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

RE: tc-list Mk 16

Expand Messages
  • Jean Valentin
    ... A few information about the Georgian manuscripts. The history of the Georgian version is generally thought to have had three stages of evolution: 1) the
    Message 1 of 8 , Dec 31, 1969
      >For example, how many Georgian MSS
      >carry the passage? What are the confines of the "Jerusalem Lectionary"?
      >Does the Armenian tradition have lectionary MSS, and if so, what sort of
      >testimony do they bear on this? Glad for any help that might be
      >available.

      A few information about the Georgian manuscripts. The history of the
      Georgian version is generally thought to have had three stages of
      evolution:

      1) the Adysh ms, a version probably translated from a lost old-armenian
      original, stops at 16.8

      2) the "pre-vulgate", a version generally called "cesarean" (though I
      know that this term is quite open to discussion). I have here the
      publications of four mss: A, B, D and E. Of those, A stops at 16.8 and
      the three others have the longuer ending.

      3) the "Georgian vulgate", or Athonite recension made on a byzantine
      text, has the longuer ending too.

      As to the Jerusalem lectionary, I didn't take the time to immerse myself
      in that question - lectionary study is a discipline in itself! - but
      there's a publication by Tarchnishvili in the belgo-american collection
      CSCO.

      And, yes, there are Armenian lectionaries but I don't have references to
      publications right now.

      Hope this helps,

      Jean V.


      Jean Valentin - 34 rue du Berceau - 1000 Bruxelles - Belgique
      e-mail : jgvalentin@...
    • Stevens, Charles C
      It seems to me that the question as to whether or not the author of the body of the Gospel of Mark wrote any of the three endings to that Gospel has not much
      Message 2 of 8 , Jan 26, 1999
        It seems to me that the question as to whether or not the author of the body
        of the Gospel of Mark wrote any of the three endings to that Gospel has not
        much at all to do with whether or not God inspired the author of any (or
        all, for that matter!) of the endings, and/or the scribes that copied them.
        The former question is a historical one; the latter, doctrinal.

        -Chuck Stevens

        -----Original Message-----
        From: Michael L. Kennedy [mailto:mkennedy@...]
        Sent: Monday, January 25, 1999 9:42 PM
        To: 'tc-list@...'
        Subject: RE: tc-list Mk 16


        It is interesting that you suggested that it is "blasphemous" to speak
        about a shorter ending to Mark, a variation which is supported by the
        manuscripts.

        Blasphemy is when God, or something related to him, is cursed or reviled
        instead of being honored. I don't think God is dishonored by not
        attributing something to him that he never said.

        ~MLK

        -----Original Message-----
        From: robert s. morse [SMTP:bmorse@...]
        Sent: Saturday, January 23, 1999 1:56 PM
        To: tc-list@...
        Subject: tc-list Mk 16

        Dear Gentlemen:

        I appreciate getting information about New Testament text. (The part
        that's blasphemous I simply delete.) Glad too to see that there is still
        an interest in Mark 16, after the whole question was "settled" a hundred
        years ago. After working on the subject for quite a few years (in
        writing a book), I can only say that my confidence in its originality
        grows stronger every time I encounter fresh evidence. There are some
        areas, however, that seem not to be covered very well in the works I
        have been privileged to delve into. For example, how many Georgian MSS
        carry the passage? What are the confines of the "Jerusalem Lectionary"?
        Does the Armenian tradition have lectionary MSS, and if so, what sort of
        testimony do they bear on this? Glad for any help that might be
        available.

        Bob Morse
      • robert s. morse
        ... I never suggested that acceptance of the Shorter Passage (Mark 16:8 c-d) was blasphemy! Nor that discussion about Mark s conclusion is necessarily
        Message 3 of 8 , Jan 26, 1999
          Michael L. Kennedy wrote:
          >
          > It is interesting that you suggested that it is "blasphemous" to speak
          > about a shorter ending to Mark, a variation which is supported by the
          > manuscripts.
          >
          > Blasphemy is when God, or something related to him, is cursed or reviled
          > instead of being honored. I don't think God is dishonored by not
          > attributing something to him that he never said.
          >
          > ~MLK
          >
          > -----Original Message-----
          > From: robert s. morse [SMTP:bmorse@...]
          > Sent: Saturday, January 23, 1999 1:56 PM
          > To: tc-list@...
          > Subject: tc-list Mk 16
          >
          > Dear Gentlemen:
          >
          > I appreciate getting information about New Testament text. (The part
          > that's blasphemous I simply delete.) Glad too to see that there is still
          > an interest in Mark 16, after the whole question was "settled" a hundred
          > years ago. After working on the subject for quite a few years (in
          > writing a book), I can only say that my confidence in its originality
          > grows stronger every time I encounter fresh evidence. There are some
          > areas, however, that seem not to be covered very well in the works I
          > have been privileged to delve into. For example, how many Georgian MSS
          > carry the passage? What are the confines of the "Jerusalem Lectionary"?
          > Does the Armenian tradition have lectionary MSS, and if so, what sort of
          > testimony do they bear on this? Glad for any help that might be
          > available.
          >
          > Bob Morse

          I never suggested that acceptance of the Shorter Passage (Mark 16:8 c-d)
          was blasphemy! Nor that discussion about Mark's conclusion is
          necessarily blasphemous, or that it has been in the contributions so far
          in tc. I accept both passages as scripture. Sorry for causing
          misunderstanding. I agree with with your definition.

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