[textualcriticism] Mark 16:9-20 and the Diatessaron - equality in speculation is no vice, probabilities mangled are no virtue
As far as dating the New Testament, I lean in the direction of a very early dating of all of the NT Documents. Robertson wrote his famous book on NT Dating and moved all the documents back to pre-AD 70, due to the fact that the Roman Jewish War and the Destruction of the Temple in AD70 is not mentioned in the NT. If the documents occurred after the events, they surely would have mentioned that fact as an apologetic device. Those devastating events would have been mentioned.
And I agree, plus. I believe that Luke was written to the high priest Theophilus about 41 AD. And that Mark was not much after. This is an understanding that can only be held by those who accept early NT dates. (I also believe there are many evidences and interrelationship supports for the early dating of the full NT.)
Interesting discussion. I am a firm believer that the LE is not Markan and was not in the Autographs. .... I think it all comes down to papyri and manuscripts and such,
Do you place the early church writers in the equation ? After all, they predate the earliest extant manuscript evidence by full centuries ! And they speak very strongly to the matter.
My other question is this. Since the NT Mark was written 40-60 AD, and we have early church writer evidences throughout the 2nd and 3rd century, why would a couple of 4th century mss, of limited geographical provenance, and with a known proclivity to dropping text, and with direct evidences of such problems, be particularly important ? Why would a couple of such texts outweigh 5000+ Greek, Latin and Syriac mss ? Is this textual science and logic ?
Now, I realize that your answer might well be to shift back internally to "Markan style". Isn't a bit difficulty to foist a complex style argument on the writing about the most significant event in the history of the world, the resurrection of Jesus Christ ? Doesn't an author have the right to write in a manner enthusiastic about such an event ? And does not the "woman afraid" existential angst ending have its own boatload of stylistic and historical and consistency problems ?
The extant early manuscript evidence is against the inclusion of the LE. I know Bruce Terry of OVU and that he uses the literary concept of "Peak" to justify the inclusion of the LE. I prefer early manuscript evidence and early NT translations to make judgements of this sort. Some of the NT Pseudo-Gospels have a lot of "Peak", but that does not make them canonical. Just google Bruce Terry & the long ending of Mark, and you can get his article and read about peak. I do not know who wrote the LE, but Tatian is one of the usual suspects. Just my ramblings after debating the Johannine Comma with a TR/KJV Only group for a week. Oh well.
- 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