RE: [textualcriticism] Mark 16:9-20 and the Diatessaron
- I do not think that Tatian is a likely candidate for the
composition of the Long Ending. AFAIK he was not interested
in the edition of the individual Gospels. He did create a
Gospel harmony. Why should he first add something to one of
his source materials?
To get an idea who may have added the Long Ending, one must
first contemplate the following questions and find a likely
1. Why adding it at all? The Gospel of Mark existed already
for probably around 70-100 years without it.
2. Why adding it in the way we have it? One has to admit
that the Long Ending is only awkwardly fitted to the rest of
the Gospel and has certain unusual features that distinguish
it from the rest.
Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
Please check out the TC forum:
- 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