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

Re: James Tabor, Mark 16:9-20, and Early Evidence

Expand Messages
  • Vox Verax
    Dear George, (Perhaps my request for analysis of specific aspects of the evidence was unclear?) You wrote: Can you show me any manuscript evidence that
    Message 1 of 49 , Aug 31, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear George,

      (Perhaps my request for analysis of specific aspects of the evidence was unclear?)

      You wrote: "Can you show me any manuscript evidence that proves the existence of the LE prior to Justin?"

      Of course not! What a question. Can you show me any manuscript evidence, or any patristic evidence, that proves the existence of the abrupt ending prior to the early 300's?

      Meanwhile: any thoughts about the connection between NT textual criticism and Dr. Tabor's Mary-Magdalene-was-Mrs.-Jesus theory?

      Yours in Christ,

      James Snapp, Jr.
    • mikek
      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
      Message 49 of 49 , Sep 24, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        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.

        Mike Karoules
        Georgia, USA

        --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.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?
        >
        > Thanks,
        > Ross Purdy
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.