Main Site | Join Robin Hood Coop | Projects | Events | Blog | Media | Forums | Mailing List | Twitter | Facebook

Apostle Paul quoted gospels a lot and knew them, and the case of longer ending of Mark

It is often claimed that apostle Paul never quoted any gospel. That is not true. There is netpage biblehub com. From biblehub first choose some letter of Paul, then click “Parallel” so cross references are shown side by text, or after that click “XRF”. In every epistle of Paul there is cross reference to gospels about, crude estimate of mine, statistical average of about one fifth or one fourth of all verses in all epistles. Or maybe more, sometimes there is cross reference to gospels in almost every verse in some epistles of Paul. Paul uses word “scripture” of the text he quotes, but he also uses the word “gospel” and “my gospel”. There is also gospel quotes that people have found without computer, I searched internet for about half an hour and found these 9, this is list: 1.Cor 1:26-29 / Matthew 11:25-26, 1.Cor 7:10-11 / Matthew 19:8-9, Mark 10:11-12, 1.Cor 8:6 / John 17:3, 1.Cor 11:23-26 / Luke 22:19-20, 1.Cor 15:3 / Matthew 12:40, 17:22-23, Mark 8:31, 1.Timothy 5:18 / Luke 10:7, 1.Timothy 6:13-14 / John 33-38, Col 3:1 / Mark 16:19, 1.Thess 5:2 / Matthew 24:42-44.
And there is more than quotations, there is gospel allusions and gospels were sometimes inspiration for Paul s writing, for example case that 1. Timothy is perhaps heavily inspired by Gospel of John, in netpage “hatrackley com The latter epistles - Titus”, parts 1 to 3, the references section.
Paul also quoted gospels in the Acts of the Apostles, for example Acts 23:3 / Matthew 23:27.
Paul also quoted two pagan poets, Epimedes the Cretan and Aratus, and comedy writer Menander. In netpage “readingacts com Quoting the philosophers?” is that Paul quoted popular artists of his day in a similar way that modern pastors quote pop songs, for example.
In the age of computers it is easy to find cross references, text sections that are similar in different texts. That cross reference exists, does not mean that writer intentionally quoted or made allusion to text that is cross referenced, it is just similarity in themes of text etc. But sometimes writer makes intentionally quote or allusion to the other text and so cross reference is found. It is up to observer of cross reference if similarity of two or many texts is intentional (quote or allusion) or is it just coincidence of two or several texts of same themes. So biblehub and its Parallels function should be used with that in mind.
How can Paul quote gospel of John if gospel of John is later than Paul? Paul quotes aramaic base material that later become gospel of John. There was perhaps just one gospel, aramaic gospel of Matthew / gospel of Twelve / gospel of Seventy, it was just one text with different names. From it was made different versions that took some part of the text and left some part of aramaic text out, aramaic gospel of Mark, which was crudely translated as greek gospel of Mark, greek gospel of Matthew, greek gospel of Luke (it is probable that “aramaic gospel of Luke” never existed, all material for greek gospel of Luke came from aramaic gospel of Matthew, greek gospel of Matthew is missing some material that was in larger aramaic gospel). Finally was leftover material that did not go to greek versions of aramaic base material, greek gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke. That leftover material finally become greek gospel of John. It is this base material that Paul uses. Later when according to Papias original aramaic gospel of Matthew was lost, gnostics still later on made “gospel of the Twelve”, they knew the name of the gospel, and because they knew original material was lost (during Nero s persecution in AD 60 - 70 perhaps? Or later before Papias made that statement?) they filled the market with their own heretic writing that has nothing to do with original gospel of the Twelve / aramaic gospel of Mathew.
“Aramaic light on the gospel of John aramaic new testament series 2002”. Netpage aent org The real Jesus revealed in original aramaic . It is mentioned that someone called Patanaeus went to India in about 200 AD and there was in use “hebrew gospel of Matthew” among indian christians (hebrew and aramaic was written with similar letters, and those two languages were close to each other).
