From where do you think Codex Fuldensis obtained its arrangement of Mk 16:9-20 material interleaved with other scriptures? (from working solely with the Vulgate? from the by-A.D. 175 Diatesseron?)
How do you think Matthew 28:18 originally read?
Mark 16:9-20 and Early Patristic Evidence
http://www.thetextofthegospels.com/2018/...dence.html
New Testament scholars continue to spread misinformation about Mark 16:9-20. ....
It should be noted that some of the manuscripts that include Mark 16:9-20 do not stand very far away from Vaticanus and Sinaiticus in chronological terms: Codex Alexandrinus has the passage; so does Codex Bezae (though partly damaged) and so does Codex Washingtoniensis.
But there is a larger problem: Dr. Cole has unfortunately completely ignored the patristic evidence. Although Codex Vaticanus, produced around 325, is the earliest known Greek manuscript of Mark 16, and Codex Sinaiticus is indeed the second-oldest, there is evidence from patristic writings that belongs in the equation, and this patristic evidence is older that these two fourth-century manuscripts. Consider: .... (1) Justin Martyr ....
(2) Tatian. In the 170s, Tatian, a student of Justin, made a composition called the Diatessaron. It consisted of the contents of the four Gospels rearranged as one continuous narrative, in more or less chronological order. In later generations, Tatian was widely regarded as a heretic (although a case might be made that he was merely very ascetic), and his writings were either destroyed or allowed to rot away; as a result we do not have any copies of the Diatessaron in Greek or Syriac today, even though hundreds of copies once existed. Two of the most important witnesses to the arrangement of the text in Tatian’s Diatessaron are the Gospels-text of Codex Fuldensis (an important Latin manuscript made in 546) and the Arabic Diatessaron (produced in 1043 by a copyist who stated in a note that he was translating from a manuscript of the Syriac text of the Diatessaron which had been made in 873).
The Latin Gospels-text in Codex Fuldensis represents, in terms of its verbiage, the Vulgate. Similarly, the Syriac Gospels-text in the Arabic Diatessaron has been conformed to the Peshitta. (The reason for this, presumably, is that the scribes were suspicious of Tatian’s wording, but were willing to perpetuate his harmonization-work.) For this reason, neither of these two sources, standing on its own, is a safe guide on which to base a reconstruction of the wording of the Diatessaron as made by Tatian. When they stand in agreement, however, as flagship representatives of a geographically Western transmission-branch and of a geographically Eastern transmission-branch, their combined testimony strongly indicates the arrangement in which Tatian blended together the text of the Gospels.
As I showed in 2012 in an article in the journal The Heroic Age (available to read online https://www.heroicage.org/issues/15/snapp.php ), the arrangement of the contents of Mark 16:9-20 in Codex Fuldensis and in the Arabic Diatessaron match up rather well. For example:
● Both use Mark 16:10 after Luke 24:9,
● Both use Mark 16:12 between Luke 24:11 and 24:13.
● Both use Mark 16:13b between Luke 24:13-35 and part of 24:36.
● Both use Mark 16:14 between Matthew 28:17 and 28:18.
● Both use Mark 16:15 between Matthew 28:18 and 28:19.
● Both use “and sat down at the right hand of God” (from Mark 16:19) between Luke 24:51 and 24:52.
There are some differences, too (see for details the article in The Heroic Age), but inasmuch as (a) Mark 16:9-20 was blended with the other Gospels in the transmission-branch that led to Codex Fuldensis, and (b) Mark 16:9-20 was blended with the other Gospels in essentially the same way in the transmission-branch that led to the Arabic Diatessaron, the conclusion that Mark 16:9-20 was in the source of both branches seems irresistible.
In addition, Ephrem Syrus, who wrote a commentary on the Diatessaron in Syriac in the 360s, mentioned in the opening sentence of the eighth part of the commentary that Jesus told His disciples, “Go into all the world and baptize in the name of the Father, and Son, and Spirit.” This is a combination of Mark 16:15a and Matthew 28:19. (It should be understood that analyses of Ephrem’s testimony prior to 1957 were made without awareness of the contents of Chester Beatty Syriac Manuscript 709, a Syriac manuscript produced in about A. D. 500 which includes most of Ephrem’s commentary.)
