Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

[Synoptic-L] Re: A discussion of the different endings of Mark

Expand Messages
  • David Inglis
    Two things: 1) It appears that the URL of my document got truncated. Sorry about that. If you have any problems, the document is in the yahoogroups archive
    Message 1 of 8 , Mar 11, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Two things:

      1) It appears that the URL of my document got truncated. Sorry about that.
      If you have any problems, the document is in the yahoogroups archive under
      the name:
      "Who Wrote The Ending Of Mark.doc"

      2) I should perhaps have stated my first assumption as "I believe that
      Matthew, Mark, and Luke were the compilers/redactors of the Gospels bearing
      their names". I other words, I don't assume that they wrote everything
      themselves, but instead I'm allowing them to have used oral and written
      sources either 'as is' or in edited form.

      Dave Inglis
      david@...
      3538 O'Connor Drive
      Lafayette, CA, USA




      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
    • David Inglis
      ... [snip] ... John, we re straying away from Synoptic issues here, but I think I need to clear this up. Whether we re talking about papyrus or paper,
      Message 2 of 8 , Mar 14, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
         John Lupia wrote:

        > Dave Inglis wrote:
        > >
        > > written on a scroll, damage wouldn't normally affect just the
        first
        > > sentence, or even the first few sentences. Instead,
        damage would affect the
        > > left-hand side of the first column (and
        most likely the corners first), and
        > > then spread
        rightwards.  Once the first column was totally lost, further
        > > damage would then affect the left-hand side of the second column, and
        so on.
        [snip]
        > > The situation regarding the end of Mark
        is different.  There are multiple
        > > different endings in
        the MSS, and a general belief that 16:8 was not
        > > intended to be
        the ending.  Although some people do argue that Mark could
        > > have ended at this point, I personally think this is 'clutching at
        straws',
        > > and that it is much more likely that 16:8 was
        not intended to be the ending.
        > > Could this be due to
        damage?  Possibly, but the problem here is that the end
        > >
        of a scroll is usually the most protected part, because it's in the center
        > > of the roll.  Therefore, flood (and in
        particular fire) damage is unlikely
        > > to affect the end until
        the rest of the scroll is also affected.  It is also
        > >
        almost impossible to think of a process (other than general wear and tear as
        > > a result of unrolling and rolling) that would result in
        damage to BOTH ends
        > > of a scroll, and again, wear and tear is
        easily fixed by making a new copy.
        > >
        > > So, although
        the beginning could have been damaged, the evidence strongly
        > >
        suggests that it wasn't.  Conversely, the evidence suggests that the end
        > > might have been damaged, but the physical characteristics
        of a scroll make
        > > it very unlikely.

        > I have two
        questions.  First, to Frank Schmuck or anyone else: could you provide the bibliographic
        > citation of N.T. Wright where he discusses the damaged
        scroll theory?

        > Second, is to Dave inglis: could you provide
        bibliographic sources that state your view about
        > scrolls and
        damage.  I find the view you presented not only highly improbable but counter to the finds in
        > papyrology.  Nowhere in the literature has
        such a view on scroll endings being the "most protected  part,
        >
        because its in the center of the roll." ever been stated by any papyrologist.  Rather, the opposite view
        > has been well
        established.  The "ends" of a scroll are not in the "middle" but on the end.  However, there
        > may be some literature that states the
        position you presented that has interesting explanations that may
        > be
        worthwhile.
         
        John, we're straying away from Synoptic issues here, but I think I need to clear this up.  Whether we're talking about papyrus or paper, mechanical damage through normal use is most likely to affect the edges of the material, and in a scroll the most 'exposed' edge is at the beginning of the text.  As the scroll is unrolled and re-rolled, the top and bottom edges also become progressively exposed, and whenever the end of the scroll is reached, the edge at the end of the text is exposed.  However, unless the scroll is fully unrolled every time it is used, the end will remain rolled up most of the time.  Even if a scroll was in use for (say) 8 hours a day, the end is unlikely to be exposed for more than a very short time each day on average.  Basically, in general use the beginning of the scroll is most likely to be damaged and the end is least likely to be damaged.  This is what I meant when I said it was most protected, because it was usually surrounded by other parts of the scroll.

        > The following is an entry I wrote for the _Lexicon for Biblical
        Research _begun in 1993 by myself.  The entry
        > "deumbilication" was
        one of the first written in 1993. Deumbilication, a papyrological term which makes
        > convenient the description of the condition of a scroll that has
        lost its umbilicus or winding rod.
        > First, as papyri aged they became
        brittle, and the affixed rod would break off.  Second, umbilci were
        >
        made from ivory or gilt wood which were frequently stolen for their resale in the market.  When this
        > occurred by either cause it easily
        mutilated the beginning and/or end of the roll where it was
        >
        attached.
         
        All reasonable statements.  However, for either of these possibilities to apply to Mk either the scroll was old, or it was (presumably) not kept in a safe place.
         
        > It appears highly probable that the reason why the Gospel of Mark
        has two variations at the end
        > are the direct result of deumbilication
        where the umbilicus attached to the end of the papyrus roll
        > broke off
        removing the final column of text.
         
        According to your argument this could be because of age.  However, I consider it very unlikely that the scroll could have been allowed to get into this condition without someone making a copy of it, unless of course it had become 'lost' and was then re-discovered after the end broke off.  Either way, if it was an old scroll, I cannot see how damage to a single old scroll of Mk could then affect the whole textual tradition the way you are suggesting, since it surely implies that one of the longer endings (from an earlier copy) that we know today is original.  I am much more likely to accept the idea of deliberate damage when the scroll was new and may not even have been copied, but as I stated before, re-constructing the ending then wouldn't have been any problem unless both the author was dead, and there was no-one else who knew what the original ending was.
         
