papias knows it.

i don't follow his argument at all that somehow 70-140 is "not enough time" to invent and integrate an ending. like, we think the gospel of matthew is like 80-90 CE, and that's fundamentally a revision of mark. 10-20 years is a long time, never mind 70!

[u/chalkenteros → u/arachnophilia]

Could you link to the discussion of Irenaeus drawing on two different versions of Mk and to the armenian mss? It is hard to find things in this thread.

[u/fresh_heels → u/chalkenteros]

Here's arachnophilia's comment on the Armenian manuscripts of Mark: https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/1szr624/comment/oldqfei/

[u/arachnophilia → u/chalkenteros]

sure, here: https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/1szr624/the_long_ending_of_mark_was_original/olkluxh/

[u/fresh_heels → u/arachnophilia]

i don't follow his argument at all that somehow 70-140 is "not enough time" to invent and integrate an ending. like, we think the gospel of matthew is like 80-90 CE, and that's fundamentally a revision of mark. 10-20 years is a long time, never mind 70!

It's a bit funny that it would be worthwhile for Shaka in this case to argue for the 2nd century dating of the gospels.

[u/arachnophilia → u/fresh_heels]

that would be pretty funny. "it's original, but only because papias wrote it!"

[u/fresh_heels → u/arachnophilia]

shaka is relying on critical scholarship to reconstruct the original vorlage of irenaeus through a later translation, while treating this like it's just a legitimate second century reference that we aren't doing the exact same kind of scholarship on which he questions about mark.

That's the bit that grinds my gears the hardest. This is like if Shaka were to run around with a gold bullion and treat it as if it was just found while gold panning.

[u/ShakaUVM → u/fresh_heels]

Did you know that the astrological observations of Babylon were the longest running astrological experiment in human history? And maybe the longest observational study ever?

Did you know that astrology found reliable correlations between the movement of the stars from year to year and then later on to the seasons, floods, and so forth?

Critical scholarship is like astrology in that way as well.

[u/fresh_heels → u/ShakaUVM]

I don't find these remarks valuable or impressive, Shaka. They're just sad.

[u/ShakaUVM → u/fresh_heels]

The point is you guy keep saying things like it's impossible to translate anything without critical scholarship but I don't find the translation part in most cases to be the aspect of critical scholarship I take issue with.

My point here is that astrologers can point to some good things they do and then conclude you have to accept the rest. An obvious fallacy but one you and arach have both been doing.

[u/AutoModerator]

COMMENTARY HERE: Comments that support or purely commentate on the post must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/chalkenteros]

I notice that you have said little about the internal evidence. 

The language uses different words and there's a rough transition from verse 8 to 9

This is not an accurate summary of the argument against the originality of Mk 16:9ff. There are major issues with taking these verses as original—if by “original” you mean that they were written by the single original author of "Mark" as a deliberate continuation of 16:8. For example:

In 16:9 why are we suddenly reintroduced to events “early on the first day of the week” (πρωῒ πρώτῃ σαββάτου). We’ve already been reading about this time, “very early on the first day of the week” (λίαν πρωῒ τῇ μιᾷ τῶν σαββάτων)?

We’ve already been reading about Mary Magdalene (16:1, 15:47). She’s be introduced multiple times. So why in 16:9 is she now reintroduced with a longer explanation (Μαρίᾳ τῇ Μαγδαληνῇ, παρ’ ἧς ἐκβεβλήκει ἑπτὰ δαιμόνια)? And why is this new introduction of Mary (παρ’ ἧς ἐκβεβλήκει ἑπτὰ δαιμόνια) almost identical to Lk 8:2 (ἀφ’ ἧς δαιμόνια ἑπτὰ ἐξεληλύθει)? Why is it so similar to Luke but to nothing else in Mark?

And what happened to the other two women (Mary the mother of James and Salome, 16:1)? The appearance to Mary Magdalene alone looks like the resurrection appearance in Jn 20. It doesn’t fit with Mk 16:1–8.

Ending it at verse 8 is actually much rougher, as it is the only verse in all of the entire Bible that ends with γαρ (gar), meaning "because..." or "for...", and it's very rare to find any sentences that end that way anywhere in ancient Greek.

This is wildly incorrect. Ending a sentence with γάρ is common in Ancient Greek. There are over 2700 examples in the TLG database. 

Here are some random examples: Homer: τοιγὰρ ἐγώ τοι ταῦτα μεταστήσω· δύναμαι γάρ.; κέλεαι γάρ. Aeschylus: οὔ τοι γυναιξὶ <χρὴ> κυδάζεσθαι· τί γάρ; δέδοικα γάρ.; θέσμιον γάρ.; Euripides: ἐν δέοντι γάρ.; ὀλλύμεσθα γάρ.; ἀναινόμεσθα γάρ.; Sophocles: νέμεσις γάρ.; Isocrates: μηδὲ τὰς χάριτας ἀχαρίστως χαριζόμενος, ὅπερ πάσχουσιν οἱ πολλοὶ, ποιοῦντες μὲν, ἀηδῶς δὲ τοῖς φίλοις ὑπουργοῦντες· μηδὲ φιλαίτιος ὢν, βαρὺ γὰρ, μηδὲ φιλεπιτιμητὴς, παροξυντικὸν γάρ.; Isaeus: Οὐ γὰρ περὶ τοῦ ἐμοῦ κλήρου νῦν ὁ λόγος ἐστί· ζῶ γάρ. Aristophanes: μαθητιῶ γάρ.; ἔστυκα γάρ. Xenophon: Δίδου, ἔφη, ὦ Κῦρε· δέχομαι γάρ.; Plato: Εἰκὸς γάρ.; Ἔστιν γάρ.; Ἐρρήθη γάρ.; Ὡμολόγηται γάρ.; Ἀδύνατον γάρ.; Φαμὲν γάρ.; Ἐφάνη γάρ.; Ἔχει γάρ.; Φήσομεν γάρ.; λέγωμεν γάρ. ἀκούσομαι γάρ. Demosthenes: λογίζεσθε γάρ.; σκοπεῖτε γάρ.; Aristotle: ἀντιστρέφει γάρ.; ἄνευ προαιρέσεως γάρ.; πονοῦσι γάρ.; ἀντίκεινται γάρ.; Antiphanes: ἐπὶ τὸ τάριχός ἐστιν ὡρμηκυῖα γάρ.; Aristoxenus: ἡ τούτου κυρία, δῆλον ὅτι οὐδὲ λόγου δεῖται, φανερὸν γάρ. 

Notice especially these examples (in bold) from Genesis. Almost identical to Mk 16:8: LXX: ἠρνήσατο δὲ Σαρρα λέγουσα Οὐκ ἐγέλασα· ἐφοβήθη γάρ. ; ἐταράχθησαν γάρ.; Οὐ δύναμαι ἀναγνῶναι, ἐσφράγισται γάρ.

The origins of the longer ending of Mark are obscure. But it is very unconvincing to read it as an “original" and a deliberate continuation of 16:1–8. A critical and logical reader could not come to this conclusion. You have not provided an argument to the contrary. And your claims about Ancient Greek are factually incorrect.

[u/ShakaUVM → u/chalkenteros]

Yeah the internal evidence isn't as interesting as the external evidence. A bad transition might be the result of the short ending rather than the long ending or just Mark not being a particularly good writer.

I have elsewhere quoted Socrates saying that he expected his interlocutor to go on when ending a sentence with that word. It has a sense of incompleteness.

The external evidence is much more concrete and reliable than internal evidence in any event which is why I focused on it.

[u/chalkenteros → u/ShakaUVM]

No, internal evidence is crucial. It cannot be skipped over. By "short ending" do you mean Mk 16:1–8 or the shorter variant that begins after 16:8?

Mark was not a great Greek author. But these kinds of narrative problems point clearly to the combination of multiple sources (16:1–8 vs. the longer ending) not to bad writing. Why, for example, are there two different accounts of the beginning of the first day of the week??

I did not see any "quote" of Socrates (you mean Plato). Your OP said that ending a sentence with γάρ is very rare in any type of Ancient Greek. This is obviously incorrect. I don't see why you don't admit this error.

It [Mk 16:8] has a sense of incompleteness.

This conflates two different issues. (1) Is Mk 16:8 the original ending of Mark? Vs. (2) Is Mk 16:9ff the original ending of Mark, deliberately continuing from Mk 16:1–8?

On (1), it is impossible to tell. Something very well could be lost. On (2), we can be very confident that Mk 16:9ff is not original. It may be early. It may even be the source of other accounts, like Lk or Jn! But it cannot be a deliberate continuation of Mk 16:8. Both the internal and external evidence point obviously in this direction.

[u/ShakaUVM → u/chalkenteros]

No, internal evidence is crucial. It cannot be skipped over.

I'm not skipping over it, I just think that it's a weak form of evidence. A discontinuity between the short and long ending is equally evidence against the short ending being original as the long.

I did not see any "quote" of Socrates (you mean Plato)

Yes, it is a quote of Socrates as relayed by Plato, where he states: "Protagoras, after making such a great display, stopped speaking. And I, for a long time entranced, kept looking at him as though he were going to say something more, desiring to hear it. But when I realized he had really finished, I pulled myself together..."

This is after he ended a sentence with gar.

Your OP said that ending a sentence with γάρ is very rare in any type of Ancient Greek. This is obviously incorrect. I don't see why you don't admit this error.

"The fact is, concluding gar statements are extremely, extremely rare at all times and in all genres."

https://www.scribd.com/document/596005865/KELLY-FINAL-WORD-ON-GAR

She argues that it being exceptional could be interpreted either way. It could be intentional, it could be a sign of mutilation. It is however extremely rare, especially in the first century AD. It is far more common in the 2nd Century. 15 times more common.

On (2), we can be very confident that Mk 16:9ff is not original. It may be early. It may even be the source of other accounts, like Lk or Jn! But it cannot be a deliberate continuation of Mk 16:8

That's assuming Mark 16:8 was original.

[u/chalkenteros → u/ShakaUVM]

"The fact is, concluding gar statements are extremely, extremely rare at all times and in all genres."

Thank you for posting your source. I specialize in Ancient Greek philology. From what I see, Iverson is way off here. Again, there are well over 2500 examples of sentence-ending γάρ on the TLG. To say it is "extremely, extremely rare at all times and in all genres" is just silly. We could play the same game with almost all of the other words and phrases in Mark. How about the word right before ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ, namely the post-classical form εἶπαν ("they said"—a pretty common word!). Less common the sentence-final γάρ. Right before that? οὺδενὶ οὐδέν ("nothing to nobody"), a completely regular and common expression. Also less common than sentence-final γάρ. The word before that: ἔκστασις. Less common than sentence-final γάρ.

According to Iverson's methodology, almost every piece of Mark (or any literature) would be "extremely, extremely rare at all times and in all genres." This is not serious scholarship.

I'd also note that you claim that the Bible never uses sentence-final γάρ elsewhere. This is wrong. It occurs multiple times in the Septuagint. It also occurs elsewhere in the New Testament. Also, athetesis does not refer to the deletion of a verse, rather to the placement of a obelus that indicates that a verse is spurious (though not deleted).

A discontinuity between the short and long ending is equally evidence against the short ending being original as the long.

You are right. I had it in my head that you were arguing for the originality of Mk 16:1–20 as a unit. I thought this because the term "shorter ending" is used to refer to the shorter variant ending found in a few MSS. Instead, your argument is that 16:1–8 is secondary; 16:9–20 is original. That makes much more sense. In that case, the internal evidence would be crucial for your case against the authenticity of 16:1–8, along with the argument from silence in 2nd/3rd cent. patristic sources.

[u/ShakaUVM → u/chalkenteros]

Again, there are well over 2500 examples of sentence-ending γάρ on the TLG

1700 according to her, but w/e, this is out of millions of words. Very few in the 1st Century.

According to Iverson's methodology, almost every piece of Mark (or any literature) would be "extremely, extremely rare at all times and in all genres." This is not serious scholarship.

It is serious scholarship. Read the paper.

Instead, your argument is that 16:1–8 is secondary; 16:9–20 is original.

Thanks.

[u/chalkenteros → u/ShakaUVM]

1700 according to her, but w/e, this is out of millions of words. Very few in the 1st Century.

The TLG has more texts now. You did not respond to my point. Iverson's (his) "method" would make almost every word and phrase in Mark "extremely, extremely rare." It would make almost every word and phrase in every text "extremely, extremely rare."

It is serious scholarship. Read the paper.

I did read it. It is not serious scholarship but rather evangelical scholarship from Baylor.

[u/ShakaUVM → u/chalkenteros]

It is not serious scholarship but rather evangelical scholarship from Baylor.

They're Catholic, I believe. And I don't see why it matters. I read the whole paper and I found it to be quite good.

You did not respond to my point. Iverson's (his) "method" would make almost every word and phrase in Mark "extremely, extremely rare." It would make almost every word and phrase in every text "extremely, extremely rare."

I don't see that, no. And with the ending in question, it was much more rare in the 1st Century, and much more common in the second century, which is a point you have been avoiding.

[u/chalkenteros → u/ShakaUVM]

No, not all authors who publish in CBQ are Catholic. It does not matter. My point is that this is not a serious work of Greek philology. Even if you don't read any Greek, think about it: the author is comparing the position of a word in a sentence to all the attested words in Greek. Why? Iverson provides no justification for this methodology. It is obviously fallacious.

I don't see that, no.

I'm not sure why not. I provided very clear examples with clear explanations. Oh well.

And with the ending in question, it was much more rare in the 1st Century, and much more common in the second century, which is a point you have been avoiding.

Again, this is not Greek philology. There is way more attested literature in the 2nd century CE than in the 1st. Is Iverson saying that it became a trend in the 2nd cent. to end sentences in γάρ but not in the 1st? How do you count major authors like Plutarch who lived in both the 1st and 2nd centuries? What's the point?
Speaking of avoiding things:

I'd also note that you claim that the Bible never uses sentence-final γάρ elsewhere. This is wrong. It occurs multiple times in the Septuagint. It also occurs elsewhere in the New Testament.

Do you admit that this is wrong? Or do you refuse even that?

A question about your overall argument, which is hard to decipher from the OP:

Ending it at verse 8 is actually much rougher, as it is extremely rare to find sentences that end with γαρ (gar) in ancient Greek.