(3) Irenaeus .... (4) Epistula Apostolorum .... (5) Hierocles .... (6) Aphrahat the Persian Sage ....
"Mark 16:9–20 in Tatian's _Diatessaron_" by James Snapp, Jr.
https://www.heroicage.org/issues/15/snapp.php
§6. An adequate basis for comparison is provided by the English translation of the Arabic Diatessaron made by the Reverend J. Hamlyn Hill (1894), and the presentation of the Latin text of Codex Fuldensis made by Ernestus Ranke (1868). By placing Hill's English translation of the Arabic Diatessaron alongside Ranke's presentation of Codex Fuldensis, we can compare their arrangements of the pieces of Mark 16:9–20 and see whether they agree or contradict each other. In the following list of comparisons, "AD" represents the Arabic Diatessaron, and "CF" represents Codex Fuldensis.
AD 53 has Mark 16:9 after John 20:2–17.
CF 174 has part of Mark 16:9 between John 20:2–10 and 20:11–17.
AD 53 uses Mark 16:10 after Luke 24:9.
CF 176 uses Mark 16:10 after Luke 24:9.
AD 53 uses Mark 16:11 between Luke 24:10 and 24:11.
CF 176 uses Mark 16:11 between Luke 24:9 and 24:11.
AD 53 uses Mark 16:12 between Luke 24:11 and 24:13.
CF 177 uses Mark 16:12 between Luke 24:11 and 24:13.
AD 53 uses Mark 16:13b between Luke 24:13b–35 and part of Luke 24:36.
CF 178 uses Mark 16:13b between Luke 24:13–35 and part of Luke 24:36.
AD 55 uses Mark 16:14 between Matthew 28:17 and 28:18.
CF 182 uses Mark 16:14 between Matthew 28:17 and 28:18.
AD 55 uses Mark 16:15 between Matthew 28:18 (with "For even as my Father sent me, so I also send you," which is not only found normally in John 20:21 but is also in the Peshitta in Matthew 28:18) and Matthew 28:19.
CF 182 uses Mark 16:15 between Matthew 28:18 and 28:19.
AD 55 uses Mark 16:16–18 between Matthew 28:20 and Luke 24:49.
CF 182 uses Mark 16:16–18 between Matthew 28:20 and Luke 24:49.
AD 55 blends "And our Lord Jesus," from Mark 16:19 with Luke 24:50.
CF 182 does not.
AD 55 uses "and sat down at the right hand of God" (from Mark 16:19) between Luke 24:51 and 24:52.
CF 182 uses "and sat down at the right hand of God" (from Mark 16:19) between Luke 24:51 and 24:52.
AD 55 uses Mark 16:20 between Luke 24:53 and John 21:25.
CF 182 uses Mark 16:20 after Luke 24:53 and ends there with "Amen." (John 21:25 appears in CF at the end of 181.)
============================================================.
_A translation, in English daily used, of the Peshito-Syriac text, and of the received Greek text, of Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, and 1 John : with an introduction on the Peshito-Syriac text, and the revised Greek text of 1881_ by William Norton (1889), on cxxiv-cxxvi
https://archive.org/stream/translationin...t_djvu.txt
Thirdly. The freedom of the Peshito from the many
faulty expressions and meanings of the Greek text of the
Revisers, confirms all other proofs of its purity. Those Revised
Greek readings which agree with the Peshito, (see Section xiv. pp.
111-123) have, as a rule, little or no internal evidence against
them. But among the Revised Greek readings from which the
Peshito differs there are some which prove decisively that the
Greek copies are corrupt from which they are taken. The
following brief quotations from Dr. Scrivener's remarks on some
of these will show the nature of this evidence.
Matt, xxvii. 28, clothed, for stripped him : — "a palpable impropriety"; p. 480 ; "an impossible reading ;" p. 543.
Matt, xxvii. 49. The Saviour pierced before his death ; — "this gross corruption ;" p. 543.
Mark vi. 22. Herod's daughter Herodias danced ; instead of, the daughter of Herodias : — a reading which "brings Mark into direct contradiction with Josephus, who expressly states that the wretched girl was named Salome," and was the daughter of Herod's brother Philip ; p. 544.
Mark xvi. 9-20 : — "all opposition to the authenticity of this paragraph resolves itself into the allegations of Eusebius," (an Arian), "and the testimony of Aleph and B." "We can appeal to all extant manuscripts excepting two ;" p. 590.
