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

Mark 16:17-18, MS Relationships, and 2427

Expand Messages
  • voxverax
    The 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
    Message 1 of 3 , Apr 7 11:45 AM
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      The 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.

      Another thing:

      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.
      (-OUSIN, -OUSIN)
      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?

      Any thoughts?

      Yours in Christ,

      Jim Snapp II
      Curtisville Christian Church
      Indiana, USA
    • Wieland Willker
      Your 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,
      Message 2 of 3 , Apr 8 1:56 AM
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        Your 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
        or distracting.


        > 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.

        It is possible that the words have been omitted, because we have here a
        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.

        Best wishes
        Wieland
        <><
        ------------------------------------------------
        Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
        mailto:willker@...-bremen.de
        http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie
        Textcritical commentary:
        http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/index.html
      • Stephen C. Carlson
        ... What s the current status of 2427? Have the questions about its authenticity been settled? Stephen Carlson -- Stephen C. Carlson
        Message 3 of 3 , Apr 8 6:24 AM
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          At 10:56 AM 4/8/2005 +0200, Wieland Willker wrote:
          >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.

          What's the current status of 2427? Have the questions about its
          authenticity been settled?

          Stephen Carlson
          --
          Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
          Weblog: http://www.hypotyposeis.org/weblog/
          "Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.