Mark 16:9-20 and Justin Martyr
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, George F Somsel <gfsomsel@...> wrote:
> 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?"
> YourÂ previous postÂ implies that simply because Justin wrote similar things to what is in the LE that he must have been familiar with it.Â It is equally as possible that the LE was composed by using the phrases which he had already used.Â This is similar to the argument that because something succeeds something else it therefore must be because of that.Â This is a logical fallacy as is your contention that the similarity of language indicates acquaintance.Â I would say that the author of the LE was familiar with Justin.Â The MSS evidence would support such a contention.Â Can you show me any manuscript evidence that proves the existence of the LE prior to Justin?Â Obviously not or you would have already done so.
If "the LE was composed by using the phrases which (Justin) had already used" then how do you explain it's exsistence in the Diatessaron and amongst the writtings of Ireneaus, Tertullian & Hippolytus in such a timely manner. Furthermore, how could Vicentius in 256 A.D. (approx. 80 years from your theoretic ground zero) stand in the company of eighty-seven Bishops at the Council of Carthage and quote two seperate verses from the passage in question, without one solitary protest, if as you suppose the LE was invented less than a century prior?
Have you ever considered adding Papias into your hypothesis? If not, why?
Again, you state;
"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."
George, why may you traverse these roads when building your hypothesis, but James may not when defending his? Do you not see that your arguments are upon the same lines? Have you not implyed that the "similarity of language" leads you to believe that Justin was used as a source for the LE, and that the author (whoever he may be?) "must have been familiar with it". -And is not succession a vital circumstance in your hypothesis? Your comments imply this rather plainly. "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."
If I may now close my post with a question, namely "can you show me any evidence that proves that the existence of the LE begins with Justin?" Obviously not or you would have already done so, and obviously we could go around in circles until the cows come home.
Matthew M. Rose
- 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 email@example.com, 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