Luke ii. 14. The Angelic Hymn sung at the nativity; — "By the addition of a single letter to the end of the last line, the simple shepherds are sent away with a message, the diction of which no scholar has yet construed to his own mind." "Solid reason and pure taste, revolt against" it ; p. 590. The testimony for the common reading "cannot but overpower the transcriptural blunder of some early scribe ;" p. 592.
Luke xxiii. 34. "Father, forgive them :" — "It is almost incredible
that acute and learned men should be able to set aside" the evidence
for these words, "chiefly because D," — a very corrupt Greek
copy, "is considered especially weighty in its omissions, and B has
to be held up, in practice if not in profession, as virtually almost
impeccable." "We cannot doubt that the system which entails such
consequences is hopelessly self-condemned ;" p. 604.
John i. 18. "The only begotten God." "Everyone must feel [the word] God to be untrue, even though for the sake of consistency he may be forced to uphold it." This reading would introduce "a new, and, to us moderns, a strange term into Scripture ;" p. 605.
Acts iv. 25. Some critical editors insert here "that which cannot possibly be right ;" the result of "setting up one or more of the oldest copies as objects of unreasonable idolatry ;" p. 549.
Acts. xii. 25, Barnabas and Saul, who were at Jerusalem (xi. 30), are said to have returned to Jerusalem. "That the two Apostles returned from, not to, Jerusalem is too plain for argument ;" p. 550.
Acts xxv. 13, having saluted Festus : "The reading is manifestly false ;" p. 551.
Acts xxviii. 13, took away, for, made a circuit : a "vile error of transcription ;" p. 551.
Romans v. 1, "let us have peace ;" "a reading which is manifestly unsuitable to the context ;" p. 625.
The Revisers were led to give their countenance to the above
impossible, or evidently false, readings, by the Greek Text of Drs.
Westcott and Hort. And Drs. Westcott and Hort, in the Introduction
to their Greek Testament, do their utmost to commend
their own Greek Text in opposition to the Peshito. None of the
above false readings occur in the Peshito. This fact is one proof of
its superiority to the Greek copies on which Drs. Westcott and Hort
rely. The Peshito is true, where these are grossly false ; it is pure,
where they are corrupt.
How do you think Matthew 28:18 originally read?
Mark 16:9-20 and Early Patristic Evidence
http://www.thetextofthegospels.com/2018/...dence.html
New Testament scholars continue to spread misinformation about Mark 16:9-20. ....
It should be noted that some of the manuscripts that include Mark 16:9-20 do not stand very far away from Vaticanus and Sinaiticus in chronological terms: Codex Alexandrinus has the passage; so does Codex Bezae (though partly damaged) and so does Codex Washingtoniensis.
But there is a larger problem: Dr. Cole has unfortunately completely ignored the patristic evidence. Although Codex Vaticanus, produced around 325, is the earliest known Greek manuscript of Mark 16, and Codex Sinaiticus is indeed the second-oldest, there is evidence from patristic writings that belongs in the equation, and this patristic evidence is older that these two fourth-century manuscripts. Consider: .... (1) Justin Martyr ....
(2) Tatian. In the 170s, Tatian, a student of Justin, made a composition called the Diatessaron. It consisted of the contents of the four Gospels rearranged as one continuous narrative, in more or less chronological order. In later generations, Tatian was widely regarded as a heretic (although a case might be made that he was merely very ascetic), and his writings were either destroyed or allowed to rot away; as a result we do not have any copies of the Diatessaron in Greek or Syriac today, even though hundreds of copies once existed. Two of the most important witnesses to the arrangement of the text in Tatian’s Diatessaron are the Gospels-text of Codex Fuldensis (an important Latin manuscript made in 546) and the Arabic Diatessaron (produced in 1043 by a copyist who stated in a note that he was translating from a manuscript of the Syriac text of the Diatessaron which had been made in 873).
The Latin Gospels-text in Codex Fuldensis represents, in terms of its verbiage, the Vulgate. Similarly, the Syriac Gospels-text in the Arabic Diatessaron has been conformed to the Peshitta. (The reason for this, presumably, is that the scribes were suspicious of Tatian’s wording, but were willing to perpetuate his harmonization-work.) For this reason, neither of these two sources, standing on its own, is a safe guide on which to base a reconstruction of the wording of the Diatessaron as made by Tatian. When they stand in agreement, however, as flagship representatives of a geographically Western transmission-branch and of a geographically Eastern transmission-branch, their combined testimony strongly indicates the arrangement in which Tatian blended together the text of the Gospels.
