From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Oct 1 10:57:24 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA18986; Thu, 1 Oct 1998 10:57:21 -0400 From: "Wieland Willker" To: "TC-List" Cc: "Wieland Willker" Subject: tc-list Recovering the Invisible? Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1998 15:59:25 +0100 Message-Id: <000101bded4c$14d76600$67566686@Atair.chemie.uni-bremen.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-Msmail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2232.26 Importance: Normal X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 277 There are several methods which allow one to recover bits of otherwise invisible letters on a papyrus. I am not familiar with these techniques. I vaguely remember IR and UV light analyses. Can someone please point me to any literature on this topic? Best wishes Wieland From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Oct 1 16:39:36 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA23809; Thu, 1 Oct 1998 16:39:34 -0400 Message-Id: <199810012040.WAA17346@carno.brus.online.be> Subject: tc-list Jn 19.30 in the versions Date: Jeu, 1 Oct 98 22:46:32 +0200 x-sender: vale5655@pop3.brus.online.be x-mailer: Claris Emailer 1.1 From: Jean VALENTIN To: "Liste TC-List" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 3903 Dear friends, A few words about the interpretation of "TETELESTAI" as I notice that = many versions are paraphrasing this single Greek word in similar ways. Most of you being English-speaking, they are probably used to the = quite literal translation of the KJV or other similar versions, "It = is finished". That is, the verb is translated with an indefinite = subject. When I was a little boy, at school we went each week to the mass, = where the Gospel was read to us in French, and we heard "Tout est = consomm=E9", that is "Everything is fulfilled". Here there is a = subject, "everything". I notice now that this translation was current = in the antiquity and the Middle ages. Here's a little list (probably = not exhaustive) of what can be found in the versions: The Latin vulgate and the Syriac peshitto both follow the Greek = literally like the KJV, quoted above, does. Latin: "Consummatum est" = (it is fulfilled) and Syriac: "Ho m'shallam" (behold, it is = fulfilled). For the moment, I have no vetus latina of John near me, and I'd be = grateful to anybody who could inform me as to what it says. -------------- Now to those who read like (or nearly like) the French versions: Both mss of the old Syriac version are lacunose at this point. We are = left to deduction from citations and secundary versions. In Georgian, the Adysh codex has: Qoveli ve arsrulebul ars = "Everything is perfected/fulfilled". The later Georgian version of codices ABDE has: esec`a c'erili = arsrulebul ars "what was written is fulfilled". The Armenian version (Zohrab edition) has amenayn inch` katareal =EA = "Everything is fulfilled". Syropalestinian: Shallam kul medem "Everything is fulfilled". Arabic - melkite version of the XIth century: qad tumma kullu m=E2 = q=EEla "Everything that was said is fulfilled" Arabic Diatessaron : qad kumila kullu shay' "Everything has been = fulfilled" Arabic - the alexandrian version (XIIIth century) tumma al-kit=E2b = "the Book is fulfilled" (may be this one is independent from the = tradition represented by the other ones, nevertheless it feels the = need to add a subject). Dutch Diatessaron : Nu est al voldaen "Now is everything fulfilled" Pepysian harmony (indirect discourse): Than seide he that al thing = was fulfild. ---------------- Now several remarks or suggestions: (1) This all is probably not interesting to those who focus on the = history of the Greek text alone, since this translation is found only = in versional witnesses. Nevertheless, it shows us that this is the = way the text was understood in very early ages, since this = interpretation is so widely diffused from a geographical point of = view. It's not a "variant" in the way textual critics who work on the = Greek text understand that term, but it is a - how should I say that = - "common interpretative translation" that might help elucidate the = genealogy of several versions. (2) Remark number 1 and the fact that it is found both in Eastern and = western versions make me suspect that the first one to propose this = interpretation of the text was Tatian in his Diatessaron. I'd be very = interested to hear the opinion - and further informations - of Dr = Petersen on this text. (3) This variant has survived in the text of the French liturgy as I = remember it from my childhood, but also in the Bible of the French = protestants, the version of Louis Segond, as it translates: "Tout est = accompli". Even when protestant Bibles claim they are translated = directly from