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

Re: [textualcriticism] Mk 16:9-20 and a Video on Some Patristic Evidence

Expand Messages
  • George F Somsel
    16:9–20 G Haec non a Marxo scripta esse argumentis probatur idoneis. Primum omittunt אB k armcdd antiq et quidemven aethm eta arvat (vide post quibus k et
    Message 1 of 38 , Sep 4, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      16:9–20 G Haec non a Marxo scripta esse argumentis probatur idoneis.
      Primum omittunt אB k armcdd antiq et quidemven aethm eta arvat (vide post quibus k et aethedd m eta evglium Marci claudant Notant asterisco 137. 138. G
      Secundum L testatur antiquiores libros longe alia quam quae edi solent habuisse: quae ipsa quum afferat, apparet eadem esse quibus revera in k et aethm eta clauditur evangelium. Ceterum eadem 274mg ad v. 7 litteris uncialibus adnotat, item syrp mg ad εφοβουντο γαρ. L enim, postquam verbis εφοβουντο γαρ pro signis V 1, p 404 appositis evglii finem facere videtur, addita haec habet: φερετε που και ταυτα + Παντα δε τα παρηγγελμενα τοις περι τον πετρον συντομως εξηγγιλαν· μετα δε ταυτα και αυτος ο ις. απο ανατολης και αχρι δυσεως εξαπεστιλεν δι αυτων το ιερον και αφθαρτον κηρυγμα + της αιωνιου σωτηριας + Post ista rursus signis interpositis pergit: εστην δε και ταυτα φερομενα μετα το εφοβουντο γαρ + Αναστας δε etc
      Eadem 274mg dat a Παντα δε usque σωτηριας, nisi quod ανατολων habet, signum post κηρυγμα omittit et ad σωτηριας addit αμην. k sic: omnia autem quae cum que praecepta erant et qui cum puero (corrige petro) erant breviter exposuerunt post haec ei ipse ihseus adparuit. et ab orientem usque. usque in orientem. (corrige occidentem.) misit per illos sanctam et incorruptum (infra suppletur praedicationis, sed sub -onis videtur -onem latere) salutis aeternae . amen. Item aethm eta: Et quum perfecissent dicere omnia quae praecepit Petro et suis, et postquam apparuisset iis dominus Iesus ab ortu solis usque ad occasum, dimisit eos ut praedicarent evangelium sanctum, quod non corrumpitur, in salutem aeternam. Item syrp mg ad εφοβ. γαρ; adduntur alicubi et haec (videntur his reddi quae in L leguntur: φερεται που και ταυτα): Omnia autem quae imperata fuerant illis qui cum Petro Breviter nuntiaverunt; postea autem ipse Iesus ab oriente usque ad occidentem promulgavit per eos praeconium sacrum et incorruptum salutis aeternae. Amen.
      3)G testantur scholia permultorum codicum Marci evglium in antiquioribus et (ut multi addunt) accuratioribus exemplis versu 9. finem habuisse. Ita, ut de 30 fere cdd. certe tres videamus, 22. habet: εφοβουντο γαρ + τελος· εν τισι των αντιγραφων εως ωδε πληρουται ο ευαγγελιστης· εν πολλοις δε και ταυτα φερεται· Αναστας etc. item 1: εν τισι μεν των αντιγραφ. εως ωδε πληρουνται ο ευαγγελιστης· εως ου και ευσεβιος ο παμφιλιου εκανονισεν· εν πολλοις δε - ut ante. Item 20: εντευψεν εως του τελους εν τισι των αντιγραφων ου κειται· εν δε τοις αρχαιοις παντα απαραλειπτα κειται. Addere his placet quod ex tribus codicibus (239. 