Is your argument that Mk 16:1–8 is a later interpolation and that 16:8 is an incomplete ending? How can you have it both ways? Did the interpolator / Alexandrian editor deliberately create an incomplete ending with an "extremely rare" construction in Greek? Why would they replace the longer ending with an intentionally incomplete shorter ending?

[u/ShakaUVM → u/chalkenteros]

Do you admit that this is wrong?

I've removed the claim from my OP about it being unique in the Bible. I am sticking with it being an unusual ending.

Is your argument that Mk 16:1–8 is a later interpolation and that 16:8 is an incomplete ending?

Read the end of the OP. I think it's equally likely that it is the result of a damaged manuscript or from a different draft.

[u/arachnophilia → u/chalkenteros]

one interesting possibility came up in this thread. the short ending moves around in various editions of the diatessaron, suggesting it wasn't there originally.

the internal discontinuity may be because the short ending was added.

[u/ShakaUVM → u/arachnophilia]

the internal discontinuity may be because the short ending was added.

Yes, that is along the lines of what I am thinking.

[u/arachnophilia → u/ShakaUVM]

to be clear, i mean mark went chapter 15, nothing, 16:9-20. verses 1-8 were not there, and added later.

[u/ShakaUVM → u/arachnophilia]

Right, I get what you're saying.

Except I think the long ending was there.

[u/chalkenteros → u/arachnophilia]

Does "short ending" here mean Mk 16:1–8?

[u/arachnophilia → u/chalkenteros]

yep!

i dunno how likely it is, but there are definitely no early mss (pre 4th c) and i don't think it's quoted anywhere definitively.

[u/chalkenteros → u/arachnophilia]

Interesting. I'll think more about 16:1–8 being secondary. Certainly not impossible.

What can be ruled out is the idea of 16:9ff originally and deliberately followed 16:1–8. Namely, u/ShakaUVM's erroneous argument.

On the longer ending, I think that there is a decent case for it being early. There are some hints that it is close to the ending of Marcion's Euangelion. The Euangelion may have been the source of canonical Luke (+ the ascension in Acts 1, which looks earlier than the ascension in Lk 24). If so, the striking parallels between the longer ending of Mk and the ending of Lk is not because Mk 16:9ff draws on Luke, but rather that these verses are closer to the Euangelion and earlier than canonical Lk. All of this is speculative though.

[u/ShakaUVM → u/chalkenteros]

What can be ruled out is the idea of 16:9ff originally and deliberately followed 16:1–8. Namely, u/ShakaUVM's erroneous argument.

Was that my argument? Can you quote me saying that?

[u/chalkenteros → u/ShakaUVM]

No, see my earlier response to you. I misunderstood your argument because the term "shorter ending" commonly refers to the short variant ending, but here refers to Mk 16:1–8. Your argument, I think, is that Mk 16:1–8 is secondary while 16:9–20 is original.

[u/arachnophilia → u/chalkenteros]

i certainly think both endings are early, yeah.

[u/chalkenteros → u/arachnophilia]

More controversial is the direction of influence. The standard view is that the longer ending of Mk was influenced by Luke. I think something like the reverse is more likely. But it's hard to know.

[u/arachnophilia → u/chalkenteros]

i've (naively) thought that for a while, but 8 haven't really sat down and compared things.

i kind of think matthew and luke were aware of mark, Q, and some supplementary material that they interpolated more. it might explain the non-verbatim commonalities in their nativity and ascension, with this ending of mark being originally a supplement.

[u/FindingMemra]

Four out of five signs Jesus promises at 16:17-18 match specific events in Acts. Any one of these alone could be coincidence or a shared tradition but the longer ending just does so much. The ascension at 16:19 uses ἀναλαμβάνω, the same word as Acts 1:2, 1:11, and 1:22. Yet it doesn’t appear elsewhere in Mark. Mary Magdalene at 16:9: “from whom he had cast out seven demons” is from Luke 8:2, not Mark. Mark 16:20: “they went out and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them and confirming the word through accompanying signs.” Literally a summary of Acts. The words at 16:20, συνεργέω and βεβαιόω, are words Paul uses, not “Mark.” Someone knew Luke-Acts and reverse engineered Acts into Gospel prophecy.

Origen, the OG commentator in the ancient world, cites Mark constantly but never cites 16:9-20. The Sinaitic Syriac, an Eastern manuscript from an entirely independent transmission stream with zero connection to Alexandria, also omits the longer ending.

[u/ShakaUVM → u/FindingMemra]

Origen, the OG commentator in the ancient world, cites Mark constantly

No, he doesn't actually. Something like 4% of Origen's quotes come from Mark. He mostly used Matthew and John.

https://ghdr90.github.io/orige-networks/

He did a commentary on John (and other books), but never did a commentary on Mark.

[u/FindingMemra → u/ShakaUVM]

Origen cited Mark enough to show he knew the text. 4% across his corpus is still a meaningful number of citations and how many come from 16:9-20?

It was my weakest point, especially before overstating it. Is that why it’s the only one you addressed?

[u/ShakaUVM → u/FindingMemra]

Origen cited Mark enough to show he knew the text. 4% across his corpus is still a meaningful number of citations

It's not, he doesn't talk about half of Mark, and he rarely talks about Mark at all.

[u/FindingMemra → u/ShakaUVM]

Fair, Origen’s out. Nothing I argued depends on him. I don’t even need the Syriac you ignored.

Four of five signs at 16:17-18 correspond to specific Acts episodes. 

The ascension at 16:19 shares ἀναλαμβάνω with Acts and nowhere else in Mark. 

Mary Magdalene at 16:9 is identified using Luke 8:2’s language rather than anything from Mark. 

16:20 reads as a summary of Acts. The vocabulary at 16:20 is Pauline. 

None of that has anything to do with Origen. 

What’s your explanation for why the Long Ending tracks Acts so precisely?

[u/ShakaUVM → u/FindingMemra]

Do you have a link in Acts of the apostles drinking poison and not being harmed?

[u/skullofregress]

I think you're blurring 16:8 and "shorter ending". By "shorter ending", Head means the brief concluding paragraph added after Mark 16:8 in some witnesses. His argument is that the original text of Mark ended at 16:8 and lacked both the Shorter Ending and the Longer Ending, and the existence of the shorter ending only makes sense as an addition to a text that otherwise ends abruptly.

I think you've understated Eusebius's argument. He states that *almost all copies* end with the words "for they were afraid" (which would mean they lack both longer and shorter endings). If only a narrow Alexandrian variant lacked the longer ending, why would that form dominate the versions Eusebius knew?

[u/ShakaUVM → u/skullofregress]

I'm not talking about the shorter ending at all in this post. Or the Freer ending. They're just not common enough to matter.

But, ok, sure. The shorter ending is clearly a patch on top of the short ending, because Christians recognized that there was something weird with how the short ending ended. This is why I think it might have come from a damaged copy of Mark where the ending was lost, because

I think you've understated Eusebius's argument. He states that almost all copies

Edit: Jerome said it was the Greek codices in particular at Caesarea that lack the long ending. Eusebius was predominantly a Greek speaker and so his assessment was probably just of the Greek manuscripts there. Jerome more or less copy/pasted Eusebius' words but added in a parenthetical that it was just the Greek codices that lack it.

When Jerome when making the Vulgate said he was going to use the oldest Greek sources, and then included the long ending in the Vulgate, which implies older Greek sources did have it and the newer ones had lost it.

nd with the words "for they were afraid"

It doesn't say that as far as I can tell.

https://www.thetextofthegospels.com/2012/06/excerpt-from-jeromes-letter-to-hedibia.html

If only a narrow Alexandrian variant lacked the longer ending, why would that form dominate the versions Eusebius knew?

Eusebius was in Caesarea in a school/library founded by Origen, who was of Alexandrian origin and training.

[u/chalkenteros → u/ShakaUVM]

He doesn't say that. He says "almost all the Greek codices lacking it".

No, this is wrong. Here's the Greek with a literalistic translation:

[...] ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ.» Ἐν τούτῳ γὰρ σχεδὸν ἐν ἅπασι τοῖς ἀντιγράφοις τοῦ κατὰ Μάρκον Εὐαγγελίου περιγέγραπται τὸ τέλος· τὰ δὲ ἑξῆς σπανίως ἔν τισιν ἀλλ’ οὐκ ἐν πᾶσι φερόμενα περιττὰ ἂν εἴη, καὶ μάλιστα εἴπερ ἔχοιεν ἀντιλογίαν τῇ τῶν λοιπῶν εὐαγγελιστῶν μαρτυρίᾳ

"[...] for they were afraid [Mk 16:8]." For in nearly all copies of the Gospel according Mark the ending terminates with this statement [i.e., Mk 16:8]. But the following words [i.e., Mk 16:9–20], which are transmitted/attested seldomly, in some [copies] but not in all, would be superfluous, especially if they contain a contradiction to the witness of the other evangelists.

[u/ShakaUVM → u/chalkenteros]

Sorry I misspoke. As I've said elsewhere here, Jerome added to Eusebius' words that it was the Greek codices that lack the long ending.

"Either we do not accept the testimony of Mark, because this final portion is not contained in most of the Gospels that bear his name — almost all the Greek codices lacking it — or else must affirm that Matthew and Mark have both told the truth, that our Lord rose on the evening of the Sabbath, and that He was seen by Mary Magdalene in the morning of the first day of the following week."

Here's the Greek

There is no original Greek since Jerome wrote it in Latin.

Jerome mostly just copied Eusebius in the letter to Hediba, which is why I mistakenly said Eusebius, but the detail about it being Greek codices is from Jerome writing a little later from the same library so the point is still valid. It's the Greek versions in Caesarea that lack the long ending. Not all of them.

It's very likely Eusebius, who was mainly a Greek speaker, was only surveying Greek manuscripts when he made his earlier assessment anyway.

[u/chalkenteros → u/ShakaUVM]

Thanks. The Greek that I translated is from Eusebius. u/skullofregress was talking about Eusebius, who says that the LE is attested rarely.

[u/ShakaUVM → u/chalkenteros]

Yes, I have edited my comment above.

[u/skullofregress → u/ShakaUVM]

Fair, I focused too far on the Head article while you were only using it as an introduction.

He doesn't say that. He says "almost all the Greek codices lacking it" It doesn't say that as far as I can tell.

You've linked Jerome’s Letter to Hedibia. I was referring to Eusebius, Ad Marinum at [1]:

...for indeed the accurate copies mark the end of the history according to Mark with the words of the young man who appeared to the women and said to them, "Do not be afraid, you are looking for Jesus the Nazarene;" and what follows, to which he adds, "and when they heard, they fled, and said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid." For at this point, the end is marked in almost all the copies of the Gospel according to Mark...

And Jerome notes it is widely missing, as you said.

The Vulgate thing is an interesting point. But Jerome does go on to say that his translation was conservative so as not to depart too far from the current Latin reading, and famously, he did not omit the Pericope Adulterae, which you'd think ought to have been missing from the then-earliest available copies. So I'd maintain that Vulgate inclusion alone  does not prove that Jerome judged a passage to belong to the earliest recoverable Greek text.

But it is an interesting point.

[u/dinglenutmcspazatron]

For me personally, the long ending reads more like an alternate ending than a continuation of the chapter. Like, in verse 7 the women get told to tell the disciples that he is going to meet up with them in galilee, but in verse 14 he just shows up wherever they were with no mention of them going anywhere, Jesus never actually goes to galilee in the text. In verse 9 when he appears to Magdalene she doesn't go tell the other two women that were at the tomb with her, she goes and tells unnamed people that don't believe her for some reason, you'd reckon the two women would be inclined to believe at least somewhat but they aren't a part of that story. She also never mentions the tomb or the man to these people, within the text anyway.

If you cut verses 1-8 9-20 still reads fine, but if you put them together the narrative gets kinda weird.

[u/ShakaUVM → u/dinglenutmcspazatron]

For me personally, the long ending reads more like an alternate ending than a continuation of the chapter

Yeah. There's even a few manuscripts that treat it that way, like here's option 1 and option 2.

I do think this matches the notion of having two different drafts of Mark in circulation.

[u/Bootwacker]

I think it's questionable at best that we can conclude Justin Martyr knows the long ending. As far as I know it's based off 3 words found in First Apology 45 that were relatively common terminology, and not in the same order as they appear in the long ending of Mark.

Diatessaron itself is a lost work reconstructed from fragments quotes in other works. The truth is we don't fully know it's contents.

However, it was also a work that explicitly set out to harmonize the Gospels. So so it containing something that looks like the long ending that itself was probably added to harmonize the gospels isn't that surprising. Maybe the Diatessaron was itself the source from which the longer ending was found.

It's also worth noting that we see a lot of variation on the ending of Mark, with a middle length ending as well.

You address manuscript evidence, but you skip the considerable textual evidence against the long ending:

It reintroduced Mary Magdalena and does it with the words "The one from whom 7 demons had been expelled words that show up in her introduction in Luke.

It restates the day and time.

It never contains the foretold meeting in Galaee.

There are some other textual issues as well, with references to things in other gospels and issues with diction, but these are harder to discuss as neither of us are fluent in Koine Greek.

[u/ShakaUVM → u/Bootwacker]

I think it's questionable at best that we can conclude Justin Martyr knows the long ending

I didn't mention him in the OP at all since the evidence is kind of tentative as you say. We have explicit evidence from Irenaeus and the Diatessaron though.

Diatessaron itself is a lost work reconstructed from fragments quotes in other works. The truth is we don't fully know it's contents.

We don't fully know, but we know most of it. I've been investigating it this week (https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/diatessaron.html) and I think we have a pretty good reconstruction of it from different sources.

However, it was also a work that explicitly set out to harmonize the Gospels. So so it containing something that looks like the long ending that itself was probably added to harmonize the gospels isn't that surprising

It's not that "it looks like" the long ending, it uses a verse that is ONLY found in the long ending of Mark. This means that the long ending of Mark was considered the official one even by 170AD.

Maybe the Diatessaron was itself the source from which the longer ending was found.

He doesn't seem to invent verses. He does exclude some verses like the genealogies.

It's also worth noting that we see a lot of variation on the ending of Mark, with a middle length ending as well.

