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

[Synoptic-L] Re: The Great Omission: One QUIRE or Two?

Expand Messages
  • Goodell, Donald (Donald)
    Thanks for your post, John. There have been in the meantime several additional postings on this thread on the Quire Theory for the Great Omission (which I
    Message 1 of 9 , Mar 25, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Thanks for your post, John.

      There have been in the meantime several additional postings on this thread
      on the Quire Theory for the Great Omission (which I think has merit enough
      to investigate further) that you may have missed (you said earlier you've
      been having internet/computer issues this morning): so I will recap the
      discussion since your last posting: (these might show up later in your
      email) ...

      But in the meantime:

      Regarding the possibility that we do NOT know what form chapters 1:1 to 6:46
      of Luke's version/copy of Mark may have taken: (my response to Jeff):

      >>"It would be invalid to automatically assume that [the part of] what we
      call today "Mark" (1:1 to 6:46) has not undergone some textual changes [over
      time, in the course of transmission] whether omisions, or additions (or
      both) and it may be too speculative to carry (as you suggest) these
      hypothetical divisions too far...it might be used most effectively for
      supportive evidence only, at most..."<<

      To which Jeff wrote:

      >> "In fact, N T Wright has argued that both the Beginning and the End of
      Mark is "missing". There are so many variables and possibilities--could the
      1st leaf of the first Quire have been left [intentionally] BLANK as a cover
      page or title page? for example. I agree that one cannot discount the Quire
      Theory out of hand on the basis of reconstructions of the contents of
      individual Quires..."<<

      If we could be absolutely 100% sure that what we have in Mark 1:1 to 6:46 in
      what was in Luke's copy of Mark, then your methodology would be sound enough
      to ascertain the placement of the individual Quires etc.

      But since we do not have any idea what EXACT form of Mark was being used by
      Luke, we are not able to say anything concrete about it, as Jeff stated,
      "too many variables"....

      So the fact that our present-day printed edition "standardised" Greek
      version of Mark does not allow for "even Quires" up to present day Mark 6:46
      in the p66 type scenario I painted, does not necessarily invalidate the
      Quire Theory out of hand as a possible solution to the Great Omission.


      All the objections "against" the Missing Quire Theory that I have seen so
      far have not been "devastating" to the overall thrust of the theory yet, and
      I very much welcome further discussion on it.

      Thanks for your input, John.

      DG
      dgoodell@...

















      -----Original Message-----
      From: jlupia2 [mailto:JLupia2@...]
      Sent: Monday, March 25, 2002 12:35 PM
      To: synoptic-l@...
      Subject: [Synoptic-L] Re: The Great Omission: One QUIRE or Two?


      Dear Donald:

      Regarding your query of the possibility of a quire containing the
      "Great Omission" [Mk 6:45-8:26] I am disinclined to accept it
      was possible for the following reasons:

      In order to ascertain the quire as a possibility the examination of
      Mk 1:1-Mk 6:44 must be first evaluated. The first part of the
      Markan texts consists of 19,563 letters which must fit neatly on
      quires separate from the next. This would require 3 quires of 24
      folios having a statistical average of 815 letters per page. If the
      codex had this average then the next quire would have 6,520
      letters of text. However, the so-called "Great Omission" contains
      6,175 letters [including Mk 7:16 = 6,201 letters], which is
      inadequate for the quire theory, leaving nearly a half folio blank.
      Even if the adjustment were made for one or two deleted lines of
      text to accommodate the heading on the initial page about 40%
      of the last folio of quire #4 would still remain blank. If Mk 7:16
      were original still more than 30% of the last folio would still be
      blank. Now if the codex were formed in such a fashion that the
      first page of Mark contained the last lines of Matthew 28 then it
      would be a possibility. However to see if this latter case was
      possible we need to retrofit Matthew using the same statistical
      average for the codex. Matthew consists of 89, 683 letters which
      would fit on 13.75 quires. Even if a few lines were deleted on the
      initial page of Matthew for the heading it would still leave space
      for Mark to begin on quire #14. Even if Mt 17:21 (51 letters);
      18:11 (39 letters); 23:14 (136 letters) = 226 letters were original
      only 2% of Mark's quire #4 would have been used to fit the text.
      This is a serious disadvantage to the quire theory for the
      so-called "Great Omission". Consequently, it seems improbable
      that the quire theory would have been the case.



      Best regards,
      John

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



      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...

      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.