        > The extant copies of this deumbilicated text were
        > reproduced
        at scriptoria where the scribes perpetuated this version of the text they had as an archetype.
        > Hence, the scribal center which had the broken fragmented end of the
        roll due to the deumbilication
        > process produced the shorter ending
        version.
         
        Obviously possible.  However, unless this was the ONLY manuscript of Mk around at the time, the correct ending would have existed elsewhere, and we would see it today.  So, which of the longer endings is the original text?  Or are you supposing that a)  No other copies of Mk had been made by this time, b) All other copies had become 'lost' or destroyed, or c) All other copies were also damaged, and broke off even earlier than 16:8?
         
        > This same process is also the same if the Gospel of Mark
        >
        was written on a codex, since sewn leaves frequently became detached particularly the last quire.  In this
        > case the last folio broke off
        leaving the shorter ending in a scriptorium that employed it as an
        >
        archetype.
         
        > In either case the shorter ending of Mark is easily explained and highly consistent with papyri
        > damage known.
        I'm quite happy to believe in damage to either a codex or a scroll as described, but I have to disagree with your conclusion.  The existence of a variant of Mk breaking off unfinished at 16:8 because of damage to a MS is, I totally agree, possible.  However, I really can't see how it could lead to the situation we have today, for the reasons given above.
         
      • John Lupia
        synoptic-l@bham.ac.uk Re: A discussion of the different endings of Mark ... but I think I need to clear this up.  Whether we re talking about papyrus or
        Message 3 of 8 , Mar 14, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          synoptic-l@...

          Re: A discussion of the different endings of Mark

          1. Dave Inglis wrote:
          >>John, we're straying away from Synoptic issues here,
          but I think I need to clear this up.� Whether we're
          talking about papyrus or paper, mechanical damage
          through normal use is most likely to affect the edges
          of the material, and in a scroll the most 'exposed'
          edge is at the beginning of the text.� As the scroll
          is unrolled and re-rolled, the top and bottom edges
          also become progressively exposed, and whenever the
          end of the scroll is reached, the edge at the end of
          the text is exposed.� However, unless the scroll is
          fully unrolled every time it is used, the end will
          remain rolled up most of the time.� Even if a scroll
          was in use for (say) 8 hours a day, the end is
          unlikely to be exposed for more than a very short time
          each day on average.��Basically, in general use the
          beginning of the scroll is most likely to be damaged
          and the end is least likely to be damaged.� This is
          what I meant when I said it was most protected,
          because it was usually surrounded by other parts of
          the scroll.

          Dear Dave:

          I only asked a simple question which has not been
          answered. I asked what bibliographic references you
          have that support or have provided you with your views
          on scrolls and damage. Regardless, you have responded
          by a narrative which is good for discussion.

          This is hardly straying from Synoptic issues since the
          two endings of Mark factor into any that discuss these
          texts. Besides, you're the one who began this thread,
          which somewhat confuses any reader as to your
          objection.

          The first issue that needs to be clarified is a
          physical assessment of the canonical Gospel of Mark
          for papyrological considerations. For some reason you
          are continually describing it as if it were a short
          volumen (rotulus). The Gospel of Mark consists of 648
          (673/4 = UBS4) verses, 11,281 words, 56,219 letters,
          1,813.5 lines (colometry =31 letters per line) ,
          100.75 pages (18 lines per folio); on 52 folios (for a
          codex consisting of the standard title page with index
          and syllabus containing the colometric record). A
          scroll of this size (101 KOLEMATA; paginae) requires
          two umbilici, not a rotulus having only one umbilicus.


          Reading either variety of scrolls involved holding
          them with both hands. To sequentially convey the
          pagination or colometry by unrolling a scroll having
          only one umbilicus, the reader pulled his arms apart
          with one hand on the protokollon and the other
          spinning or turning the umbilicus by the cornua, the
          knobbed extremity. Whereas, a scroll having two
          umbilici was unrolled by the reader pulling his arms
          apart with one hand on each cornua of each of the
          respective umbilici.

          Reading was thus called evolvere, that is a story or
          text evolved or unraveled itself, a pun on the
          mechanics of the reading process. Closing up the roll
          or re-rolling it was known as replicare. Reading
          straight through a roll was called explicare.
          Re-rolling a scroll with two umbilici was usually
          accomplished by holding each umbilicus by its
          respective cornua with each hand spinning them.

          The description you have consistently and continually
          given of wear and damage is consistent with a volumen
          or rotulus having only one umbilicus that was
          re-rolled while the protokollon was pressed beneath
          the chin. Martial, Epigrams 1. 66 complained about
          these kinds of short scrolls with one umbilicus
          showing their inferiority to the codex since the
          virgin sheet or the protokollon, that is, the first
          page became soiled, worn, and bruised through rubbing
          by the rough bristly chins of the men who re-rolled
          them. This appears to be your complaint as well. But,
          as afore stated the Gospel of Mark was not this
          variety of scroll, but one that had two umbilici.


          2. Dave Inglis wrote:
          >>All reasonable statements.� However, for either of
          these possibilities�to apply to Mk either the scroll
          was old, or it was (presumably) not kept in a safe
          place.


          There is no such thing as a safe place. Everyone
          wished such a place existed.

          3. Dave Inglis wrote:
          >>According to your argument�this could be because of
          age.� However,�I consider it very unlikely�that�the
          scroll could have been allowed to get into this
          condition�without someone making a copy of it, unless
          of course it had become 'lost' and was then
          re-discovered after the end broke off.�

          It could be due to age but not necessarily. Anyone
          making a copy of it prior to it losing its ending
          would be making a copy of the longer ending. The copy
          made after the end became detached was copied
          resulting in a new family or stemma containing the
          shorter version.