As I showed in 2012 in an article in the journal The Heroic Age (available to read online https://www.heroicage.org/issues/15/snapp.php ), the arrangement of the contents of Mark 16:9-20 in Codex Fuldensis and in the Arabic Diatessaron match up rather well. For example:
● Both use Mark 16:10 after Luke 24:9,
● Both use Mark 16:12 between Luke 24:11 and 24:13.
● Both use Mark 16:13b between Luke 24:13-35 and part of 24:36.
● Both use Mark 16:14 between Matthew 28:17 and 28:18.
● Both use Mark 16:15 between Matthew 28:18 and 28:19.
● Both use “and sat down at the right hand of God” (from Mark 16:19) between Luke 24:51 and 24:52.
There are some differences, too (see for details the article in The Heroic Age), but inasmuch as (a) Mark 16:9-20 was blended with the other Gospels in the transmission-branch that led to Codex Fuldensis, and (b) Mark 16:9-20 was blended with the other Gospels in essentially the same way in the transmission-branch that led to the Arabic Diatessaron, the conclusion that Mark 16:9-20 was in the source of both branches seems irresistible.
In addition, Ephrem Syrus, who wrote a commentary on the Diatessaron in Syriac in the 360s, mentioned in the opening sentence of the eighth part of the commentary that Jesus told His disciples, “Go into all the world and baptize in the name of the Father, and Son, and Spirit.” This is a combination of Mark 16:15a and Matthew 28:19. (It should be understood that analyses of Ephrem’s testimony prior to 1957 were made without awareness of the contents of Chester Beatty Syriac Manuscript 709, a Syriac manuscript produced in about A. D. 500 which includes most of Ephrem’s commentary.)
(3) Irenaeus .... (4) Epistula Apostolorum .... (5) Hierocles .... (6) Aphrahat the Persian Sage ....
"Mark 16:9–20 in Tatian's _Diatessaron_" by James Snapp, Jr.
https://www.heroicage.org/issues/15/snapp.php
§6. An adequate basis for comparison is provided by the English translation of the Arabic Diatessaron made by the Reverend J. Hamlyn Hill (1894), and the presentation of the Latin text of Codex Fuldensis made by Ernestus Ranke (1868). By placing Hill's English translation of the Arabic Diatessaron alongside Ranke's presentation of Codex Fuldensis, we can compare their arrangements of the pieces of Mark 16:9–20 and see whether they agree or contradict each other. In the following list of comparisons, "AD" represents the Arabic Diatessaron, and "CF" represents Codex Fuldensis.
AD 53 has Mark 16:9 after John 20:2–17.
CF 174 has part of Mark 16:9 between John 20:2–10 and 20:11–17.
AD 53 uses Mark 16:10 after Luke 24:9.
CF 176 uses Mark 16:10 after Luke 24:9.
AD 53 uses Mark 16:11 between Luke 24:10 and 24:11.
CF 176 uses Mark 16:11 between Luke 24:9 and 24:11.
AD 53 uses Mark 16:12 between Luke 24:11 and 24:13.
CF 177 uses Mark 16:12 between Luke 24:11 and 24:13.
AD 53 uses Mark 16:13b between Luke 24:13b–35 and part of Luke 24:36.
CF 178 uses Mark 16:13b between Luke 24:13–35 and part of Luke 24:36.
AD 55 uses Mark 16:14 between Matthew 28:17 and 28:18.
CF 182 uses Mark 16:14 between Matthew 28:17 and 28:18.
AD 55 uses Mark 16:15 between Matthew 28:18 (with "For even as my Father sent me, so I also send you," which is not only found normally in John 20:21 but is also in the Peshitta in Matthew 28:18) and Matthew 28:19.
CF 182 uses Mark 16:15 between Matthew 28:18 and 28:19.
AD 55 uses Mark 16:16–18 between Matthew 28:20 and Luke 24:49.
CF 182 uses Mark 16:16–18 between Matthew 28:20 and Luke 24:49.