It is also claimed that gospels are not written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Greek gospel of John has its aramaic base material testimony of John. But about synoptic gospels: netpages unitedchurchofsoro com Who wrote the gospel of Mark? And ministrymagazine org Medical terminology in Luke. Netpage isjesusalive com Did Matthew really wrote the gospel of attributed to him?
There is writing “The star of Bethlehem” in Robin Hood Coop Forums netpage, for that and other similar subjects.
The longer ending of Mark has been a debate, there is writing by Jim Snapps, either in long version in TextExcavation netpage “Authenticity of Mark 16:9-20” and shorter version of it in netpage lavistachurchofchrist org. Other: John Tors Mark 16:9-20 : a response to CMI. Apologeticspress org Is Mark 16:9-20 inspired? Shawn Nelson 2017 Which ending of Mark s gospel is correct? In bottom of that netpage is manuscript list, oldest are “cop” (coptic), “syr” (syriac) etc. Missing longer ending is “syr s” (3th/4th century), “cop sams” (3th), longer ending is in “syr c” (3th/4th), “cop bo,fay” (3th), and longer ending is together with additional shorter ending in “cop samss” (3th), “cop bomss” (3th century). That is 4 against 2 favoring longer ending in that list, in oldest manuscripts.
The writing of Eusebius, Ad Marinum, that started this controversy with longer ending of Mark is about making gospel harmony, so contradicting parts of different gospels should be harmonized, so longer ending of Mark removed, although Eusebius in his answer to his literary device “Marinus” says that longer ending is real scripture and should be in gospel. This dialogue of Eusebius was quoted later by Jerome and then others, it is the same part Eusebius s Ad Marinum text quoted by different later writers. Syriac Sinaiticus is gospel harmony too with omissions and alterations of gospel text to make it gospel harmony, so longer ending of Mark is missing. Greek evangelical codices sectionalize 12 last verses of Mark in 114 cases out of 151, despite Eusebius canon tables that were used. Longer ending of Mark has very many quotes by earliest church fathers, dating from early 2th century (Papias) and going through centuries. And in text John Tors 2015 A call for serious evangelical apologetics: the authenticity of John 7:53 - 8:11 as case study, is that if if authenticity of of some text is checked using counting of words that are “alien” to writer, hapax logomena etc., corpus of at least 10 000 words are needed to get result that is statistically significant, minimum of 10 000 words are needed, otherwise counting “rare” words does not make sense and result is scientifically invalid. Another blame against longer ending is that it is patchwork of other texts. But you can in biblehub com check that almost every verse of bible has cross reference to some other part of bible, so that same argument that is used against longer ending of Mark can be used against every chapter of bible, claiming that it is patchwork of other texts. But cross reference is not in all cases intentional quote or allusion, it is just similarity in two texts. Sometimes cross reference is intentional, it is quote or allusion from other text that writer uses. Because almost every verse of bible has cross references, every verse of bible can be claimed to be part of patchwork, although it is not, cross reference does not mean “patchwork”. If that is allowed in longer ending of Mark then every verse in bible is patchwork. Then is claimed that style is different. But style is in the eye of beholder, anyone can made almost any kind of claims that some part of some text is different than other texts. In pauline letters one theory is that Paul did not write some of his letters, it was written someone else that had writing style of Paul. That claim is in par with claim that William Shakespeare s works was written by someone else, whose name also was William Shakespeare. Although that theory about Shakespeare is considered ridiculous, theory about pauline letters written by someone with Paul s writing style has got credit with history professors, although that theory is just as silly. And Gospel of Mark is considered by some being written by “genius” and “masterful writer” and at the same time other scholars claim that writer of Gospel of Mark was “low intelligence, non educated, and uncivilized” who hardly even know how to write greek because he made so much writing mistakes. Has for example autobiography of Winston Churchill ever divided scholars so much how good he was writing or with his intelligence? But in bible studies any speculation is accepted as “truth” and it gains credit.