          4. Dave Inglis wrote:
          >>Either way, if it was an old scroll, I cannot see
          how damage to a single old scroll of Mk could then
          affect the whole textual tradition the way you are
          suggesting,

          This is how a variant of this magnitude begins, with a
          single scroll being copied thereby producing the line
          or family of shorter endings. This is a basic text
          critical principle.

          5. Dave Inglis wrote:
          >>since it surely implies that one of the longer
          endings (from an earlier copy)�that we know today is
          original.�

          Correct.

          6. Dave Inglis wrote:
          >>I am much more likely to accept the idea of
          deliberate damage when the scroll was new and may not
          even have been copied, but as I stated before,
          re-constructing the ending�then wouldn't have been�any
          problem unless both the author was dead, and there was
          no-one else who knew what the original ending was.

          You seem to have generated the ideation of a single
          scroll. The autograph was probably copied at least
          100 times within the first few months of its
          completion, and disseminated to scribal centers
          throughout the Roman Empire. No author could keep
          track of that, especially after six months or a year
          when such a multitude of copies were in circulation.
          The author could only catch those few he found and
          corrected them, or else scribes having the longer
          ending would have emended the shorter versions through
          some aviso, or communiqu� advising them to do this as
          an instruction. After a long enough period of time
          elapsed without such an aviso nobody would have been
          certain at the various scribal centers which version
          of the ending was original, even if Mark were still
          living.

          What you are describing is what is known as
          "authority control." This is accomplished through an
          effective telecommunications network. Such a network
          did exist in the first century but it would have to be
          informed to looked out for shorter endings and emend
          them to the longer. An authority control of this type
          would have required scribes to have been informed via
          a letter or through oral communication. No such
          evidence exists to support this, but rather, the
          opposite, since we have both the short and long ending
          as well as numerous variants in the texts of all 27
          books of the NT.

          7. Dave Inglis wrote:
          >>However, unless this was the ONLY manuscript�of Mk
          around at the time, the correct ending would
          have�existed�elsewhere, and we would see it today.�

          Scroll back up to no. 5. You appear to be reversing
          your opinion that the longer canonical ending is the
          original. Unless I have misconstrued what you
          intended in no. 5.

          8. Dave Inglis wrote:
          So, which of the longer endings is the original text?�
          Or are you supposing that a)� No other copies of Mk
          had been made by this time, b) All other copies had
          become 'lost' or destroyed, or c) All other copies
          were also damaged, and broke off even earlier than
          16:8?

          I do not understand what you are saying here, but I
          will give it a go. The task of text criticism is to
          attempt to arrive at the original. The NA27 gives
          both the short and long endings with variants shown in
          the apparatus and provides their take on what the
          original was. This is one attempt at that but there
          are others. I have no grave dissatisfaction with the
          NA27 here, but remain open to alternate views and
          interpretations.

          a) would require again the autograph, and we would
          never have a longer ending. So, this can be easily
          excluded.

          b) all other copies of what were destroyed? The
          original long ending, which we do have? This does not
          appear to make sense. Unless I have misconstrued what
          you intended to say.

          c) this would only leave us with only short endings,
          which is not the case. So, this too can be excluded.

          9. Dave Inglis wrote:
          I'm quite happy to believe in damage to either a codex
          or a scroll�as described, but�I have to disagree with
          your conclusion.� The existence of a variant of�Mk
          breaking off unfinished at 16:8 because of damage to
          a�MS is, I totally agree, possible.� However, I really
          can't see how it could lead to the situation we have
          today, for the reasons given above.


          I hope now you can better appreciate my not grasping
          any of the above reasons that exclude a damaged copy
          (ies) that lacked the ending being copied at scribal
          centers that did not have alternate full scroll or
          codex copy (ies) available, thereby generating
          multiple copies of the short ending into circulation.
          This we do have: short and long endings most probably
          resulting from a common problem in papyrus scroll or
          codex loss of folios or portions of them.

          With best regards,
          John




          =====
          John N. Lupia
          501 North Avenue B-1
          Elizabeth, New Jersey 07208-1731 USA

          __________________________________________________
          Do You Yahoo!?
          Yahoo! Sports - live college hoops coverage
          http://sports.yahoo.com/

          Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
          List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
        • David Inglis
          ... Actually, someone else started the scroll discussion, and I simply responded. ... I don t think I ve ever suggested that a scroll of Mk was short. Based
          Message 4 of 8 , Mar 15, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            John Lupia wrote:

            > This is hardly straying from Synoptic issues since the
            > two endings of Mark factor into any that discuss these
            > texts. Besides, you're the one who began this thread,
            > which somewhat confuses any reader as to your
            > objection.

            Actually, someone else started the scroll discussion, and I simply
            responded.

            > The first issue that needs to be clarified is a
            > physical assessment of the canonical Gospel of Mark
            > for papyrological considerations. For some reason you
            > are continually describing it as if it were a short
            > volumen (rotulus).

            I don't think I've ever suggested that a scroll of Mk was short. Based on
            what I've read (from various encyclopedia) even long scrolls would only have
            one umbilicus that was actually attached to it. As I understand it, in use
            the scroll was wound up onto another umbilicus that was not physically
            attached, and this was so that when the scroll was not in use it could be
            wound up completely (round the single attached umbilicus) and stored in a
            scroll case. Based on this understanding, I believe my description of
            'scroll failure modes' is valid.

            However, in a sense this discussion is beside the point. I agree that the
            end of a scroll of Mk could have been lost (for whatever reason), but I want
            to get away from talking about scrolls because we should really be talking
            about a damaged codex of Mk (I believe it's much more likely to have been a
            codex).

            [snip]

            > 6. Dave Inglis wrote:
            > > I am much more likely to accept the idea of deliberate damage when the
            scroll was new and may not
            > > even have been copied, but as I stated before, re-constructing the
            ending then wouldn't have been any
            > > problem unless both the author was dead, and there was no-one else who
            knew what the original ending was.
            >
            > You seem to have generated the ideation of a single
            > scroll. The autograph was probably copied at least
            > 100 times within the first few months of its
            > completion, and disseminated to scribal centers
            > throughout the Roman Empire. No author could keep
            > track of that, especially after six months or a year
            > when such a multitude of copies were in circulation.