the Greek texts, it is never possible to get rid of = old, diatessaron-influenced, translations that have been popular for = centuries, and such translations are still alive in the XXth century = and influence the piety of thousands of people, without them being = aware of it. Should we call Tatian the Father of all Gospel = translators? Thanks for any remarks Jean Valentin - Brussels From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Oct 2 07:08:23 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id HAA27454; Fri, 2 Oct 1998 07:08:21 -0400 Message-Id: <199810021110.NAA69656@mail.uni-muenster.de> From: "Ulrich Schmid" To: Subject: Re: tc-list Jn 19.30 in the versions Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1998 13:06:58 +0200 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by mail.uni-muenster.de id NAA69656 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 5347 On Thu, 1 Oct 1998, Jean Valentin wrote: >Dear friends, >A few words about the interpretation of "TETELESTAI" as I notice that >many versions are paraphrasing this single Greek word in similar ways. >Most of you being English-speaking, they are probably used to the quite >literal translation of the KJV or other similar versions, "It is finished". That >is, the verb is translated with an indefinite subject. >When I was a little boy, at school we went each week to the mass, where >the Gospel was read to us in French, and we heard "Tout est consomm=E9", >that is "Everything is fulfilled". Here there is a subject, "everything". I notice >now that this translation was current in the antiquity and the Middle ages. >Here's a little list (probably not exhaustive) of what can = be found in the >versions: >The Latin vulgate and the Syriac peshitto both follow the Greek literall= y like >the KJV, quoted above, does. Latin: "Consummatum est" (it is fulfilled) and >Syriac: "Ho m'shallam" (behold, it is fulfilled). >For the moment, I have no vetus latina of John near me, and I'd be grateful >to anybody who could inform me as to what it says. Old Latin MS n (St. Gaul) reads "omnia consummata sunt" at Jn 19.30 >-------------- >Now to those who read like (or nearly like) the French versions: >Both mss of the old Syriac version are lacunose at this point. We are le= ft to >deduction from citations and secundary versions. >In Georgian, the Adysh codex has: Qoveli ve arsrulebul ars "Everything i= s >perfected/fulfilled". >The later Georgian version of codices ABDE has: esec`a c'erili arsrulebu= l >ars "what was written is fulfilled". >The Armenian version (Zohrab edition) has amenayn inch` katareal =EA >"Everything is fulfilled". >Syropalestinian: Shallam kul medem "Everything is fulfilled". >Arabic - melkite version of the XIth century: qad tumma kullu m=E2 q=EEl= a >"Everything that was said is fulfilled" >Arabic Diatessaron : qad kumila kullu shay' "Everything has been fulfilled" >Arabic - the alexandrian version (XIIIth century) tumma al-kit=E2b "the = Book is >fulfilled" (may be this one is independent from the tradition represented by >the other ones, nevertheless it feels the need to add a subject). >Dutch Diatessaron : Nu est al voldaen "Now is everything fulfilled" >Pepysian harmony (indirect discourse): Than seide he that al thing was >fulfild. You may want to consult _T. Baarda, In Search of the Diatessaron Text; idem, Early Transmission of Words of Jesus (edd. J. Heldermann, S.J. Noorda), Amsterdam 1983, pp. 65-78_. Therein you find some more evidence. >---------------- >Now several remarks or suggestions: >(1) This all is probably not interesting to those who focus on the histo= ry of >the Greek text alone, since this translation is found only in version= al >witnesses. Nevertheless, it shows us that this is the way the text was >understood in very early ages, since this interpretation is so widely diffused >from a geographical point of view. It's not a "variant" in the way textual >critics who work on the Greek text understand that term, but it is a - how >should I say that - "common interpretative translation" th= at might help >elucidate the genealogy of several versions. It is interesting to cope with the various dimensions of readings that se= em to be only versional, but what do you mean by "common interpretative translation"? =20 To me the problem should be assessed along the following lines: 1) The reading under discussion is not a variant reading that is found in the Greek textual transmission to the extend preserved and examined by no= w. 2) It is found in a great variety of versional sources: However, as far a= s I can see all the "eastern" sources (Arabic, Armenian, Georgian) boil dow= n to a Syriac origin and all the "western" sources (French, Dutch, German) boil down to a Latin origin. 