259. 237.) Matthaeius (epp. ad Thess. et ad Timoth. 1785. p. 228) laudavit, adscriptum ad Ioh. 21:12. Est enim eiusmodi ut ultimam partem evang. Marci, de qua quaeritur, excludat. Extrema eius Scholii verba sunt: ως εκ τουτου παριστασθαι ζ́ ειναι τας εις τους μαθητας μετα την αναστασιν γεγονυιας οπτασιας του σωτηρος ημων ιυ. χυ.· μιαν μεν παρα τω ματθαιω, τρεις δε παρα τω ιωαννη, και τρεις παρα τω λουκα ομοιως. Prorsus igitur praeteritur Marcus.
      4) accedunt patrum testimonia, Severiant Hesychiihier Victorisant Euthymii, inprimis vero omnium gravissima Eusebii et Hieronymi. Severo enin adscribuntur in excerptis cod. Coisl. 23. (saec. 10.) item ap Galland 11,226. haec: εν μεν ουν τοις ακριβεστεροις αντιγραφοις (Gall των αντιγραφων) το κα. μαρκ. ευαγγ. μεχρι του· εφοβ. γαρ εχει το τελος· εν δε τισι προσκειται και ταυτα· αναστας V 1, p 405 etc. Eadem prorsus verba in orat. II. in resurr. habentur quam in Nysseni opp. (vide 2,841) ediderunt, nuper vero Hesychiohrs adscribere maluerunt. Hesych porro qu. 52. (Cotel. 3,45) haec: μαρκος μεν εν επιτομω τα μεχρι του ενος αγγελου διελθων τον λογον κατεπαυσεν. Victori vero in catenis etmosq etposs (inoxon non additur nomen) adsribuntur, quorum modo priora modo posteriora (inde a παρα πλειστοις) in scholia transiere. Habent autem sic: επειδη εν τισι των αντιγραφ. προσκειται τω κα. μαρκ. ευαγγελιω· αναστας etc, δοκει δε τουτο διαφωνειν των υπο του ματθ. ειρημενω, ερουμεν, ως δυνατον ην ειπειν, οτι νενοθευται το παρα μαρκω τελευταιον εν τισι φερομενον. πλην ινα μη δοξωμεν επι το ετοιμον πεφυγεναι, ουτως αναγνωσομεθα· αναστας δε, και υποστιξαντες επαγομεν· πρω τη μια etc. παρα πλειστοις αντιγρ. ου κεινται ταυτα τα επιφερομενα εν τω κα. μαρκ. ευαγγ.· ως νοθα γαρ ενομισαν αυτα τινες ειναι· ημεις δε εξ ακριβων αντιγρ. ως εν πλειστοις ευροντες αυτα κατα το παλαιστιναιον ευαγγ. μαρκου, ως εχει η αληθεια συντεθεικαμεν και την εν αυτω εοιφερομενην δεσποτικην αναστασιν μετα το· εφοβουντο γαρ. (Cf et. in Maxim. bibl. pp. Lugdun. 4,414: At quia in quibusdam wvglii Marci exemplaribus habetur: Surgens autem Iesus, etc.) Rursus Euthym ad 16:8 adnotat: φασι δε τινες των εξηγητων ενταυθα συμπληρουσθαι το κα. μαρκ. ευαγγελιον· τα δε εφεξης προσθηκην ειναι μεταγενεστεραν. χρη δε και ταυτην ερμηνευσαι μηδεν τη αληθεια λυμαινομενην. Eusebius vero in quaestionibus ad Marinum (ap Mai. pp. nov. coll. tom. IV. p. 255), propisita quaestione: πως παρα μεν τω ματθαιω οψε σαββατων φαινεται εγηγερμενος ο σωτηρ, παρα δε τω μαρκω πρωι τη μια των σαββατων, respondit: τουτου διττη αν ειη η λυσις. ο μεν γαρ το κεφαλαιον αυτο την τουτο φασκουσαν περικοπην ασετων ειποι αν μη εν απασιν αυτην φερεσθαι τοις αντιγραφοις του κατα