            We may be at cross purposes here, because this is exactly my point. If the
            MS was new enough not to have been copied then the text could have been
            easily re-constructed, but if it was old enough to have deteriated due to
            age then then would have already been many copies with the original ending.

            [snip]

            > 7. Dave Inglis wrote:
            > > However, unless this was the ONLY manuscript of Mk around at the time,
            the correct ending would
            > > have existed elsewhere, and we would see it today.
            >
            > Scroll back up to no. 5. You appear to be reversing
            > your opinion that the longer canonical ending is the
            > original. Unless I have misconstrued what you
            > intended in no. 5.

            You did misconstrue. I was simply pointing out a logical relation. If A,
            then B. I don't believe the long ending is original. I can easily see how
            damaged MS can result in truncated copies - I have no problem with this.
            However, if the long ending was original then I think it would by now have
            been recognised as such. Instead, I believe that the various problems with
            the long ending indicate that it was added to a text that already ended at
            16:8, and any original text after 16:8 (if it ever existed) was lost
            (perhaps through MS damage as you describe) prior to that.

            Dave Inglis
            david@...
            3538 O'Connor Drive
            Lafayette, CA, USA




            Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
            List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
          • John Lupia
            ... Could you supply the bibliographic references? ... There is physical evidence that Gospels were written in both codex and scroll formats. For example, P12
            Message 5 of 8 , Mar 16, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              --- David Inglis wrote:
              > I don't think I've ever suggested that a scroll of
              > Mk was short. Based on
              > what I've read (from various encyclopedia) even long
              > scrolls would only have
              > one umbilicus that was actually attached to it. As
              > I understand it, in use
              > the scroll was wound up onto another umbilicus that
              > was not physically
              > attached, and this was so that when the scroll was
              > not in use it could be
              > wound up completely (round the single attached
              > umbilicus) and stored in a
              > scroll case. Based on this understanding, I believe
              > my description of
              > 'scroll failure modes' is valid.


              Could you supply the bibliographic references?


              > However, in a sense this discussion is beside the
              > point. I agree that the
              > end of a scroll of Mk could have been lost (for
              > whatever reason), but I want
              > to get away from talking about scrolls because we
              > should really be talking
              > about a damaged codex of Mk (I believe it's much
              > more likely to have been a
              > codex).


              There is physical evidence that Gospels were written
              in both codex and scroll formats. For example, P12
              (3rd cent); P13 (3rd-4th cents); P18 (3rd-4th cents);
              P22 (3rd cent) are scrolls not epistrographia.(See
              Eldon Jay Epp, "The Papyrus Manuscripts of the New
              Testament" in Bart D. Ehrman & Michael W. Holmes,
              eds., The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary
              Research. Essays on the Status Quaestionis (Eerdmans,
              1995):5). To assert Mark was exclusively written on
              codices to the exclusion of scrolls has no support.

              > > 6. Dave Inglis wrote:
              > > > I am much more likely to accept the idea of
              > deliberate damage when the
              > scroll was new and may not
              > > > even have been copied, but as I stated before,
              > re-constructing the
              > ending then wouldn't have been any
              > > > problem unless both the author was dead, and
              > there was no-one else who
              > knew what the original ending was.

              [snip]

              > We may be at cross purposes here, because this is
              > exactly my point. If the
              > MS was new enough not to have been copied then the
              > text could have been
              > easily re-constructed, but if it was old enough to
              > have deteri [or] ated due to
              > age then then would have already been many copies
              > with the original ending.
              >

              This above view (the first part) is extremely
              difficult. It requires the autograph prior to copies
              to have lacked the ending due to some deliberate
              mishap. Historically, when an autograph was prepared
              copies were usually made simultaneously and/or
              coetaneously and dispersed to copy centers for
              publication. Your view requires both a delay and a
              deliberate removal of the ending twice compounding a
              highly unlikely scenario.

              As for the second part, that is my point, precisely.
              We do have copies of the original ending. We call
              them the "Longer Ending" version.


              > [snip]
              >
              > > 7. Dave Inglis wrote:
              > > > However, unless this was the ONLY manuscript of
              > Mk around at the time,
              > the correct ending would
              > > > have existed elsewhere, and we would see it
              > today.
              > >
              > > Scroll back up to no. 5. You appear to be
              > reversing
              > > your opinion that the longer canonical ending is
              > the
              > > original. Unless I have misconstrued what you
              > > intended in no. 5.
              >
              > You did misconstrue. I was simply pointing out a
              > logical relation. If A,
              > then B. I don't believe the long ending is
              > original. I can easily see how
              > damaged MS can result in truncated copies - I have
              > no problem with this.
              > However, if the long ending was original then I
              > think it would by now have
              > been recognised as such. Instead, I believe that
              > the various problems with
              > the long ending indicate that it was added to a text
              > that already ended at
              > 16:8, and any original text after 16:8 (if it ever
              > existed) was lost
              > (perhaps through MS damage as you describe) prior to
              > that.


              See K. Aland, "Bemerkungen zum Schluss des
              Markusevangeliums," in Neotestamentica et Semitica
              (Edinburgh: Clark, 1969:157-80.

              The "shorter Ending" is assigned a 4th cent. date
              since "no patristic text known to us quotes this
              shorter ending, or indeed which has precisely this
              kind of vocabulary." (See C. S. Mann, Mark (AB 27,
              Doubleday, 1986):677) Mann then cites 10 Greek words
              and two Greek phrases that are non-Markan. Since no
              patristic author cites the "Short Ending" even as a
              paraphrase it goes hard against the grain for it to
              suggest that it was original, but rather, that it does
              suggest a 4th cent. date.

