Sun Nov 3 03:22:44 1996

From owner-tc-list  Sun Nov  3 03:22:44 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id DAA23201; Sun, 3 Nov 1996 03:21:32 -0500
From: REElliott@aol.com
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1996 03:17:35 -0500
Message-ID: <961103031734_344689006@emout02.mail.aol.com>
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
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: 2032

In a message dated 96-10-26 11:55:41 EDT, DC Parker writes:

<< > 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.

 First of all, let me state that I agree with Maurice Robinson's reply; 
"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?"

DC also correctly states that the Armenian was derived from the Greek via the
Syriac, which brings up an important point;  We must look at the Greek MSS
1st, the versional evidence 2nd and then the patrisitic citations 3rd. If the
Armenian was derived from the Greek, then are not all versional NT MSS in
essence "derived" from the Greek?   Therefore we must give precedence to the
Greek MSS and if they are very silent concerning a particular passage (such
as Mark 16) then the versional MSS et al can only be secondary and tertiary
at best, they cannot supersede the primary Greek.  As much as I would love to
have mountains of Greek evidence for the long ending of Mark, I have to
follow these rules to be true to the discipline.  Is it possible to put the
theological presuppositions aside and examine the evidence from a neutral
standpoint?  
Therefore I must disagree with the ending statement that DC made saying that
the Greek MSS give a misleading history of the text.  What is misleading is
attempting to build a theory on secondary and tertiary MSS.  Perhaps there
are still some more Greek MSS to be found regarding this variant, who knows?

In His Service

Rich Elliott  

Back