Mark 16:9-20 and the Diatessaron
- Dear George,
You didn't answer any of my questions:
(1) Are you saying that /Tatian/ composed Mark 16:9-20?
(2) 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??
(3) Where and how are you saying that Mark 16:9-20 originated?
Regarding the Diatessaron: it is correct that we do not have the Diatessaron in the form in which it was initially composed (whether in Greek, or in Syriac). Also unfortunate is that we don't have it in the UBS-GNT textual apparatus anymore! In the second edition of GNT "Diatessaron a, i, n" is listed as support for the inclusion of Mark 16:9-20. In the fourth edition we don't have it, and what's more, we don't have it listed in the apparatus-entry for Mark 16:9-20 (partly due to a thorough revision of the editors' approach to Diatessaronic evidence, as explained on pages 39-40 of the introduction, and partly due to the editors' negligence. The unwise decision to not mention Diatessaronic testimony from the Arabic Diatessaron or from Codex Fuldensis (a decision based on the idea that it would be better to make readers ignorant instead of confused) should not have prevented the editors from including two references to Mark 16:15: one from the Syriac text of Ephraem's commentary and one from the Armenian translation of Ephraem's commentary.
(Btw, can someone tell me why the UBS-GNT Introduction claims that among the available translations of Diatessaronic materials is "a 6th century Arabic translation"?)
In case the implications of my analysis of the arrangement of the narratives in the Arabic Diatessaron and Codex Fuldensis did not register the first and second times I have presented it here again, with some improvements, as a post-script.
Yours in Christ,
James Snapp, Jr.
The Arabic Diatessaron is extant in two manuscripts. They were published in 1888 by Ciasca in "Tatiani Evangeliorum Harmoniae Arabice." These two Arabic copies are known as /A/ and /B/ (not to be confused with Alexandrinus and Vaticanus) in discussions of the Diatessaron; /B/ does not have the genealogies in the text (they are added as an appendix), but /A/ does; for this reason the text in /B/ is thought to reflect Tatian's Diatessaron better than /A/ (since Theodoret of Cyrrhus states that the Diatessaron did not include the genealogies). Copy /B/ was produced in 1043 by a copyist who was using, as his exemplar (master-copy), a manuscript of the Syriac text of the Diatessaron which had been made in 873. So we can reasonably expect the text of the Arabic Diatessaron to have been conformed to some extent to the contents of the Peshitta.
Meanwhile, our best Diatessaronic witness in Latin in Codex Fuldensis, from c. 546. But when Victor of Capua supervised the production of the Gospels-text of Codex Fuldensis, he took the following steps: first, he utilized an Old Latin text which he suspected was a translation of Tatian's Diatessaron. Then he arranged for the Old Latin text of the exemplar to be replaced by the Vulgate text, retaining the arrangement found in the exemplar. So what we have here, for the most part, is a Vulgate text but a Diatessaronic arrangement.
But is this true concerning Mark 16:9-20? Or was Mark 16:9-20 in Codex Fuldensis, and/or in its Old Latin exemplar, an accretion? The way to find out is to compare the arrangement in Codex Fuldensis to the arrangement in the Arabic Diatessaron. And when this is done, we see that they share the same basic arrangement: here is a comparison, in which "AD" = Arabic Diatessaron" and "CF" = Codex Fuldensis.
AD has Mk 16:9 after Jn 20:2 to 17.
CF has part of 16:9 between Jn 20:2 to 10 and 20:11 to 17.
AD uses Mk 16:10 after Lk 24:9.
CF uses Mk 16:10 after Lk 24:9.
AD uses Mk 16:11 between Lk 24:10 and Lk 24:11.
CF uses Mk 16:11 between Lk 24:9 and Lk 24:11.
AD uses Mk 16:12 between Lk 24:11 and Lk 24:13.
CF uses Mk 16:12 between Lk 24:11 and Lk 24:13.
AD uses Mk 16:13b between Lk 24:13b to 35 and part of Lk 24:36.
CF uses Mk 16:13b between Lk 24:13 to 35 and part of Lk 24:36.
AD uses Mk 16:14 between Mt 28:17 and Mt 28:18.
CF uses Mk 16:14 between Mt 28:17 and Mt 28:18.
AD uses Mk 16:15 between Mt 28:18 (with a variant adopted from the Peshitta) and Mt 28:19.
CF uses Mk 16:15 between Mt 28:18 and Mt 28:19.
AD uses Mk 16:16-18 between Mt 28:20 and Lk 24:49.
CF uses Mk 16:16-18 between Mt 28:20 and Lk 24:49.
AD blends "And our Lord Jesus," from Mk 16:19, with Lk 24:50.
CF does not.
AD uses "and sat down at the right hand of God" between Lk 24:51 and Lk 24:52.
CF uses "and sat down at the right hand of God" between Lk 24:51 and Lk 24:52.
AD uses Mk 16:20 between Lk 24:53 and Jn 21:25.
CF uses Mk 16:20 after Lk 24:53 and ends there with "Amen." (Jn 21:25 appears in CF at the end of part 181.)
Both of these witnesses (one from the West, one from the East, fitting the requirements of Petersen's Rule) contain the geographic difficulty that is involved in picturing Jesus and the disciples proceeding from Galilee directly to Bethany. Both picture the scene in Mark 16:14 as occurring in Galilee. Both place "for they were sad and weeping" at the same point. Therefore, the conclusion that Tatian's Diatessaron originally incorporated Mark 16:9 to 20 is entirely justified.
--- In email@example.com, George F Somsel <gfsomsel@...> wrote:
> Also, remember that we don't actually have the diatessaron. What we have are secondary acccounts of the diatessaron. The closest we come is probably Ephrem the Syrian's commentary.
- 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