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

Re: Uncials & majuscules et al.

Expand Messages
  • REElliott@aol.com
    In a message dated 96-10-26 11:55:41 EDT, DC Parker writes: I ve just been telling a class about the endings of Mark, and stressing ... First of all, let
    Message 1 of 1714 , Nov 3, 1996
    • 0 Attachment
      In a message dated 96-10-26 11:55:41 EDT, DC Parker writes:

      << > I've just been telling a class about the endings of Mark, and stressing
      > the significance of the Sinaitic and Curetonian Syriac MSS, and
      > Bobbiensis of the Old Latin MSS as three of the most significant
      > witnesses; not to mention the Armenian which, though derived from
      > the Greek via a Syriac intermediary, is an important witness to the
      > text of Mark. Remove the versional evidence, and the Greek MSS
      > provide a rather misleading picture of the history of the text.

      First of all, let me state that I agree with Maurice Robinson's reply;
      "I consider it significant that among the two Old Syriac traditions one
      contains the long ending of Mark and the other omits such. What conclusion
      then should be drawn regarding that ending within the Syriac church?"

      DC also correctly states that the Armenian was derived from the Greek via the
      Syriac, which brings up an important point; We must look at the Greek MSS
      1st, the versional evidence 2nd and then the patrisitic citations 3rd. If the
      Armenian was derived from the Greek, then are not all versional NT MSS in
      essence "derived" from the Greek? Therefore we must give precedence to the
      Greek MSS and if they are very silent concerning a particular passage (such
      as Mark 16) then the versional MSS et al can only be secondary and tertiary
      at best, they cannot supersede the primary Greek. As much as I would love to
      have mountains of Greek evidence for the long ending of Mark, I have to
      follow these rules to be true to the discipline. Is it possible to put the
      theological presuppositions aside and examine the evidence from a neutral
      standpoint?
      Therefore I must disagree with the ending statement that DC made saying that
      the Greek MSS give a misleading history of the text. What is misleading is
      attempting to build a theory on secondary and tertiary MSS. Perhaps there
      are still some more Greek MSS to be found regarding this variant, who knows?

      In His Service

      Rich Elliott
    • Julian Goldberg
      The complete Hebrew Scriptures (Hebrew Bible) or TANAKH (Torah-Law, Neviim-Prophets, Ketuvim-Writings) based on the Masoretic Hebrew text with vowels and
      Message 1714 of 1714 , Feb 4, 1997
      • 0 Attachment
        The complete Hebrew Scriptures (Hebrew Bible) or TANAKH (Torah-Law,
        Neviim-Prophets, Ketuvim-Writings) based on the Masoretic Hebrew text
        with vowels and cantillation marks in one complete compact black hard
        covered volume which measures 12 cm x 19 cm with over 1360 pages that
        have been arranged according to traditional chapter and verse divisions
        along with larger Hebrew letter printing and thicker paper pages for a
        volume of this size. Each book is $ 20.00 (U.S.) postpaid ($ 15.50 for
        the book plus $ 4.50 for postage) and can be ordered directly from:

        Julian Goldberg, 260 Adelaide St., E., # 215, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
        M5A 1N0.

        Thanks.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.