Sat Oct 26 21:18:54 1996

From owner-tc-list  Sat Oct 26 21:18:54 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id VAA15898; Sat, 26 Oct 1996 21:16:54 -0400
X-Sender: vale5655@mail.arcadis.be
Message-Id: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Mailer: Eudora F1.5.4b9
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 1996 02:15:47 +0100
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
From: jgvalentin@arcadis.be (Jean Valentin)
Subject: Re: uncials & majuscules et al.
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 2147

>>
>> > I've just been telling a class about the endings of Mark, and stressing
>> > the significance of the Sinaitic and Curetonian Syriac MSS, and

>        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).
>

For Amphoux, the Long Ending is appended by the editor of the IInd century
edition that underlies Codex Bezae. In the order of this edition
(Mt-Jn-Lk-Mk) this text serves as a conclusion, not to Mark, but to the
whole Tetraevangelion, and also as a transition to the Acts that
immediately followed. Together, these five books are a new Christian
Pentateuch. There are more considerations which you will find in several
passages of "La Parole qui devint Evangile" and in the introduction to
"L'Evangile selon Matthieu - Codex de Beze". To summarize, this ending
binds the four gospels together in a literary, intertextual and symbolical
way. Just look at Amphoux's works for details.


>        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.
>

Hmmm... There are also readings that are definitely tatianic in syc. The
picture is indeed complicated, both texts being probably the fruits of
revisions.

shlomo w-shayno!

Jean Valentin - Brussels - Belgium

Ce qui est trop simple est faux, ce qui est trop complique est inutilisable.
What's too simple is wrong, what's too complicated is unusable.

Back