Mark 16:17-18, MS Relationships, and 2427
- View SourceThe research I've been doing on the Long Ending of Mark continues; at
the Bible-Researcher.com website one may track down a file in which I
respond to Paul Vargas' essay. (Readers who do not enjoy reading
very, very long lines of text across their monitors will wish to cut-
and-paste the entire text into Microsoft Word. Hopefully an improved
format will soon materialize that will make this unnecessary.) I
think the case that 16:9-20 was originally present in the Gospel of
Mark is at least as strong as the case that it is a late accretion.
Meanwhile, I found something mildly interesting involving the
variants at the end of Mark 16:17 and the start of 16:18. Among the
Alexandrian witnesses, C, L, Delta, and Psi omit KAINAIS. 099 omits
the entire phrase GLWSSAIS LALHSOUSIN KAINAIS. In the next verse,
these witnesses are among those which attest to the presence of KAI
EN TAIS CHERSIN.
Here's what I think has happened: 099 is descended from an exemplar
that read like L ~ ... EKBALOUSIN GLWSSAIS LALHSOUSIN (without the
word "KAINAIS"). The scribe of 099 committed a parableptic error; he
went from the -OUSIN at the end of EKBALOUSIN to the -OUSIN at the
end of LALHSOUSIN.
So, the omission in 099 indicates that 099 was made at a stage of
transmission when the word KAINAIS did not appear in the text; 099's
exemplar almost had to read ... EKBALOUSIN GLWSSAIS LALHSOUSIN KAI EN
TAIS ... in order for the stage to be set for such an error.
The Alexandrian form of 16:17-18 omits the word "KAINAIS." It
KAINAIS is original then its omission is explicable; an early scribe
may have skipped from the KAI- at the beginning of KAINAIS to the KAI
at the beginning of 16:18.
But what happened to the phrase KAI EN TAIS CHERSIN in non-
Alexandrian witnesses? Suppose that KAINAIS is not original, or at
least that it has gone missing in the exemplars of the mss without
KAI EN TAIS CHERSIN. The text thus becomes susceptible to an h.t.
error: a careless scribe may skip from the -SIN at the end of the
phrase GLWSSAIS LALHSOUSIN to the -SIN at the end of the phrase KAI
EN TAIS CHERSIN and thus omit the phrase in between.
So, the omission of the phrase KAI EN TAIS CHERSIN seems to have
occurred at a point in transmission later than the non-appearance of
the word KAINAIS.
If KAINAIS is not original, this would simplify things. The omission
of GLWSSAIS LALHSOUSIN in 099 would be accounted for via h.t.
and the omission of KAI EN TAIS CHERSIN is also accounted for via
h.t. (-SIN, -SIN, possible an early line-omission).
The NA27 apparatus says that W, f-13, and the Old Latin support both
the presence of KAINAIS and the absence of KAI EN TAIS CHERSIN. So
does 2427 -- uniquely among Alexandrian witnesses. How is this
accounted for? The simplest answer seems to be that W, f-13, and the
Old Latin descend from a text posterior to L's text; in their
exemplars, KAI EN TAIS CHERSIN had been skipped via h.t. and at some
subsequent point, KAINAIS had been added. (This does not erase the
possibility that KAINAIS is original, but it would seem to mean that
if it is original, it was re-inserted in some witnesses after being
lost in their exemplars or ancestors.)
I can see that in the case of non-Alexandrian witnesses, but what are
the odds that this happened in the case of 2427?
Yours in Christ,
Jim Snapp II
Curtisville Christian Church
- View SourceYour scenario regarding 099 sounds probable.
It is also possible that GLWSSAIS LALHSOUSIN is an idiom ("speaking in
tongues"), compare 1.Co 12:30, 14:6+18, with KAINAIS being superfluous
> The NA27 apparatus says that W, f-13, and the Old LatinIt is possible that the words have been omitted, because we have here a
> support both the presence of KAINAIS and the absence
> of KAI EN TAIS CHERSIN. So does 2427 -- uniquely
> among Alexandrian witnesses.
list. But then, it would only be necessary to omit the KAI, to maintain
the enumeration style.
It is also possible that the words have been added to make clear that
KAINAIS belongs to GLWSSAIS LALHSOUSIN and not to OFEIS AROUSIN.
Since in my view the textual history of the ending(s) of Mark is (at
least in part) different from the rest of the Gospel, it does not help
much to speak of "Alexandrian witnesses" here. Unfortunately the number
of relevant variants is small in the longer ending (about 15), which
makes a grouping difficult.
If one defines the text of C, L as "Alexandrian", then 2427 is certainly
not Alexandrian, but its nearest neighbors are A and f1. It agrees only
once with C, L (adding IHSOUS in verse 19), but disagrees 6 times.
This feature of 2427 (strong Alexandrian in the Gospel and basically
Byzantine in the ending) makes it even more enigmatic.
Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
- View SourceAt 10:56 AM 4/8/2005 +0200, Wieland Willker wrote:
>If one defines the text of C, L as "Alexandrian", then 2427 is certainlyWhat's the current status of 2427? Have the questions about its
>not Alexandrian, but its nearest neighbors are A and f1. It agrees only
>once with C, L (adding IHSOUS in verse 19), but disagrees 6 times.
>This feature of 2427 (strong Alexandrian in the Gospel and basically
>Byzantine in the ending) makes it even more enigmatic.
authenticity been settled?
Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
"Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35