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

Re: [textualcriticism] Mark 16:9-20 and the Diatessaron

Expand Messages
  • George F Somsel
    Steven,   I was writing tongue-in-cheek only because making a categorical pronouncement that I thought Tatian was the author of the LE is purely
    Message 1 of 49 , Sep 7, 2012
      Steven,
       
      I was writing tongue-in-cheek only because making a categorical pronouncement that I thought Tatian was the author of the LE is purely speculation.  The assertion that the LE was original is equally speculative since internal evidence indicates the contrary.  Gary was correct in indicating that there are adumbrations of the LE in Acts which is probably the source of some of the statements in the LE.
       
      Mark 16.17 f
      And these signs will accompany those who believe: by using my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18 they will pick up snakes in their hands, and if they drink any deadly thing, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover."
       
      Acts 28.1-5
      After we had reached safety, we then learned that the island was called Malta. 2 The natives showed us unusual kindness. Since it had begun to rain and was cold, they kindled a fire and welcomed all of us around it. 3 Paul had gathered a bundle of brushwood and was putting it on the fire, when a viper, driven out by the heat, fastened itself on his hand. 4 When the natives saw the creature hanging from his hand, they said to one another, "This man must be a murderer; though he has escaped from the sea, justice has not allowed him to live." 5 He, however, shook off the creature into the fire and suffered no harm.
       
      It is likely that Acts was not composed until around the end of the 1st cent or the beginning of the 2nd. 
       
      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: Steven Avery <stevenavery@...>
      To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Friday, September 7, 2012 6:06 AM
      Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] Mark 16:9-20 and the Diatessaron

       
      Hi,

      Gary Cummings
      >George, I am in agreement here. It is likely that Tatian did produce
      >the Long ending.

      Steven
      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.

      Thanks.

      Shalom,
      Steven Avery
      Bayside, NY



    • 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
        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.