Image: Phoenix Seminary campus
When I presented my paper on “The Ending of Mark as a Canonical Crisis” at Houston Baptist University back in March, I shared a draft copy of it with Dr. Peter J. Gurry of Phoenix Seminary, whose PS colleague John Meade had also presented a paper at the HBU conference.
When my article based on this paper came out in the PRJ (see this blog post), I sent a copy to Peter. He then kindly sent me some thoughtful comments and questions on the paper yesterday (1.16.18), I responded, and then he sent me some further points of clarification today (1.17.18), to which I also responded.
With his permission, I am going to share my two interactions with Peter, relating to my article (which also include his comments, questions, and points of clarification):
Comments and questions (1.16.18):
Many thanks for reading the paper and offering these valuable comments and questions. I wish I had had them earlier. They will be useful if I revise the paper and use it in another format.
Let me offer a few replies (with your comments in italic):
I noticed there is no mention of the Sinaitic Syriac. Was this intentional? Its text is, per Metzger, as early as late 2nd/early 3rd century and it lacks the Longer Ending. This is a problem for you claim on p. 39 that there is no “inkling of controversy” in this period. I note this manuscript is also missing from the extended quote of Lunn at the end. I also noticed there was no mention of the Sahidic Coptic or 308 cited in NA28.
Response: My main focus was to survey the Greek mss. evidence for the traditional ending, so I did not give much focus to the versional evidence, which is extremely scanty pre-300.
If I revise the paper I will try to add something on the Sinaitic Syriac. Of this, notice two things:
1. Metzger/Ehrman say the work was copied in the fourth century (so it would be post-300), though they speculate that it preserves “the form of the text” from the “beginning of the third century” (p. 96). No footnote or source is cited. This seems speculative to me at best, so I did not include this as a sure pre-300 witness to the ending of Mark.
2. Metzger/Ehrman also note that the Sinaitic Syriac (a palimpsest) was not discovered at St. Catherine’s on Mt. Sinai till 1892 (p. 96). This means that it had no bearing in WH’s decision to end Mark at Mark 16:8 in their 1881 Greek NT. This decision by WH was based on the evidence of Sinaiticus and Vatincanus, not the Sinaitic Syriac.
As for the Sahidic Coptic, the NA28 apparatus notes two or more mss. ending at 16:8 but does not identify or date them. In the discussion in Metzger/Ehrman no specific Sahidic mss. are cited which are pre-300 (see pp. 110-112).
As for 304 (I assume this is what you meant rather than 308) my understanding, drawn from J. Snapp, was that the ending of this ms. is damaged, so that it is not a valid witness for the ending. Also, according to the NA28 it is dated to the XII century so it is not relevant for the pre-300 discussion.
I tried to stress my overall focus on the Greek mss. in the first line of the second paragraph on p. 35 when I wrote (emphasis added): “Upon examination of the early Greek manuscript evidence for the ending of Mark, one can tentatively suggest at least three distinct periods or phases in the early transmission of the ending of Mark.”
On p. 39 I made this statement regarding the pre-300 evidence for the ending of Mark: “If we had only the evidence from this period we would hardly have any inkling of controversy over the text of Mark, but would assume the Traditional Ending as the undisputed conclusion of the second Gospel.” In light of the evidence, I think this statement is accurate. We do not, for example, have any patristic evidence of any dispute about the ending, which we do find (in Eusebius, et al) post-300.
Did you intend not to give your own view as to the originality of the Longer Ending? Even if not decisive to the issue of canonicity, do you think it pertinent?
Response: I believe that 16:9-20 is original and by the hand of Mark. However, I also think that one can believe it was not written by Mark and still hold that is canonical (as Metzger, David Alan Black, and you hold). I did not address this, since the issue of originality was not my main concern to defend in this article, but I see how it might be helpful to make my view plain if I revise it.
I thought it a bit odd that the silence of Origen et al. was rejected as an argument from silence but the codicology of 01 and 03 wasn’t. In any case, the notion that 03 left space for the Longer Ending and still left it out has always seemed like a point against authenticity.
Response: I’m not sure I follow you here. Origen does not explicitly address the ending of Mark, so it is assumed by some that he did not know the ending. This is an argument from silence (assuming he is a witness against the LE, because he does not address it). I’d consider the absence of the LE from 01 and 03 not to be an argument from silence but another matter altogether. Clearly, the LE was rejected by them. The strange ending markers, however, show that they knew of a longer ending and were apparently suppressing it. These are two different kinds of arguments.
You may know this, but codex W has recently been re-dated to sixth century by Ulrich Schmid (see The Free Biblical Manuscripts book). This would affect your statement on p. 45 that it is one of the earliest witnesses to the Longer Ending so you may want to cite this.
Response: Suggested re-dating of W: I did not know this. I will look for the source and cite it if I ever revise the paper. As noted in the table I was relying on the 2012 dates in the NA28, the most recent edition of the critical text. Do you think this date will be altered in NA29, based on this research?