              I have argued all along these lines regarding the two
              endings that the "Longer Ending" is the original. The
              later copy centers that apparently lacked Mark 16
              devised a brief free paraphrase that encapsulated the
              gist of the original ending. Probably in the first
              quarter of the 4th century and coetaneous with
              Eusebius, and became the text unwittingly copied in
              Codices Vaticanus and Sinaiticus produced from other
              centers, since confusion arose as to which text was
              original by that late date.

              Best regards,
              John

              =====
              John N. Lupia
              501 North Avenue B-1
              Elizabeth, New Jersey 07208-1731 USA

              __________________________________________________
              Do You Yahoo!?
              Yahoo! Sports - live college hoops coverage
              http://sports.yahoo.com/

              Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
              List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
            • John Lupia
              Synoptic-L@bham.ac.uk Re: A discussion of the different endings of Mark This discussion was part of a post to Synoptic-L that got lost in cyberspace when Yahoo
              Message 6 of 8 , Mar 16, 2002
              • 0 Attachment
                Synoptic-L@...

                Re: A discussion of the different endings of Mark

                This discussion was part of a post to Synoptic-L that
                got lost in cyberspace when Yahoo was down for
                repairs. So, the archives do not have my first
                response to Tim Reynolds which is included here
                together with my second response..

                John Lupia wrote:
                >
                > --- Tim Reynolds <molad@...> wrote:
                > > According to Clement per Morton Smith, it was
                indeed
                > > the only
                > > manuscript, kept "under guard" in Alexandria and
                > > "read to advanced
                > > catechumens". There never was a "correct ending";
                > > the manuscript was
                > > left incomplete at Mark's death in 68.

                John Lupia wrote:
                > This is a rather highly interpretive view. If the
                > above were actual facts it would alter the direction
                > of Markan studies and close the issue of both when
                > Mark was written and the status of ending of the
                > Gospel.

                Tim Reynolds wrote:
                That's correct.

                John Lupia wrote:
                If the autograph of Mark were preserved at
                > Alexandria then all Alexandrian copies would reflect
                > the original and scribal centers throughout the
                Roman
                > empire would have known this and followed that text
                > over all others. So, there is an inherent stumbling
                > block to this assertion as historical fact.
                > Unfortunately, to clarify and support this beyond a
                > shadow of a doubt with clearly identifiable
                observable
                > physical evidence, no mss. of Mark 16 predate AD
                300.
                > However, it its extrapolated from those mss. we do
                > have. For if such a state of Markan mss. did exist
                > prior to AD 300 they would have survived together
                with
                > the conscious tradition evidenced in Clemens
                > Alexandrinus (d. pre-215) and Eusebius, H.E. 2.15
                (c.
                > 325) and be reflected in Codices Vaticanus and
                > Sinaiticus, both 4th cent.

                Tim Reynolds wrote:
                >>The model has it that Mk was inaccessible (except
                aurally) until the gospels, arguably in reaction to
                Marcion, were collected and distributed as a single
                volume c. 150. (The model predicts, then, that no Mk
                papyri previous to this time will turn up.)

                A rather gratuitous position considering no known
                first through third century mss. of Mark have yet been
                identified with any consensus from the 300,000 papyri
                in archives that have yet to be sorted, organized,
                categorized, classified and identified. It will come
                as no surprise when they are finally discovered among
                those already found waiting to be identified. However,
                there is a 30 year old heated debate that 7Q5 is Mk
                6:52-53 dating no later than AD 68 since it is written
                in H�kchenstil and part of the Qumran cache. (see
                Jos� O'Callaghan, "Papiros neotestamentarios en la
                cueva 7 de Qumr�n," Biblica 53 (1972):91-100; Carsten
                Peter Thiede, "7Q--Eine R�ckkhr zu den
                neutestamentlichen Papyrusfunden in der siebten H�le
                von Qumran," Biblica 65 (1984):538-59; Carsten Peter
                Thiede, The Earliest Gospel Manuscript? The Qumran
                Fragment 7Q5 and its Significance for New Testament
                Studies (Exeter: Carlisle, 1992); Carsten Peter
                Thiede, "7Q5 Fact or Fiction?" The Westminster
                Theological Journal 57 (1995):471-74; Carsten Peter
                Thiede, "Fragment 75Q: A Forensic Analysis in
                Jerusalem," in Rekindling the Word: In Search of
                Gospel Truth (Trinity, 1995):195-97; Orsolina
                Montevecci, "Ricerchiamo senza pregiudizi," 30 Giorni
                XII/7-8 (1994):75-6; "Herbert Hunger, "7Q5: Markus
                6,52-53---oder?, Die Meinung des Papyrologen" in B.
                Mayer, Christen und Christliches in Qumran?
                (Regensburg, 1992):33-56)

                My hypothesis, which I have discussed with Hyam
                Maccoby, Jim Davila, Dave Suter and Robert Kraft is
                that the cave was a genizah containing mss. that were
                already fairly aged and worn and kept for scribes to
                consult when making new copies. Consequently, 7Q5
                would represent one of the earliest worn-out copies of
                Mark by AD 68, thereby establishing the precedent that
                it possibly dated about a decade earlier in AD 58
                around the time of the autograph. So, 7Q5 is critical
                since it establishes a much earlier date for Mark than
                is current.

                Tim Reynolds wrote:
                >>The "secret" bits were not included, as they had not
                been included in the annual readings. These Mks ended
                at 16.8, also as per the readings. Some text groups
                grew endings. For Constantine's edition they went
                back to the holograph, still in Alexandria: no secret
                bits, no ending, and a superior text, hence Vaticanus
                and Sinaiticus.