Modern bibles often use Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus as base when bible translations are done. They may be old, but there are other old bible / new testament texts that are almost as old, they may differ only few dozen years of age. Codex Veroellensis is from about 365 AD, and Vulgate by Jerome is 384/384 AD. Jerome used most reliable and accurate texts, and Vulgate includes LEM. Then are old biblical texts in other languages than just latin or greek. Codex Vaticanus does not have longer ending of Mark (LEM) but it has blank page for it. Codex Sinaiticus has not LEM either but is “cancel-sheets” in place of LEM, So LEM was known to scribe but it was replaced with cancel-sheets. Longer ending of Mark has 163 (?) words. Codex Vaticanus omits in gospels 237 words, 452 subordinate clauses and 748 complete sentances. Sinaiticus omits in gospels 4000 words and adds 1000 words. Vaticanus has in gospels 197 “particular readings” and Sinaitcus has 443. Aramaic bible (Peshitta) first was without 2. epistle of Peter, 2. and 3.epistles of John, epistle of Jude and book of Revelation. But it had longer ending of Mark.
Someone, (Mohammed Lamsiah if I remember right) has made reconstruction of gospel of Mark in aramaic language, and as literature the text in aramaic language is better writtenthan the crude greek translation that become greek gospel of Mark. Even verses are sectionalized wrongly in greek gospel of Mark according to this aramaic reconstruction. There is writing mistakes in gospel of Mark that are such that someone who spoke greek as native language won t make such mistakes, so that greek text is written by someone who did not speak greek as mother tongue. Logical answer is John Mark, the interpreter of Peter. In netpage hermaneutics stackexchange com What evidence suggests that greek was not Mark s first language.
It as also possible that longer ending of Mark is quoted in the bible itself in epistle to Hebrews chapters 1-3 and in pauline epistle Col 3:1. Hebrews chapters 1-3 seem to be theological expansion of Mark 16:15,19. It may come from gospel of Luke also but it has slightly different wording.
Also according to one internet source perhaps epistle of Clement of Rome (in chapter 36) includes quote from LEM, but it is much closer to Hebrews than LEM. Other: netpage etimasthe com 2018 Clement of Rome s new testament. Clement of Rome may have died during Nero s persecution, so his epistle may be even before 70 AD.
According to another internet source Caius (Gaius) quotes LEM in some of his fragments. Papias quotes LEM, and Tatian included it in his gospel harmony. The fact that Tatian has connection to Papias gives credit for LEM quote of Papias. Justin Martys quoted LEM five times according to internet source. It is claimed that Justin Martyr never quoted gospels. Actually he quoted gospels about 268 times. Although LEM is just small part of gospels Justin Martyr quoted it 5 times. Tertullian quoted LEM four times.
Evidence against LEM is based on “evidence of silence”, if someone is not mentioning something in his / her writing, he/she does not know that thing at all. That kind of reasoning is logically invalid and against common sense, but “evidence of silence” is used again and again in biblical studies. Evidence of silence may be used in some cases as theory, but it is very weak evidence, not strong evidence, and no way such hard fact that “truth” or “critical consensus” can be based on it. For example Clement of Alexandria did not quote LEM, but outside Mark chapter 10, he used only 2 verses out of 626, or he used 8 verses in one version of his writings. 8 verses is still only 1,3% quoted of 626 verses, but still is used “evidence of silence” that Clement of Alexandria knew nothing about LEM. That kind of reasoning is not scientifically valid.
LEM is quoted in epistle of Barnabas, and in Shepherd of Hermas, and in Preaching of Peter. Acta literature also quotes LEM (Acts of John), and other apocrypha also.
In netpage christianlibrary org The genuineness of Mark 16:9-20 Dudley Ross Spears.