μαρκ. ευαγγελιου· τα γουν ακριβη των αντιγραφ, το τελος περιγραφει της κα. μαρκ. ιστοριας εν τοις λογοις του οφθεντος νεανισκου ταις γυναιξι και ειρηκοτος αυταις. μη φοβεισθε· ιν. ζητειτε τον ναζαρηνον, και τοις εξης, οις επιλεγει· και ακουσαι εφυγον και ουδενι ουδεν ειπον· εφοβουντο γαρ. εν τουτω γαρ σχεδον εν απασι τοις αντιγραφοις του κα. μαρκ. ευαγγ. περιγεγραπται το τελος· τα δε εξης σπανιως εν τισιν, αλλ ουκ εν πασι φερομενα περιττα αν ειη, και μαλιστα ειπερ εχοιεν αντιλογιαν τη των λοιπων ευαγγελιστων μαρτυρια. ταυτα μεν ουν ειποι αν τις παραιτουμενος και παντη αναιρων περιττον ερωτημα. Praeterea idem Eusebius in scholio catenaemosq (a Victore?) scripsisse dicitur: κατα μαρκον μετα την αναστασιν ου λεγεται ωφθαι τοις μαθηταις. Denique Hieronymus in epist. ad hedibiam (ep. CXX.) quaest. 3 (ed. Vallars. 1,825) scribit haec: Aut non recipimus Marci testimonium, quod in raris fertur evv., omnibus Graeciae libris pene hoc capitulum in fine non habentibus, praesertim cum diversa atque contraria evglistis caeteris narrare videatur: aut hoc respondendum quod uterque (Mt et Mc) verum dixerit. Rursus idem Hier contr. Pelagian. scribit: In quibusdam et maxime in Graecis cdd iuxta Marcum in fine eius evangelii V 1, p 406 scribitur: Postea quum accubuissent undecim — non crediderunt. (Est Vallars II, 759. Vide post ad v. 14.)
      5) nec Ammonii sectionibus nec Eusebii canonibus agnoscuntur ultimi versus. Codices enim plures gravissimi et Graeci et Latini ultra v. 8. vel 9. numeros Ammonii Eusebiique appositos non habent; alii rursus suppletos esse posterioribus curis inde docent quod ex parte tantum adscripiti sunt, ac plerumque sic ut sectio absque canone vel non cum iusto canone notetur. Ita AU ultimos numeros habent 232,2 ad versum 6: אLS 233,2 ad versum 8, quae notatio ipsis Ammonio et Eusebio deberi videtur, comprobata etiam Epiphanii et Caesarii testimoniis: Γ 232,2. ad versum 6; 233 et 234, sed utrumque sine canone, ad vv. 8 et 9: item Π 232,2 ad versum 6; 233,2 ad versum 8; 234,8 ad versum 9: Δ 233,2 ad versum 8; 234,10 ad versum 13. Similiter 127. 129. 132. 133. 134. 137. 169. 186. 188. 195. 371. alii multi. Alii permu post 233,2 addunt tantum numeros fere quattuor, ut tisch2. 234,2 ad versum 9; 235,8 ad versum 12; 236 sine canone ad versum 13; 237 sine canone ad versum 15; tisch(4.) 234,8 ad versum 9; 235 et 236 sine canone ad vv. 10 et 12. Plenum vero numerorum, nisi quod canones partim desunt, supplementum iam in codd habetur CEKV, in quibus ad versum 20 appositus est num. 241 (E addito canone 2), atque in HM, ubi 240 ad vers. 19 notatur. In M nullus canon additur ad 235 (236,10), 237,238, 239,240. Ex Latinis cdd. praeter omnes Amiatinus laudandus, qui ultimos numeros 233,2 ad vers. 8 appositos habet, prorsus ut אLS. Nec magis in canonum indice (vide nostrum) Marxi sectiones ultra numerum 233 procedunt. Alibi vero (cf quem Millius exhibuit) codem modo fluctuat sectionum numerus quo notatio codicum marginalis. Confirmant autem prorsus sententiam nostram, ex qua Ammonius cum Eusebio sectionem ultra 233,2 (ad v. 9) nullamm agnovit, Epiphanius (ancor. 