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):
Peter,
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):
You wrote:
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.
Grace, JTR
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