LEM is quoted by Dionysios of Alexandria and Hippolytys. Alexandria (or simply Egypt) is the place where abridged ending emerged. However Dionysios (and Hippolytys) quote LEM.
Aphrahat quoted LEM, and Ephrem the Syrian also. Vincentius of Thibaris quoted LEM 256 AD or 258 AD.
Also not only church fathers, but general religious writings quote LEM, Didascalia Apostolarum (150 AD or 230 AD), De Rebaptisme (c. 250 AD), Calendar of greek church lessons (third century, was in use before 300 AD), and Codex Clarimontanus (c. 550 AD).
Also pagan writers quote LEM, Celsus, Heraclitus, and Porphyry. So even pagan writers quote LEM, it is quoted in pagan writings about christianity, outside christian literature, and that is very strong argument in favor of situation where LEM is widely known. So, even pagans knew longer ending of Mark, not only christians. Very early even pagans knew the LEM.
Against LEM is actually just Eusebius, and aven he quoted LEM and in Ad Marinus said that it is real scripture and should be included in the bible. Eusebius is also making gospel harmony and not only LEM but other parts of the bible, he gives advice to “Marinus” how gospels can be harmonized (contradictory verses removed, replaced or not, that harmonizing gospels usually does). Eusebian canon tables lacked versing in LEM but still in 151 greek codices 114 had sectionalized LEM, despite the fact that eusebian canon tables were authorative and “must” for versing the bible.
The “Marinus” was litarary device for Eusebius, instead of correspondance Ad Marinum is typical dialogue text (like spoken dialogue with fictional character) of antique times (classic antique literature). The tables of Ammonius that Eusebius writes are work of Eusebius more than Ammonius, that is not individual work of Ammonius. Then rest is just writers that simply quote text of Eusebius, Jerome (student of Eusebius, quoted LEM, made Vulgate using most reliable and accurate sources, used LEM in Vulgate), Hesyclius and Severius. All those three simply quoted Eusebius from Ad Marinum, so it is really just Eusebius.
Then is Victor of Antioch, bishop of Antioch. Both Eusebius and Victor wrote that there is relatively few copies of greek gospel of Mark with LEM (greek language version). Victor of Antioch wrote about 400 AD (or slightly later). Victor wrote that most reliable and accurate greek gospel of Mark copies from Palestine contained LEM, and that he is in favor of LEM against abrupt ending. The abrupt ending seems to concentrate in same geographic area. Even in about 1000 AD in same area abrupt ending still was in some (armenian?) copies?
Then there is Aristion the Elder. He was in Peter s entourage when Peter arrived Rome, but then left from Rome. He became bishop of Smyrna. In old armenian bible is LEM and text “according Aristion the Elder”. The abrupt ending originated from Egypt. So greek copies made in Alexandria, not perhaps all but many of them, had abrupt ending. Some egyptian copies with longer ending perhaps were made, but they become minority when fourth century was going on, and abrupt ending become majority (in fourth century, in greek alexandian text type).
So in Armenia was before 1000 AD gospel text authorized by Aristion the Elder (colophon that stated that gospel copy originated from approval of Aristion the Elder). When scribe wrote the new copy before AD 1000 he chose the longer ending, because he had copy of gospel that had certification of genuiness by Aristion marked upon.
So evidence cannot be much earlier in favor of longer ending. Aristion was with Peter in Rome and even before that. Authority of LEM is then coming from the age of Peter.
In Smyrna (Izmir) in 60 - 70 AD was greek gospel of Mark with longer ending. In Antioch in 350 years later was many greek copies found without LEM. Geographial area is in the same region. Which one is better, information that LEM was there in age of Peter, or information that 350 years later it was missing in majority of copies, but that most reliable and accurate copies from Palestine included LEM and Victorion himself wrote that it is original and abridged version unoriginal. Still Victiorion of Antioch s writing is used to prove against LEM.