50 τεσσαρα εισιν ευαγγελια κεφαλαιων 1162) et Caesarius (dialog. 1,39; ap Gall6,26 τεσσαρα ημιν υπαρχει ευαγγελια κεφαλιαων 1162): quippe enim summam capitulorum in 4 evv. 1162 dicentes, Marco non possunt plus 233 tribuere (Mt 355, Lc 342, Ioh. 232).
      Quae testimonia aliis corroborantur argumentis, ut quod conlatis prioribus versu 9. parum apte adduntur verba: αφ ης εκβεβληκει etc, item quod singula multifariam a Marci ratione abhorrent. (quam diverso textu antiqui versus 15 et 20 legerint, vide post.)
      Quod vero tam cumulatis testimoniis pondus est, id minime eo minuitur quod iam Irenaeus additamentum de quo quaeritur novit. Nec enim, ut in Prolegg. satis probasse nobis videmur, post irenaeum, quocum etiam Syrus Curetoni et Latinus sigla n notatus hac in re faciunt, sed ante eius tempora textus apostolici mutationes atque interpolationes longe plurimae ac gravissimae factae sunt. Neque contra valet quod antiqui de dissensione notarunt, quae esse videatur horum versuum cum evv. reliquis; talem enim dissensionem ad Marci librum tam misere multilandum adduxisse quempian et quidem tanto cum succesu prorsus incredibile est, nec ullo probari V 1, p 407 potest exemplo. Quae quum ita sint, sanae erga sacrum textum pietati adversari videntur qui pro apostolicis venditare pergunt quae a Marxo aliena esse tam luculenter docemur.
      Patrum igitur qui agnoscunt antiquissimus est Irenaeus, qui, ut certe interpres testatur, adv. haer. III, 10,6 affert 16:19.G Accedunt Hipp περι χαρισματων, ubi 16:17–18 laudantur, Const (VIII, 1,1 eadem cum Hipp habent, praeterea 16:16. VI, 15,3), Caesardial 4,193 (16:16) Iacnisib 1,13G (16:16–18). Contra frustra ad Clemrom et Clemalex provocarunt, ad Ammonium et Tatianum in harmoniis (quae enim supersunt, vix quicquam cum Amm aut Tat commune habent), ad Celsi ap Or ig (utuntur Celsi verbis his; τις τουτο [οτι νεκρος ανεστη και τα σημεια της κολασεως εδειξεν] ειδε; γυνη παροιστρος, ως φατε, και ει τις αλλος etc.) Paullo plus probabilitatis habet Iustini testimonium, qui verbis (Apol. 1,450 ον απο Ιερουσαλημ οι αποστολοι αυτου εξελθοντες πανταχου εκηρυξαν ad v. 20 alludisseG videtur. Quod idem Christum ανεληυθοτα εις τους ουρανους dicit, minus valet. Praeterea ex cdd et vv testes hi habent: ACDEFwGH (a v. 14 inde)K(L vide supra)MSUVXΓΔΠ al fere omn c ff2. g1.2. l nG q vg cop (etiam ex sahaskw v. 20 sed satis a textu vulgato diversus affertur, vide post) go (deficit a v. 12) syrcu (rursus incipit a v. 17) syrsch etp txt syrhr armed (sed cdd antiqui qui habent novo hos versus titulo "ευαγγελ. κα. μαρκ." praefigunt) aethedd.
       
