- Offhand, I don t recall any usual suspects though this is not really my field so I haven t done much study in the area. I think if one were to name someMessage 1 of 49 , Sep 7, 2012View SourceOffhand, I don't recall any "usual suspects" though this is not really my field so I haven't done much study in the area. I think if one were to name some suspects, Tatian would rise to the top of the list. Now, if you want to discuss the formation of the Pentateuch, I am better prepared there.george
search for truth, hear truth,
learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
defend the truth till death.
- Jan Hus
_________…From: Gary Cummings <comyndoc@...>
Sent: Friday, September 7, 2012 7:20 AM
Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] Mark 16:9-20 and the Diatessaron
George,Someone composed the LE of Mark, and it may have been Tatian. I would not be too shocked if it were him. Whoever did, per many scholars, and I basically agree with them-that the LE author was not Mark, and whoever it was read about the tongue speaking in the book of Acts and of Paul's snakebite when he was ship wrecked. We just do not know who did it. Is there a list of the usual suspects?Thanks, Gary
- 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 thatMessage 49 of 49 , Sep 24, 2012View SourceRoss, 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 email@example.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?
> Ross Purdy