3) In case we consider this reading genealogically significant (i.e., unlikely to occur several times independently), we have three possibilities: a) It was created in Syriac and directly translated into Latin. b) It was created in Latin and directly translated into Syriac. c) It was created in Greek and translated into both languages. Only in a) and b) it were possibly a translational interpretation.=20 In c) it were a Greek gloss that was simply taken over. 4) There is, however, reason to doubt that the reading under discussion i= s indeed genealogically significant. It could very well be due to independe= nt harmonization to the immediate context (Jn 19.28!).=20 5) Therefore, at least to me the reading is only significant when it come= s to support already well established versional genealogies (e.g., the Arab= ic Diatessaron is translated from the Syriac). I would hesitate to accept it as undisputable evidence to bridge the gulf between the Syriac and Latin versions either directly or by means of a conjectured Greek intermediary stage. >(2) Remark number 1 and the fact that it is found both in Eastern and >western versions make me suspect that the first one to propose this >interpretation of the text was Tatian in his Diatessaron.=20 Let me add that H. v. Soden (see his edition ad loc.) and D. Plooij (A Primitive Text of the Diatessaron, Leiden 1923, p. 61) already claimed th= is reading for the Diatessaron.=20 Ulrich Schmid From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Oct 2 07:42:57 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id HAA27553; Fri, 2 Oct 1998 07:42:54 -0400 Message-Id: <199810021143.MAA01163@haymarket.ed.ac.uk> From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1998 12:42:04 +000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: tc-list new papyri Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01b) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1116 I can recommend a few hrs studying the most recently published Oxyrhynchus volumes (64 & 65), which include a number of fragments from biblical mss of very early vintage. Though the materials are each only portions of a single page, it is possible to identify the biblical passages, and it is often possible to see (or surmise by careful restoration) interesting readings. Six Matt. mss date from 2nd through 5/6th cents.; four John mss 3rd cent.; one James ms 3rd cent. Plus, vol. 65 gives strikingly early LXX mss: --#4442=LXX Exod. 20:10-17; 18-22, early 3rd cent. codex --#4443=LXX Esther E16-9:3, late lst/early 2nd cent CE, roll. --#4444=WisSol 4:17-51, 4th cent., codex. These mss give us valuable further information on nomina sacra, early readings/variants, and scribal quality and mss characteristics of biblical mss of these early cents. (e.g., punctuation, pp. numbers, enlarged initial letters, margins, corrections, etc.). L. W. Hurtado University of Edinburgh, New College Mound Place Edinburgh, Scotland EH1 2LX Phone: 0131-650-8920 Fax: 0131-650-6579 E-mail: L.Hurtado@ed.ac.uk From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Oct 2 09:24:28 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA28005; Fri, 2 Oct 1998 09:24:25 -0400 X-Sender: mbakker@mail.let.uva.nl Message-Id: In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1998 15:08:40 +0200 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: M.Bakker@let.uva.nl Subject: Re: tc-list pou sto Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 478 >Will someone please look up the meaning of "pou sto"? I do not have >reference works with me and I drew a blank when I read the words. Hm, this looks like Modern Greek: "pou" can mean 'where' or 'who/which' "sto" is a contraction of "eis" and "to": a preposition and an article which must look more familiar to you. Me timi, Michalis dr H.P.S. Bakker Slavic Seminar University of Amsterdam Spuistraat 210 1012 VT Amsterdam tel. +31 20 525 3811 fax. +31 20 525 3052 From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Oct 2 10:17:36 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA28586; Fri, 2 Oct 1998 10:17:34 -0400 Message-Id: <199810021417.KAA28581@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express for Macintosh - 4.01 (297) Date: Fri, 02 Oct 1998 10:11:48 -0400 Subject: Re: tc-list new papyri From: "Bill Combs" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mime-version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-MDaemon-Deliver-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1387 Mark, Do you ever see any info on the volumes mentioned below? WWC ---------- >From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" >To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu >Subject: tc-list new papyri >Date: Fri, Oct 2, 1998, 8:42 AM > >I can recommend a few hrs studying the most recently published >Oxyrhynchus volumes (64 & 65), which include a number of >fragments