Tim Finney, The UBS-4 reference to Epiphanius 1/2 (a reference in which Epiphanius is merely reporting the number of Canon-Sections in the Gospels) is notMessage 1 of 38 , Sep 6, 2011View SourceTim Finney,
The UBS-4 reference to "Epiphanius 1/2" (a reference in which Epiphanius is merely reporting the number of Canon-Sections in the Gospels) is not the only misleading reference in the list of support for the abrupt ending.
The reference to "304" is probably a reference to a damaged MS. 304 contains Mt and Mk interspersed with a commentary, and the commentary likewise is incomplete. JPP Martin observed that it includes a citation from Photius, so as a whole the commentary is not particularly early. And Hort noted that its comments near the end of Mark are very similar to the comments made by Theophylact (who covered verses 9-20). I suspect that what has happened is that there was once a large and bulky Gospels-manuscript featuring the same interspersed commentary, and that it was rebound, in order to make it easier to use, and that in the course of rebinding, the quire containing the last bit of commentary on Mark was rebound with the second volume (at the beginning of Luke). There is no way, at the moment, to be sure. And that's the point: 304 is listed as if it is a secure reference, when in fact it is rather obscure and a careful examination of 304 is likely to show that it is merely damaged. I daresay that if those who think that 304 is a legitimate witness to the abrupt ending of Mark, they should write to whoever is safekeeping 304 and encourage the release of digital pictures of its pertinent pages. (Or, better yet, the whole thing.)
I am not sure what Hesychius is doing in the list. Kelhoffer provided an excerpt from Hesychius that makes it look as if he says that Mark says nothing more after the appearance of the angel at the tomb, but Hort, it seems, looked at the exact same evidence and said --
"The context shews that the writer is speaking exclusively of the appearances to the women, and has especially in view the absence of the additional incident supplied by Luke 24:24: moreover in Quaest. l, p. 40, he uses a phrase founded on 16:19."
"Mss acc. to Severus" refers to an abridged repetition, on Severus' part, of what Eusebius stated in Ad Marinum. It is found in Severus' 77th Homily. (The same homily has been attributed to Gregory of Nyssa, and to Hesychius. I hope the reference in UBS-4 to Hesychius has nothing to do with this misattribution, which has been pointed out repeatedly over the years.)
"Jerome" and "Mss acc. to Jerome" are also abridged repetitions of what Eusebius stated in Ad Marinum. Anyone who compares the first three questions posed by Marinus to the first three questions that appear in Jerome's Epistle 120, "To Hedibia," after the general question about why the Gospels say different things about Christ's resurrection and subsequent events, will see that they are the same three questions, and both authors give approximately the same answers. (Jerome does, though, advise against Eusebius' proposal that there were two Mary Magdalenes.) Jerome was -- as he openly says, in Epistle 75 (To Augustine) that he often did -- borrowing material from other, earlier writers, as well as his own thoughts, without always differentiating between them, and supplying it all to his readers so that they might select whichever thing pleased them.
(1) "304" is questionable.
(2) "Epiphanius 1/2" is, as far as I can tell, only a statement by Epiphanius about the number of Eusebian Sections.
(3) Hesychius is, it seems, actually a witness in favor of Mark 16:9-20. It might be worth testing Hort's interpretation of his statements, though.
(4) It should be understood, when listing Armenian MSS and Old Georgian evidence side-by-side, that the Old Georgian version was translated from Armenian.
(5) "Mss acc. to Severus" refers to the statement in Severus' Homily 77 in which Severus borrows material from "Ad Marinum." Near the end of the same Homily 77, Severus uses Mk. 16:19.
(6) "Jerome" and "Mss acc. to Jerome" both are based on his Epistle 120, To Hedibia, in which Jerome restates and abridges, in the course of reproducing in Latin, much of "Ad Marinum."
Yours in Christ,
James Snapp, Jr.
Gethsemane – Γεθσημανη / Γεθσημανει is English transliteration of Greek transliteration of Hebrew / Aramaic גת שמנ שמנא –Message 38 of 38 , Sep 15, 2011View Source
Gethsemane – Γεθσημανη / Γεθσημανει is English transliteration of Greek transliteration of Hebrew / Aramaic גת שמנ \ שמנא – Geth shemen – “oil press”.
rom: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com] On Behalf Of Johnny Hawkins
Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 14:56
Subject: [textualcriticism] Gethsemane
Could someone tell me what language Gethsemane is. I thought it was Latin, but I checked several references and there is some contradiction.
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by the globalweb.net MailScanner and is
believed to be clean.