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

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

Expand Messages
  • Wieland Willker
    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.
    Message 1 of 49 , Sep 8 8:45 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      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
      scenario:
      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.


      Best wishes
      Wieland
      <><
      --------------------------
      Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
      http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie
      Textcritical commentary:
      http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/

      Please check out the TC forum:
      http://tcg.iphpbb3.com
    • 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 10:11 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        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.