AD 55 blends "And our Lord Jesus," from Mark 16:19 with Luke 24:50.
CF 182 does not.
AD 55 uses "and sat down at the right hand of God" (from Mark 16:19) between Luke 24:51 and 24:52.
CF 182 uses "and sat down at the right hand of God" (from Mark 16:19) between Luke 24:51 and 24:52.
AD 55 uses Mark 16:20 between Luke 24:53 and John 21:25.
CF 182 uses Mark 16:20 after Luke 24:53 and ends there with "Amen." (John 21:25 appears in CF at the end of 181.)
============================================================.
_A translation, in English daily used, of the Peshito-Syriac text, and of the received Greek text, of Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, and 1 John : with an introduction on the Peshito-Syriac text, and the revised Greek text of 1881_ by William Norton (1889), on cxxiv-cxxvi
https://archive.org/stream/translationin...t_djvu.txt
Thirdly. The freedom of the Peshito from the many
faulty expressions and meanings of the Greek text of the
Revisers, confirms all other proofs of its purity. Those Revised
Greek readings which agree with the Peshito, (see Section xiv. pp.
111-123) have, as a rule, little or no internal evidence against
them. But among the Revised Greek readings from which the
Peshito differs there are some which prove decisively that the
Greek copies are corrupt from which they are taken. The
following brief quotations from Dr. Scrivener's remarks on some
of these will show the nature of this evidence.
Matt, xxvii. 28, clothed, for stripped him : — "a palpable impropriety"; p. 480 ; "an impossible reading ;" p. 543.
Matt, xxvii. 49. The Saviour pierced before his death ; — "this gross corruption ;" p. 543.
Mark vi. 22. Herod's daughter Herodias danced ; instead of, the daughter of Herodias : — a reading which "brings Mark into direct contradiction with Josephus, who expressly states that the wretched girl was named Salome," and was the daughter of Herod's brother Philip ; p. 544.
Mark xvi. 9-20 : — "all opposition to the authenticity of this paragraph resolves itself into the allegations of Eusebius," (an Arian), "and the testimony of Aleph and B." "We can appeal to all extant manuscripts excepting two ;" p. 590.
Luke ii. 14. The Angelic Hymn sung at the nativity; — "By the addition of a single letter to the end of the last line, the simple shepherds are sent away with a message, the diction of which no scholar has yet construed to his own mind." "Solid reason and pure taste, revolt against" it ; p. 590. The testimony for the common reading "cannot but overpower the transcriptural blunder of some early scribe ;" p. 592.
Luke xxiii. 34. "Father, forgive them :" — "It is almost incredible
that acute and learned men should be able to set aside" the evidence
for these words, "chiefly because D," — a very corrupt Greek
copy, "is considered especially weighty in its omissions, and B has
to be held up, in practice if not in profession, as virtually almost
impeccable." "We cannot doubt that the system which entails such
consequences is hopelessly self-condemned ;" p. 604.
John i. 18. "The only begotten God." "Everyone must feel [the word] God to be untrue, even though for the sake of consistency he may be forced to uphold it." This reading would introduce "a new, and, to us moderns, a strange term into Scripture ;" p. 605.
Acts iv. 25. Some critical editors insert here "that which cannot possibly be right ;" the result of "setting up one or more of the oldest copies as objects of unreasonable idolatry ;" p. 549.
Acts. xii. 25, Barnabas and Saul, who were at Jerusalem (xi. 30), are said to have returned to Jerusalem. "That the two Apostles returned from, not to, Jerusalem is too plain for argument ;" p. 550.
Acts xxv. 13, having saluted Festus : "The reading is manifestly false ;" p. 551.
Acts xxviii. 13, took away, for, made a circuit : a "vile error of transcription ;" p. 551.
Romans v. 1, "let us have peace ;" "a reading which is manifestly unsuitable to the context ;" p. 625.
The Revisers were led to give their countenance to the above
impossible, or evidently false, readings, by the Greek Text of Drs.
Westcott and Hort. And Drs. Westcott and Hort, in the Introduction
to their Greek Testament, do their utmost to commend
their own Greek Text in opposition to the Peshito. None of the
above false readings occur in the Peshito. This fact is one proof of
its superiority to the Greek copies on which Drs. Westcott and Hort
rely. The Peshito is true, where these are grossly false ; it is pure,
where they are corrupt.