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

Re: Ambrose, Eusebius, and Mark 16:9-20

Expand Messages
  • james_snapp_jr
    Dear George, Yes, some in the 300 s -- Hierocles, Marinus, Eusebius (using 16:9 spontaneously in Ad Marinum, in addition to the part where he replies to the
    Message 1 of 4 , Oct 5, 2011
      Dear George,

      Yes, some in the 300's -- Hierocles, Marinus, Eusebius (using 16:9 spontaneously in "Ad Marinum," in addition to the part where he replies to the question about how to harmonize Mt. 28:1 and Mk. 16:9), the anonymous author of "Acts of Pilate," the unknown individual who made the Freer Logion, Wulfilas, Ambrose, Jerome (and whoever produced the old Greek MSS he used as the plumbline-text for the Vulgate Gospels), Ephrem Syrus, the author/compiler of "Apostolic Constitutions," Didymus (or an author of "De Trinitate" in his place and time), Epiphanius of Salamis, the composers of Old Latin chapter-summaries, Chromatius, the producers of Greek MSS known to Augustine, and whoever made the lection-system that Augustine used -- were using Mark 16:9-20. And very probably the copyists of B and Aleph were aware of the passage as well, considering B's special blank space and Aleph's replacement-pages' special rate of letters-per-column and special colophon-decoration (as I explain in the video-lecture "Mark 16:9-20 and the Abrupt Ending" at YouTube).

      I don't see how you can possibly say that such widespread external evidence, from the same century in which the earliest extant MS of Mark 16 was produced, "in no way indicates that it was originally a part of the gospel." What evidence do you use to ascertain the quality of the water from a fountain, if you believe that 15 samples of streams from that fountain "in no way indicate" what flowed from it?

      I will set aside your statement about "monomania." This is the second time you have insulted me, and I was hoping that perhaps someone else would comment that your tone is overly personal and unhelpful. (Just imagine the uproar if someone had told Daniel Wallace and William Warren that they need psychological help!) But since no one else has said so, consider it said. I thank you for keeping your psychology-advice to yourself in the future.

      In addition, Ambrose's "Commentary on Luke," and his use of "Ad Marinum," are subjects which merit additional investigation in their own right.

      Yours in Christ,

      James Snapp, Jr.
    • schmuel
      Hi Folks, Dear George, I will set aside your statement about monomania. This is the second time you have insulted me, and I was hoping that perhaps someone
      Message 2 of 4 , Oct 6, 2011
        Hi Folks,

        Dear George, I will set aside your statement about "monomania."  This is the second time you have insulted me, and I was hoping that perhaps someone else would comment that your tone is overly personal and unhelpful.  (Just imagine the uproar if someone had told Daniel Wallace and William Warren that they need psychological help!)  But since no one else has said so, consider it said.  I thank you for keeping your psychology-advice to yourself in the future.

        Steven
        I was ready to say it, but not quite so eloquently :) . A little slow on the uptake, but I was a little surprised to see real solid textual studies dissed in such a dissmissive way.  (At the time, I did not think of it so much as psychological, simply diversionary.)

        Perhaps if a poster was actively correcting the textual establishment on a dozen issues, they might get upset with James for focusing on one.   Yet who is correcting a dozen ?  Maybe, hypothetically, Jan Krans could fault James for not knowing the ins and outs of Erasmus and Beza flawlessly on the ending (note: hypothetical), but I doubt that he would insult James on the work that he actually does, which is pioneering plus.  

        The resurrection account of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark (aka: the last 12 verses, the ending of Mark)  is definitely historically in the Top 5 of Bible text variants, and James has pioneered mightily, and been complimented for his efforts by many.  Even when agreement is only partial (as, e.g Maurice Robinson, who agrees with much of James on his textual and early writer analysis but not the theories of variant formulation.  And I concur with Maurice there.).  Dearsay, some with the traditional Hortian perspective of exclusion probably give at least grudging acknowledgment to what they have learned from the efforts of James on these 12 verses.  Often, I believe, if you learn one issue extremely well, the carry-over to 100 hundred issues can be enormous, and I believe that James is actually an example of this wide ranging perspective developed out of the implications of a singular study.

        Personally, I have had a couple of criticisms of the work of James, once how he used a hypothetical (Codex Washingtonianus was involved, if I remember) to make an argument sans real substance.  And I noticed that James seemed to tone down that analysis by analogy and even critiqued such concepts when used in reverse .. good job James !  The big disagreement is the question of variant origins, we have tussled and grustled, but for now that is for another day, another way.

        Generally the moderation here is quite good, and appreciated, and I realize that freedom of expression is important, but when a puerile attempt is made to shut up a deep question with a type of psycho-babble, count me in as one that protesteth.

        On this one I would like to give James 100% support, without diverting the forum too much unnecessarily away from the Topics du Jour.

        Shalom,
        Steven Avery
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.