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

Re: [textualcriticism] Joel Marcus and the Ending of Mark

Expand Messages
  • Peter M. Head
    Thanks Jim, It seems to me that your criticism of Marcus lacks a little perspective. You generalise about egregiously erroneous statements , but offer only
    Message 1 of 65 , May 27 3:55 AM
      Thanks Jim,

      It seems to me that your criticism of Marcus lacks a little
      perspective. You generalise about "egregiously erroneous statements",
      but offer only two relatively minor errors.
      The two mistakes he has made (according to your summary) are:
      1) that he misstates a detail about the Sahidic evidence: he said
      that vv9-20 was present in only one manuscript, whereas the actual
      evidence suggests it was present in others (although it is present in
      such a way as to suggest non-originality, not present as part of
      the original continuous ending of Mark). In other words his
      statement is actually a summary reflecting the true nature of the
      sahidic evidence. This error of detail in no way impacts the weight
      of evidence in relation to the issue at hand.
      2) that he says "often" in relation to scribal signs when he should
      have said "sometimes (especially in family 1)" (by the way I am not
      sure how justified you are in assuming that 1,480 mss of Mark lack
      such signs - who has checked these?).

      So I would rather say that he has done a pretty good job of
      summarising the evidence (but could have been a little more careful
      on two details), and in fact seems to agree with you on the
      fundamental issues: "they were almost certainly not penned by Mark,
      nor were they the original ending of the Gospel".

      Cheers

      Peter




      Peter M. Head, PhD
      Sir Kirby Laing Senior Lecturer in New Testament
      Tyndale House
      36 Selwyn Gardens
      Cambridge CB3 9BA
      01223 566601
    • schmuel
      Hi Folks, Jay Rogers ... James Snapp ... Steven All of them ? As their first language or second ? James Snapp ... Steven Since a translation from Latin or a
      Message 65 of 65 , Aug 12, 2009
        Hi Folks,

        Jay Rogers
        >Why Greek if it was written to Italians? I realize that the vast
        >consensus is Greek, but this question seems logical. If one were
        >writing to Latin speakers, and if Mark was indeed the "interpreter"
        >of Peter, who was likely speaking in Aramaic or Greek, why not write
        >in the Italians' own language?

        James Snapp
        >The reason why Mark would write for Italians in Greek is that the
        >Italians, then and there, were speaking and reading and writing in
        >Greek.

        Steven
        All of them ? As their first language or second ?

        James Snapp
        >If you would like to see demonstrations of the extensive verbal
        >affinities (in Greek) between Mark, Matthew, and Luke, consult John
        >Hawkins' "Horae Synopticae," which can be downloaded for free from
        >Google Books or Archive.org.

        Steven
        Since a translation from Latin or a Graeco-Latin dialect to Greek
        would likely have been done by someone aware of Mark and Matthew,
        such verbal affinities are expected in all scenarios.

        >Jaay Rogers:
        >"Just how would (theoretically) a Latin copy be involved in the loss
        >of the longer ending?"

        James Snapp
        > Theoretically ..- if Mark had written the Gospel of Mark in Latin,
        someone could have translated an early draft of it into Greek,

        Steven
        And this was the theory of Herman Hoskier, accompanied with extensive
        analysis, that Mark was written in either Latin or a Graeco-Latin dialect.

        Shalom,
        Steven Avery
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.