                This is another highly fanciful, speculative and
                interpretive view that has no support from the
                physical evidence. My earlier post to Dave Inglis
                points out text studies by Aland and the AB commentary
                by Mann that all the evidence strongly suggests Mk
                16:1-8 "Shorter Ending" as c. 300-25.

                Best regards,
                John



                =====
                John N. Lupia
                501 North Avenue B-1
                Elizabeth, New Jersey 07208-1731 USA

                __________________________________________________
                Do You Yahoo!?
                Yahoo! Sports - live college hoops coverage
                http://sports.yahoo.com/

                Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
              • David Inglis
                ... These are the only three I can come up with right now. Please could you supply me with references for scrolls having two permanently attached umbilici.
                Message 7 of 8 , Mar 17, 2002
                • 0 Attachment
                  John Lupia wrote:
                  > --- David Inglis  wrote:
                  > > As I understand it, in use
                  > > the scroll was wound up
                  onto another umbilicus that was not physically
                  > > attached, and
                  this was so that when the scroll was not in use it could be
                  > >
                  wound up completely (round the single attached umbilicus) and stored in a
                  > > scroll case.

                  > Could you supply the
                  bibliographic references?
                   
                  These are the only three I can come up with right now.  Please could you supply me with references for scrolls having two permanently attached umbilici.
                   
                  Enciclopedia moderna. Diccionario universal de literatura, ciencias, artes, agricultura, industria y comercio, publicada por Francisco de P. Mellado, Establecimiento de Mellado, Madrid-París 1853, tomo 26, columnas 25-28.
                   
                  Encyclopædia Britannica intermediate - Book and Bookmaking
                   
                  The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume IX, Manuscripts
                  > > However, in a sense this discussion is beside the point.  I agree that the
                  > > end of a scroll of Mk could
                  have been lost (for whatever reason), but I want
                  > > to get away
                  from talking about scrolls because we should really be talking
                  > >
                  about a damaged codex of Mk (I believe it's much more likely to have been a
                  > > codex).
                   
                  [snip]

                  > To assert Mark was exclusively written
                  on
                  > codices to the exclusion of scrolls has no
                  support.
                   
                  I never suggested "Mark was exclusively written on codices".  See above for what I actually wrote.  However, as Epp reports, the four scrolls you mention are exceptions.  Also, none of them contains Mk, and only P22 is a scroll of a gospel (Jn), so there is in fact no evidence of any scroll of Mk.
                   
                  "Presently 96 NT papyri have been identified, though two of these are portions of others (P33 = P58; P64 = P67), leaving a total of 94 different papyri. They range in date from the 2d century to the 8th, and all but four are from codices (the four, P12, P13, P18, P22, are from scrolls, though all are exceptional in that they are either written on both sides or are on reused papyrus [Aland and Aland 1987: 102]). " (Epp, Textual Criticism: New Testament, www edition at http://wesleyclients.nnu.edu/gllyons/GK351/epp_.htm)

                  > > > 6. Dave Inglis wrote:
                  > > > > I am much
                  more likely to accept the idea of deliberate damage when the
                  > >
                  scroll was new and may not even have been copied, but as I stated before,
                  > > re-constructing the ending then wouldn't have been
                  any
                  > > > > problem unless both the author was dead,
                  and there was no-one else who
                  > > knew what the original ending
                  was.

                  > [snip]

                  > > We may be at cross purposes here,
                  because this is exactly my point.  If the
                  > > MS was new
                  enough not to have been copied then the text could have been
                  > >
                  easily re-constructed, but if it was old enough to have deteri [or] ated due to
                  > > age then there would have already been many copies with
                  the original ending.

                  > This above view (the first part) is
                  extremely difficult.  It requires the autograph prior to copies
                  > to have lacked the ending due to some
                  deliberate mishap.  Historically, when an autograph was prepared
                  > copies were usually made simultaneously
                  and/or coetaneously and dispersed to copy centers for
                  >
                  publication.  Your view requires both a delay and a deliberate removal of the ending twice compounding a
                  > highly unlikely
                  scenario.
                   
                  I'm playing 'devils advocate' here, because I don't believe this happened either.  However, your description of MS publication describes a rather 'professional' process that I personally don't think applied to the NT autographs.  I'd be interested to know what the evidence is for this is the case of the NT, and for Mk in particular.
                   
                  > As for the second part, that is my point, precisely.
                  > We do have copies of the original ending.  We call
                  > them
                  the "Longer Ending" version.
                   
                  ... which is where we disagree, because I don't think the long ending is original.

                  > The "shorter Ending" is assigned a 4th cent. date
                  > since
                  "no patristic text known to us quotes this
                  > shorter ending, or indeed
                  which has precisely this
                  > kind of vocabulary." (See C. S. Mann, Mark (AB
                  27,
                  > Doubleday, 1986):677)  Mann then cites 10 Greek words
                  >
                  and two Greek phrases that are non-Markan.  Since no
                  > patristic
                  author cites the "Short Ending" even as a
                  > paraphrase it goes hard
                  against the grain for it to
                  > suggest that it was original, but rather,
                  that it does
                  > suggest a 4th cent. date. 
                  I also think it's unlikely that the short ending is original, but precisely BECAUSE it is so short I think it entirely possible that no-one would bother to quote it, so I don't think lack of quotes can be used to suggest a date.
                   
                  Dave Inglis
                  3538 O'Connor Drive
                  Lafayette, CA, USA
                • John Lupia
                  Synoptic-L@bham.ac.uk Re: A discussion of the different endings of Mark ... that was not physically ... was not in use it could be ... attached umbilicus)
                  Message 8 of 8 , Mar 17, 2002
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Synoptic-L@...

