- If you don t wish to consider the possibility that Tatian may have been the author of the LE, that isn t a problem since, as I have noted, there isn t anyMessage 1 of 49 , Sep 7, 2012View SourceIf you don't wish to consider the possibility that Tatian may have been the author of the LE, that isn't a problem since, as I have noted, there isn't any proof regarding that—we are speaking merely of possibility or likelihood. If you wish to therefore contend that the LE is an original part of the gospel, there is proof that such is not the case. you may play ostrich if you like, but that doesn't change the facts.george
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@...>
Sent: Friday, September 7, 2012 9:11 AM
Subject: [textualcriticism] Mark 16:9-20 and the Diatessaron - equality in speculation is no vice, probabilities mangled are no virtue
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.
You use the word "equally" in a funny manner. After all, many fine scholars do see your internal evidence difficulty quite differently. There is a wealth of literature on the topic, from those like John Albert Broadus (1827–1895) and John William Burgon,(1813-1888). And the publications of Richard Lenski (1946 pub) William Farmer (1974 pub), Bruce Terry (1976 and updates) and Maurice Robinson. You may disagree with those gentlemen, yet surely that at least shows that the internal and stylistic issues are wide open, or at least subject to real earnest inquity.
And 99.9% of the Greek, Latin and Syriac mss have the traditional ending. And many ECW support inclusion. Even those opposed tend to write like Hort's "very early addition to the Gospel" and Metzger's idea that the section is canonical even if not autographic.
Now, above you very specifically offered an ultra-speculative and very difficult specific theory, in order to lessen the Diatessaron evidence. Creation by Tatian, and thus a possible explanation of the Diatessaron evidence. Clearly that theory has humongous difficulties, such as immediate and wide cross-language and cross-geography acceptance. Beyond the simple fact that, as far as the evidence we have, Tatian did not actually write the ending in the Diatessaron. He showed awareness of its existence through his harmony, but there was no long quote of the section.
How you can call these two ideas "equally speculative" is a puzzle, good for scholastic speculation. However, let us try to "do the math".
Your earlier usage of the same mathematical equation was:
Your previous post implies that simply because Justin wrote similar things to what is in the LE that he must have been familiar with it. It is equally as possible
Since you are expressing this mathematically, twice, would you be able to give your mathematical probabilities:
a) that the traditional ending is Markan autographic
b) that Tatian composed the traditional ending
If you do not want to answer those questions, I request that you do not use the mathematical "equally" in the probability discussion.
Note: I realize there are some like Bruce Metzger who want to consider the traditional ending as scriptural, canonical and not autographic. However, I would prefer "autographic" to mean "Markan original text".
- 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