Re: Some Inaccuracies in Tischendorf's Notes
On page 123 of my copy of Metzger's "A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament" -- a 1975 Corrected Edition -- Metzger affirms, in a footnote, that the much-parroted claim that three Ethiopic manuscripts now in the British Museum lack the last 12 verses of Mark is erroneous. Double-check and let me know if you still can't find it in your copy (just about the note about Arabic 13), and I can provide a quotation of it for you. But it would be best to consult the 1980 article in NT Tools & Studies! (Possibly if you Google-search through Metzger's "Versions" you may find a repetition of the same material.)
After describing the Ethiopic evidence, Metzger goes on to say that the Arabic copy that Tischendorf listed is actually only a damaged copy, and that its text "breaks off just before the end of Mk 16.8." Metzger also mentions the same "Appendices" article by Clarence Williams that I mentioned, in which, on pages 398-399, more details about this Arabic copy can be found. As I said, and as Metzger affirms in his brief note, this is only a damaged copy -- and thus, to Metzger, it is "without significance." He is echoing Williams, who said, after presenting J.P.P. Martin's description of the pertinent part of this copy, "We find, therefore, that Arabic 13 is in reality of no significance in discussing this question." (I note the strange way in which it suddenly becomes unimportant when it turns not to support the abrupt ending!)
Metzger's admission about the Ethiopic evidence is, as I said, in the same footnote. Let me know if you still can't find it in your copy.
GFS: "There can be no question regarding Aleph and B. When these two agree, the matter is virtually settled."
I'm not sure how we have jumped from a brief note that there is a clipped-away leftover page in B after Tobit, to an analysis of Tischendorf's notes, to a statement that Aleph + B = original text. We will never get anywhere with this sort of hyperspace-jump method of discussion. Perhaps another time we can revisit your claim about Aleph and B.
GFS: "There also can be no doubt that the passage Mk 16.9-end is different in character from that of the rest of the gospel."
And likewise there can be no doubt that Jeremiah 52 is different in character from the rest of the book, and that Psalm 88 is different in character from some psalms of praise, and that Proverbs 30 is different in character from other parts of Proverbs. That does not make these portions unoriginal, or post-production accretions. Nor does the non-transition in Mk. 16:9 indicate that it cannot have been added during the production-stage.
GFS: "It reeks of a later time when a hagiography was being developed and miraculous occurences were attributed to the apostles as well as to Jesus Christ -- such is found in Acts . . . It would appear that Acts was written around a.d. 100 or slightly later."
Is that actually your view. Just out of curiosity: what do you see as the composition-date of the Gospel of Luke?
Despite its leaps from subject to subject, this brief discussion about the blank space in B after Tobit, and about the actual testimony of the Ethiopic version, has been fascinating.
Yours in Christ,
James Snapp, Jr.
Gethsemane – Γεθσημανη / Γεθσημανει is English transliteration of Greek transliteration of Hebrew / Aramaic גת שמנ \ שמנא – Geth shemen – “oil press”.
rom: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com] On Behalf Of Johnny Hawkins
Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 14:56
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.
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by the globalweb.net MailScanner and is
believed to be clean.