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

2882Re: [textualcriticism] Note re. Mark's LE and Gospels-Harmony

Expand Messages
  • David Robert Palmer
    Jan 21, 2007
    • 0 Attachment

      Jim, I can only speculate about what a scribe did and why.  I'm sure there are scholars that can do that much better than I can.

      Here is why I consider the Long Ending of Mark impossible to harmonize:


      1.) The passage contains a statement that is contrary to the gospel of Luke.

      The statement is found in verses 12 and 13 about the two walking to Emmaus:

      12 And after these things he was manifested in a different form to two of them who were walking along in the country.
      13 And those went and reported to the rest; neither did they believe those.

      This is contrary to Luke 24:13, 33-35 where we read:

      13  And behold, two of them during that same day were making their way toward a village sixty furlongs from Jerusalem, which was called Emmaus...
      33  And they got up and returned that same hour to Jerusalem, and found the Eleven and those with them assembled together,
      34  saying, 'The Lord really has risen, and he appeared to Simon.'
      35  And the two told what things happened on the way, and how Jesus was recognized by them when he broke the bread.

      Luke says the rest responded "The Lord really has risen," thus agreeing with the two.  The others agreed that Jesus was alive, because Simon Peter had already come back and told them the same thing as the two were telling them.  But "Mark" 16:13 says the rest disbelieved the two.  Thus, Mark 16:12-13 contradicts what Luke 24:33-35 says.  So then, we either have to believe that the scriptures contain an error, or else believe that one of these passages is not scripture.  The problem of the contradiction is solved, by concluding from the objective external evidence that the longer ending of Mark is not scripture, therefore we do not have a case here of scripture contradicting other scripture.

      Some say that there is not a contradiction between Mark in the TR and Luke, because later in Luke, in 24:40-41, it says

      "40And when he had said this, he showed them his hands and his feet.  41But, since they were still not believing, out of joy and astonishment, he said to them, "What do you have to eat in this place?"

      But I say this is another event.  The passages I already compared, are talking about the same event.  That is the more legitamate comparison.

      There are other contradictions involving the ending of Mark also, that do not show themselves until you do a harmonization of the gospels, as I have.  My harmonization, called Palmer’s Diatessaron, will come out when I have finished translating all four gospels.

      2.) The passage contains another statement that is impossible harmonize.  "Mark" 16:9 says, "he appeared first to Mary of Magdala"...  This statement is impossible to reconcile with the other accounts.  It appears that Jesus first appeared to the other women as they were returning to report to the apostles, and then to Mary of Magdala later, since she stayed behind weeping at the tomb longer than the other women.


      The Alexandrian text stream certainly contains some corruptions.  But the Byzantine stream contains this whopper of a corruption.  And a whopper of a corruption it certainly is.

      David Robert Palmer


      James Snapp, Jr. wrote:

      David R. Palmer,

      DRP: "I'm saying that an author around the second century used
      Matthew, Luke and John, plus Acts, to write an ending impossible to
      harmonize with Matthew, Luke and John."

      I don't think the LE is impossible to harmonize with the other
      material in the Gospels. But suppose that some folks in the second
      or third century thought that was the case. To them, wouldn't
      Gospels-codices without this impossible-to- harmonize ending be
      preferable to Gospels-codices that contained it?

      A few more questions:

      (1) Why would a copyist bold enough to compose new material not be
      bold enough to clean up the transition from v. 8 to v. 9? (The
      scribe of Old Latin k (or the scribe of an ancestor of k), after all,
      was bold enough to make a smooth transition to the SE).
      (2) Why would a copyist, attempting to tie up the thread of Mark's
      narrative which anticipates an appearance in Galilee, summarize
      events that he knew his own readers would know took place in
      Jerusalem?
      (3) Why would a copyist with the goal that you described, and the
      material you listed, not make good use of John 21?

      DRP: "How long has it been since you read my endnotes on Mark?"

      I don't know; God willing, I'll try to do so using a library-computer
      soon.

      DRP: ... "I emailed you several months back asking for an update to
      it, but you did not answer."

      E-mail me again using the e-mail button at the Curtisville Christian
      Church homepage (see the link below) and, God willing, I will send
      the latest edition of the lengthy essay right away. Apparently I
      lost your earlier e-mail.

      DRP: "Why don't you check all that out, by downloading Mark from
      here: http://www.bibletra nslation. ws/trans/ markwgrk. zip " ...

      I'll try to, once I get to a less obsolete computer. Thanks for
      reminding me of these resources.

      Yours in Christ,

      James Snapp, Jr.
      Curtisville Christian Church
      Indiana (USA)
      www.curtisvillechri stian.org


    • Show all 26 messages in this topic