There is only Eusebius and Victorion of Antioch against overwhelming patristic, early manuscript, church literature, even pagan writers writing about LEM, and even Eusebius and Victor themselves were writing LEM as real original scripture.

There is text “Secret gospel of Mark” (SGoM). It is a forgery, Morton Smith, its writer, used H.P. Blavatsky s texts as a clever joke in SGoM, and mainly “The year is dead, long live the year!” text by Blavatsky from 1888/89. If someone wants to be sure, in Robin Hood Coop forums is in “Star of Bethlehem” message chain three last posts about SGoM and how Morton Smith did it. Reading SGoM side-by-side with Blavatsky s “Year is dead” text is revealing, Smith s own translation must be used (from example from earlychristianwritings netpage) where Smith himself has marked out cluewords that point to Blavatsky s texts. He was kind enough to make cluewords marked, so finding truth is easier. The whole SGoM text is a clever joke, Smith uses Blavatsky s texts to make sort of personal statement, that only true “connoisseur” of theosophy, occultism and Blavatsky will find. But in internet age Blavatsky s texts are in netpage blavatsky net, and anybody can read them, not just experts of theosophy. In SGoM is also clever plea included, that whoever finds the truth, must not tell to anybody. This is cleverly included in the text, and it is also a clueword pointing towards Blavatsky s “Year is dead” text. It is possible that many people have found the Blavatsky - Morton Smith - SGoM connection since 1973, and know that SGoM is a hoax, but they remain silent because of this plea in SGoM.
In “Year is dead” text first Blavatsky gives mystic-occultistic view of messiah concept, Jesus and apostles are mentioned. Latter part of the Blavatsky s text is about hoax in America when american publisher (or publishers) have made text forgery forging theosophical texts, copying and plagiarizing them and published them as their own. Blavatsky wants to reveal this hoax and warns readers about forged theosophical texts. It is clear why Morton Smith choose this among Blavatsky s texts. There is also other clues to other Blavatsky s texts like “truth in seven veils” is from Blavatsky s “Kabala and kabalist” text etc., all about this and other is in Robin Hood Coop forums “The star of Bethlehem” three latest posts.
In writing “The Kabala and the kabalists”, published in 1892, Blavatsky had the “truth hidden in seven veils”: “It is not allied to “tradition” but to the seven veils of the seven truths, orally revealed at Initiation. Of these methods, pertaining to the universal pictorial languages - meaning by…”. This truth in seven veils appeared first time in world literature in this writing of Blavatsky, so SGoM must be written some time after year 1892. So SGoM is a fake. Also it is clear why Morton Smith choose this part of Blavatsky s text, the “initiation” in SGoM.
Back to real gospel of Mark. It is claimed that it is missing in oldest manuscripts. But are those manuscripts oldest known today? For example in Shawn Nelson s 2017 list about longer ending of mark (LEM) are coptic etc. manuscripts from 3rd century, and they have four that have LEM and two that have not. If in early manuscript LEM is missing, how much other gospel text material is missing in those early manuscripts? How reliable they are? Oldest reliable manuscripts have LEM.
Netpage thetextofthegospels com “Mark 16:9-20 Sorting out some common mistakes” has list of common false claims against LEM.
Origen and Iraneus also quoted LEM. The Epistle of Barnabas quoted LEM, although it is claimed that Epistle of Branabas never quoted any gospel. In netpage biblequery org is “The Canon and how much did early christians refer to the New Testament” is that Barnabas quoted new testament 13 times. 14th time would be the LEM quote.
It is possible that LEM is quoted in the bible itself, letters of Paul. in Col 1:23 and Col 3:1.
About early gospel fragments: theologos net 2000: “First century papyrys reveals gospel of Matthew!”, and “Dead sea scroll of the gospel of Mark” and “The Jesus papyrus: the most sensational…”.
