Re: Exploring How the Gospel of Mark was Made
- Yes, it does answer my questions by providing a good short description of the early Latin manuscripts that contain the so-called Longer Ending of Mark.
It's VERY helpful and I wish that a version of this was made widely known. Do you have this information in an article at your website?
It's a frequent error among popular critics to say that the Longer Ending (and the Pericope Adulterae and 1 John 5:7) were added in the Middle Ages -- when there is plenty of evidence that they were known earlier.
We may never solve the question with certainty. However, I think that the correct thing to do in modern Bible editions is to retain the tradition of the Received Text and make note of which manuscripts support the tradition in question and which ones do not. Too often the evidence in favor of the Received Text is just ignored, leaving the average layman with the impression that it is a settled fact that our Bibles are "misquoting Jesus," when in fact the need for such significant revisions can never be absolutely certain.
Just IMHO as a layman.
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "James Snapp, Jr." <voxverax@...> wrote:
> Jay Rogers,
> 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.
> 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.
> JR: "Just how would (theoretically) a Latin copy be involved in the loss of the longer ending?"
> Theoretically -- *very* theoretically, since I don't grant the idea at all - - if Mark had written the Gospel of Mark in Latin, someone could have translated an early draft of it into Greek, and published it prematurely (somewhat like what Tertullian says happened to a treatise of his), in an unfinished form. Where this Greek "bootleg" text became entrenched, it could pose an obstacle for the acceptance of the official, fuller Latin text.
> JR: "I am not sure I follow what you mean here."
> When I wrote that Codex Bobbiensis is particularly suspect because of its wild interpolation in Mk. 16:3-4, I meant that Codex Bobbiensis cannot be considered a normal representative of the OL at this point in the text, because its text has obviously undergone unique editing. The text of the Sinaitic Syriac seems to have shared in the same editing, inasmuch as Bobbiensis and the Sinaitic Syriac alone share the reading "And he shall speak the word openly" in Mark 8:32.
> JR: "How valuable are the OL texts in determining the reliability of the LE?"
> Pretty valuable, inasmuch as they add to the diversity of its early attestation among non-Byzantine, non-Vulgate witnesses. Unfortunately several OL MSS of Mark are damaged.
> It may be worthwhile to share some details about the OL MSS. Commentator James Edwards wrote that Vaticanus and Sinaiticus "omit 16:9-20, as do several early translations or versions, including the Old Latin." Regarding the testimony of the Old Latin MSS, the evidence tells a different story.
> When I wrote that the evidence regarding Codex Vercellensis is a little complicated, I meant that it is difficult to get a clear verdict from Codex Vercellensis, because its last four pages of Mark have been cut out, and the replacement contains the LE, but in a Vulgate text. C.H. Turner calculated that the original final pages (if they began where the text begins in the replacement-pages) would not have had enough space for the LE. On the other hand, it seems possible that the final pages in Codex Vercellensis were not custom-made expressly for the purpose of replacing pages in Codex Vercellensis, but were cannibalized, so to speak, from another MS. It also seems possible that the copyist of Codex Vercellensis miscalculated the number of pages he would need, and that more pages have been unnoticeably lost.
> The Old Latin Codex Corbiensis (ff-2), supports the LE. In Codex Vercellensis, according to Fredericus Pustet, "At the end of Matth. XXVII, 66, after the word << Custodibus >> and before the first verse of the following chapter stand the figures LXXIIII." This indicates that the Old Latin text was divided into small chapters, the 74th of which began at the start of Matthew 27. Codex Corbiensis has this same number in the same place.
> The OL MS Veronensis also supports the inclusion of Mk. 16:9-20.
> Codex Aureus (aur), copied in the 600's (or perhaps 700's), contains Mk. 16:9-20.
> Codex Colbertinus (c), though a relatively young MS made c. 1200, contains a Gospels-text derived from an Old Latin copy. It contains Mk. 16:9-20.
> Codex Rhedigerianus (l), copied in the 600's, contains Mk. 16:9-20.
> Codex Sangallensis (n), was copied c. 400 and has not been well-preserved. Its extant text of Mark ends with 16:13, which sufficiently shows that the MS originally included the entire contents of 16:9-20. Frederic Kenyon claimed that the text of Codex Sangallensis is "closely akin" to that of Codex Vercellensis. Codex Sangellensis is supplemented by Old Latin MS o, a fragment which, it seems, was written (perhaps in the 600's) to replace a damaged page. It has Mk. 16:14-20. The text of Mk. 16:18 displayed in MS o looks a lot like the basis for a statement by Tertullian in Scorpiace ch. 15.
> Codex Monacensis (q) was made c. 600. It has Mk. 16:9-20, followed by a subscription denoting the end of Mark in Latin and in Greek. The non-Vulgate character of its text may be clearly demonstrated by considering some differences in 16:19-20
> Not all of the younger OL MSS are pure OL; some of them have been contaminated, so to speak, with readings from the Vulgate. But where the LE is concerned a quick comparison can show whether or not the text of the LE in an OL MS is derived from the Vulgate.
> Does that answer your questions?
> Yours in Christ,
> James Snapp, Jr.
- Hi 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.