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

1696Re: [textualcriticism] The Longer Ending of Mark 16:9-20

Expand Messages
  • William Warren
    Mar 6, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      For a good discussion of whether the ending was lost or not, see the
      work "The Mutilation of Mark's Gospel" by N. Clayton Croy. He shows
      how the views have shifted from seeing the ending as lost to seeing
      16:8 as the original ending. Croy thinks the ending was lost and
      also considers whether the beginning was lost and whether the
      original form was a codex or not. Although I don't agree with all of
      his points, it's a worthwhile read.

      paz,

      Bill Warren
      Director of the Center for New Testament Textual Studies
      Landrum P. Leavell, II, Professor of New Testament and Greek
      New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary


      On Mar 5, 2006, at 5:03 PM, Dave Washburn wrote:

      > Actually, the more commonly held hypothesis is that the last leaf
      > of Mark's
      > gospel was lost somehow before it could be copied to any extent.
      >
      > On Sunday 05 March 2006 10:52, Dora Smith wrote:
      >> Didn't the extension to Mark add details compatible with the idea
      >> that he
      >> rose from the dead? The implication I've always seen made of
      >> that is
      >> that the original author of Mark did not believe that Jesus rose
      >> from the
      >> dead. Later people weren't comfortable with such a glaring
      >> omission.
      >>
      >> Yours,
      >> Dora Smith
      >> Austin, TX
      >> tiggernut24@...
      >> ----- Original Message -----
      >> From: john1524wagner
      >> To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
      >> Sent: Saturday, March 04, 2006 9:48 PM
      >> Subject: [textualcriticism] The Longer Ending of Mark 16:9-20
      >>
      >>
      >> Hello,
      >> I am new to this list.
      >> I just finished "Misquoting Jesus" by Bart Ehrman and wish to
      >> further
      >> study "textual criticism" of the bible.
      >>
      >> Perhaps a good place to start a dialogue is by asking your
      >> opinion on
      >> the motivation of scribes to add the longer ending of Mark 16:9-20.
      >>
      >> It seems to me that a Pauline oriented scribe would have the most
      >> reason to add this insertion as a means of gaining some support
      >> from
      >> one of the gospels for the doctrine of 'speaking in tongues', since
      >> aside from the longer ending of Mark, the gospels are silent
      >> on 'tongues' imagery.
      >>
      >> Curious for your thoughts.
      >>
      >> John
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
      >> ------
      >> --- YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
      >>
      >> a.. Visit your group "textualcriticism" on the web.
      >>
      >> b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      >> textualcriticism-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      >>
      >> c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
      >> Service.
      >>
      >>
      >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
      >> ------
      >> ---
      >
      > --
      > Dave Washburn
      > http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
      > Fame is fleeing, as good old Whatsisname used to say.
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------
      > ~-->
      > <FONT COLOR="#000099">Join modern day disciples reach the
      > disfigured and poor with hope and healing
      > </FONT><A HREF="http://us.click.yahoo.com/B6T8nB/Vp3LAA/EcBKAA/
      > GuTslB/TM"><B>Click Here!</B></A>
      > --------------------------------------------------------------------
      > ~->
      >
      >
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
    • Show all 14 messages in this topic