                    Re: A discussion of the different endings of Mark

                    > --- David Inglis� wrote:
                    > >�As�I understand it, in use
                    > > the scroll was wound up onto another umbilicus
                    that�was not physically
                    > > attached, and this was so that when the scroll
                    was�not in use it could be
                    > > wound up completely (round the single
                    attached�umbilicus) and stored in a
                    > > scroll case.
                    >�

                    >These are the only three I can come up with right
                    now.� �
                    Enciclopedia moderna. Diccionario universal de
                    literatura, ciencias, artes, agricultura, industria y
                    comercio, publicada por Francisco de P. Mellado,
                    Establecimiento de Mellado, Madrid-Par�s 1853, tomo
                    26, columnas 25-28.

                    >Encyclop�dia Britannica intermediate - Book and
                    Bookmaking

                    >The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume IX, Manuscripts

                    None of these describe a detached umbilicus used for
                    reading. Perhaps you misread or misunderstood this
                    from a past reading. A singel dowel, rod or umbilucus
                    turned to unravel a scroll while the reader rolled the
                    end with their hand. The above references are not
                    appropriate for scholarly citations on papyrus rolls.

                    David Inglis� wrote:
                    >Please could you supply me with references for
                    scrolls having two permanently attached umbilici.

                    Harry Y. Gamble (University of Virginia), Books and
                    Readers in the Early Church. A History of Early
                    Christian Texts (New Haven: Yale University Press,
                    1995): 48 (the relevant passage and its footnote and
                    reference cited below):

                    "Often the ends of the roll were attached to wooden
                    dowels that served as rollers, called navels [Greek:
                    OMFALOI, Latin: umbilici], and these were often tipped
                    with decorative knobs or "horns" [cornua). (n. 28
                    refers to S. Besslich, "Die 'Horner' des Buches: Zur
                    Bedeutung von cornua im antiken Buchwesen," Gutenberg
                    Jahrbuch (1973):44-50.)

                    >�To assert Mark was exclusively written on
                    > codices to the exclusion of scrolls has no support.

                    David Inglis� wrote:
                    I never suggested "Mark was exclusively written on
                    codices".� See above for what I actually wrote.�
                    However, as Epp reports, the four scrolls you mention
                    are exceptions.� Also, none of them contains Mk, and
                    only P22 is a scroll of a gospel (Jn), so there is in
                    fact no evidence of any scroll of Mk.

                    >"Presently 96 NT papyri have been identified, though
                    two of these are portions of others (P33 = P58; P64 =
                    P67), leaving a total of 94 different papyri. They
                    range in date from the 2d century to the 8th, and all
                    but four are from codices (the four, P12, P13, P18,
                    P22, are from scrolls, though all are exceptional in
                    that they are either written on both sides or are on
                    reused papyrus [Aland and Aland 1987: 102]). "
                    (Epp,�Textual Criticism: New Testament, www edition at
                    http://wesleyclients.nnu.edu/gllyons/GK351/epp_.htm)

                    First, Epp's article is outdated since 116 NT papyri
                    have been accepted as identified by the Institut f�r
                    neutestamentliche Textforschung, M�nster, which
                    catalogs them with Gregory-Aland numbers. This, of
                    course, does not mean there are only 116 NT papyri.
                    7Q5 has been scientifically tested and it is
                    reasonably certain that it is Mk 6:52-53. Yet, the
                    Institut f�r neutestamentliche Textforschung committee
                    has not accepted it.

                    Second, Kurt Aland & Barbara Aland, The Text of the
                    New Testament (Eerdmans, 1989): 102 makes the error of
                    stating that "all" are opistographoi or on reused
                    papyrus.

                    P12 (P. Amherst 3b) is written on a "letter by an
                    Egyptian Christian traveling in Rome to his fellow
                    Christians in the Arsinoite Nome, in the Fayum of
                    Egypt. " Philip W. Comfort & David P. Barrett, The
                    Text of the Earliest New Testament Greek Manuscripts
                    (Tyndale, 2001):82. Whereas, Kurt Aland, Repertorium
                    der Griechischen Christlichen Papyri. I. Biblische
                    Papyri (De Gruyter, 1976):231 gives no physical
                    description whatsoever.

                    P13 (P. Oxy. 657 + PSI 1292) on the verso is Livy,
                    Epitome written in Latin. Philip W. Comfort & David
                    P. Barrett, The Text of the Earliest New Testament
                    Greek Manuscripts (Tyndale, 2001):82. Kurt Aland,
                    Repertorium der Griechischen Christlichen Papyri. I.
                    Biblische Papyri (De Gruyter, 1976):232

                    P18 (P. Oxy. 1079) is written on the verso of P. Oxy.
                    1075 containing Exodus. Philip W. Comfort & David P.
                    Barrett, The Text of the Earliest New Testament Greek
                    Manuscripts (Tyndale, 2001):103. Kurt Aland,
                    Repertorium der Griechischen Christlichen Papyri. I.
                    Biblische Papyri (De Gruyter, 1976):238.

                    P22 (P. Oxy 1228) the reverse side is blank. hilip W.
                    Comfort & David P. Barrett, The Text of the Earliest
                    New Testament Greek Manuscripts (Tyndale, 2001):109.
                    Kurt Aland, Repertorium der Griechischen Christlichen
                    Papyri. I. Biblische Papyri (De Gruyter, 1976):242.
                    says the recto is "unbeschrieben".

                    So, although Kurt Aland says the recto of P22 is blank
                    in Rep. der griech. christl. Papyri:242, this is not
                    reflected in Text of the New Testament: 102.

                    Third, I already clearly stated that there is no
                    papyri of Mk 16, but P45 (P. Chester Beatty I) a codex
                    does contain portions of Mark. Since no other
                    identified scroll of Mark has yet been identified
                    besides 7Q5 (its back is blank) it is a weak and
                    unsupportable argument to say as you did: "so there is
                    in fact no evidence of any scroll of Mk." Even if 7Q5
                    was never identified your position is still very weak
                    since no papyrologist would agree. It used to be
                    argued rather ill informed that the Gospels were
                    published on scrolls until the 3rd cent. when the
                    codex became the new form. However, a better informed
                    view in contemporary NT studies accepts both scrolls
                    and codices published in the first century, with which
                    I concur.