If greek gospel of Matthew was written in about 50 AD, then aramaic Matthew must be written before that, and gospel of Mark before that, and even earlier aramaic gospel of Mark. Gospel of Mark was perhaps early “best of collection” of larger aramaic gospel of Matthew. This aramaic Matthew had so much text, it was written for the use of apostles themselves, copying so long text was time consuming and difficult, so making copies fast meant that shorter texts should be made. First was gospel of Mark perhaps, and its greek version too. Also aramaic gospel of Matthew was base of greek gospel of Matthew, that was longer than Mark but still shorter than aramaic Matthew. So gospels of Luke and then John were written, although John only later, containing material from aramaic Matthew / gospel of Twelve / gospel of Seventy (it was the same and one text with different names). “The case for a proto-gospel: rcovering the common ground written source behind Mark and John”. Hermaneutics stackexchange com What are the arguments in favor of the Matthean primacy?
About aramaic: “What language did Jesus speak? Why does it matter?” in patheos com netpage.
Netpage jdaniellowe com Aramaic idioms. “The aramaic origin of New Testament by HOIM staff”. Netpage yaiy org Hebrew/aramaic origin of the New Testament.
Simon Gathercole The alleged anomity of the canonical gospels 2018.
The Dead sea scrolls seem to have some references to Jesus: the “the pierced messiah / crucified messiah” fragment, “messianic apocalypse” fragment, “son of god” fragment, and fragments like 11QT54 and 4Q541. Other Dead sea texts are not about Jesus. Qumran community / essenes were very conservative, and isolated themselves from others, so they did not follow “latest fashion”, including handwritten text. Because those fragments are dated using writing style, and if Qumran community used old style handwriting in their texts as mark of their old conservative ways compared to main jewish population, it is possible that those Qumran fragments are dated to be too old. They might be eyewitness to Jesus written right after his crucifixion in 30 AD. Dead sea scrolls of Qumran must be dated using some other method than just handwriting style.

About longer ending of Mark (LEM): netpage earlychurchhistory org Long or short ending in Mark?, netpage trudiscipleship com Early evidence for Mark 16:9-20. Augustine mentions that in Africa LEM was read in churches there. Evidence against LEM is based on 4th century, and when earlier century patristic quotations are searched, “evidence of silence” is used as sure proof that if someone in his writings does not write about LEM he does not know it. But evidence of silence is not sure proof about anything. For example Clement of Alexandria is used as proof but his use of Mark was so sparse that in his case “evidence of silence” is no evidence at all. And there is overwhelming patristic evidence from the earliest of new testament times that support LEM. The evidence of vocabulary in LEM is again based on such short corpus of words, 183 words, when 10 000 words are needed to make statistical evidence. Although over 100 years ago statistical mathematics have found rules for statistical coincidence or lack of it, still biblical studies uses counting of words and “hapax logomena” to make claims, and “proves” them using methods that science proved to be invalid over 100 years ago. Almost any part of the bible can be chosen, few hundred words long, and then claim that it has “hapax logomena” and other things and use this as claim of something, for example either against or pro LEM, but it is not science, it makes scientific study pseudoscience if such “proofs” are used as “scientific truths”.
About aramaic: “Semitisms in book of Acts”, and peshitta org Semitic idioms in new testament.
Other: “Theodore of Mapsuestia: new evidence for the proposed papian fragment in Hist. Eccl.”. “Redating New Testament” John A. Robinson.
If greek Dead sea scrolls have gospel of Mark fragments, in small but many greek fragments, then is it worth to use same method that was used to compile biblical text from small fragments, that fibres of small fragments were measured and then computer made order of many fragments based on orientation of fibres, and from many small fragments become readable text? Can this method be used in dead sea scrolls?
Peshitta is perhaps not based on aramaic text, but it is a translation of greek to aramaic. But still it is a useful source material.
How much is left anymore aramaic material in gospel of John because earlier three gospels already spent much of it, there is some, but gospel of John is later writing and written in distinctive greek style, so what was the relationship of aramaic to gospel of John?