      george
      gfsomsel

      … search for truth, hear truth,
      learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
      defend the truth till death.


      - Jan Hus
      _________
      From: james_snapp_jr <voxverax@...>
      To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Sunday, September 4, 2011 5:08 AM
      Subject: [textualcriticism] Mk 16:9-20 and a Video on Some Patristic Evidence

       
      George,

      GFS: "It is more likely that it was due to the Western order of the gospels and that Mark ended the series."

      No matter how many times that is repeated, it is still not going to make any sense. I ask you the same thing I asked Dr. Warren: since leftover blank space at the end of any Gospels-MS would be a natural and nigh-inevitable feature, why would it occur to any copyist that such leftover space was a notable feature which should be preserved in a copy in which the Gospels were in a different order?

      GFS: "Your video regarding the Long Ending of Mark is incorrect when you say that only 2 manuscripts fail to contain it.  The versions such as the Armenian, Ethiopic and Arabic also lack it."

      If you could point out the specific statement to which you are referring I could more easily double-check this. Iirc, I specify in the videos that I am referring to undamaged Greek manuscripts.

      Why are you saying that "the Arabic" lacks Mk. 16:9-20?

      And why are you saying that the Ethiopic also lack it?

      (And, it is an oversimplification to say that "the Armenian" lacks Mk. 16:9-20; a significant slice of the Armenian copies lack the passage, but more include it, and some include it as a separate reading for Ascension-Day. Hundreds of Armenian copies have been catalogued since Colwell's 1937 essay and the subject needs to be revisited. Also, Eznik of Golb (in about 440, hundreds of years before the earliest extant Armenian copy of Mk. 16 was made) used Mk. 16:17-18 in his composition "De Deo." And the famous Etchmiadzin Gospels 229 (now Matenadaran 2374) has 16:9-20; this copy's colophon states that it is based on a very ancient exemplar, and the ivory covers and pictures bear this out. So it seems clear that there is no "the Armenian;" there are (at least) two Armenian texts of the Gospels, and both go back to the 400's.)

      I include here, as a Post-Script, a couple of excerpts (without their footnotes) from the chapter on "Phantom Evidence" in my book, "Authentic: The Case for Mark 16:9-20."

      Yours in Christ,

      James Snapp, Jr.

      *****************
      (12) Arabic Lectionary 13 (Date: around 800.) This Arabic lectionary-text stored at the Vatican Library was cited in the 1800's by Scrivener, Hammond and others as a witness for the non-inclusion of 16:9 to 20. However, Metzger explains: "Since, however, through an accidental loss of leaves the original hand of the manuscript breaks off just before the end of Mark 16.8, its testimony is without significance in discussing the textual problem." C. R. Williams likewise concludes, after reviewing the details about this witness that were brought to light by J. P. P. Martin, that is it merely a damaged manuscript, and it actually shows that before the manuscript was damaged, the text of Mark continued after 16:8, on a page that is now lost.

      *************

      (14) The Ethiopic Version (Date: 300's to 600's, mainly late medieval attestation). Most extant Ethiopic manuscripts were produced in medieval times, but their testimony is significant because they descend from a translation made in Ethiopia sometime between the 300's and 600's. Contrary to the claims of many commentators, all undamaged Ethiopic manuscripts of the Gospel of Mark contain Mark 16:9 to 20. Bruce Metzger made this clear: "It has often been stated that three Ethiopic manuscripts, now in the British Museum, lack the last twelve verses of Mark. This statement, made originally by D. S. Margoliouth and reported by William Sanday in his Appendices ad Novum Testamentum Stephanicum (Oxford, 1889), p. 195, is erroneous."

      Metzger made this point in different words in The Early Versions of the New Testament: "The present writer, having examined the ending of Mark in sixty-five Ethiopic manuscripts, discovered that none, contrary to statements made by previous investigators, closes the Gospel at 16:8, but that most (forty-seven manuscripts) present the so-called shorter ending directly after verse 8, followed immediately by the longer ending (verses 9 to 20)."