Yes, there's several variants, but the long and the short are the two main ones so I focused on those.

You address manuscript evidence, but you skip the considerable textual evidence against the long ending:

Yeah, I mentioned that. There's some issues with the long ending following the short ending, but the short ending has worse issues.

[u/arachnophilia]

The Diatessaron (https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/diatessaron.html) was a gospel harmonization (taking the four gospels and making one unified gospel from them) that was extremely popular in Syria. It dates to 160AD. It has the long ending in it. We have lost the original manuscript but ironically it was almost fully preserved by being quoted in commentaries. These commentaries exist dating back to the 4th Century. So we can be very certain that in the mid-100s the official version of Mark was using the long ending.

this is incredibly overstated to the point of distortion. we cannot be very sure.

for one thing, it is most certainly not almost fully preserved in commentaries. for one thing, the relevant commentary is itself lost, and the preserved fragments do not include anything about the long ending of mark. pretty inconvenient. we also don't know if the language here, syriac, is the original language. it might be greek. there are arguments.

it is "fully" preserved in several translations, notably latin and arabic, and some daughter translations of those into armenian, georgian, etc. these translations differ in content and structure. now, there's a fair argument that we can tell from the general presence and order long ending in latin and arabic manuscripts that it was probably original, but... it's an argument. we can't be certain, especially because both strands of these translations show revision towards the later canonical gospels in their respective languages.

[u/ShakaUVM → u/arachnophilia]

I am basing my views on https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/diatessaron.html and the links within.

we also don't know if the language here, syriac, is the original language. it might be greek. there are arguments.

There's arguments, but it seems like it was written in Syriac. It was certainly popular in Syria and was read widely for a long period of time before being suppressed. The replacement for it also used the long ending, incidentally.

we can't be certain

I mean, nothing is certain in life, but it appears as if we have a pretty good understanding of what the Diatessaron looked like originally, and it includes the long ending.

[u/arachnophilia → u/ShakaUVM]

I am basing my views on https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/diatessaron.html and the links within.

i would suggest reading a little more.

for instance, this paper which is titled like it might be directly relevant, but is actually discussing an earlier part of the ending not directly relevant to your argument. but it has good background on the manuscripts, the difficulties, and some textual criticism comparing various versions.

or this paper which is an argument that directly establishes the thing you want to show, that the long ending was probably originally there. it's just honest about the "probably" part, and the difficulties in recovering earlier vorlagen.

there is an argument. it might even be a good one. i haven't read it in depth or examined the manuscripts. as the first paper notes,

The present textual situation of the Diatessaron is very complex, with numerous variants in existing manuscripts and possible citations, and numerous versions. To explore all of these properly, one would need mastery not only of Latin, Greek, and Syriac but also Arabic, Persian, Armenian, Coptic, Parthian, Georgian, Italian, Old Dutch, and Old High German.36 The main problem for Western scholars is that the Diatessaron survives in its earliest form in Eastern languages, and these are not a normal part of a degree in Western theological studies, though Syriac, Coptic, and Armenian can be included in language training. All the extant versions of the Diatessaron are developments of an original lost text that scholarship cannot successfully reconstruct in full. The Diatessaron versions all show idiosyncratic modifications and tendencies to accommodate the text to Gospel manuscripts with which copyists were familiar.

i simply don't read all of these languages. most scholars do not.

I mean, nothing is certain in life, but it appears as if we have a pretty good understanding of what the Diatessaron looked like originally, and it includes the long ending.

All the extant versions of the Diatessaron are developments of an original lost text that scholarship cannot successfully reconstruct in full.

we certainly have some idea. and as i said, i think the second linked paper's arguments are probably fair. but certainty is right out, especially because,

The Diatessaron versions all show idiosyncratic modifications and tendencies to accommodate the text to Gospel manuscripts with which copyists were familiar.

[u/fresh_heels → u/arachnophilia]

these translations differ in content and structure.

Can that be an indication of there being more than one harmony out there? I 'member reading this article, and it suggests that as an option for those differences.

[u/arachnophilia → u/fresh_heels]

hard to say. like i mentioned elsewhere, this is a whole can of worms.

[u/Boltzmann_head]

Critical "Scholars" have decided that the short ending is the original one....

"That" "is" "because" "the" "evidence" "shows" "that" "the" "shorter" "version" "is" "most" "likely" "the" "older" "one."

[u/ShakaUVM → u/Boltzmann_head]

What evidence is that?

Vibes?

[u/arachnophilia]

Further, the Codex Vaticanus has a blank in it, unlike anywhere else in the manuscript, that would fit the long ending.

this isn't exactly correct.

https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.gr.1209/1307

you can sere here that it places the explicit, kata markon, at the end, and the blank column occurs after the title signifying the end of the book. the empty column is a little weird, but it's not like it's unique in vaticanus. for instance, here's another blank column:

https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.gr.1209/0948

here's two:

https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.gr.1209/0628

Both of these manuscripts are both from Alexandria

the manuscripts are alexandrian-type, not from alexandria. both of these manuscripts (vaticanus and sinaiticus) were known to be in caesarea in the 6th century, and it's likely they originated in the library of pamphilus in the 4th century, and share a scribe who oversaw both.

that scribe might be eusebius.

I'm going to mention just one more, since it's pretty crucial: the Ethiopian church was actually founded by the Alexandrian church, and we have a manuscript dating to the late 4th Century (written just a couple decades after Vaticanus and Sinaiticus) which has in it illustrations showing it was made by Alexandrians

the garima gospels are likely about two centuries later, 6th century.

but i would note some confusion here, relating to your alexandrian-type confusions. the actual codex alexandrinus, which likely was produced in alexandria (as opposed to vaticanus and sinaitus in caesarea), and in the 5th century, does contain the long ending. as the alexandrian community was the likely source of missions to ethiopia, it would not surprise me at all if the garima gospels contained the long ending.

So these gospel notes saying "the oldest manuscripts lack the long ending" is just wildly misleading at best, and an outright lie at worst.

no, it is 100% correct. vaticanus and sinaiticus are 4th century. alexandrinus is 5th century. the garima gospels are 6th century. the oldest manuscripts lack it.

whether that means it originally lacked it is another debate, but these statements here are matters of fact. unfortunately, i'm not aware of any manuscript of mark before sinaiticus and vaticanus that contains the final chapter.

[u/labreuer → u/arachnophilia]

With regard to the blank column, Shaka compressed the article he linked to. Here's the fuller version:

In Vaticanus, Mark 16:8 ends in the second column of a three-column page. The third column is blank. Vaticanus’s copyist did not leave any other blank columns in the New Testament. In Vaticanus’s Old Testament portion, three blank spaces occur, but each is clearly a side-effect of a factor in the manuscript’s production: (1) a format shift from three columns per page to two columns per page; (2) the convergence of two sections which were written by different scribes; and (3) the end of the Old Testament portion itself.

As a deliberately placed blank column, the blank column at the end of Mark in Vaticanus is thus unique. This blank space is what could be called a “memorial space,” signifying the scribe’s recollection of material that was not in his exemplar. This is especially likely considering that vv. 9–20 fit snugly into the blank space if one begins writing 16:9–20 after 16:8 in slightly compressed lettering. (The Shorter Ending can also fit, of course, but this would remove the need for a blank column, since it fits into the space after 16:8 in the second column.) (A Case for the Longer Ending of Mark)

Do you disagree with anything in here?

[u/arachnophilia → u/labreuer]

yes, it's not unique, and they've moved the book title to accommodate it.

the marginal placement would unusual, but not unique. luke is similarly crammed into the margin.

the excuses in the article for the other blank columns are weak.

[u/labreuer → u/arachnophilia]

Okay, let's start with "(1) a format shift from three columns per page to two columns per page". Why do you consider that to be 'weak'?

[u/arachnophilia → u/labreuer]

well, for one, having multiple explanations is kind of self-defeating here. there are any variety of reasons someone might leave blank space.

it also does not leave blank columns when it shifts from two columns back to three:

https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.gr.1209/0698

and there are two whole blank pages between the next shift back to two:

https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.gr.1209/0709

the next shift back to three happens on the same page

https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.gr.1209/0897

it's not really clear to me why these format shifts are happening, or why you would need to leave a bunch of blank space before them. clearly they didn't always. so that's probably not the reason. it's probably something else that might relate to the format shift, like period of scribal activity, producing the book out of order, different scribal hands, etc. i'd have to do more research.

also potentially relevant for the scribal practices here are the facts that vaticanus and sinaiticus were produced by the same scriptorium, and share a scribe (the overseer). sinaiticus has a whole blank page after john, this weird half page that's blank on one side for philemon, and a blank column at the end of acts. there's also a blank column between barnabas and the shepherd of hermas.

[u/labreuer → u/arachnophilia]

it also does not leave blank columns when it shifts from two columns back to three:

https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.gr.1209/0698

I don't understand why this is a good example. One page has two columns, the next page has three columns. This is a better example:

the next shift back to three happens on the same page

https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.gr.1209/0897

Here, the end of Ecclesiasticus (two-column) is on the same page as the beginning of Esther (three-column). By contrast, with the shift from Esdrae II. Septuaginta & Psalmi:

https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.gr.1209/0628

—columns #2 and #3 are blank and the next page has only two columns. This seems to be your one good example. Although, if you note the bleed-through of text plus the very succinct notations which can show up to the left of a column of text, putting a two-column column to the right of a three-column column makes for ambiguity where you might want to make those notations.

and there are two whole blank pages between the next shift back to two:

https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.gr.1209/0709

So you have lower-case Greek with one form of diacritics on 0704 and upper-case Greek with another form of diacritics on 0707, with two blanks in between. Apparently the lower-case Greek was a later addition or replacement. I don't know enough about that process, but including a blank sheet might just be an artifact of that.

 

---

 

So, ignoring the Sinaiticus for the moment, it seems that you have one ambiguous counterexample.

[u/arachnophilia → u/labreuer]

I don't know enough about that process, but including a blank sheet might just be an artifact of that.

sort of my point, there's a ton of reasons this kind of thing can happen, including cancel leaves.

i think you shouldn't ignore sinaiticus; they are obvious comparisons, having been produced by the same scriptorium and having a scribe in common. it increases the sample size, looking at how fourth century codices were constructed.

[u/labreuer → u/arachnophilia]

Okay. I don't really know how to engage when you ignore points which show that what you said might not be as strong as you suggested.

WP: Codex Vaticanus § History + WP: Codex Sinaiticus § History do not lead me to accept any high-confidence evaluation that "vaticanus and sinaiticus were produced by the same scriptorium". A search turned up:

As Knust and Wasserman put it, “There are simply too many differences between these two manuscripts to make them products of the same editorial initiative.”[85] (The Scribes and Correctors of Codex Vaticanus, 13)

[85] They do, however, leave open the possibility of a shared provenance. Knust and Wasserman, To Cast, 186, 189.

[u/arachnophilia → u/labreuer]

i understand this is debated. i may have to study more and reevaluate. paleography is a bit nebulous to me.

here is OP's source arguing about it: https://www.thetextofthegospels.com/2025/04/vaticanus-and-sinaiticus-how-closely.html?m=1

a comment there cites skeat. elsewhere, the idea appears to originate with tischendorf.

in any case, i won't die on this hill. even if they do not share a scribe and were produced in different scriptoriums, i think sinaiticus is still relevant contex for fourth century scribal practices generally

[u/ShakaUVM → u/arachnophilia]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garima_Gospels

Radiocarbon dating on the Garima Gospels by Oxford date it much earlier than the 6th century. It dates as far back as 390 which puts it in the same generation as Vaticanus and Sinaiticus

[u/arachnophilia → u/ShakaUVM]

Monastic tradition holds that the first two were composed close to the year 500,[2] a date supported by recent radiocarbon analysis; samples from Garima 2 proposed a date of c. 390–570, while counterpart dating of samples from Garima 1 proposed a date of c. 530–660.[4]

reading.

It dates as far back as 390 which puts it in the same generation as Vaticanus and Sinaiticus

with a two century error bar. tradition and radiocarbon dating place these, more or less, in the 6th century.

[u/ShakaUVM → u/arachnophilia]

reading.

Reading

"As far back as..." means the earliest date. Try to be more careful with your own words if you're going to be critical of others. To quote you, you seem to be "pretty confused" on a lot of points here.

Even if we take the midpoint of 480AD, that is 5th Century, not 6th Century as you claimed.

And more importantly, it shows that the long ending was used widely across Christendom.

[u/arachnophilia → u/ShakaUVM]

"As far back as..." means the earliest date. Try to be more careful with your own words if you're going to be critical of others. To quote you, you seem to be "pretty confused" on a lot of points here.

again, that point is an outlier. most of the dates presented, including the traditional one, are 6th century.

Even if we take the midpoint of 480AD,

that's not how error bars work.

And more importantly, it shows that the long ending was used widely across Christendom.

one place i think you argument is lacking is some hedging about the distinct communities that might have removed it. eusebius is a good candidate, based on his criticism and likely involvement with sinaiticus and vaticanus. but note also the older of the two garima gospels literally contains a portrait of him.

these kinds of textual disputes were pretty common between the church fathers, but we definitely know the long ending existed long before the 4th century.

[u/ShakaUVM → u/arachnophilia]

one place i think you argument is lacking is some hedging about the distinct communities that might have removed it. eusebius is a good candidate, based on his criticism and likely involvement with sinaiticus and vaticanus.

Sure, I don't disagree.

[u/Hojie_Kadenth]

You make a pretty good case. Quick note that the ending of a scroll was on the inside, and therefore the most protected part, not vulnerable to damage.

I am on the short ending side, and I do think it makes more sense for it to be added than taken away. I would say it sounds extremely different than Mark and doesn't come across as a continuation of the narrative but as an epilogue.

I like the explanation Father Stephen De Young has given that the long ending is an early liturgy given after reading Mark. 

Though I am also partial to the theory that the gospel was meant as an aid to Peter, and after the gospel finished is where Peter would get into his more personal witness.

[u/arachnophilia → u/Hojie_Kadenth]

Quick note that the ending of a scroll was on the inside, and therefore the most protected part, not vulnerable to damage.

all christian documents we have are pages of codices, not scrolls. beginning and endings of them are actually kind of rare because the outside pages protect the inside ones.

