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

Re: tc-list FW: Mark 16:9-20

Expand Messages
  • Maurice A. Robinson
    On Wed, 21 Oct 1998 22:03:35 -0400 R. David Large ... textually diverse range of evidence-- which diversity testifies to originality more
    Message 1 of 5 , Oct 22 7:02 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      On Wed, 21 Oct 1998 22:03:35 -0400 "R. David Large" <David@...>

      > I might add that the passage is extant across a geographically and
      textually diverse > range of evidence-- which diversity testifies to
      originality more than the Alexandrian > codices (Sinaiticus and
      Vaticanus)-- and I would add 304-- testify against it.

      Side note to this point:

      MS 304 (12th century) is a commentary MS on Mt and Mk, in which the
      primary matter is the commentary. The gospel text is merely interspersed
      between the blocks of commentary material, and should not be considered
      the same as a "normal" continuous-text MS. Also, it is often very
      difficult to discern the text in contrast to the comments in this MS.

      The text of Mk 16:8 in MS 304 agrees with N27 except that it reads EICE
      and EIPON for EICEN and EIPON, as well as DE in place of GAR1. Following
      GAR2 at the close of the verse, the MS has a mark like a filled-in "o",
      followed by many pages of commentary, all of which _summarize_ the
      endings of the other gospels and even quotes portions of them.

      Following this, the commentary then begins to summarize the "ETERON DE TA
      PARA TOU MARKOU," presumably to cover the non-duplicated portions germane
      to that gospel in contrast to the others. There remain quotes and
      references to the other gospels in regard to Mary Magdalene, Peter,
      Galilee, the fear of the women, etc. But at this point the commentary
      abruptly ends, without completing the remainder of the narrative or the
      parallels. I suspect that the commentary (which contains only Mt and Mk)
      originally continued the discussion and that a final page or pages at the
      end of this volume likely were lost.

      Also, MS 304 has no note regarding the Eusebian questions regarding the
      ending of Mark, nor any mention of what the "AKRIBWS" manuscripts might
      read regarding the ending, either of which would likely be expected
      within a commentary MS at such a point.

      I would suggest that MS 304 should NOT be claimed as a witness to the
      shortest ending any more than the (now-discredited) claim of UBS2 that
      such was the case of MS 2386 (11th century). In the case of MS 2368, a
      page ended at 16:8 with TELOS written in abbreviated form, but the TELOS
      simply marked the end of a lection, and there was clear evidence that a
      subsequent continuing leaf had been lost (cf. Metzger, Textual
      Commentary, in loc.). This was also the case with several other MSS noted
      in the course of my research. The only Greek MSS which actually omit the
      long ending of Mark are Aleph and B.

      Maurice A. Robinson
      Professor of NT and Greek
      Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary
      Wake Forest, North Carolina

      You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
      Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
      or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.