There is also gospel of the Hebrews, but it is translation from greek or latin gospel of Matthew with some ideological changes, and from medieval times. There was also old gospel of Hebrews quoted by church fathers and scribes, perhaps ideologically similar to medieval gospel of Hebrews and for same purposes, and also was gnostic gospel of the same name (perhaps written in greek language, and not at all similar to real gospel of the Hebrews perhaps). The case is similar to Peshitta, is there some connection to original aramaic text in Peshitta and gospel of the Hebrews, or are they based completely on greek material (gospel of Hebrews from greek gospel of Matthew). But gospel of Hebrews exists from old times only as quotes in literature, when Peshitta has many copies.
Instead of reading latin or greek in biblical studies better would be to replace latin and greek studies to aramaic, when person knows aramaic (or hebrew) he can read biblical materials as they originally were, not translations to other languages with their translation differences, and then study these translations (latin or greek). But for some reason aramaic is not favored in new testament studies, but instead people study latin or greek and then read biblical texts through those “lenses”. It would be better to put aramaic language as primary, and greek and latin to secondary place, in reading new testament.
Cross references to other texts are unintentional in cases where cross reference does not carry information from earlier text. For example introductory beginning section in the beginning of letters of Paul and greetings section in the end may be similar to gospels and cross references are found, but that text does not carry information from the past, text is similar to earlier text because those are formulaic beginning and greetings used in writings those times. But when writer makes intentional cross reference to earlier text (quote or allusion) then cross reference carries information from earlier text, when Paul quotes gospels in the Paul s letters there is information that is from the gospels either in the form of quote or allusion. Using biblehub is clear that Paul quoted gospels much, he had information from the gospels. There is much more cross references that carry information than cross references that have not (cross references that are based on for example beginning section of letter where Paul introduces himself, and that has cross reference to some gospel that has similar style of introduction). But that introduction text does not carry information from other texts from the past. So cross reference is unintentional. But there is overwhelming amount of cross references in pauline letters that contain information from other texts. When there is information from other texts, then it is quote or allusion of that other text. Same goes for patristic literature.
There should be netpage like biblehub where people could search parallels / cross references between new testament and writings of apostolic fathers, in similar easy way that biblehub is organized. Text mass is smaller than whole bible in biblehub.
From netpage capturingchristianity com Is Bart Ehrman right when he say half of Paul s letters are forgeries? There is mentioned “undesigned coincidences”.
In biblical studies if there is text like LEM that has quotations from church fathers and then church fathers that quote not, evidence of silence is used like it would had same value as evidence of proof than is quote of some church father. They even go so far they claim when someone does note quote that text that this particular church father “never knew this text”, and this even is used to outrule evidence of church fathers that actually quote that text. So evidence of silence, someone does not write about some text, is better evidence than the fact that church fathers actually quote this text. That kind of “scientific research” is not science. If someone does not write about something in his or her writing, that does not mean that writer has no knowledge about it. But this simple fact of logic is always missing in bible scholar s texts. They do not mention it, and use again and again “evidence of silence” as hard proof. Has evidence of silence ever used to prove something about for example writings of Napoleon or Winston Churchill? Never. Because using such methods makes history research just ridiculous. Has counting of words and “hapax logomena” ever used to prove what Napoleon or Winston Churchill wrote or wrote not? Never. Because those are ridiculous, not scientific methods. Actually counting of words and hapax logomena makes sense if you have 10 000 word corpus for statistical research. But using word sections of 200 words long etc. is not worthwhile.
So every time you read bible research book about Jesus or Paul, change “Jesus” or “Paul” in your mind to some other historical figure, Napoleon, Julius Caesar, Churchill, Bismarck, king James, or George Washington, every time you read “Jesus” or “Paul” and figure out does research methods and opinions presented in this book make sense, are they scientifically valid, if that book would be about those historical figures.