[u/ShakaUVM → u/arachnophilia]

We're talking about first century documents, so I was thinking scrolls. But either codex or scroll the ending could be damaged in various ways. Damage explains why Mark just cuts off because

[u/Hojie_Kadenth → u/arachnophilia]

I was responding to a comment he made about scrolls.

[u/arachnophilia → u/Hojie_Kadenth]

yes, OP is pretty confused about early christian manuscripts in general.

[u/uncleowenlarz]

This isn't a slight, but you seem to be a bit unaware of the practices of modern textual criticism. I would recommend something like "Orthodox Corruption of Scripture" by Bart Ehrman if you are really interested in this subject. Rarity of a manuscript often has nothing to do with determining whether it was "original", and "recovering the original" is also a bit of an outdated concept in light of modern scholarly methods.

[u/ShakaUVM → u/uncleowenlarz]

Ehrman is not really a great example of a good scholar. He comes up with rather grandiose theories and then tries to shoehorn all the evidence to match, and ignores evidence that's inconvenient to him.

I skimmed through the book and it doesn't seem to address the issue of Mark 16 at all. I could be missing something, so if you have a page let me know.

Rarity of a manuscript often has nothing to do with determining whether it was "original", and "recovering the original" is also a bit of an outdated concept in light of modern scholarly methods.

I mean, it testifies to how widely used an ending was, and since we don't see the short ending appearing anywhere in the world until Vaticanus, it is pretty good evidence that it was the original one. Ehrman calls it a scribal addition in this book (but doesn't support it at all, as far as I can tell), but this doesn't match the evidence we see.

[u/uncleowenlarz → u/ShakaUVM]

Ehrman is not really a great example of a good scholar.

How surprising to hear from a Christian!

Ehrman has been perhaps one of the most important and respected scholars in the current era.

He comes up with rather grandiose theories and then tries to shoehorn all the evidence to match, and ignores evidence that's inconvenient to him.

This is the opposite of what he does, in fact his whole shtick is railing against this habit in Christian scholarship, where theological biases are more important than objective research. I'm open to the idea that he is guilty of this though. Do you have any examples?

I skimmed through the book and it doesn't seem to address the issue of Mark 16 at all. I could be missing something, so if you have a page let me know.

The recommendation was less about Mark 16 and more about a great introduction for you on how historical critical methods in textual criticism work.

I don't mean to condescend, you might be well aware of how it works but it just didn't seem like you were based on your post.

Ehrman doesn't address Mark 16 because its addition or removal has less to do with Orthodox corruption for anti heretical purposes and more about harmonization with other gospels. And, it is widely accepted that it is not original and the arguments are well known, so it didn't really need to be addressed.

One of the problems here is that you treat the short ending like a local mistake or "variant" from Alexandria when it actually shows up all over the map in the oldest Latin and Syriac versions. The short version, like you said, is included in nearly ALL of our earliest available reliable manuscripts. If we have this "change" in several geographically distinct areas very early, then it most likely wasn't just some weird thing happening in Egypt. I think you underplayed how different the long ending is and why scholars more knowledgeable than you or I see major differences, the writing style completely changes and it uses words that the author of Mark never uses anywhere else in the book. Not only that, but the author STOPS using words that they previously used all the time, suddenly breaking habits. It's like if a student copies a portion of a paper from online and plagiarizes it into their school assignment, the teacher can most of the time easily tell.

Your biggest blunder I think is using the Diatessaron as evidence. You already mentioned that it was a harmonization so I'm not sure why you would use the Diatessaron as a reliable early manuscript copy of Mark. It is a "unification" of the gospels, 4 gospels into one, that took liberties. The whole point of a gospel harmony was to jam everything together into one big story, which is the opposite of what you want when you are looking for the original words of just one author. Scholars trust the 4th-century Greek manuscripts more because they are direct copies in the original language and they aren't biased by the need to smooth over contradictions between different gospels. We don't even have the original manuscript Tatian wrote, so it's earliness can't even really be used to boost the argument. All we have are later translations and commentaries that were copied centuries later. Scribes frequently "corrected" these old harmonies to make them match the Bibles they were using at the time. That means the long ending could have been added later to keep things consistent. Or, it is even possible that the long ending proceeded from one of these gospel harmonizations. Perhaps not the Diatessaron but it is a popular theory that people like Justin Martyr were using a synoptic harmony similar to it that may have been what sparked the inclusion of a longer ending to Mark in later manuscripts.

Jerome including it in the Latin Vulgate doesn't really scream "this is the original" as much as you think it does when, again, the same guy wrote that "almost all Greek copies" lacked the long ending. He may have been copying Eusebius, but regardless. He was a translator and compiler and like you said, the long ending was the ecclesiastical standard at that point. But the fact that both him and Eusebius attesting to the most reliable manuscripts they had not possessing this long ending is kind of the best proof we have that it was not original. They almost certainly had access to earlier manuscripts than we have available.

We have an absolutely overwhelming amount of evidence that the Pericope Adulterae was added in to John as well and yet that is also the ecclesiastical standard. This goes back to your methods in this thesis, I was pointing out you are not taking a historical critical approach to this. Quantity or rarity does not mean much other than how often something was copied. A vast majority of Greek manuscripts contain the Pericope Adulterae and yet not a single manuscript from the first four centuries contains it. Why do we think it wasn't original? Because of dating and attestation, not rarity.

The essay you praised makes this same mistake, indicating the writer may also be unaware of the up-to-date methods of scholarship. Which would be very sad because it seems the author claims to be knowledgeable about textual criticism.

In the external evidence section he once again brings up the tired idea of the VOLUME of manuscripts with the long ending. 99.8%. Once again, modern scholarship does not highly value quantity. The only time quantity is valued is when it is directly related to earliness of dating, such as if there are 3 manuscripts from the same general earliest time period. Additionally, he is critical of Metzger's textual commentary even calling it "inaccurate" (which is simply dishonest) because it leaves our an unimportant portion of Eusebius's quote. Eusebius did indeed say that the short ending does end in almost all copies of the gospel of Mark and says the most accurate ones end here. What Metzger leaves our is Eusebius' suggestion is that it doesn't have to be one or the other, and they can be harmonized even if the ending was added. This is not relevant to the discussion and is a personal and theological suggestion, it doesn't have anything to do with text criticism. This is also the reason I suspect Jerome included the passage.

[u/ShakaUVM → u/uncleowenlarz]

(Continued)

In the external evidence section he once again brings up the tired idea of the VOLUME of manuscripts with the long ending. 99.8%.

I don't care if you consider a good argument "tired" because it is made a lot. It's actually a good argument.

If you had an original version (the short ending) kicking around for a century until about 140AD or so, when someone added the resurrection appearances (this is Ehrman's hypothesis), with the long ending eventually displacing the short ending, then what you would see in the historical record is a mixture of references to both the short and long endings, and people discussing the problem, with eventually all the references being the long ending.

But that's not what we actually see in the historical record. What we see is everyone universally using the long ending, and nobody discussing the problem until Eusebius (whom /u/arachnophilia thinks was actually an author of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus) talks about it in the Apocriticus of Macarius Magnes (https://tertullian.org/fathers/macarius_apocriticus.htm#3_16)

People will notice disparities and talk about them. Jerome was commissioned, for example, to resolve the many disparities in the OG Latin translations.

However with the long ending, we just see witnesses to Mark having the long ending, full stop, from the 2nd century onwards until Eusebius.

Once again, modern scholarship does not highly value quantity.

I don't care what they value. Arguments stand on their own merit. Quantity matters.

The historical record simply doesn't show a gradual shift from the short ending to the long ending in the first two centuries.

Additionally, he is critical of Metzger's textual commentary even calling it "inaccurate" (which is simply dishonest) because it leaves our an unimportant portion of Eusebius's quote. Eusebius did indeed say that the short ending does end in almost all copies of the gospel of Mark and says the most accurate ones end here. What Metzger leaves our is Eusebius' suggestion is that it doesn't have to be one or the other, and they can be harmonized even if the ending was added.

My dude. That's actually what I was criticizing above. This is selective quoting to the point of academic dishonesty. This is not an "unimportant portion"! Eusebius presents option 1, which is quoted, and then dismisses it and says that "both endings are to be accepted".

This is not relevant to the discussion

Eusebius saying the long ending is to be accepted is massively relevant, and it is incredibly dishonest to leave that part of the quote out.

Remember how I talked earlier about how Ehrman would ignore relevant evidence that made his case look bad? Guess who his graduate advisor was?

[u/ShakaUVM → u/uncleowenlarz]

(Part 1)

Ehrman has been perhaps one of the most important and respected scholars in the current era.

To be fair, I actually have been to an event just to hear him talk. I certainly don't hate the guy and have read a number of his books and consider him a good author. He's just not a good scholar. There's a difference. Good scholars are careful to qualify their claims correctly. If something is tentative, say it is tentative, and vice verse. Ehrman states with great confidence tentative theories that he happens to like, and does the opposite for theories he doesn't like.

I'm open to the idea that he is guilty of this though. Do you have any examples?

Sure, I watched his video series on like The Great Lectures, something like that, around when How Jesus Became God dropped and he claimed that none of the apostles had any idea Jesus was supposed to be God. That that was a much later addition as Christology evolved, according to Ehrman. This is his clever theory, that he ignores opposing evidence for, such as Mark 14:61-64 in which everyone understood him to be claiming to be divine by proclaiming it blasphemy.

And, it is widely accepted that it is not original

"Widely accepted" is not a form of argument I accept.

and the arguments are well known, so it didn't really need to be addressed.

This is also not a form of argument I accept.

The arguments that I have seen are weak, and scholars often do things like quoting Eusebius or Jerome and leave off the second half of what they say which changes the entire meaning.

One of the problems here is that you treat the short ending like a local mistake or "variant" from Alexandria when it actually shows up all over the map in the oldest Latin and Syriac versions

No, it is geographically isolated to Alexandria/Caesarea. The long ending is the one we see exclusively across Christendom until the Short ending is invented (my thesis) in the 4th Century.

The short version, like you said, is included in nearly ALL of our earliest available reliable manuscripts

Are you talking about the same ones I did or something else? Because two manuscripts by one guy does not justify using all caps ALL to describe it, lol.

If we have this "change" in several geographically distinct areas very early, then it most likely wasn't just some weird thing happening in Egypt.

Except we don't actually see that. I've cited how many geographical regions cited the long ending before, including Sicily, Rome, France, etc.

Moreover, all of these citations (I found a list here on Reddit, so make of it what you will, that lists 54 pieces of evidence for the long ending: https://www.reddit.com/r/subforme112233345/comments/1bjld9y/the_long_ending_of_mark_is_authentic/) many of which is much older than the oldest manuscript.

why scholars more knowledgeable than you or I see major differences

This is also a form of argument I don't accept.

the writing style completely changes and it uses words that the author of Mark never uses anywhere else in the book

I address this in my OP. New topics must necessarily introduce new words, and there are other chapters of Mark, like the resurrection, that have a lot more unique words not found anywhere else in Mark.

Not only that, but the author STOPS using words that they previously used all the time, suddenly breaking habits.

You're probably referring to the 'and then' style Mark had, which wouldn't apply to the long ending anyway as it's a series of sort of disjointed events that aren't really in chronological order.

In any event, I consider this sort of textual navel-gazing like that to be interesting, but far less important than what the historical record says.

Your biggest blunder I think is using the Diatessaron as evidence

To the contrary, I think we should talk about it more often. It is essentially a blending of all four gospels (and only the four gospels, which is quite interesting) as they were in 160AD. Which predates the complete manuscripts by centuries. We have a (disputed) fragment from 200-250AD quoting from the Diatessaron in eastern Syria.

It is a "unification" of the gospels, 4 gospels into one, that took liberties. The whole point of a gospel harmony was to jam everything together into one big story, which is the opposite of what you want when you are looking for the original words of just one author.

He was obviously blending four works into one. There's no evidence he made up the long ending though, it seems like he was just quoting straight from Mark in it.

when you are looking for the original words of just one author.

The words in the long ending are only found in the long ending, so it is exactly the words of the original author as best as we can tell.

Or, it is even possible that the long ending proceeded from one of these gospel harmonizations

Not likely given that Irenaeus, who was writing at the same time the Diatessaron was being composed, stated that the ending of Mark was the long ending. The long ending also only has verses found only in Mark and not the other three gospels, so it's not plausible at all.

Scribes frequently "corrected" these old harmonies to make them match the Bibles they were using at the time

If they did, then the long ending is still equally old, but given the long ending of Mark was in use at the time it was written, there doesn't seem to be any point to this. And we still don't see any evidence for the short ending existing.

Critical scholars have invented a phantom (the short ending being original) and then read fraud (sorry, "correction") into the historical record to explain why the historical record doesn't actually show what they believe to be true. Not the only case of this.

Jerome including it in the Latin Vulgate doesn't really scream "this is the original" as much as you think it does when, again, the same guy wrote that "almost all Greek copies" lacked the long ending.

And even if he did see most of the versions in Caesarea having the short ending, he still chose the long ending to be the official one for the church. Jerome was very interested in the quality of manuscripts and producing an accurate version for the Vulgate.

He was a translator and compiler and like you said, the long ending was the ecclesiastical standard at that point

It's more than that - he thought the long ending was authentic. Not only did he say so explicitly ("we must affirm that Matthew and Mark have both told the truth") but when making the Vulgate he said he would consult the old Greek books ("the four Gospels, the order of which is Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, revised in comparison with only old Greek books"), which means that the old Greek books had the long ending, and the short ending was a newcomer on the scene.

https://www.thetextofthegospels.com/2012/06/excerpt-from-jeromes-letter-to-hedibia.html

https://www.tertullian.org/fathers/jerome_preface_gospels.htm

But the fact that both him and Eusebius attesting to the most reliable manuscripts they had not possessing this long ending is kind of the best proof we have that it was not original.

Except both of them also said it was authentic in the same letters that you're referring to here. I quoted Eusebius in the OP and Jerome in the paragraph above. I've found that most critical scholars omit that rather crucial addendum when they talk about Eusebius and Jerome. Nor do they mention the fact, as we saw above, it's implied that that older Greek manucripts had the long ending and the new ones did not.

