Sat Oct 26 12:57:29 1996

From owner-tc-list  Sat Oct 26 12:57:29 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id MAA13228; Sat, 26 Oct 1996 12:55:34 -0400
Message-ID: <3272516B.1B33@accesscomm.net>
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 11:59:07 -0600
From: Jack Kilmon 
Organization: Home Computer
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Subject: Re: uncials & majuscules et al.
References: 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 1962

Maurice Robinson wrote:
> 
> On Fri, 25 Oct 1996, DC PARKER wrote:
> 
> > I've just been telling a class about the endings of Mark, and stressing
> > the significance of the Sinaitic and Curetonian Syriac MSS, and
> > Bobbiensis of the Old Latin MSS as three of the most significant
> > witnesses; not to mention the Armenian which, though derived from
> > the Greek via a Syriac intermediary, is an important witness to the
> > text of Mark.  Remove the versional evidence, and the Greek MSS
> > provide a rather misleading picture of the history of the text.
> 
> I consider it significant that among the two Old Syriac traditions one
> contains the long ending of Mark and the other omits such.  What
> conclusion then should be drawn regarding that ending within the Syriac
> church?
> 
> _________________________________________________________________________
> Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D.           Professor of Greek and New Testament
> Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary     Wake Forest, North Carolina

	The many theories regarding the ending of Mark has always
been intriguing to me.  They include:

	1. Mark died before completing the Gospel.  This conflicts
with my opinion of an early date (in the 40's).

	2. The last page of the autograph was lost.  This, however
supposes a codex form very early in the 1st century.

	3. There were two books by the same name between the times
of Papias and Irenaeus.  Possible since this would resove 1 & 2.

	4. Among other theories is the recent one by Powell that
the ending of Mark was appended to GJohn (Jn 21).

	My understanding in that the Sinaitic version is earlier than the
Curatonian but both are from earlier sources..which muddles the
opinion about priority.  Again, one from the Diatessaron and the other
from Byzantine could be pertinent to "Mark plus" in one.  I would be
interested in opinions regarding the Syriac texts in this puzzle.

Jack Kilmon
Houston, Texas
JPMan@accesscomm.net

Back