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

Re: Some Inaccuracies in Tischendorf's Notes

Expand Messages
  • yennifmit
    Hi All, I ve been looking at the UBS4 apparatus entry which covers the omission of the long ending of Mark. Support for the omission is listed as: Aleph, B,
    Message 1 of 38 , Sep 6, 2011
      Hi All,

      I've been looking at the UBS4 apparatus entry which covers the omission of the long ending of Mark. Support for the omission is listed as: Aleph, B, 304, syr-s, cop-sa-ms, arm-mss, geo-1, geo-A, Eusebius, mss acc. to Eusebius, Epiphanius 1/2, Hesychius, mss acc. to Severus, Jerome, mss acc. to Jerome. James Snapp Jr. points out that one of these might be in error. (If he is right then Epiphanius 1/2 should be Epiphanius 0/2).

      Leaving the patristic evidence to one side, the manuscript and versional evidence is starting to look pretty thin to me. I am thinking this way because of the clustering that evidently occurs among witnesses of Mark:

      http://www.tfinney.net/Views/cmds/Mark-UBS2.gif
      http://www.tfinney.net/Views/dc/Mark-UBS2.png

      According to the MDS map (the whirling cube), Aleph, B, cop, and Eusebius are in one textual variety (let's label it "B") while syr-s, arm, geo are in another (let's label it "C"). If arm and geo are based on the Old Syriac then syr-s, arm, and geo collapse into one early textual variety ("C"). If Aleph and B were both produced as part of Constantine's order for manuscripts from Eusebius (as Theodore Skeat thought) then the coincidence of Eusebius, Aleph, and B becomes less compelling. Eusebius may have been suspicious of the long ending and therefore left it out of copies he was responsible for producing to fill Constantine's order. Byzantine witnesses (let's label them as cluster "A") and the Old Latins (cluster "D") support the longer ending. Viewing things from the perspective of four early textual varieties therefore makes the question of whether or not to include the long ending of Mark a 50:50 split, if the four varieties are given equal weight. Another consideration is that the "B" and "C" clusters are themselves split over this reading, which tips the balance towards accepting the long ending. Again, this is only if the four varieties are given equal weight.

      These are purely external considerations (i.e. based on which witnesses have what reading). Internal considerations (i.e. the nature of the text rather than its witnesses) make the long ending of Mark look like an addition, which may be why it was dropped by some editors.

      Best,

      Tim Finney

      --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, George F Somsel <gfsomsel@...> wrote:
      >
      > Unless you have a different edition of Metzger other than the revised 2nd edition, it would seem that your citation is the one which is a phantom.  Elsewhere Metzger does note that there are some pages missing from the Arabic which compromise its value at this point (p 102, n 3).  I'm willing to forgoe that witness, but there can be no question regarding א and  B.  When these two agree, the matter is virtually settled.  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.  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 where handkerchiefs are spoken of as being carried to the homebound and even the shadow of the apostles was said to effect healing which is something not found elsewhere in any of the gospels.  It would appear that Acts was written around
      > a.d. 100 or slightly later. 
      >  
      > You can continue to attempt to rehabilitate the ending of Mark or you can acknowledge the truth that it was not a part of the original gospel.  I realize that you are suffering under an obsession regarding this matter, and I can recommend a good psychiatrist who may be able to help you overcome this obsession, but that is your decision. 
      >
      >  
      > 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: Monday, September 5, 2011 10:01 AM
      > >Subject: [textualcriticism] Some Inaccuracies in Tischendorf's Notes
      > >
      > >
      > >  
      > >
      > >George,
      > >
      > >Simply posting an excerpt from Tischendorf's notes in his 8th Greek NT does not make those notes accurate. Read Metzger's 1980 essay in NT Tools & Studies, which I already mentioned, and you will see that the Ethiopic references which Tischendorf provided are phantoms. (If you don't have that handy, try the footnote on p. 123 of Metzger's Textual Commentary.) Also, the evidence from Arabic lectionary 13 at the Vatican Library, which is also in Tischendorf's list, is also a phantom, as Williams explained in his Appendices essay (which is accessible online) almost 100 years ago.
      > >
      > >So you have a choice, George: you can continue repeating these claims from Tischendorf's notes, and keep on telling people that some Ethiopic copies, and an Arabic copy at the Vatican, conclude Mark at the end of 16:8, followed by the closing book-title. Or you can tell the truth. But you can't do both at the same time.
      > >
      > >While Tischendorf's notes are in front of us, it may be an opportune time to observe a few examples of how his misstatements have been handed down: his statement about 137 and 138 seems to have been interpreted as if it means that 137 and 138 have athetizing asterisks alongside Mk. 16:9-20, but Burgon had a friend double-check such a claim (handed down from Birch) and Burgon states in "Last 12 Verses of Mark," chapter 8, that the facts are otherwise; according to Burgon, 137 has a "+" that refers the reader to a similarly-marked margin-note (which, unfortunately, he did not explicitly cite, but only stated that it is to the effect that the passage is undoubtedly genuine. I suspect that this may be a catena based on the note in Victor of Antioch's Commentary.). And, according to Burgon, 138 has neither an asterisk nor a cross, "but contains the same scholion attesting the genuineness of the last twelve verses of Mark."
      > >
      > >Tischendorf's reference to Jacob of Nisibis is really a reference to Aphrahat's First Demonstration. Although Burgon pointed in 1871 out that this was a miscitation, Jacob of Nisibis was still being cited in the second edition of the UBS GNT.
      > >
      > >Deep in Tischendorf's notes, you will find a reference to a statement by Epiphanius, from "Ancor. 50." This appears to be what was represented in the 4th edition of the UBS GNT as "Epiphanius 1/2." But it is simply a statement about how many sections are in the Eusebian canons for each Gospel; that is, Epiphanius is not quoting Mark here; he is stating the number of Sections in the Eusebian Canons, so it is essentially nothing but a statement/arrangement from Eusebius, recorded by Epiphanius -- and Epiphanius explicitly says elsewhere that Mark says that Jesus ascended to heaven and sat at the right hand of the Father. A comparison of the apparatus for Mark 16:9-20 in the second and fourth editions of the GNT will reveal numerous differences between the two. It looks like this reference to "Epiphanius 1/2" was included in the fourth edition as padding, even though it crumbles at a touch, because after all the false and inflated references in the
      > second edition were removed, the list of witnesses for the non-inclusion of Mk. 16:9-20 was looking rather thin.
      > >
      > >Yours in Christ,
      > >
      > >James Snapp, Jr.
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      >
    • Diana Fulbright
      Gethsemane – Γεθσημανη / Γεθσημανει is English transliteration of Greek transliteration of Hebrew / Aramaic גת שמנ שמנא –
      Message 38 of 38 , Sep 15, 2011

        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.