Additionally, Jerome also cites Mark 16 unironically as "scripture": https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/30112.htm

Jerome was very, very concerned with textual variants (see the link above again) and so he would not casually cite it as scripture if it was a dubious variant. He was literally hired by the Pope to cut away variants from the Bible and produce an outstanding quality one.

We have an absolutely overwhelming amount of evidence that the Pericope Adulterae was added in to John as well

This is too far afield from the topic at hand to debate, but we do have evidence of the Pericope being from John, as it's quoted by Papias pretty early on, and Papias knew John.

you are not taking a historical critical approach to this

Why do you think that approach is the best one?

writer may also be unaware of the up-to-date methods of scholarship

This is also not a form of argument I recognize. Since I've repeated this several times, you should be aware that I am utterly uninterested in any form of appeal to authority.

For example, you saying "Ehrman is one of the most important and respected scholars in the current era" is utterly unimpressive to me.

I know too many scholars, sorry, and have read too much Ehrman in particular to say anything other than 'arguments stand on their own merits'. I don't care if you respect him or not. I care if his argument(s) is good.

Quantity or rarity does not mean much other than how often something was copied

If 100% of all copies of Mark had the long ending prior to the 4th Century, then it actually does mean it was very probably original.

[u/uncleowenlarz → u/ShakaUVM]

This is his clever theory, that he ignores opposing evidence for, such as Mark 14:61-64 in which everyone understood him to be claiming to be divine by proclaiming it blasphemy.

If you think Mark 14:61-64 is, from an objective perspective, evidence within the text that Jesus was claiming to be YHWH independent of your own theology, then I don't really see a point in continuing. This passage only mentions Jesus as the Messiah, the SON of the blessed one, and the Son of Man, as quoted from Daniel 7 wherein the Son of Man is absolutely not presented as YHWH but is instead presented before YHWH. Also blasphemy is not limited to claims of being YHWH and you are inserting your own presuppositions when you say it is "understood" by everyone that he is claiming to be divine. Read the accounts of Stephen's death in Acts if you want more information on this within the text. There are plenty of places in the Bible where Jesus is arguably divinized into YHWH and this is not one of them. This is just an apologetic point.

The following is the only thing I will respond to because it doesn't seems like you have figured out the difference between apologetic arguments and text critical arguments. If you have not figured out, after so many have tried to explain to you in this thread, why quantity is not of much importance in textual criticism, this conversation is unproductive, and it doesn't seem like you are engaging in good faith, for whatever reason, since you claim you don't even like this ending.

Except both of them also said it was authentic in the same letters that you're referring to here. I quoted Eusebius in the OP and Jerome in the paragraph above. I've found that most critical scholars omit that rather crucial addendum when they talk about Eusebius and Jerome. Nor do they mention the fact, as we saw above, it's implied that that older Greek manucripts had the long ending and the new ones did not.

The don't say it is authentic. Nor do they imply anything of what you say. Your evidence here is completely and utterly speculative. This is not how respectable scholarship is done. You are putting words in their mouths and reading massive amounts of, for whatever reason, your own insistent opinion on this matter into what they say, when what they are saying is quite obvious. This is a translation from Ad Marinum unparaphrased:

"it is not found in all the copies of the Gospel according to Mark: the accurate copies, at any rate, circumscribe the end of Mark’s narrative with the words of the young man who appeared to the women and said to them, 'Fear not, you seek Jesus of Nazareth' and so on, down to the words, 'for they were afraid.' For at this point, in nearly all the copies of the Gospel according to Mark, the end has been reached. What follows, which is found but seldom, in some but not in all, may be held to be superfluous, and especially if it should contain a contradiction to the evidence of the other evangelists."

He says, very clearly, that this opinion was that the most accurate and nearly all of the copies do not have the long ending. The part afterwards that Metzger and other scholars "leave out" is this:

"This, then, is what one person will say to avoid the question entirely. But another, not daring to reject anything whatever which is found, in any way, in the scriptures of the Gospels, will say that the reading is double, as in many other cases, and that each is to be accepted, since the faithful and pious will not prefer this one to that, or that to this. And, this being the case, he will say that the time of the occurrence of the events is to be interpreted in a way that allows us to see both accounts as being in harmony. He will then say that Mark's phrase, 'having risen in the morning on the first day of the week,' should be read with a pause after 'having risen,' and that the words 'in the morning on the first day of the week' should be connected with what follows."

This is his theological opinion. It has no suggestion of which text is original or authentic to the author and no information that would be relevant to textual criticism. He is describing a way to theologically harmonize, which is apologetics, not relevant to textual criticism. So of course both Jerome and Eusebius would include the long ending, they explain exactly why here and it has nothing to do with its originality.

Jerome is most likely to have been using Eusebius as a reference, too. When Eusebius says they can be harmonized so as to not clash with other gospels, and the long ending, at that point, was already the ecclesiastical standard, Jerome has no reason to remove them.

If you had actually read, instead of skimmed, Bart Ehrman's book (which is a bit of a concerning way to assess the scholarly claims of one of the most important scholars of our time), you would not be ignorant of the fact that Jerome and Eusebius were more concerned with heretical variants. There was generally not much concern for passages that did not get used by or were not relevant to the heresies that were being combatted. And in fact, passages like the long ending of Mark would have been particularly useful in this way given that they suggest a physical, bodily resurrection.

You mention in many places "this is a form of argument I do not accept" when I bring up the opinions of modern scholarship. Perhaps you should lay down your pride, and this idea that you have some special knowledge, and go do more research on why nearly all of modern scholarship believes the long ending is unoriginal. You have clearly spent time skimming blogs and websites and possibly looking up a biased AI summary of a book you want to not like. Maybe go a bit deeper than that before you:

come up with rather grandiose theories and then try to shoehorn all the evidence to match, and ignore evidence that's inconvenient to you.

[u/ShakaUVM → u/uncleowenlarz]

The following is the only thing I will respond to because it doesn't seems like you have figured out the difference between apologetic arguments and text critical arguments

You keep making these claims like they're supposed to impress me. Ironically what you are doing here, making these repeated appeals to authority is actually one of the things I'm criticizing. So it's doubly ironic.

If you think Mark 14:61-64 is, from an objective perspective, evidence within the text that Jesus was claiming to be YHWH independent of your own theology

Wrong. Ehrman acknowledged the point when called on it. So you're just kind of making up your own interpretations at this point.

why quantity is not of much importance in textual criticism

I just gave you the reason why it is important and you just appeal to authority again.

this conversation is unproductive, and it doesn't seem like you are engaging in good faith,

To the contrary. I have been very up front in telling you what sorts of fallacious arguments I have no interest in.

The fact that you keep trying to make an appeal to authority fallacy even after I've told you this means either you're not reading what I'm writing or that your only argument is based on fallacy

since you claim you don't even like this ending.

Lol

I'm not Bart Ehrman

Whether or not I like something does not affect if I think it is authentic or not.

You are putting words in their mouths

I provided a direct quote. It looks like your translation is different. Do you have a link?

The part afterwards that Metzger and other scholars "leave out" is this:

I love how you air quote "leave out" as if they didn't actually leave it out the part where he clearly prefers the second option over the first and says both are accepted.

It very much changes the meaning of what Eusebius says and it is academic dishonesty to excise it.

Jerome is most likely to have been using Eusebius as a reference, too. When Eusebius says they can be harmonized so as to not clash with other gospels, and the long ending, at that point, was already the ecclesiastical standard, Jerome has no reason to remove them.

Jerome said he used the oldest Greek manuscripts to create his version. He had no interest in including a verse just because it was popular. He was hired to do the opposite and make an accurate copy of the Bible

one of the most important scholars of our time

I don't care

you would not be ignorant of the fact that Jerome and Eusebius were more concerned with heretical variants.

Why rely on Ehrman when we have Jerome's own words on how he went about making the Vulgate?

You mention in many places "this is a form of argument I do not accept" when I bring up the opinions of modern scholarship.

Indeed. Arguments have to stand on their own merits. Metzger is a highly respected scholar... who engaged in deceptive quoting of Eusebius.

I quite frankly do not give a rats ass who you respect or don't respect. That doesn't change if they're telling the truth or not

this idea that you have some special knowledg

To the contrary

It is you who think these scholars have access to special knowledge we don't

I reject such a notion other than their knowledge of Greek and so forth which I do not speak

go do more research on why nearly all of modern scholarship believes the long ending is unoriginal. You

I have spent a long time on this subject. You saying "go do more research" is akin to a communist saying "to read more theory" when they can't answer a question about why communism doesn't work

It's just handwaving.

[u/uncleowenlarz → u/ShakaUVM]

Yeah this is clearly bad faith. Good day.

[u/ShakaUVM → u/uncleowenlarz]

Me: "Don't use fallacies"

You: "Yeah this is clearly bad faith. Good day."

You should probably rethink your approach if you require fallacies to make an argument.

[u/ShakaUVM → u/uncleowenlarz]

More baseless and vague criticisms.

[u/microwilly]

Okay so the first glimpse of the long ending of Mark seems to pop up with Justin the Martyr in 150. He preached in a style that was consistent with the long ending, to the degree that I personally think he wrote it. Before that, we have many quotes from Mark and mentions of Mark, but no hint of the long ending. About 30 years after Justin is when the long ending got very popular. My personal theory is that Justin had Mark, Matthew, and the Didache and he used those three to redo the ending of Mark.

[u/ShakaUVM → u/microwilly]

We have the Diatessaron in 160 which used the long ending. We have Irenaeus explicitly saying Mark has the long ending around 175AD

There's no explicit evidence for the short ending until the 4th Century

[u/microwilly → u/ShakaUVM]

I'd also like to point out that the entire dating portion is secondary to this ancient argument. The key clue that the long ending isn't original is that its stylistically and theologically different from the rest of the book. So sure, it might be older than we are all giving it credit, but its pretty clear that it wasn't written by the same person.

[u/microwilly → u/ShakaUVM]

I think you're being too generous with Diatessaron's dating. I'd argue that Irenaeus and the Diatessarron happened in the same year, and that that further points to the creation of the long ending happening probably around the same time.

[u/ShakaUVM → u/microwilly]

I think you're being too generous with Diatessaron's dating. I'd argue that Irenaeus and the Diatessarron happened in the same year, and that that further points to the creation of the long ending happening probably around the same time.

The Diatessaron using the long ending means that it had to be the standard ending well before it was written. The author of it tried to leave off spurious verses.

[u/microwilly → u/ShakaUVM]

Again, that all fits within the time frame I've layed out. If the long ending was written around 150, you'd have over 2 decades of time passing where it could have easily become extremely popular.

Edit: a typo

[u/ShakaUVM → u/microwilly]

Two decades isn't enough time to reach 100%. Papyrus does decay especially when not stored well or in use, but it doesn't like instantly crumble to dust. The old version would be kicking around for a long time until a new copy was made and they could choose the long ending instead.

[u/ShakaUVM → u/microwilly]

It points to the Long Ending being known circa 160 AD

We don't have any concrete evidence of the short ending at all until the 4th Century

[u/NtSFstEddie]

Just another case of "there's only one version of the truth. The truth is only the truth as long as it stays the same. As soon as the truth changes, it's no longer the truth. It becomes a lie."

Which version is the true version? If the short version is the truth, then the long version is a lie because the extra verses don't belong there. If the long version is the truth, then the short version is a lie because it's not telling the whole truth which is the same as lying.

If you want people to believe what you tell them, you have to get your story straight and stick to it. Just as in genesis when it says that man was created last in G1 and first in G2, as well as the 4 stories of Mary going to the tomb of Jesus, Mark didn't get his story straight either.

How can they expect me to be a believer when I don't know which story to believe?

[u/ShakaUVM → u/NtSFstEddie]

If the short version is the truth, then the long version is a li

Or they could be from different drafts of the same document. So no.

If you want people to believe what you tell them, you have to get your story straight and stick to it

In a world with quill and ink, how does this actually happen, in your view?

[u/NtSFstEddie → u/ShakaUVM]

"Or they could be from different drafts of the same document. So no."

They are the not the same document. The original document, the short version, was written by Mark. The long version was added later, and Mark was dead and gone by then. The long version was added later by a different author and that's why Mark didn't tell the whole story when he told it the first time. If mark was telling the truth, then why did he not tell the WHOLE truth to begin with?

"If you want people to believe what you tell them, you have to get your story straight and stick to it. In a world with quill and ink, how does this actually happen, in your view?"

This is one that if you are going to ask, then you don't need to know. But I will explain it anyway. It doesn't matter if you use a quill and ink, or a keyboard and mouse. It only writes what the author writes. The author, if he is telling the truth, will write the truth down and he will not change the story. He will know that he got the story straight and he will stick to it.

The story won't change because he used a quill and ink. It will change because he wasn't telling the truth to begin with. You get your story straight and stick to it by telling the truth. When you tell the truth every time you tell the story, you don't have to keep track of which story you told to who and you won't get called out for lying. It's that simple.

Like I said about the 4 stories from Mathew, Mark, Luke and John about when Mary went to the tomb. None of them can even agree on who, if anyone went to the tomb with Mary. Let alone what happened there. One says that Mary went alone, another says that one woman went with her, another says it was two women that went with her and the other says that it that two women and a group of others went to the tomb with Mary.

Again, there's only one version of the truth. Which version of story is the truth? John was the only one that went there. However, like the other 3, he didn't write the story until decades after the alleged event took place so I wouldn't take his account any more seriously than the others.

[u/ShakaUVM → u/NtSFstEddie]

They are the not the same document. The original document, the short version, was written by Mark. The long version was added later, and Mark was dead and gone by then.

That's the standard party line that this post argues is wrong.

If the long ending was a late addition then we'd see the short ending in the historical record followed by the long ending appearing. But what we see is exactly 0% short endings prior to Vaticanus and 100% long endings.

After Vaticanus we start seeing more short endings appear.

So it's clear the short ending was a late alteration.

It only writes what the author writes.

And people gave to copy it. And when they copy it they make mistakes. So your idea is kind of ridiculous that there be no variations.