Still about longer ending of Mark (LEM). It is quoted in bible itself in pauline letters, Col 3:1 and 1:23, it is closer to LEM than Luke 22:69. Ephesians 1:20 can be either from Luke or LEM. Epistle to Hebrews is not pauline letter, so Hebrews 1:3, 8:1, 10:12 and 12:2 can be either from LEM or Luke, there is 50% chance either way. So all other texts that quote those four verses of Hebrews, including quotes from apostolic fathers, there is 50% chance that they quote LEM. Clement of Rome quoted epistle to Hebrews, including Hebrews/LEM /Luke verse. LEM is quoted in bible, but also by apostolic fathers, and other church fathers after that.
Biblical scholars who date texts, always choose latest possible date when is decided when some text is written. They never choose median (middle) between earliest and latest date, for some reason, although choosing middle date between earliest and latest possible dates would be statistically preferable. They never choose earliest possible date, but always choose latest date possible.
LEM is quoted in Epistle of Barnabas 70 AD - 80AD, by Papias, Caius who wrote Muratorian fragment perhaps 140 AD or near that time, 15 year before writings of Justin Martyr. Also very early church literature like Didascalia Apostolarum, acta literature which includes very early tradition inside later texts, Preaching of Peter, apocryphal literature outside canonical church, and it is quoted by pagans writing about christianity.
Those four verses of epistle to Hebrews have 50% chance that they quote LEM, and even Origen and Clement of Alexandria quote LEM, in case of the latter he quoted either LEM or Luke, so although Clement of Alexandria quoted Mark sparsely, he quoted either LEM or Luke at 50% probability.
There is a thing called “Stone of Gabriel”, sometimes mentioned in bible studies. It is modern forgery made in 2000s. It has very shady past, so it is clear that it is a forgery.
There is “the argument from undesigned coincidence” (Lydia Mcgrew book Hiding in plain view). Undesignated coincidence is sometimes just that, for example different formulaic texts like greetings formulas can be similar from text to text, but that does not carry any informaton from one text to another, texts are just similar. But sometimes is undesigned coincidence where writer has information about his/her writings about something, and that information matches the other writing. Now that coincidence can be used like quote, to verify the other text. Are cross references quotes or allusion about something is clear when that quote or allusion or undesigned coincidence has some information about things that happened in that other text, so writer refers to this other text, either openly or making parallel / allusion in his/her text. For example gospel quotes in pauline epistles in biblehub. There is huge amount of gospel quotes in epistles of Paul, everybody can see that if biblehub is used.
One claim against pauline epistles is that they are not all genuine, because they have writing style or vocabulary that is different from other letters. Style and vocabulary may be different because different scribes are used. In antique times scribes were used frequently. Some claim 7 Paul s letters are real, some claim 10, some 9, some say 5, some 4, some just 1, and some that none are really from Paul. People that make these claims use all same arguments, vocabulary or style, they count words and “hapax logomena”. But word counting is not scientific methods when using small amount of words. And about style, some use arguments based on writing style to prove that some epistles are authentic, and they use arguments based on writing style that some epistles are unauthentic. But other scholar again uses arguments based on style and vocabulary that those epistles that some other scholars prove authentic, is inauthentict, or vice versa. So some scholars claim this and another scholars claim that, and all use same arguments and methods either pro or against some Paul s letter. So which one among many opinions is right, if exactly same arguments (writing style, vocabulary) can be used either to prove authenticity or disapprove it, depending upon scholar? Is it better to look actual historical evidence, like every schoolboy will do when making his first history essay? Looking evidence from historical sources instead of making claims based on “evidence” that is based on personal opinions and not hard facts. And apostolic fathers quote about all 13 epistles of Paul.
Netpage Dating the new testament com Witness of the early church fathers, netpage biblequery org The canon and how much did early christians refer to new testament. Netpage etimasthe com Clement of Rome s new testament, and Ignatius of Antioch s new testament. Other: agapebiblestudy com Early patristic quotations from new testament.