Re: Mark 16:9-20 and the Diatessaron
I do not have a satisfactory theory of transmission for the LE. I do know it the Diatessaron was in Syriac. Perhaps at some early date, after the Koine Greek, the LE was manufactured in Syriac to account for the possible loss of an ending to Mark after 16:8. I do not think that 16:9-10 came from Q or a Q-like source. I do believe that Luke used Mark to compose his Gospel (and he does not mention tongues, snakes, drinking poison,or baptismal regeneration, which would speak against the LE). Now the LE does have these things I mentioned, and I believe the author of the LE got these inferences from Luke, both in the Gospel (treading on snakes, and the story of taking up serpents from Paul's snakebite in Acts). This is speculation of course, and speculations are a dime a dozen.
--- In email@example.com, Steven Avery <stevenavery@...> wrote:
> Gary Cummings
> >George, I am in agreement here. It is likely that Tatian did produce
> >the Long ending.
> Have you read the Diatessaron section ? You do ree, I hope, that
> the Diatessaron is designed as a harmony of the Gospels. Also it was
> not in Greek. And while it shows an awareness of the Markan ending,
> it is very different from our traditional Mark 16:9-20. In summary,
> it is virtually impossible to get to Mark 16:9-20 from the
> Diatessaron, but it is easy to see Mark 16:9-20 as one of the sources
> of the Diatessaron harmony.
> And, if somehow you could somehow anyway have a theory of Tatian
> fabrication of Mark 16:9-20 ... could you describe your transmission
> theory from the Tatian fabrication ? Which was likely in Syriac.
> Please explain the quick wide-ranging cross-language and
> cross-geography acceptance and dissemination, even to the Bible of
> Irenaeus a few decades later. (While the primary Bible of Irenaeus
> was Latin, he was also Greek fluent.)
> Could you describe your transmission theory a bit better ? I asked
> this of George, with no response, and then we found out he was
> writing tongue-in-cheek, so follow-up did not seem sensible. So the
> questions go over to you.
> Steven Avery
> Bayside, NY
- 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