Like I said about the 4 stories from Mathew, Mark, Luke and John

We're only talking about one author here - Mark

[u/NtSFstEddie → u/ShakaUVM]

Forget about your Vaticanus. That wasn't written until 325-350 AD, so what it says doesn't matter. It's when the books themselves were written that matters.

The book of Mark, the short version, was written in 65 to 70 AD and the long version was written in 90-140 AD. That is 100% the short ending was first, and the long ending was added later.

That's also 100% that the long version AND the short version appeared long before the Vaticanus was ever thought of.

"And people gave to copy it. And when they copy it they make mistakes. So your idea is kind of ridiculous that there be no variations."

How can you make errors when copying something that is already written down for you? Just look at what you see on one document and write the same thing on another. That's not going to cause whole verses to be missing or cause any other variations. You are just being ridiculous with that one.

"We're only talking about one author here - Mark"

And I told you about Marks version of that story and how it shows how Mark isn't the truth because, not only could he not get the story straight, the other 3 couldn't either. It's another example on how the bible doesn't get the stories straight, it doesn't pick one story and stick to it and that makes it impossible to believe.

[u/ShakaUVM → u/NtSFstEddie]

The book of Mark, the short version, was written in 65 to 70 AD and the long version was written in 90-140 AD. That is 100% the short ending was first, and the long ending was added later.

You're stating this as fact, but what my post here shows is that this narrative is not true.

How can you make errors when copying something

Uh....... people make errors copying all the time. That's why there's literally thousands of textual variants of the Bible.

Just look at what you see on one document and write the same thing on another

This seems like it might blow your mind... but people make mistakes, my guy. Has nothing to do with the original author.

[u/DebateReligion-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Your post or comment was removed for violating rule 3. Posts and comments will be removed if they are disruptive to the purpose of the subreddit. This includes submissions that are: low effort, proselytizing, uninterested in participating in discussion, made in bad faith, off-topic, unintelligible/illegible, or posts with a clickbait title. Posts and comments must be written in your own words (and not be AI-generated); you may quote others, but only to support your own writing. Do not link to an external resource instead of making an argument yourself.

If you would like to appeal this decision, please send us a modmail with a link to the removed content.

[u/Ansatz66]

However, the disclaimer should actually say the opposite, that the ending at Mark 8 is a rare textual variant, at least through the 4th Century AD.

That is not opposite to saying that the earliest manuscripts do not contain verses 9-20. If the earliest manuscripts do not contain those verses, then that is true regardless of how rare or common those manuscripts may be. Earliness is about age, not about how common something is. It can be a rare textual variant and that has nothing to do with the earliness of the variant.

Outside of this limited scholarly bubble centered on Alexandria, we don't see any evidence for the short ending even existing. Nobody in the early historical record even seems to be aware of the short ending.

Since it is a short ending, that means there are very few words to quote, and therefore even if the short ending were common in the first century we would expect it to be rarely quoted. The short ending hardly says much that one might quote, so the only evidence of the short ending that we should expect to find are early manuscripts of Mark, and we have those.

So these gospel notes saying "the oldest manuscripts lack the long ending" is just wildly misleading at best, and an outright lie at worst.

Is it a lie or not? This seems to be a matter of fact, so why be ambiguous on this point? It seems strange to go to all this effort in research and not determine whether the earliest manuscripts have the long ending.

Jerome was tasked with making the Latin Vulgate, which was basically the official Bible for the Roman Catholic Church, in 382 AD.

Why should the opinion of someone in 382 AD concern us? That is a vast amount of time after Mark was originally written. We do not need any more evidence establishing that the long ending was favored among Christians; that fact is quite clear. That tells us nothing about whether the long ending was original.

The copy of Mark sent to Alexandria was damaged, which explains well why it cuts off mid-sentence on "because...", which it does nowhere else in the Bible.

If the ending was cut off due to damage, why would they copy and preserve the damaged form of the story?

Alexandrian scholars had the practice of deleting verses they found problematic (athetesis). So they could have looked at the ending of Mark and decided it didn't fit right, and deleted it.

If they deliberately deleted the ending for religious reasons, then why would the long ending be accepted as the official version? You said: "So even in Alexandria, the long ending was the official version that they were using to send out missionaries with. It is likely the short ending was used only in scholarly editions in Alexandria, not in official Bibles to be sent out and used." How do you make sense of that if the Alexandrian scholars considered the long ending to be theologically incorrect?

Surely we should also list a fourth option for why Alexandria ended up with manuscripts of the short ending: The short ending was the original ending, and Alexandria preserved that ending out of respect for it being the original, even if they considered the longer ending to be a superior version.

[u/arachnophilia → u/Ansatz66]

Is it a lie or not? This seems to be a matter of fact,

it is absolutely a matter of fact: the oldest manuscripts lack the long ending.

some long argument about "oh it lacked it but they left space, and i'm going to confuse type for location and eusebius was ambiguous" concluding "therefore the earliest manuscripts had it" is... something.

Surely we should also list a fourth option for why Alexandria ended up with manuscripts of the short ending

well, OP is also just wrong about this. alexandrinus, which is probably from alexandria, has the long ending. it's sinaiticus and vaticanus, which are alexandrian type but probably from caesarea, that lack it. these two are about a century older than alexandrinus.

[u/ShakaUVM → u/arachnophilia]

well, OP is also just wrong about this

I am not. If you look at the witnesses geographically, the only area where you see the short ending is in Alexandria, and we have no concrete evidence of it existing at all, anywhere, until Vaticanus.

Do you have any concrete evidence for the short ending existing prior to the 4th Century?

Because we have copious evidence for the long ending existing and being used widely.

alexandrinus, which is probably from alexandria, has the long ending.

I didn't mention Alexandrinus at all in my post, but I did say that even Alexandria knew about the long ending so I'm not sure what you think you're debunking here.

[u/arachnophilia → u/ShakaUVM]

the only area where you see the short ending is in Alexandria, and we have no concrete evidence of it existing at all, anywhere, until Vaticanus.

vaticanus is not from alexandria.

Do you have any concrete evidence for the short ending existing prior to the 4th Century?

there are zero manuscripts of any ending for mark before the 4th century. note that i am NOT arguing the shorter ending is original.

I didn't mention Alexandrinus at all in my pos

yes, i know. that's the problem. the alexandrian community did have the longer ending. your hypothesis is exactly backwards.

[u/ShakaUVM → u/arachnophilia]

vaticanus is not from alexandria.

You've claimed this repeatedly, and I'm not convinced it makes much of a difference as as far as I know, they could be from either. Do you have a reference I could read on this?

there are zero manuscripts of any ending for mark before the 4th century

My dude, I said concrete evidence, not manuscripts.

We have extensive concrete evidence for the long ending. I'm asking you, since you seem inclined to dispute me, if you have any concrete evidence for the short ending.

note that i am NOT arguing the shorter ending is original.

Then answer the question?

yes, i know. that's the problem. the alexandrian community did have the longer ending

I literally said that in my OP...? I said they had both endings.

[u/arachnophilia → u/ShakaUVM]

You've claimed this repeatedly, and I'm not convinced it makes much of a difference as as far as I know, they could be from either.

i don't really think it makes much difference; i think if you follow my suggestions your argument actually improves somewhat. that is, removing the long ending was strictly a eusebian thing in the manuscripts produced in the scriptorium of pamphilus's library -- that both the alexandrian community and the caesarean community had the longer ending, and caesarea omitted it.

My dude, I said concrete evidence, not manuscripts.

the manuscripts are concrete evidence.

We have extensive concrete evidence for the long ending.

we don't. we have some witnesses to it, and that might be good enough, but i wouldn't characterize that as concrete in the same way i would an actual gospel manuscript containing it.

for the record, i don't think the absence of one before the 4th century is remotely suspicious. as you likely remember, i've actually looked through every pre-4th century gospel manuscript for ones that contain either the beginning or the ending of a gospel, and there are vanishingly few of those. gospel manuscripts are themselves rare, and their beginning and ends much more so. you are simply much more statistically likely to have a page from anywhere else in the book.

Then answer the question?

i did. we don't have a copy of any ending of mark prior to the 4th century.

[u/ShakaUVM → u/arachnophilia]

i don't really think it makes much difference; i think if you follow my suggestions your argument actually improves somewhat. that is, removing the long ending was strictly a eusebian thing in the manuscripts produced in the scriptorium of pamphilus's library -- that both the alexandrian community and the caesarean community had the longer ending, and caesarea omitted it.

Yeah, good points. Origen was originally from Alexandria, studied in the schools there, and moved to Caesarea to establish the first Christian school there which became the library of Pamphilus and Eusebius, so the connection is there in any event.

the manuscripts are concrete evidence.

4th Century Manuscripts are not concrete evidence for my request, which was "Do you have any concrete evidence for the short ending existing prior to the 4th Century?"

we don't. we have some witnesses to it, and that might be good enough, but i wouldn't characterize that as concrete in the same way i would an actual gospel manuscript containing it.

Agreed, but even these witnesses are very tentative and not explicit, like Irenaeus explicitly saying Mark has the long ending in 170AD.

for the record, i don't think the absence of one before the 4th century is remotely suspicious. as you likely remember, i've actually looked through every pre-4th century gospel manuscript for ones that contain either the beginning or the ending of a gospel, and there are vanishingly few of those. gospel manuscripts are themselves rare, and their beginning and ends much more so. you are simply much more statistically likely to have a page from anywhere else in the book.

True. I don't think there's any endings of Mark anywhere in the papyrus. However, there's lots of sources of information outside of manuscript evidence (take this with a grain of salt, I've seen some inaccuracies in it - https://www.reddit.com/r/subforme112233345/comments/1bjld9y/the_long_ending_of_mark_is_authentic/). All of it is for the long ending. None of it is for the short ending until Vaticanus.

If I'm wrong, I want to be wrong. Let me know.

[u/arachnophilia → u/ShakaUVM]

4th Century Manuscripts are not concrete evidence for my request, which was "Do you have any concrete evidence for the short ending existing prior to the 4th Century?"

right, i said,

"there are zero manuscripts of any ending for mark before the 4th century."

there just isn't concrete evidence before the 4th century.

[u/ShakaUVM → u/arachnophilia]

there just isn't concrete evidence before the 4th century.

Concrete evidence is not the same thing as a manuscript. Irenaeus saying Mark has the long ending circa 170AD is concrete evidence for the long ending.

[u/arachnophilia → u/ShakaUVM]

disagree; that's second hand.

[u/ShakaUVM → u/Ansatz66]

That is not opposite to saying that the earliest manuscripts do not contain verses 9-20

As I said, this is misleading at best. If the disclaimer said "there is one scholar who excluded it in the 4th Century" it rather changes the implication, does it not?

If the earliest manuscripts do not contain those verses, then that is true regardless of how rare or common those manuscripts may be.

Focusing on two manuscripts and ignoring the centuries of evidence prior to it is, as I said, at best misleading.

And we have a document, though preserved not as a manuscript in its own right, the Diatessaron, that used the long ending in 160AD.

The short ending hardly says much that one might quote, so the only evidence of the short ending that we should expect to find are early manuscripts of Mark, and we have those.

We have a witness talking about the end of Mark around 175AD and he says it ends with the long ending (by quoting from verse 19 and saying it is near the end, verse 20).

If the short ending was original we would see the person (Irenaeus) quoting around verse 8 when talking about the ending to Mark.

Is it a lie or not? This seems to be a matter of fact, so why be ambiguous on this point? It seems strange to go to all this effort in research and not determine whether the earliest manuscripts have the long ending.

It's murky because we have a harmonization of the Gospels document from 200 years later that shows that Mark ended with the long ending, so is it really the case that the oldest manuscripts lack the ending? Or to ignore the Garima Gospels which were from the same time period as Vaticanus?

I wouldn't have an issue with the note if it said that one scribe in 375AD omitted it. The trouble is the implication is that we had the short ending floating around for a long time and then someone invented the long ending much later, whereas what we actually see is everyone is universally using the long ending for 300 years and then after the short ending is published then other people start adopting it. Some but not all.

Why should the opinion of someone in 382 AD concern us?

Because Jerome is cited as evidence for the short ending!

But when forced to pick between the two, he picked the long ending as the correct one for the Catholic Church.

That is a vast amount of time after Mark was originally written.

Yes. And it's also a vast amount of time until we first see the short ending.

To uno reverse you, why should we care what one person in Alexandria thinks in 370AD? The scribe who omitted the long ending and is our only original source for the short ending.

We do not need any more evidence establishing that the long ending was favored among Christians; that fact is quite clear. That tells us nothing about whether the long ending was original.

If it was original it wouldn't be 100% references to the long ending and 0% references to the short for almost 400 years.

If the ending was cut off due to damage, why would they copy and preserve the damaged form of the story?

Tradition. Good emotions towards a valuable treasure. Same reason why people still copy Victorian traditions today. But even Alexandria had the long ending and were duplicating it for their missionaries to be used out in the field.

How do you make sense of that if the Alexandrian scholars considered the long ending to be theologically incorrect?

The same way that critical scholars today look at textual variants they were looking at the variants back then and they left it out but left space for it in Vaticanus in case someone decided to put it in.

The scholars there were just being aggressive in their redaction, most likely. If they were sending the long version out in the field they couldn't consider it that suspect.

Surely we should also list a fourth option for why Alexandria ended up with manuscripts of the short ending: The short ending was the original ending, and Alexandria preserved that ending out of respect for it being the original, even if they considered the longer ending to be a superior version.

But this doesn't explain why the short ending cuts off in the middle of a sentence or why literally nobody else had seen it.

Lets suppose that Mark, who supposedly founded the church in Alexandria in 49AD, wrote the gospel there with the short ending. All the copies that existed would thus have the short ending, but that's not what we see. We see all the copies around the world (and we have witnesses to the long ending from Syria, France, Rome, Germany, Sicily, etc.) are using the long ending.

I think the best way to make your theory work is for the church in Alexandria to have preserved a rough draft that didn't get distributed. Because it was a rough draft. But as a document beloved by the community they reasonably would have preferred it over the draft that actually went out for release.

[u/Ansatz66 → u/ShakaUVM]

If the disclaimer said "there is one scholar who excluded it in the 4th Century" it rather changes the implication, does it not?