Though many critics of reasoned eclecticism have latched onto comment by Parker and a few others about the goal of NTTC, it is not true that Vincent’s 1899 goal has “largely been abandoned by academic text critics.” I’ve attached a list I put together for Dan Wallace not long ago showing many who still affirm the traditional goal. I could add myself—if that wouldn’t be too presumptuous of me—and the editors of the new THGNT to the list as well.
Response: Though I agree that some scholars still hold to Vincent’s goal, and many of them would be evangelicals of one stripe or another, it seems clear that a shift has taken place from the modern twentieth century goal of reconstructing the original autograph to a postmodern twenty-first century goal of reconstructing the earliest “Initial Text.” Note that even several of those in your list are from the later twentieth century or early 2000s. I am guessing that I could compile a substantial list of quotes on the other side, and not just from Parker. And it seems, the ones of the other side are the ones who are the real “gatekeepers” with regard to the critical text. Even among evangelicals, as I point out in my article, look at the way the NLT presents the ending of Mark with multiple options (not to mention mainline Protestant translations like the NRSV). I think this represents a new paradigm.
Just for interest, have you seen the article by Elijah Hixson on Spurgeon’s view of textual criticism? You may find it interesting. It’s attached.
Response: I was not aware of this article by Hixon. Look forward to reading it. Though I make the point in my article that Spurgeon upheld the authenticity of the LE, I am not surprised to see that he is inconsistent with dealing with the issue of text. I have seen other compilations of him making contradictory statements about translations (and thereby upon the underlying texts of the translations), at some points praising the KJV and at others extolling the REV. I’m not sure if Hixon did so, but it would be interesting to notice the dates when the comments on text were made and if there were fluctuations. My guess is that his position evolved in response to the publication of the REV in 1881, 1885. I also would not be surprised to find that his view swung back to the KJV in light of the “downgrade controversy” near the conclusion of his ministry. I’ve heard it said that Spurgeon is often hard to pin down on some matters, like eschatology, where evidence can be found in various sermons for just about every millennial position. His views on text, no doubt, reflect the shifts created by the rise of modern text criticism and the work of WH in his day. As for the theme of this article, however, he appeared, at least, to uphold the LE of Mark. I drew attention to Spurgeon, in part, due to irony of the fact that MacArthur, in particular, so admires Spurgeon and is often compared to him. I think most would agree that Spurgeon’s strength was as a preacher and not as a textual scholar.
Finally, I found your comparison of modern evangelicals and influential proponents of TC from the late 19th–20th centuries. WH, of course, left the longer ending in their main text because they felt it should not be removed altogether. What’s more, S. P. Tregelles thought it was not original but still canonical thereby sharing your view. And he, of course, included it in his edition. So, it would seem that modern evangelicals are following this tradition when they continue to print it in the text, thereby letting the reader decide what to do with it. Have I perhaps misunderstood your point of the comparison I wonder?
Response: Yes, modern evangelicals seem to be following in the nineteenth/twentieth century pattern of leaving the ending of Mark open to the judgment of the reader. I am saying that I do not think this is good decision. I would prefer we follow the pattern of the confessional Reformers who embraced the traditional ending and included it in the text without brackets, comments on mss. that omit it, or reference to spurious, very late additions (like the Shorter Ending or the Freer Logion), etc. I would rather follow the pattern of Tyndale, Calvin, the Geneva Bible, the KJV, Owen, Poole, and Henry, etc., rather than Westcott and Hort or Metzger, and simply include 16:9-20 as the ending without distinction or comment.
Many thanks for sending the paper and for your work on it. I happen to think 16.9-20 is not original and that 16.8 is not the original ending. But like you, I think of the traditional ending as Scripture, something like an ancient appendix.
Response: Thanks again for the time you took to read the article and for your helpful comments. I see 16:9-20 as original, based on the arguments from both external and internal evidence (which I find convincing) and also on confessional/theological grounds. I know that questions have been raised about the Biblical books and editorial process (e.g. the final form of the torah, the conclusion to Ecclesiastes [12:9-14], the conclusion of John [21:24-25], or a suggested composite nature for some of Paul’s letters [like 2 Corinthians], etc.). It seems that most of these ideas, however, have only emerged in the post-Enlightenment, modern period with the rise of “source criticism.” IMHO, I think there is an inherent challenge to the integrity and thus the authority of the Gospel of Mark if we conclude that the ancient ending is only an appendix. There is also a matter of integrity. If the ancient Christians gave it the title “The Gospel According to Mark” my sense would be that they took Mark 16:9-20 not as a non-Markan appendix but as the authentic and original ending to the Gospel, from the hand of Mark.
Points of Clarification (1.17.18):
Thanks again Peter. Follow ups to your points of clarification (in italic):
On the Sinaitic Syriac, yes there is uncertainty about the date, but everyone seems to agree that it is 4th cent. at the latest and 2nd cent. at the earliest. NA28 itself gives 3/4 on p. 70*. So if you’re going to follow NA28 dates, it seems worth mentioning. Pete Williams discusses the dating a bit in his article on the Syriac in The Text of the NT, p. 146. Of course, there is the issue of whether Sinaitic or Curetonian MS represents the original text of the translation for Mark 16, but it still seems important to mention.