                    > > > 6. Dave Inglis wrote:
                    > > > > I am much more likely to accept the idea
                    of�deliberate damage when the
                    > > scroll was new and may not�even have been copied,
                    but as I stated before,
                    > > re-constructing the�ending then wouldn't have been
                    any
                    > > > > problem unless both the author was dead,
                    and�there was no-one else who
                    > > knew what the original ending was.
                    > [snip]
                    > > We may be at cross purposes here, because this
                    is�exactly my point.� If the
                    > > MS was new enough not to have been copied then
                    the�text could have been
                    > > easily re-constructed, but if it was old enough
                    to�have deteri [or] ated due to
                    > > age then there would have already been many
                    copies�with the original ending.

                    John Lupia wrote:
                    > This above view (the first part) is
                    extremely�difficult.� It requires the autograph prior
                    to copies
                    > to have lacked the ending due to some
                    deliberate�mishap.� Historically, when an autograph
                    was prepared
                    > copies were usually made simultaneously
                    and/or�coetaneously and dispersed to copy centers for
                    > publication.��Your view requires both a delay and
                    a�deliberate removal of the ending twice compounding a
                    > highly unlikely scenario.

                    Dave Inglis wrote:
                    I'm playing 'devils advocate' here, because I don't
                    believe this happened either.� However, your
                    description of MS publication describes a rather
                    'professional' process that I personally don't think
                    applied to the NT autographs.� I'd be interested to
                    know what the evidence is for this is the case of the
                    NT, and for Mk in particular.

                    Your request is a wish we all have. If such evidenced
                    existed it would certainly end the question about Q,
                    proto-Mark, Ur-Markus, etc. since we would have
                    detailed evidence about the creation of the autograph
                    of Mark and its earliest publication. The analogy was
                    drawn from what we do know about publishing in the
                    first century. (See Harry Y. Gamble (University of
                    Virginia), Books and Readers in the Early Church. A
                    History of Early Christian Texts (New Haven: Yale
                    University Press, 1995): 84-93 for Roman publishing;
                    93-143 for Christian publishing)

                    John Lupia wrote:
                    > As for the second part, that is my point, precisely.

                    > We do have copies of the original ending.� We call
                    > them the "Longer Ending" version.

                    David Inglis wrote:
                    ... which is where we disagree, because I don't think
                    the long ending is original.

                    John Lupia wrote:
                    > The "shorter Ending" is assigned a 4th cent. date
                    > since "no patristic text known to us quotes this
                    > shorter ending, or indeed which has precisely this
                    > kind of vocabulary." (See C. S. Mann, Mark (AB 27,
                    > Doubleday, 1986):677)� Mann then cites 10 Greek
                    words
                    > and two Greek phrases that are non-Markan.� Since no
                    > patristic author cites the "Short Ending" even as a
                    > paraphrase it goes hard against the grain for it to
                    > suggest that it was original, but rather, that it
                    does
                    > suggest a 4th cent. date.�

                    David Inglis wrote:
                    I also think it's unlikely that the short ending is
                    original, but precisely BECAUSE it is so short I think
                    it entirely possible that no-one would bother to quote
                    it, so I don't think lack of quotes can be used to
                    suggest a date.


                    So, if Mk 16:1-8 is not original then you must agree
                    that Mk 16:9-20 "Anonymous Ending" consiting of the
                    so-called addition Mk 16:15-20 "Freer Logion" (W 032 =
                    Codex Freerianus, 5th cent.) are, or else Mk ended in
                    Mk 15:47, which is unreasonable. It is possible that
                    the original is Mk 16:9-14, and the passage in "W" was
                    later and dates to a period about 75 years after Mk
                    16:1-8 was written in the 4th cent.

                    Mk 16:1-8: the 8 verses = 11.88% of the entire Gospel
                    (UBS4 =673 verses), but critical text since it is
                    about the resurrection, not easily dismissed in
                    Patristic evidence. The lack of Patrist evidence is
                    only an additional support and is not the determining
                    factor for dating in itself. See C. S. Mann, Mark (AB
                    27, Doubleday, 1986):159-64 "Principle Texts of Mark"
                    and you will see how based on the texts and his
                    subsequent discussion 659-79 the 4th century dating
                    has support.

                    Further, Mk 16:1-8 consists of a non-Markan vocabulary
                    inconsistent with the entire Gospel. No text of 8
                    verses has 10 hapaxes and an additional 2 hapax
                    phrases.

                    G. W. Trompf, The Markusschluss in Recent Research,"
                    Australian Biblical Review 21 (1973):15-26 sees
                    primarily Lukan influence that Mark based the "longer
                    ending" on.

                    H. W. Bartsch, "Der Scluss des Markus-Evangeliums: Ein
                    �berlieferungs-geschichtliches Problem," TZ 27.4
                    (1971):241-54 sees Mark 16 drawn from Mt 27:51b-53;
                    28:2-5,9-10.

                    E. Linnemann, "Der (wiedergefundene) Markusschluss,"
                    ZTK 66.3 (1969):255-87 considers Mk 16:9-14 and 15-20
                    belong to two separate traditions which drew from
                    Matthew 28:16-17 = Mk 16:15-18.

                    Best regards,
                    John


                    =====
                    John N. Lupia
                    501 North Avenue B-1
                    Elizabeth, New Jersey 07208-1731 USA

                    __________________________________________________
                    Do You Yahoo!?
                    Yahoo! Sports - live college hoops coverage
                    http://sports.yahoo.com/

                    Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                    List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.