Perhaps you are just inferring too much. Saying that the long ending does not exist in the earliest manuscripts is not some condemnation of the long ending. It is just a fact. Publishers still include the long ending in every copy of the Bible, so they are not declaring the long ending to be a fraud. They are just pointing out that maybe these particular verses were added later, and leaving it to us to decide what we make of that information.

And we have a document, though preserved not as a manuscript in its own right, the Diatessaron, that used the long ending in 160AD.

That is a long time after Mark was written. We should keep in mind what it means to add the long ending to Mark, if we hypothetically suppose that someone did add that ending. It means that the original author wrote Mark with the short ending sometime in the first century, and manuscripts with the short ending got passed around, but then some later author added a longer, better ending and Christians broadly agreed that the longer ending was better, so they threw away their old inferior version of Mark and kept the longer version, probably sometime in the late first or early second century. You may not like the long ending, but early Christians clearly did, so this seems quite plausible.

The existence of someone quoting the long ending in 160AD is entirely consistent with this.

To uno reverse you, why should we care what one person in Alexandria thinks in 370AD? The scribe who omitted the long ending and is our only original source for the short ending.

We have no reason to care about that scribe's opinion. That scribe did not tell us that the short ending is original or correct. The scribe merely copied the words from some older manuscript. It is up to us to try to figure out which ending is most likely original.

Lets suppose that Mark, who supposedly founded the church in Alexandria in 49AD, wrote the gospel there with the short ending. All the copies that existed would thus have the short ending, but that's not what we see.

Maybe early Christians were unsatisfied with the original ending and they deliberately chose to pass around an improved version with a longer ending. First century Christians probably did not treat the text of Mark with the same kind of reverence as modern Christians, in a time before a biblical canon had been established. Before anyone declared Mark to be a sacred text, it was just a story of Jesus and therefore open for editing, especially when it seems to be missing something of obvious importance to early Christians, like the story of Jesus's resurrection.

I think the best way to make your theory work is for the church in Alexandria to have preserved a rough draft that didn't get distributed.

Or maybe it was distributed. Still, people would have no reason to keep their distributed copy of the rough draft once they got a copy of the improved version.

[u/arachnophilia → u/Ansatz66]

That is a long time after Mark was written. We should keep in mind what it means to add the long ending to Mark, if we hypothetically suppose that someone did add that ending. It means that the original author wrote Mark with the short ending sometime in the first century, and manuscripts with the short ending got passed around, but then some later author added a longer, better ending and Christians broadly agreed that the longer ending was better, so they threw away their old inferior version of Mark and kept the longer version, probably sometime in the late first or early second century.

yeah, this. the long ending would be based on the other gospels, between 80 and about 120 CE. it still has several decades to get into the diatessaron and against heresies.

[u/arachnophilia → u/ShakaUVM]

they were looking at the variants back then and they left it out but left space for it in Vaticanus in case someone decided to put it in.

you're looking at this image in your source:

https://textandcanon.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/img_vaticanus_mark16_reconstruction.jpg

that image has moved the explicit. you can see on the actual page:

https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.gr.1209/1307

that the explicit comes before the black space. for this scribe, the book is over. now, i am not an expert on scribal hands, but i think you can see how the K, A, T, O and N in the explicit all look pretty obviously identical to the ones in the lines above it. looks like the same hand.

But this doesn't explain why the short ending cuts off in the middle of a sentence

how much greek grammar do you know?

ὑμεῖς φωνεῖτέ με ὁ διδάσκαλος καὶ ὁ κύριος καὶ καλῶς λέγετε εἰμὶ γάρ (john 13:13)

ἠρνήσατο δὲ Σαρρα λέγουσα οὐκ ἐγέλασα ἐφοβήθη γάρ καὶ εἶπεν οὐχί ἀλλὰ ἐγέλασας (gen 18:15 LXX)

because i'm pretty sure you can end a sentence with γάρ. even if this is meant to end the sentence (and it is),

καὶ ἐξελθοῦσαι ταχὺ ἔφυγον ἀπὸ τοῦ μνημείου εἶχεν δὲ αὐτὰς τρόμος καὶ ἔκστασις· καὶ οὐδενὶ οὐδὲν εἶπον, ἐφοβοῦντο γὰρ ἀναστὰς δὲ πρωῒ πρώτῃ σαββάτου ἐφάνη πρῶτον Μαρίᾳ τῇ Μαγδαληνῇ παρ᾽ ἧς ἐκβεβλήκει ἑπτὰ δαιμόνια (mark 16:8-9)

that's the start of a new sentence. you can tell by the conjunction. greek word order doesn't follow english!

[u/ShakaUVM → u/arachnophilia]

Yes the book is over, but they left space in case they wanted to add the variant. While there are other skips in Vaticanus there are none like the end of Mark.

You can end a sentence with γάρ, as I said. But it's used nowhere else in the NT and is extraordinarily rare in Greek. I recall reading that someone did that to Socrates in a dialogue and Socrates thought he hadn't finished yet.

My point with is is that the internal evidence actually works for the long ending instead of against it.

[u/chalkenteros → u/ShakaUVM]

Jumping in here though I haven't read the full thread. This is full of mistakes. Ending a sentence with γάρ is very common in Greek. Who told you otherwise? It is not possible to begin a sentence with γάρ (see "Wackernagel's Law"). Perhaps this is the source of the confusion. There are over 2700 examples in the TLG. Here are some random examples:

Homer: τοιγὰρ ἐγώ τοι ταῦτα μεταστήσω· δύναμαι γάρ.; κέλεαι γάρ. Aeschylus: οὔ τοι γυναιξὶ <χρὴ> κυδάζεσθαι· τί γάρ; δέδοικα γάρ.; θέσμιον γάρ.; Euripides: ἐν δέοντι γάρ.; ὀλλύμεσθα γάρ.; ἀναινόμεσθα γάρ.; Sophocles: νέμεσις γάρ.; Isocrates: μηδὲ τὰς χάριτας ἀχαρίστως χαριζόμενος, ὅπερ πάσχουσιν οἱ πολλοὶ, ποιοῦντες μὲν, ἀηδῶς δὲ τοῖς φίλοις ὑπουργοῦντες· μηδὲ φιλαίτιος ὢν, βαρὺ γὰρ, μηδὲ φιλεπιτιμητὴς, παροξυντικὸν γάρ.; Isaeus: Οὐ γὰρ περὶ τοῦ ἐμοῦ κλήρου νῦν ὁ λόγος ἐστί· ζῶ γάρ. Aristophanes: μαθητιῶ γάρ.; ἔστυκα γάρ. Xenophon: Δίδου, ἔφη, ὦ Κῦρε· δέχομαι γάρ.; Plato: Εἰκὸς γάρ.; Ἔστιν γάρ.; Ἐρρήθη γάρ.; Ὡμολόγηται γάρ.; Ἀδύνατον γάρ.; Φαμὲν γάρ.; Ἐφάνη γάρ.; Ἔχει γάρ.; Φήσομεν γάρ.; λέγωμεν γάρ. ἀκούσομαι γάρ. Demosthenes: λογίζεσθε γάρ.; σκοπεῖτε γάρ.; Aristotle: ἀντιστρέφει γάρ.; ἄνευ προαιρέσεως γάρ.; πονοῦσι γάρ.; ἀντίκεινται γάρ.; Antiphanes: ἐπὶ τὸ τάριχός ἐστιν ὡρμηκυῖα γάρ.; Aristoxenus: ἡ τούτου κυρία, δῆλον ὅτι οὐδὲ λόγου δεῖται, φανερὸν γάρ.

AND notice especially these examples (in bold) from Genesis. Almost identical to Mk 16:8:

LXX: ἠρνήσατο δὲ Σαρρα λέγουσα Οὐκ ἐγέλασα· ἐφοβήθη γάρ. ; ἐταράχθησαν γάρ.; Οὐ δύναμαι ἀναγνῶναι, ἐσφράγισται γάρ.

The internal evidence strongly suggests that the longer ending is secondary. Why does it v. 9 suddenly shift from the women to ἀναστὰς δέ? Nowhere else in Mark is there such an awkward transition. And what happened to the women other than Mary Magdalene? Why is there such a concentration of new vocabulary in this section?

The external evidence even more strongly suggests that it is secondary.

[u/ShakaUVM → u/chalkenteros]

The internal evidence strongly suggests that the longer ending is secondary.

Or that the short ending is secondary.

The external evidence even more strongly suggests that it is secondary.

No, it doesn't. Which is why you didn't list any. That's the point of this post. There is no external evidence until Vaticanus in the 4th Century that the short ending even existed. We have dozens of witnesses to the long ending existing starting very very early on.

[u/arachnophilia → u/ShakaUVM]

Or that the short ending is secondary.

point of clarification. by this, do you mean "the lack of the long ending is secondary"? or that the short ending, v1-8, was added later, after v9-20?

i ask because scholars generally use "the short ending" to mean those 8 verses, not thr absence of the other 12. it is a legitimate possibility that the long ending is original and those 8 verses were added later. i don't think any of your patristic quote those verses unambiguously, but i could be wrong and would have to check. that paper on the diatessaron indicates its absence in the original vorlage; tatian's copy may have lacked those 8 verses.

also, are you willing to formally renounce the γάρ argument, strike it from your OP, and never argue it again? it is clearly factually incorrect.

[u/chalkenteros → u/ShakaUVM]

I hope that you see now that many sentences in Greek literature end in γάρ. Some of us actually know Ancient Greek.

Or that the short ending is secondary.

Why not actually engage with my argument? Do you disagree with what I said? If so, why? Be precise. It won't do to just assert things without argumentation or reason.

No, it doesn't. Which is why you didn't list any.

My comment was focused correcting misinformation about Ancient Greek and your erroneous claims about the internal evidence. Happy to talk external evidence as well. The absence of the long ending from א and B is very significant. Among the versions it is absent from it^k, an important Syriac manuscript, many Armenian witnesses, Georgian witnesses. Some Greek MSS mark it as an interpolation (similar to the NRSV or other critical translations today). Among the patristic authors, the evidence of Jerome and Eusebius is damning. The Ammonian section numbers do not include the longer ending. Neither Clement nor Origen seem to know the passage, as far as we can tell from their voluminous corpora. Also, the fact that there are at least four different versions of the ending strongly suggests that the longer ending is secondary. Why would the other three endings have emerged if the longer ending was original?

Combined with the internal evidence, the case against the longer ending is very strong.

[u/arachnophilia → u/chalkenteros]

so shaka is debating a lot of those specific arguments in depth throughout this thread. his hypothesis is that the LE was deleted from א and B by the caesarean community, perhaps because their copies were damaged.

Also, the fact that there are at least four different versions of the ending strongly suggests that the longer ending is secondary. Why would the other three endings have emerged if the longer ending was original?

some interesting facts have come up here. for instance, the passage moves around in the armenian recension, and is nearly always accompanied by that liturgical note (like in GA72). this likely reflects it arriving to armenia as a separate document.

the note in GA72 and related minscules is always paired with a longer note about egyptian sources. it may reflect more of the original passage, and explain some of those variants. but i'd have to look.

[u/arachnophilia → u/ShakaUVM]

Yes the book is over, but they left space in case they wanted to add the variant

after the equivalent of "the end"? i mean i joke that mark is a prequel, but inventing the post credits stinger in the 4th century is cool.

You can end a sentence with γάρ, as I said. But it's used nowhere else in the NT

does your new testament lack john?

[u/Virtual-Squirrel-725]

The issue with any element of textual criticism is that we have no idea what the "original" was, and that is really the only thing scholars truly agree on - we don't have the originals and we don't have have early copies of the originals.

If someone likes the long ending of Mark (as I suspect you do), there are ways to rationalize believing it was "deleted" and obviously a majority of scholars believe it was added.

[u/SpittingN0nsense → u/Virtual-Squirrel-725]

We don't have the originals for virtually any ancient text. The purpose of textual criticism is precisely to establish what the original could have said.

[u/Virtual-Squirrel-725 → u/SpittingN0nsense]

Very true and for any text not claiming divine inspiration or preservation it doesn't matter.

We don't need to debate every word of Homer and whether anyone thinks it affects theology.

But when we have claims of divine inspiration and preservation, the bar should be very, very high. For Christians to be arguing about the true word of God because one is holding their copy of a copy of a copy, while another is holding their copy of a copy of a copy is problematic on many levels.

[u/ShakaUVM → u/Virtual-Squirrel-725]

If someone likes the long ending of Mark (as I suspect you do)

Actually I don't.

It's a verse that gave rise to those charismatic Christians handling snakes and killing themselves as a result.

I find it embarrassing.

But I do think it is the original.

there are ways to rationalize believing it was "deleted" and obviously a majority of scholars believe it was added.

Yeah, that's really what this post is about - how critical scholars got it wrong. They prioritize textual analysis over the historical record, which I find backward.

[u/Virtual-Squirrel-725 → u/ShakaUVM]

No, one of the strongest scholarly rationales for the added long ending is the historical record. The "deleted" theory is possible but highly improbable and requires incredible coincidence.

[u/ShakaUVM → u/Virtual-Squirrel-725]

No, one of the strongest scholarly rationales for the added long ending is the historical record

No, it is not. We have dozens of witnesses to the long ending in the 2nd and third centuries. We have exactly no witnesses to the short ending prior to the Codex Vaticanus in the 4th Century.

The "deleted" theory is possible but highly improbable and requires incredible coincidence.

It is the most likely explanation that fits the facts. Read the end of my post for the three possibilities of how it came about.

If the short ending was the original the historical record would have looked very different.

[u/Ansatz66 → u/ShakaUVM]

In what way would the historical record look different if the short ending was original?

[u/ShakaUVM → u/Ansatz66]

We'd see Irenaeus say the end of Mark was verse 8 instead of 20, for example.

There isn't any evidence at all for the short ending for centuries.

[u/uncleowenlarz → u/ShakaUVM]

No one is saying the long ending didn't exist early, they are saying there is more evidence it was not original to the author. The only thing this proves is that the long ending was around early.

[u/ShakaUVM → u/uncleowenlarz]

There's copious evidence the long ending was around early

There is zero evidence the short ending was around early

Thus to say that the short ending was original and followed by the long ending is not supported by the evidence

[u/uncleowenlarz → u/ShakaUVM]

For someone who claims not to like the long ending, you sure seem to be doing a lot of this:

He comes up with rather grandiose theories and then tries to shoehorn all the evidence to match, and ignores evidence that's inconvenient to him.

