Re: [textualcriticism] James Tabor, Mark 16:9-20, and Something About Mary Magdalene
- James Snapp wrote: "You stated, "Nothing you have written in any way impacts that view." Could you perhaps offer some evidence-based reasons why this is the case?"Your previous post implies that simply because Justin wrote similar things to what is in the LE that he must have been familiar with it. It is equally as possible that the LE was composed by using the phrases which he had already used. This is similar to the argument that because something succeeds something else it therefore must be because of that. This is a logical fallacy as is your contention that the similarity of language indicates acquaintance. I would say that the author of the LE was familiar with Justin. The MSS evidence would support such a contention. Can you show me any manuscript evidence that proves the existence of the LE prior to Justin? Obviously not or you would have already done so.george
search for truth, hear truth,
learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
defend the truth till death.
- Jan Hus
_________…From: Vox Verax <james.snapp@...>
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 6:44 AM
Subject: [textualcriticism] James Tabor, Mark 16:9-20, and Something About Mary Magdalene
First, an update on Dr. Tabor's approach: at
Dr. Tabor announces that he now believes that Jesus probably was married to Mary Magdalene! This view, I believe, is not something he would have arrived at if he had not rejected Mark 16:9-20. The rejection of Mark 16:9-20 is one of the steps he takes as he presents the basis for that view.
Dr. Tabor continues to show that his grasp of the evidence is not very good when he states, "Later manuscripts or copies of Mark add on one of three different alternative endings, composed by editors to try and blunt the abruptness of Mark's original ending." And on the same webpage he continues to spread the falsehoods that Mark 16:9-20 is lacking "in the Old Latin version" (as if Codex Bobbiensis is *the* representative of the OL's text of Mark 16) and that "Even copies of Mark that contain the ending often include notes from the scribe pointing out that it is not in the oldest manuscripts." Having been fed misinformation, he is regurgitating it and is feeding it to his readers and students. If you're not trying to correct the rrors that he is spreading then you are co-operating with them (unless perhaps you are just too busy, but obviously your schedule is not so cramped that it prevents you from responding, however briefly, to my posts here).
Clearly, at least one textual variant is capable of having major doctrinal impact.
Now about your brief response:
My mistake: you are not suggesting that Justin himself attached verses 9-20; instead, you are suggesting that Mark 16:9-20 is based on Justin's words in First Apology (which was composed c. 160)!
Are you sure you want to suggest that? Such an idea would imply that although the Gospel of Mark circulated from 70-160 without Mk. 16:9-20, a localized form that did not exist until after 160 overwhelmed the text that had been circulating for the past 90 years, with the result that by the mid-400's the Justin-influenced form dominated the transmission-streams in Britian, Gaul, North Africa, Italy, Asia Minor, Constantinople, Cyprus, and Syria. In addition, it looks like you would have to posit at least one other source of materials besides Justin to account for the contents of Mark 16:9-20; Justin says nothing, for example, about believers being impervious to poison. Such a theory would also need to explain why 16:9, instead of wrapping up the scene in 16:8, starts the narrative afresh.
You stated, "Nothing you have written in any way impacts that view." Could you perhaps offer some evidence-based reasons why this is the case?
Yours in Christ,
James Snapp, Jr.
- Ross, I just bascially know the bare facts about the Long Ending of Mark. But having done some research (a little) and reading this thread I understand that the Long Ending of Mark is in just about every translation (including the early Syriac Peshitta, which some say is the original behind the "Greek skin.")
As far as the Alternate ending are concerned, (correct me if I am wrong here folks) but only a very small, tiny (minute number) of mansucripts include the alternate Long Endings. IOW, the alternate Long Endings did not reproduce at all in the manuscript copies.
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, Ross Purdy <rossjpurdy@...> wrote:
> Hi Gary,
> On 9/9/2012 10:35 AM, Gary Cummings wrote:
> > Do not forget that many early translations of the NT do not include
> > the LE, and that there are alternative endings to Mark. These two
> > facts speak against the inclusion of the LE as the true ending of Mark.
> Which early translations do not include the LE and what are the
> alternative endings and in what manuscripts do they appear?
> Ross Purdy