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

2791Re: [textualcriticism] Jesus Dynasty and the Ending of Mark

Expand Messages
  • Daniel J. Mount
    Jan 4, 2007

      You said: "2.  What is remarkable about a blank space between books?"

      The answer is typically "nothing," but it becomes remarkable when it is to my knowledge the only such blank space in the manuscript.

      Daniel J. Mount
      Mansfield, Ohio

      David Robert Palmer wrote:

      Jim, I don't understand why you use the "blank space" in Vaticanus as anything that supports your position.  I don't see that it supports it at all.

      1.  Codex Vaticanus lacks the longer ending of Mark.

      2.  What is remarkable about a blank space between books?

      3.  You yourself phrase your assertion about the blank space in Vaticanus as follows: "which SEEMS to have been placed there..."

      4.  I am more impressed by the fact that the scribe did not include vv. 9-20, as evidence that it was not Markan, than by any possibility that he wanted someone to be able to add it.

      5. I think it would take a greater conviction and sureness to impel of a scribe to OMIT something from Mark deliberately, than the conviction required to cause a scribe to ADD something deliberately.

      6.  I have done a harmony / continuous blend of the gospels, which only made sense when I omitted the longer ending of Mark.  My harmony blends perfectly without vv. 9-20, and the harmony would have been impossible when including that passage.  I have looked at other harmonies, how they deal with the ending of the gospels, and they are all erroneous, and show that the authors did not spend near the amount of time pondering the various possible solutions that I did, like playing chess, and analyzing, if I worded it this way, what would that part then have to be, etc.

      7.  For what it is worth to anyone, I am 99% convinced that Mark 16:9-20 was not originally part of the gospel of Mark.  If I did not believe, as I do, that the gospels agree with each other, then I could allow that Mark 16:9-20 is authentic, since it contradicts Luke and John.

      David Robert Palmer

      James Snapp wrote:

      Regarding your question about a blank space in one of the manuscripts that lacks Mark 16:9-20 ~ Vaticanus has a prolonged blank space which seems to have been placed there to give the eventual owner of the manuscript the option of adding the Long Ending or the Short Ending.  In the course of my online presentation I present a replica of the page of Vaticanus which has the blank space.

    • Show all 26 messages in this topic