- Thanks Jim, It seems to me that your criticism of Marcus lacks a little perspective. You generalise about egregiously erroneous statements , but offer onlyMessage 1 of 65 , May 27, 2009View SourceThanks 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".
Peter M. Head, PhD
Sir Kirby Laing Senior Lecturer in New Testament
36 Selwyn Gardens
Cambridge CB3 9BA
- 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 aMessage 65 of 65 , Aug 12, 2009View SourceHi Folks,
>Why Greek if it was written to Italians? I realize that the vastJames Snapp
>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?
>The reason why Mark would write for Italians in Greek is that theSteven
>Italians, then and there, were speaking and reading and writing in
All of them ? As their first language or second ?
>If you would like to see demonstrations of the extensive verbalSteven
>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.
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:James Snapp
>"Just how would (theoretically) a Latin copy be involved in the loss
>of the longer ending?"
> Theoretically ..- if Mark had written the Gospel of Mark in Latin,someone could have translated an early draft of it into Greek,
And this was the theory of Herman Hoskier, accompanied with extensive
analysis, that Mark was written in either Latin or a Graeco-Latin dialect.