Response: Again, I have not yet been able to find any firm evidence that dates the Sinaitic Syriac to pre-300.
Regarding the argument from silence, my point was just that the interpretation offered for empty space in 03 is one from silence. It may be that the space is because the scribe knew the longer ending, but we have no way to know this positively; the codicological evidence is entirely negative. What’s more, since the end of Tobit in 03 also ends half-way down the middle column with Hosea starting on the next page, the spacing at the end of Mark is not anomalous as said on p. 43. As for the ending of Mark in 01, you may want to consult Dirk Jongkind’s work on this (Scribal Habits, p. 45). He notes, citing Milne and Skeat, that the sheet containing the end of Mark was rewritten and that the longer ending of Mark “could never have fit on this sheet.” It may be that the rubricated coronis that ends Mark has to do with the rewriting of this sheet and not with a known alternate ending. As for examples where the diple fills the end of a line, Jongkind notes that it happens in this same replacement sheet at the very end of BL f. 227r [= leaf 227 in the manuscript’s numeration]. So perhaps that shape was already on the brain, if I can put it that way. Things to consider at least.
Response: Thanks for the information. Obviously, we agree that 01 and 03 are certainly witnesses against the inclusion of the LE in Mark. It is less certain as to how to interpret the scribal notations. Given the pre-300 evidence from Patristic sources, I think we can assume that the LE was known by the scribes, and so it seems reasonable to assume an attempt at suppression, and not just omission, is, at the very least, possible, and, perhaps, even probable.
As to the date of W, it is not re-dated in NA28 although I’m not sure I would expect them to since most of the work for NA28 was in the Catholic Letters not the Gospels. It will be interesting to see if that changes going forward.
Response: Yes, look forward to looking into this and to seeing how this is dated in NA 29.
As for the goal of TC, I would still contest your read of the situation on several counts. Many of the publications that argue against the traditional goal are also not from the 21st century and, in any case, using that break is fairly arbitrary. More importantly, Holger Strutwolf is certainly not an evangelical and, as the head of INTF, he is very much a “gatekeeper” (if such a thing even exists) and yet he is quite clear that the goal of the original text is both appropriate and desirable. Stephen Carlson is another who is quite clear in defending the traditional goal and, so far as I know, he too is not evangelical. Much confusion has been caused, I’m afraid, by the term “initial text” and some Evangelicals have badly overreacted to it. It is true that the term does not necessarily refer to the author’s text but it is equally true that it can refer to such and, in the case of the ECM, it essentially does. I have written about this at some length though so permit me to avoid repeating myself and I will just attach that. In any case, Evangelicals need to be more careful about claiming that the quest for the original text has been abandoned. It may fit with some larger narrative about the paganism infesting Biblical scholarship, but it is simply overstated and in some forms a false claim. Many in the academic guild of NTTC (in which I include myself) are still happily after the original, authorial text.
Response: I understand that you and other evangelicals in doing NTTC are attempting to hold on to some form of the “classical” goal of text criticism. It seems clear, on the other hand that a shift has taken place and continues to take place, and this has affected and will affect this discipline and those who practice it, even evangelicals. And one can make this observation and point out perceived dangers in it without falling off the deep end.
I was influenced here by the analysis of Robert Hull, Jr. in chapter 8 “New Directions: Expanding the Goals of Textual Criticism” of The Story of the New Testament Text: Movers, Motives, Methods, and Models (SBL, 2010): 151-167. Some quotes:
The sketch above suggests that there has been a major shift of emphasis away from the goal of recovering the original text of the New Testament (p. 156).
Has the search for the original text been surrendered as the major goal of New Testament textual criticism? For some scholars it has, but most textual critics in their papers and articles still write as if they assume there is an original reading (p. 157).
To be sure, the confident and optimistic climate that ushered in Westcott and Hort’s New Testament in the Original Greek has long since vanished. There is considerable doubt about the possibility of reconstructing the original Greek text in all its particulars. Nevertheless, efforts to edit and publish better editions of the Greek New Testament remain a major goal of textual critics (p. 159).
As for Strutwolf and others who have stewardship of the critical text, they may be more cautious than Parker, but they clearly do not have the same confident view of WH or even Bruce Metzger that they can “reconstruct” the original. I look forward to reading the section you sent on initial text. Again thanks.
Grace and peace, JTR
"there is the issue of whether Sinaitic or Curetonian MS represents the original text of the translation for Mark 16"
Peter is involved with an implied false dichotomy. Sinaitic and Curetonian are two oddball Alexandrian corrupted mss. Curetonian evidences the Mark ending, Sinaitic is an omission ms.
By contrast, the Peshitta has hundreds of extant mss. Later came the Philoxenian and Harklean updates. The Peshitta is no later than the 4th century, and has often been believed to be earlier, 2nd or 3rd.
The traditional Peshitta is a far more significant evidence that the two split Alexandrian mss. We know that Egypt had an early gnostic influence, and lots of corruption by shortening of text.
Afawk, every Syriac ms. in the Peshitta tradition supports the traditional ending of Mark.
Post a Comment