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

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

Expand Messages
  • Peter M. Head
    Well thanks to Daniel and James for their help on this. One might conclude from your comments that I support the idea that any sort of shoddy scholarship is OK
    Message 1 of 65 , Jun 2, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      Well thanks to Daniel and James for their help on this.

      One might conclude from your comments that I support the idea that
      any sort of shoddy scholarship is OK so long as it supports
      predetermined critical conclusions. But that too would be, in my
      opinion, a failure of perspective.

      Perspective involves a number of things, but two are at least are
      important: distinguishing between "facts" and "judgements"; and
      distinguishing between really important evidence and the rest.

      So, on the first: it is not a fact that Justin knew the LE, or that
      he knew it as the Markan ending. It is a judgement about which people
      will differ because the evidence is insufficiently decisive (unlike
      say Irenaeus). Hence one might differ from Marcus' judgements without
      labelling them errors. (similarly w.r.t. Tatian and Ep. Apost.)

      I am glad to have James' clarification about his own view of things,
      and I apologise for any offensive association my mis-statement may
      have implied. James stated that "my view is that
      (a) there is a very good chance that Mark wrote the text now known as
      Mark 16:9-20 (albeit as a freestanding catechetical or liturgical
      composition, not as an ending for Mk. 1:1-16:8), and
      (b) Mark 16:9-20 was attached to Mark 1:1-16:8 in Rome by Mark's
      colleagues (when Mark suddenly departed to Alexandria) before the
      Gospel of Mark was initially disseminated for church-use. So using
      the ordinary standard of canonicity and authenticity (the state of a
      book's text at the moment it began its literary history through
      transcription for distribution), Mark 16:9-20 is original and
      canonical, and the question of its authorship should be considered a
      subject for higher criticism, after the authenticity of the passage
      is affirmed."

      Of course I disagree with this view. But it is interesting that even
      you don't think that Mark wrote these verses as the ending of his
      Gospel, and nor were they part of the original form of the gospel. It
      was in these two senses that I detected a similarity between your
      view and that of Marcus: "they were almost certainly not penned by
      Mark [as the ending of the Gospel], nor were they the original ending
      of the Gospel [in the state that Mark left it in]."



      At 16:11 29/05/2009, you wrote:
      >--- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "Peter M. Head" wrote:
      > >>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.>>
      >Actually, he offered twice that many:
      ><Up to this point, Marcus' description of the external evidence is
      >reasonably accurate (except his claim that Luke closely follows Mark
      >in Lk. 24:1-9). He doesn't point out the likelihood that Justin was
      >employing a phrase from a 3-Gospel Harmony; nor does he mention the
      >testimony of Tatian or the Epistula Apostolorum. But I've seem worse.>
      >I share James' frustration that out of the dozens of scholars he
      >cites who comment on the ending of Mark or write footnotes for NT
      >translations including Mark, not one of those who claims that
      >16:9-20 are not original to Mark can manage to do so while keeping
      >his facts straight.
      >I guess that would now include you.
      >Daniel Buck
      >Yahoo! Groups Links
      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
      • 0 Attachment
        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

        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.

        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,

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

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