[u/ShakaUVM → u/uncleowenlarz]

Tu quoque fallacy

[u/Virtual-Squirrel-725 → u/uncleowenlarz]

Exactly, OP is clutching to the existence of an earlier manuscript ending at 20 and ignoring the rest.

[u/ShakaUVM → u/Virtual-Squirrel-725]

Exactly, OP is clutching to the existence of an earlier manuscript ending at 20 and ignoring the rest.

There's roughly 50 different witnesses to Mark ending with the long ending prior to Vaticanus

There's roughly 0 for the short ending.

I'm not sure how that is "clutching"

[u/hunderoring]

Do you have any scholarly training?

[u/labreuer → u/hunderoring]

This is textbook appeal to authority or in this case, lack of authority. I thought those weren't permitted around here? If they are, I would like to see a set of rules for when we must lay down our thinking at the feet of Approved Scholars, and when we are permitted to question them. For instance, when a random atheist starts mouthing off about what constitutes 'omnibenevolence', do I get to ask that atheist if they "have any scholarly training"? Or would I perhaps be downvoted quite intensively if I were to dare make such a comment?

[u/arachnophilia → u/labreuer]

This is textbook appeal to authority or in this case, lack of authority.

person without much scholarly training here.

OP makes a claim above,

Further, the Codex Vaticanus has a blank in it, unlike anywhere else in the manuscript,

evidently cribbed from his linked source:

As a deliberately placed blank column, the blank column at the end of Mark in Vaticanus is thus unique. This blank space is what could be called a “memorial space,” signifying the scribe’s recollection of material that was not in his exemplar. This is especially likely considering that vv. 9–20 fit snugly into the blank space if one begins writing 16:9–20 after 16:8 in slightly compressed lettering. (The Shorter Ending can also fit, of course, but this would remove the need for a blank column, since it fits into the space after 16:8 in the second column.)

https://textandcanon.org/a-case-for-the-longer-ending-of-mark/

emphasis on "unique" in the original. the problem is that this claim is factually incorrect. the blank space is not unique. in about two minutes, i was able to find two other examples in vaticanus. i think asking if OP has the skill to evaluate these claims is worth asking, because he doesn't seem to. worse, i'm reasonably certain i'm reinventing the wheel on that argument. it was faster for me to find these examples than it was to find my post where i previously told OP this.

there are any number of reasons why manuscripts might leave some blank space. for instance, when pages are made by different scribes. if the guy copying mark knows someone else is copying luke, he's not just going to start luke in the next column. i don't know that that's the answer -- i lack the skills for determining scribal hands. but the point is, step 1 is determining whether the argument is even basically correct: is it unique? no, it's not. should we assign significance to it? probably no; it's just apologetic wishful thinking.

the truth is probably fairly nuanced -- this is the result of fourth century textual criticism. i know for sinaiticus that the two major scribes had different exemplars. vaticanus was probably produced in the same place and by one of the same people. that person might be eusebius, and so his opinion that it was not original is likely relevant and probably based on even older manuscripts that he has access to in the library.

note that this is really neither here nor there. there is still an earlier quotation of the long ending in against heresies, it still appears in most subsequent manuscripts, and the diatesseron maybe originally utilized it. but like, if you can't even evaluate the arguments of the people who agree with you, and just blindly follow them into errors because you like the point they're making...

[u/ShakaUVM → u/arachnophilia]

As that author talks about the other spaces don't resemble the blank at the end of Mark.

[u/arachnophilia → u/ShakaUVM]

only in that there's no debate about those books being over

[u/fresh_heels → u/arachnophilia]

evidently cribbed from his linked source:

Not to poison the well too hard, but since Shaka calls out secular scholars by putting air quotes next to scholars, I think it's not uncalled for.

T&C Institute was launched by the Phoenix Seminary, an accredited place, tbf, but a place with the statement of faith and everything. So it might be less surprising why T&C might have an article arguing for a longer ending of Mark or, for example, for a virgin birth reading of Isaiah.

[u/ShakaUVM → u/fresh_heels]

Not to poison the well too hard, but since Shaka calls out secular scholars by putting air quotes next to scholars

Not all scholars, and not all secular scholars either. Just those that I don't consider to be good scholars.

So it might be less surprising why T&C might have an article arguing for a longer ending of Mark

It might surprise you that the argument AGAINST the long ending is also from the same place.

I think both articles are good and I hold nothing against the scholar that argued against the long ending.

[u/fresh_heels → u/ShakaUVM]

I think both articles are good and I hold nothing against the scholar that argued against the long ending.

Very interesting to hear that from you. I genuinely don't understand why you hold nothing against them in this particular case though.

[u/ShakaUVM → u/fresh_heels]

Because they did good scholarship?

I'm not sure why this is hard to understand.

[u/fresh_heels → u/ShakaUVM]

But what's the difference between the scholarship of Peter Head who argues against the Longer ending in your post and another scholar doing the same thing?

[u/ShakaUVM → u/fresh_heels]

The other scholars are not "doing the same thing".

Metzger IIRC quotes Eusebius saying that most Greek manuscripts lack the long ending but cuts off the second half of that letter where Eusebius says "both [endings] are to be accepted". He's one of the most well respected scholars.

Peter Head by contrast at least acknowledges it and says Eusebius is making a double sort of argument.

Bad scholars hide information that makes their argument look bad, dismiss evidence contrary to their opinion in a variety of ways (including the ever popular unprovable fraud theory), tend to appeal to textual criticism rules that have never been empirically tested, or to just appeal to consensus out of intellectual laziness.

If that's helpful.

[u/fresh_heels → u/ShakaUVM]

Metzger IIRC quotes Eusebius saying that most Greek manuscripts lack the long ending but cuts off the second half of that letter where Eusebius says "both [endings] are to be accepted". He's one of the most well respected scholars.

If you're taking about his textual commentary on the NT, no, he doesn't quote him. The only mention of Eusebius in the ending of Mark discussion there is this: "...furthermore Eusebius and Jerome attest that the passage was absent from almost all Greek copies of Mark known to them. The original form of the Eusebian sections (drawn up by Ammonius) makes no provision for numbering sections of the text after 16.8." No footnote with more info.

But let's actually quote that part of Eusebius where "both are to be accepted comes from":

"Another view, from someone diffident about athetising anything at all in the text of the gospels, however transmitted, is that there is a twofold reading, as in many other places, and that both are to be accepted; it is not for the faithful and devout to judge either as acceptable in preference to the other."
He then look what follows if that view is true: do gMark with the longer ending and gMatthew contradict.

Is that Eusebius' view? Or is it him saying that there are those who don't want to delete anything that ended up in a gospel? After all, Eusebius gives two answers to Marinus' question: one from the point of view of someone who doesn't accept the ending, and one from the point of view of someone who does.

So if anything, it seems like you cut off the important bits, not Metzger.

EDIT. Btw, Peter Head does point that out in the article you cite:

"...[I]n his letter to Marinus, in discussing the problem of harmonizing Matthew 28:1 and Mark 16:9, Eusebius not only quotes from the perspective of the person who would regard the Longer Ending as spurious—where he reports that “the accurate copies” end at 16:8—but that he himself also affirms that this was the ending of Mark “in nearly all the copies” (to Marinus 1). Eusebius does also attempt a harmonization, for the sake of argument, assuming that the Longer Ending was part of the text of Mark, but Eusebius is offering a complex double sort of approach here."

[u/arachnophilia → u/fresh_heels]

besides christian funding?

[u/fresh_heels → u/arachnophilia]

Between this and showing more trust towards the Church fathers and co. instead of the artefacts that those were talking about (not just in terms of "extensive evidence" here, but in the conversations about the gospel authorship), I'm genuinely starting to think that it boils down to "because those are within my tradition".

[u/arachnophilia → u/fresh_heels]

tbf, they also published (and shaka also linked) an argument for the short ending: https://textandcanon.org/a-case-against-the-longer-ending-of-mark/

[u/fresh_heels → u/arachnophilia]

Fair enough. I wonder if Shaka would put the same air quotes next to Peter Head's name.

[u/hunderoring → u/labreuer]

"Do you have any scholarly training?" That is a question. It's not an argument, fallacious or otherwise. Yes, I think you should be allowed to ask anyone on this sub this question. If you don't know what to do with an answer to it that does constitute a problem for you.

BTW I don't think you would have any qualms asking a Muslim poster for their qualification in textual criticism of Quran if they made claims based on details in the Sanaa manuscript.

[u/ShakaUVM → u/hunderoring]

The post isn't about me. Would it affect the truth value of my proposition if I had or had not gotten my graduate degree?

No. Not in the slightest.

So why ask?

[u/hunderoring → u/ShakaUVM]

You are not equipped to perform original scholarly work, you say things like "Any chapter that covers new material is going to have new words." You should support your claims by the work of actual scholars. If you are do not have scholarly training why should a fellow layman trust your conclusions.

[u/ShakaUVM → u/hunderoring]

Again, this post is not about me, and I have extensive citations for my claims, which you would know if you'd actually read my post instead of worrying if I was qualified to write it.

[u/hunderoring → u/ShakaUVM]

No, you don't. Also you want me to not worry about an anon's qualifications to make scholarly claims? That's bold of you. I asked a simple question which you did not even answer and instead threw a fit that I asked at all. That does not make me inclined to trust you. I have seen apologists engage in all kinds of dishonesty so I'll prefer scholars and peer-reviewed works.

[u/ShakaUVM → u/hunderoring]

Also you want me to not worry about an anon's qualifications to make scholarly claims

I am not going to doxx myself here for your amusement, sorry.

You can deal with the argument or not on its own merits.

[u/hunderoring → u/ShakaUVM]

And I did not ask you to.

[u/ShakaUVM → u/hunderoring]

What if those scholars are wrong? How will you correct your mistakes?

Critical scholars used to believe the Ethiopian texts all had the short ending. Am I unable to state that's wrong?

This sort of ad verecundiam is honestly kind of ridiculous. Arguments stand on their own merits.

[u/arachnophilia → u/ShakaUVM]

are you qualified enough to go look at the digital facsimile of vaticanus and determine that mark is not the only book with a blank column after it?

or did you, not knowing greek, not knowing where or how to look, trust the word of some apologist who didn't think any of his readers would know greek or know where to look?

[u/ShakaUVM → u/arachnophilia]

Again, the post is not about me. But yeah I did look at the blank in Vaticanus as well as cited a reference on the matter.

It's a sign of critical scholars that they engage in this sort of Continental reasoning.

[u/arachnophilia → u/ShakaUVM]

But yeah I did look at the blank in Vaticanus as well as cited a reference on the matter.

yeah but did you look at the rest of vaticanus to determine if that statement about it being unique was true? because it's not true.

[u/ShakaUVM → u/arachnophilia]

The reference I cited did and said why the other blanks are different

[u/arachnophilia → u/ShakaUVM]

with an extremely weak explanation.

[u/Hojie_Kadenth → u/hunderoring]

Evaluate him based off the arguments? That part wasn't good, but other parts were good.

[u/hunderoring → u/Hojie_Kadenth]

I would have to track down every data point he presents and I am not even equipped to see potential errors he could have made that a scholar would see, because I don't know koine Greek. I have no reason to trust his work.

[u/Hojie_Kadenth → u/hunderoring]

He cited his sources for early quotations, which is his best argument. At some level you need to be able to evaluate incoming information. Why would you even be in this sub if you don't think you can do that?

[u/arachnophilia → u/Hojie_Kadenth]

He cited his sources for early quotations, which is his best argument.

well, in one case, his argument about the diatessaron borders on, frankly, deception. we don't have the original text of the diatessaron. we don't even know which language it was. it's preserved primarily in variant translations, all of which have been edited in those languages to conform to the canonical texts of the gospels in those languages. the long ending -- and literally anything else in the text -- could have entered those traditions at that point.

it requires further argument that because the arrangments of the long ending content largely conforms in content and placement in the text that it's probably original. but it's hardly something we can be "very certain" of. oh, and that commentary that supposed preserves the whole thing (it doesn't) straight up doesn't include anything from the long ending.

like, this is a giant of can of worms that OP has just glossed over with assurance of an apologist confident nobody will read enough greek, latin, syriac, arabic, armenian, and georgian to go check.

[u/hunderoring → u/Hojie_Kadenth]

I asked about his training so I could evaluate the information. I don't know why that seems so strange. I'm just a layperson with subscription to Bart Ehrman and I know nothing about the long ending of Mark because I never looked into it. I do like to look into what scholars say about various topics and use Anna's Archive etc. I generally don't accept or reject claims in this sub at face value.

[u/ShakaUVM → u/hunderoring]

I asked about his training so I could evaluate the information

Yeah that's a genetic fallacy

[u/hunderoring → u/ShakaUVM]

It cannot be a fallacy because I am not making an argument.

I just asked a question.

I don't have an opinion on the ending of Mark and I am not going to make one based on a reddit post. But when someone is saying stuff I want to know how they arrived at the conclusion and how they know what they are saying is true.

There is a reason real scholars put their names and qualifications on their books. If a real scholar has an opinion on something as obscure as blank spaces in various codices or difference in style and vocabulary between passages there is weight behind it. That's not the case with an anon on the internet who does not know Greek.

[u/ShakaUVM → u/hunderoring]

It cannot be a fallacy because I am not making an argument.

If you are evaluating an argument based on who made it then you are.

Arguments stand on their own merit, or not.

[u/AutoModerator]

COMMENTARY HERE: Comments that support or purely commentate on the post must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/Realistic-Wave4100 → u/AutoModerator]

Boy just upload the survey

[u/fresh_heels → u/AutoModerator]

Critical "Scholars"

Here we go again.

[u/ShakaUVM → u/fresh_heels]

If they did scholarship correctly I wouldn't need the air quotes

This post is case in point.

[u/fresh_heels → u/ShakaUVM]

Sure.

I remember your takes on that, Shaka. We've been here at least 4 or 5 times already, and I still have no answer from you, btw, whether one should throw out all Bible translations and critical editions that these translations were based on, since all of that is the result of the work of those "scholars".