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

Re: [textualcriticism] Re: Mark 16:9-20 and Justin Martyr

Expand Messages
  • George F Somsel
    That s simple.  Tatian was Justin s pupil.  What else would you expect? george gfsomsel search for truth, hear truth, learn truth, love truth, speak the
    Message 1 of 49 , Sep 3, 2012
    • 0 Attachment

      That's simple.  Tatian was Justin's pupil.  What else would you expect?
       
      george
      gfsomsel

      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@...>
      To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Sunday, September 2, 2012 12:56 PM
      Subject: [textualcriticism] Re: Mark 16:9-20 and Justin Martyr

       
      Dear George,

      In response to the question, "If the LE was composed by using the phrases which (Justin) had already used, then how do you explain its existence in the Diatessaron and amongst the writings of Irenaeus, Tertullian & Hippolytus in such a timely manner," you answered, "You're familiar with the fact that Tatian was a pupil of Justin, I presume. Is it so surprising that he might take the thoughts of his mentor and write them down?"

      Are you saying that /Tatian/ composed Mark 16:9-20?

      Tatian was indeed a student of Justin (before he turned to the dark side), so it is natural to expect Tatian to perpetuate the basic text-form used by his mentor at Rome.

      Now let's put two premises in place:

      (1) Mark 16:9-20 was included by Tatian in the Diatessaron (as I have already explained elsewhere: the way Mark 16:9-20 is blended with Luke 24 in the Arabic Diatessaron matches the way they're blended in Codex Fuldensis despite the resultant geographical difficulty; further evidence that Tatian included Mark 16:9-20 is provided in Ephraem Syrus' commentary on the Diatessaron),
      (2) The Diatessaron was based on a Synoptics-Harmony which Justin used very frequently.

      So either
      (a) Tatian included Mark 16:9-20 in the Diatessaron by perpetuating a feature already in Justin's Synoptics-Harmony, or else
      (b) Tatian included Mark 16:9-20 in the Diatessaron by adding something into Justin's Synoptics-Harmony that had not been there previously.

      Recall what the Diatessaron is supposed to be: a combination of all four Gospels blended together, without repetitions of parallel-accounts. Why would Tatian select some phrases found in Justin's First Apology and incorporate them into such a composition? Or to put it another way: why would Tatian, as he undertook to create a combination of the contents of all four Gospels in one continuous narrative, decide to abandon his main sources in order to insert phrases harvested from Justin's First Apology??

      Tatian sometimes did insert a brief phrase from Justin's Synoptics-Harmony (as for instance in the case of the fire in the Jordan) but we are not talking about a short phrase; we're talking about 12 verses.

      Where and how are you saying that Mark 16:9-20 originated?

      Yours in Christ,

      James Snapp, Jr.

      --- In mailto:textualcriticism%40yahoogroups.com, George F Somsel <gfsomsel@...> wrote:
      >
      > MMR wrote "If "the LE was composed by using the phrases which (Justin) had already used" then how do you explain its existence in the Diatessaron and amongst the writtings of Irenaeus, Tertullian & Hippolytus in such a timely manner." 
      >  
      > You're familiar with the fact that Tatian was a pupil of Justin, I presume.  Is it so surprising that he might take the thoughts of his mentor and write them down?  Remember, we don't have any writings by Sokrates, but Plato put many words in his mouth.
      >
      > george
      > gfsomsel



    • 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.