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

6737Re: Metzger's Comments on Mark 16:9-20

Expand Messages
  • rslocc
    Nov 13, 2011
      --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "james_snapp_jr" <voxverax@...> wrote:
      >
      > Dear Rslocc,
      >
      > I'm not sure I followed everything you said;

      [[I apologize for not directing my post towards any particular poster, statement,question or the like, it was just some general thoughts and observation which I think should be addressed.]]
      >
      >
      Second, Burgon's 1871 book received an almost immediate response from Hort, in the form of a review that appeared in the Nov. 15, 1871 issue of a journal called "The Academy." The volume can be found at Google Books. A review is not the same as a refutation -- and Hort made some claims in his review which themselves should be reviewed (because they are wrong!) -- but Hort outlined the shape of what a refutation would look like.

      [[Thank you for that tid-bit I will look into that review a.s.a.p.]]
      >
      > >
      > Hort replied to the effect that the idea that lection-divisions existed in MSS of the 200's is altogether a guess.
      [[ As is nearly everything Hort ever theorized! ****I also must point out that it is not the responsibility of any critic to absolutely sell himself out to a particular theory regarding the reason for variation. A man cannot be expected to answer how such and such passage came to be corrupt when no solid evidence (historival or otherwise) exist to point the critic an any safe direction. We cannot ask man to prove what only God knows. **]]
      >
      >
      >
      > It is not as if Burgon's book has been totally ignored. Although it might seem that way, inasmuch as some mistakes which Burgon corrected in his 1871 book were still perpetuated later -- in the UBS-2 apparatus, for example. [[I noticed that also.]]
      >
      > Also, it is not the case that "All opposition to the authenticity of the paragraph resolves itself into the allegations of Eusebius and the testimony of Aleph B." Old Latin Codex Bobbiensis, and the Sinaitic Syriac, and the Sahidic copy at Barcelona, and the Armenian copies that lack these 12 verses also need to be explained;

      [[ I agree that they need to be considered (like all evidence) but, they hardly warrant the weight of a formal explaination individually (save the Armenian). Italic(k)is contradicted by every other Old Latin witness (aur,c,ff2,l,n,o,q,etc.), making it's testimony next to nil. The Lewis Codex is the laughing stock of the Syriac versions (along with it's pair the "Curetonian"... and this would be commonly acknowledged if it didn't side with Aleph/B in so many places) and in lew of the fact that it is so clearly corrupted and in so many places it holds little weight. Especially, when one understands that the Peshitto and Palestinian,the Harklean and Curetonian (it's close ally) all set themselves in array against it!
      Needless to say that a single Sahidic copy at Barcelona cannot be given much weight in the decision. For the Coptic testimony (Sah.,Boh. & Fay.) is against it. So the gist of Dr. Scrivener's statement has not been contradicted by any new findings, nor has his statement (as it stands) lost any truth or relevance and therefore it is fair as a general overview of the situation. Although I agree with your qualifying of his quote, I disagree that "...it is not the case", because (to me at least) it obviously is.]]


      the rise of the Shorter Ending -- of which Eusebius, it appears, had no clue -- needs to be explained. Burgon did not do that;[****] this is understandable in the case of the Sinaitic Syriac and the Sahidic copy at Barcelona, since they had not been discovered in 1871. But while Burgon's book is very informative, and should be read carefully by everyone who wants to teach others about Mark 16:9-20 (and don't skip the Appendices!), Burgon did not draw a genealogical history of the rival variants, and this is something that he should have done -- to explain not just how, but when and where the abrupt ending originated.
      [[**** see my comments above]]
      [[** You ask of a man what only God knows! (For the most part.)]]
      >
      > >
      >[[ James-Thank you for your informative post and I hope I have not offended you ( by disagreeing with you in some small particulars) in any way. M.M.R. ]]
      >
      > --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "rslocc" <rslocc@> wrote:
      > > [NOW IF? 1. critical text advocates would only read what Eusebius wrote on the subject for themselves intead of following the conclusions of others and 2. come to grips with the fact that the Master of the opposing school published a monograph which exhaustively examines the subject at hand, which (as it goes) was published while many of the greatest textual scholars were still living and not one ever deemed it fit to answer the man who has claimed to categorically destroy every foundation upon which they based their theories concerning Mark 16:9-20 in general and the testimony of Eusebius upon the question specifically.
      > >
      > > Nor has any other critic since even attempted at a reply which would warrant the title of a "refutation" when the learned and altogether vastness of the original work is kept in mind! Where are the pens of Wescott and Hort, Ellicott and Coneybear, Nestle and Aland, Metzger and Black etc.etc....??? Nearly a century and a half has passed and yet no reply, only reiteration of what has been theorized before (and for the most part by greater men). These same theories which where claimed to be exploaded long ago...and the reason is simple...
      > >
      > > "All opposition to the authenticity of the paragraph resolves itself into the allegations of Eusebius and the testimony of Aleph B."
      > > -Dr. Scrivener Intro. Vol.II pg.3
      > >
      > > Namely they have no place else to go! Even so, Burgon owns them and yet that fact has never crossed their minds.
      > >
      > > If these two things were addressed and someone would find the backbone to refute Burgon, or attempt to (at the very least) then maybe we can all play ball.
      > >
      > > 3. Even if Eusebius said that every ms. he ever saw omitted the last 12 verses of Mark (which he does not) it would not outweigh every (save a few) greek ms. in the world. Is he Sir Oracle?** Im I to bow at his feet and only seek him for guidance? Especially when dozens of other fathers (many of which are contemporary and/or more ancient) are seen to testify to the existance and authenticity of these 12 verses. This has been deemed the un-scientific method for good reason, because the individual caprice of critics has over ridden the verdict of hard factual evidence.-M.M.R.]
      > >
      > >
      > > ** Consider the ideas of Eusebius concerning the Roman empire of Constantine and it's coincidence with the Millennium (what a blunder of interpretation!).Or his double talk when speaking of Papias, on one hand warmly, on the other cold and unkind!
      > >
      > > Eusebius, nor any father, version or manuscript is to be looked at as a plumb bob to the true reading!
      > >
      >
    • Show all 21 messages in this topic