Re: [textualcriticism] Mark 16:9-20 and the Diatessaron - equality in speculation is no vice, probabilities mangled are no virtue
- Steven,I hold to a date in the 40's for Mark, but a later date for Luke. Luke does mention looking at other Gospels, and that probably meant he looked at both Mark and Matthew while writing his Gospel.The order of importance for me in determining whether a text is genuine is this:(1) Early extant manuscripts (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus) have precedence over 1,000's of later manuscripts.(2) early translations , many early translations omit the LE(3) quotes form church fathers. Tatian does have this in his Diatessaron (but we do not know the source) Other church fathers obliquely refer to the LE, and other church fathers are much later than the composition of Mark.(4) Alternative texts. That fact that there are alternative endings to Mark indicate, that the early church was never in consensus about the proper ending of Mark. They have always been nervous about that.(5) I have already mentioned antiquity as a rule of textual criticism. There are also the concepts of "the more "difficult translation" and the "shorter" text having priority over smoother textual variants and longer textual variants. The text we know for sure which belong to Mark ends at verse 8, and this meets both of those translation rules. In fact all three have been met: the older extant text, the more difficult text, and the shorter text. That plus all the other evidence I have mentioned verifies to me that the LE is a manufactured text to meet the need of having a "proper" ending to Mark.Steven, this just boils down to the old tired arguments in favor of the Majority Text vs the Critical Text, and I have no interest in going down that rabbit hole. 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 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