[textualcriticism] early and late evidences for the Markan resurrection account of Jesus
- Hi Folks,
George Somsel to James Snapp,
You continue to pile one LATE witness to acceptance of the LE of Mark upon another LATE witness. It would seem to be a logical conclusion that if such support for a LE of Mark only appears at a LATE time that it is present at a LATE time for a reason, viz because it was at a LATE time that certain elements were lobbying for acceptance of the LE. This is in contrast to a total silence regarding the LE at an earlier time.
This is a bit puzzling.
Could you first simply explain what is the EARLY or NON-LATE period ?
Starting and ending years.
As a simple example .. are the Old Latin manuscripts LATE due to the date of, (e.g after 400 AD) ... or EARLY due to the text they represent ?
Are references from Ante-Nicene authors EARLY, LATE, or some other category ?
Also, do you have a vector of transmission analysis of how an installed, fabricated ending would take over a wide array of text-lines ?
Do you have a theory as to when the LATE ending that you posit was installed ?