Re: Some Inaccuracies in Tischendorf's Notes
- A plain, vol. ii, p. 338-340!
Teunis van Lopik
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "TeunisV" <tvanlopik@...> wrote:
> For 137 and 138 on the longer ending of Mark and the content of the scholion, see Scrivener A plain ...
> There is a line from Birch observations via Griesbach to Tischendorf's apparatus.
> Have in mind: the occurence of the messages in these mss is "per se, an sich" an indication that there was doubt about the passage.
> Teunis van Lopik
> --- In email@example.com, "james_snapp_jr" <voxverax@> wrote:
> > 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.
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.