      Those statements reflect the thorough research which he conducted as he prepared a major essay, "The Gospel of St. Mark in Ethiopic Manuscripts," which appeared in New Testament Tools and Studies, Vol. Ten, in 1980. In this essay he demonstrated that in 1889 William Sanday had perpetuated errors made by two other researchers (D. S. Margoliouth and A. C. Headlam) in a collation of twelve Ethiopic manuscripts made by D. S. Margoliouth and edited by A. C. Headlam, and as a result, a claim was spread to the effect that "three Ethiopic manuscripts in the British Museum (namely codices Add. 16,190, Or. 509, 513) omit the longer ending (Mark 16:9 to 20), and that seven other manuscripts (namely Or. 510, 511, 512, 514, 516, 517, 518)" conclude the Gospel of Mark with only the Short Ending." When Metzger personally checked the listed manuscripts, though, he made a surprising discovery: "The three manuscripts which are said to omit verses 9 to 20 in reality contain the passage. Furthermore, an examination of the seven manuscripts disclosed that, instead of replacing the longer ending with the shorter ending, these witnesses actually contain both the shorter ending and the longer ending."

      The many interesting observations made by Metzger in his 1980 essay include the following:
      *** The oldest dated Ethiopic manuscript that contains the Short Ending was made in 1343.
      *** The oldest undated Ethiopic manuscript that contains the Short Ending was made in the 1200's.
      *** One Ethiopic manuscript at the Chester Beatty Library (Ethiopic Manuscript 912), made in the 1700's, ends the Gospel of Mark near the end of 16:8, but Metzger explains that "it is certain that the manuscript in its present state is fragmentary and that originally it continued with additional textual material."

      Metzger concluded, after combining his own results with the research of William F. Macomber, S. J., that "Of the total of 194 (65 + 129) manuscripts, all but two (which are lectionaries) have Mark 16:9 to 20, while 131 manuscripts contain both the Shorter Ending and the Longer Ending." The effects of the mistake in a collation published in 1889 are still detectable in commentaries, from Tischendorf and Warfield to, in more recent times, Robert G. Bratcher and Eugene A. Nida, who wrote that Mark 16:9 to 20 is omitted "by important codices of the Armenian, Ethiopic, and Georgian versions." Unfortunately, although Metzger published these results in 1980, his influential book The Text of the New Testament continues to state that "a number of manuscripts of the Ethiopic version" lack Mark 16:9 to 20, even in the editions that were published in 1992 and 2005.

      The evidence described by Dr. Metzger shows that all unmutilated Ethiopic manuscripts of Mark known to exist contain 16:9 to 20. It also suggests that some time after the Gospel of Mark was translated into Ethiopic (with Mark 16:9 to 20 immediately following 16:8), the Short Ending intruded into the Ethiopic text-stream from somewhere else, and was adapted as a liturgical flourish to conclude a lection-unit which would otherwise conclude at the end of 16:8; at first the Short Ending (in its later form, with the variant "appeared to them") was in the margin, but it was inserted between 16:8 and 16:9 in the later Ethiopic manuscripts.

      **************



    • Diana Fulbright
      Gethsemane – Γεθσημανη / Γεθσημανει is English transliteration of Greek transliteration of Hebrew / Aramaic גת שמנ שמנא –
      Message 38 of 38 , Sep 15, 2011
      • 0 Attachment

        GethsemaneΓεθσημανη / Γεθσημανει is English transliteration of Greek transliteration of Hebrew / Aramaic גת   שמנ \ שמנא Geth shemen – “oil press”.

         

        Diana Fulbright

         

        rom: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com [mailto:textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Johnny Hawkins
        Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 14:56
        To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: [textualcriticism] Gethsemane


        Could someone tell me what language Gethsemane is. I thought it was Latin, but I checked several references and there is some contradiction.
        Thanks,
        Johnny

         



        --
        This message has been scanned for viruses and
        dangerous content by the globalweb.net MailScanner and is
        believed to be clean.

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