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
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
David Robert Palmer
James Snapp wrote:
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.