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

Re: [textualcriticism] The End of Mark in the Second Century

Expand Messages
  • sarban
    ... From: voxverax To: Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 9:05 AM Subject: [textualcriticism] The End of
    Message 1 of 6 , Jun 2, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "voxverax" <snapp@...>
      To: <textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 9:05 AM
      Subject: [textualcriticism] The End of Mark in the Second Century


      <SNIP>
      >
      > Plus, there's P-45 to consider. It's dated to c. 225, and is damaged
      > toward the end of Mark; no text from chapter 16 has survived. But in
      > the parts of Mark that have survived, where there are notable
      > variants, it agrees with W 68.9% of the time, according to a study by
      > Dr. L. Hurtado. Hurtado observed, "Of all the MSS studied, P45 is
      > the closest ally of W in the sample where P45 is extant." So, if one
      > assumes the existence of a text-type "P45-W," it seems a small step
      > to say that second-century ancestors of P45 and W had the Long
      > Ending, in a line of descent not shared by any other known mss.
      >
      W is obviously much later than P45 and we know that the long
      ending was added to the later representatives of text types that
      originally did not contain it.

      Also both W and P45 are probably members of the Caesarean text
      family which from the evidence of other members likely did not
      originally have the long ending of Mark.

      (Originally absent from the Armenian and Georgian, preceded by
      critical note doubtful of authenticity in family 1)

      Andrew Criddle
    • Peter Head
      Dear Jim, ... I m not quite sure what you are getting at here. Irenaeus is early. It seems clear to me that he new Mark in the long form. It is fantastic
      Message 2 of 6 , Jun 3, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        Dear Jim,

        >(1) Irenaeus is pretty early! Is there any reason why such an
        >explicit quotation should not be assigned virtually the same weight
        >as the MS Irenaeus used -- a papyrus made before 184?

        I'm not quite sure what you are getting at here. Irenaeus is early. It
        seems clear to me that he new Mark in the long form. It is fantastic
        evidence. Yippeeee.

        >
        >(2) Non-explicit evidence is still evidence.

        Yes indeed, only it is not explicit. Especially it may not provide evidence
        that the material of the LE was known as the LE of Mark. This is an issue
        for me with Justin (and esp. Papias). I see you've made a case in support
        of the fact that Justin knew these (few) words from a copy of Mark; but
        however good this argument is, it is not completely conclusive.

        >(3) If one holds the yardstick of "explicit evidence" alongside the
        >Short Ending and the Abrupt Ending, there is no explicit evidence for
        >either of them in the second century, or in the third. The earliest
        >explicit evidence for the Abrupt Ending = the "accurate copies"
        >mentioned by Eusebius in "Ad Marinum" in the fourth century.

        Yes. I think I agree with this. Of course it is difficult to establish
        definite absence (very often Clement and Origen are cited as supporting the
        absence of the LE, but this is not explicit evidence). So I presume that
        this means that we can agree that the explicit evidence for the existence
        of the LE as part of Mark (in Irenaeus) is 150 years earlier than the
        explicit evidence for the short form of Mark (in Eusebius).

        By the way, what is the status of Clement and Origen on this question?

        Peter



        Peter M. Head, PhD
        Sir Kirby Laing Senior Lecturer in New Testament
        Tyndale House
        36 Selwyn Gardens Phone: (UK) 01223
        566607
        Cambridge, CB3 9BA Fax: (UK) 01223 566608
        http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/Tyndale/staff/Head/Staff.htm
      • Peter Head
        ... Dear Jim, This small step is quite a big one to me. Only 6 leaves of Mark survive in P45 (Mark 12.28 is the last verse attested). There is no evidence as
        Message 3 of 6 , Jun 3, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          At 05:43 PM 6/2/05, Jim wrote:

          > > Plus, there's P-45 to consider. It's dated to c. 225, and is damaged
          > > toward the end of Mark; no text from chapter 16 has survived. But in
          > > the parts of Mark that have survived, where there are notable
          > > variants, it agrees with W 68.9% of the time, according to a study by
          > > Dr. L. Hurtado. Hurtado observed, "Of all the MSS studied, P45 is
          > > the closest ally of W in the sample where P45 is extant." So, if one
          > > assumes the existence of a text-type "P45-W," it seems a small step
          > > to say that second-century ancestors of P45 and W had the Long
          > > Ending, in a line of descent not shared by any other known mss.

          Dear Jim,

          This 'small step' is quite a big one to me.

          Only 6 leaves of Mark survive in P45 (Mark 12.28 is the last verse
          attested). There is no evidence as to the ending of Mark (even Skeat demurs
          from reconstructing the codex to this detail). Maybe it had the long ending
          (LE); maybe the short ending (SE); maybe the abrupt ending (AE); maybe the
          Freer Logion (FL); maybe it had the different ending (DE). We don't know.
          Is that so hard to say?

          68.9% agreement is hardly enough to establish text-type P45-W at the level
          of detail you require. Indeed no % of agreement would be sufficient to
          prove which ending P45 had.

          Pete







          Peter M. Head, PhD
          Sir Kirby Laing Senior Lecturer in New Testament
          Tyndale House
          36 Selwyn Gardens Phone: (UK) 01223
          566607
          Cambridge, CB3 9BA Fax: (UK) 01223 566608
          http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/Tyndale/staff/Head/Staff.htm
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.