As the Columbian said to Scarface in the classic movie of the same name, "Now the (fourth) leg huh" of my review of Daniel Wallace's contribution to Mark 16:8 as the Conclusion to the Second Gospel:
Review of Daniel Wallace Mark 16:8 as the Conclusion to the Second Gospel - Greek Manuscript Evidence
Everyone is welcome to comment except Harvey Dubish.DIRECTION OF CHANGE -
The key underlying question when there are two candidates for original, is the Direction of Change question. What is the evidence indicating the direction of change? Direct evidence is especially valuable. Good indirect evidence also has weight. Again, Wallace repeatedly asks this question throughout but does not formally summarize the related evidence in one place.
1) As noted earlier the earliest extant manuscripts, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, both have the SE. Clearly the earlier extant candidate is evidence of change from it and here the measurement is the maximum, not just earlier but earliest.
2) Regarding the blank space following GMark in Sinaiticus and the blank space following the Gospels in Vaticanus, Wallace is on the defensive arguing that these spaces are unreMarkable and not necessarily evidence that the Copyist was aware of and considered adding the LE. It's reasonable though to think that at a minimum the blank space in Vaticanus was just such evidence as there are only a few such spaces in Vaticanus and the ending of GMark issue was already famously identified by Eusebius about fifty years earlier. So to have such a space exactly there seems like more than a coincidence.
The blank space then is an invitation to add an ending by the user or at least related notes that there are existing endings. This in fact was Eusebius' attitude. The exemplars, in quality and quantity, had 16:8, but it was acceptable to add/use 16:9-20. Good indirect evidence for Direction of Change. The exemplars, tradition and Scribes had 16:8 as original but it was acceptable to change to the LE.
3) Wallace does a good job identifying another ending to GMark, The Intermediate Ending (IE) and explaining how the related evidence, within the Manuscript category, indicates the IE was generally earlier in the textual tradition than the LE
4) Wallace also does a good job identifying and explaining Scribal notes that indicate either the SE was in earlier Manuscripts or at least there is textual variation for the ending of GMark.
5) Wallace does not formally conclude with the consistency of the evidence for Direction of Change. The above indicate that all related evidence for Direction of Change indicates change from the SE and to the LE. There is no related evidence for change in the other direction.
6) Likewise Wallace does not formally recognize the coordination of the Manuscript evidence with the other categories of evidence:
1. The Difficult Reading Principle makes it more likely at the start that the SE was original.
2. The Patristic category with Eusebius and Jerome provides not only support for SE but evidence of the timing of Change. C. 300-400 the SE dominates in every way, confirmed with Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, the only extant Manuscripts for that time, but Patristic attitude is that it is acceptable or even preferable to change to LE. This also helps explain the rarity of Manuscripts with the SE. They were not wanted by subsequent Christianity.
3. The Manuscript tradition becomes exclusively LE but refers to earlier manuscripts that have SE.
Joseph
Mark 16:9-20 as Forgery or Fabrication
by Richard Carrier, Ph.D. (2009)
