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

Re: [textualcriticism] Re: provenance study

Expand Messages
  • K. Martin Heide
    malcolm robertson wrote: Dear Martin, Actually Skeat in his excellent essay The Codex Sinaiticus, The Codex Vaticanus and Constantine in:JThS 50 (1999), pp.
    Message 1 of 7 , Apr 5 10:24 AM
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      malcolm robertson wrote:
      Dear Martin,
      Actually Skeat in his excellent essay " The Codex Sinaiticus, The Codex Vaticanus and Constantine" in:JThS 50 (1999), pp. 583-625" points out explicitly that Westcott and Hort thought Aleph and B both had their origin further West from Caesarea.
      The remarks of Hieronymus given below (coupled with other considerations that I will not mention here) may have been the reason why both Westcott and Hort thought the provenance for these two codices was other than Caesarea and should not be considered as earmarked for Constantinople.  Doubtless, however, one of the characteristics of those fifty codices that Eusebius had produced and sent to Constantine definitely lacked vss 9-20 in the last chapter of Mark's Gospel.
      The text-type of Aleph and B as representatives of the 'Neutral' type is well known.  What Eusebius sent to Constantine were similar in text-type, but hardy equate to an exact identification with Aleph and B.
      The fact that Eusebius, Hieronymus and Gregory of Nyssa all demonstrate knowledge of this characteristic that marks the 'Neutral' text-type and it's wide spread of possible provenances,
      illustrates adequately the difficulty of pinpointing a particular provenance.  While Epp's remarks may be appropriate, i.e. more work needs to be done with regards to provenances of mss, the uncertainty of attaining any certainty remains for now only a close approximation with the vast majority of manuscripts other than those found in Egypt.
      Cordially in Christ,

      Dear Malcolm,

      thank you very much for your detailed answer. In the face of Eusebius' letter to Marinus, where he more or less,
      regarding the end of Mark, tells us to take it this or that way (short ot long ending; see "The Witness of Eusebius’ ad Marinum and Other Christian Writings to Text-Critical Debates concerning the Original Conclusion to Mark’s Gospel1", by James A. Kelhoffer, ZNW 92), it is interesting that he may have provided bibles with the short ending of Mark. Although he, of course, seems to have preferred the shorter ending, too, and said, it is known from the "older" mss, etc.


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