Re: [textualcriticism] Mark 16:9-20 and the Diatessaron
>George, I am in agreement here. It is likely that Tatian did produceSteven
>the Long ending.
Have you read the Diatessaron section ? You do realize, I hope, that
the Diatessaron is designed as a harmony of the Gospels. Also it was
not in Greek. And while it shows an awareness of the Markan ending,
it is very different from our traditional Mark 16:9-20. In summary,
it is virtually impossible to get to Mark 16:9-20 from the
Diatessaron, but it is easy to see Mark 16:9-20 as one of the sources
of the Diatessaron harmony.
And, if somehow you could somehow anyway have a theory of Tatian
fabrication of Mark 16:9-20 ... could you describe your transmission
theory from the Tatian fabrication ? Which was likely in Syriac.
Please explain the quick wide-ranging cross-language and
cross-geography acceptance and dissemination, even to the Bible of
Irenaeus a few decades later. (While the primary Bible of Irenaeus
was Latin, he was also Greek fluent.)
Could you describe your transmission theory a bit better ? I asked
this of George, with no response, and then we found out he was
writing tongue-in-cheek, so follow-up did not seem sensible. So the
questions go over to you.
- 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