from biblical mss of very early vintage. Though the >materials are each only portions of a single page, it is possible to >identify the biblical passages, and it is often possible to see (or >surmise by careful restoration) interesting readings. Six Matt. mss >date from 2nd through 5/6th cents.; four John mss 3rd cent.; one >James ms 3rd cent. >Plus, vol. 65 gives strikingly early LXX mss: >--#4442=LXX Exod. 20:10-17; 18-22, early 3rd cent. codex >--#4443=LXX Esther E16-9:3, late lst/early 2nd cent CE, roll. >--#4444=WisSol 4:17-51, 4th cent., codex. > >These mss give us valuable further information on nomina sacra, >early readings/variants, and scribal quality and mss characteristics >of biblical mss of these early cents. (e.g., punctuation, pp. >numbers, enlarged initial letters, margins, corrections, etc.). > > >L. W. Hurtado >University of Edinburgh, >New College >Mound Place >Edinburgh, Scotland EH1 2LX >Phone: 0131-650-8920 >Fax: 0131-650-6579 >E-mail: L.Hurtado@ed.ac.uk > From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Oct 4 02:22:50 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id CAA13243; Sun, 4 Oct 1998 02:22:48 -0400 Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19981003215033.00c46aa8@postoffice.swbell.net> X-Sender: jstrimm@postoffice.swbell.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.3 (32) Date: Sat, 03 Oct 1998 21:50:33 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: James Trimm Subject: tc-list Re: Marya' = YHVH ? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 3427 At 09:33 AM 9/27/98 -0700, you wrote: > > > >A few days ago there were some posts on this list by Rolf Furuli and James >Trimm =20 >On the Aramaic word " Marya=92 " being =3D to "YHVH" as stated in a number= of >Aramaic / Syriac Lexicons.=20 > >The "Syriac English Dictionary " by Payne Smith states on page 298 ( I have >a very old copy )=20 >under " Mara=92 " =20 > "=85=85.Mara=92 and Marya=92 the latter form is used only of the LORD God= and in >the Peshitta Version of the O.T. represents the Tetragrammaton." > >Let=92s take a look at this statement.=20 >The following is a list of verses from the Peshitta=20 >where the Syriac / Aramaic word " Marya=92 " occurs compared with the= Hebrew >and the Greek > >Gen 2:4=20 > >Sy =3D marya=92 =91alaha=92 > >MT=3D YHVH Elohim > >LXX=3D kurios ho theos > > >Gen 15:2=20 > >Sy =3D marya=92 =91alaha=92 > >MT =3D adonai YHVH > >LXX =3D despota kurie > > >Jer 1:6 > >Sy =3D marya=92 =91alaha=92 > >MT =3D adonai YHVH > >LXX =3D despota kurie > > >Eze 2:4=20 > >Sy =3D marya=92 merutha=92=20 > >MT =3D adonai YHVH > >LXX =3D kurios ( only ) > > >Amos 1:8=20 > >Sy =3D marya=92 merutha=92=20 > >MT =3D adonai YHVH > >LXX =3D kurios ( only ) > > >Micah 1:2=20 > >Sy =3D mara=92 merutha=92 =85=85=85marya=92 > >MT =3D adonai YHVH=85=85.adonai > >LXX =3D kurios kurios kurios >some =3D kurios ho theos kurios > > >Mal 3:1=20 > >Sy =3D marya=92 > >MT =3D haadon > >LXX =3D kupios > > Mark, The examples you site all involve the Hebrew phrase "adonai YHWH" where admittedly the present text of the Peshitta is affected by various substitution traditions (or may even reflect textual variants). You do neem to have found one exception in Mal. 3:1. Perhaps here also we have a textual variant. >>From this short study I do not see a consistent pattern of Marya=92 =3D= YHVH in >the Tanach, even though it is mainly true it is not always true. > Mark, Although there may be some few exceptions, this may also simply reflect alternate textual traditions. The exceptions are so few that they are not beyond the margin of error of the potential for utherwise unknown textual variants. James Trimm =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D He who seeks will not cease until he finds, and having found he will be amazed, =20 and having been amazed he will reign, =20 and having reigned he will rest. =20 - The Goodnews according to the Hebrews =20 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D The Society for the Advancement of Nazarene Judaism: PO Box 471; Hurst, TX 76053; USA http://www.nazarene.net A nonprofit organization supported by freewill offerings =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D E-mail discusion groups: Nazarene Judaism; Messianic Judaism; Yahwism; Lost Tribes; Book of Enoch; Semitic Origin of the=20 New Testament; Prophecy, Sabbatarian & b-Aramaic. =20 Subscribe at: http://www.nazarene.net =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Essene Forum: Essene website, listserver & links: http://www.nazarene.net/essene/essene_forum.htm From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Oct 4 02:37:27 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id CAA13275; Sun, 4 Oct 1998 02:37:25 -0400 Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19981003220403.00c7b754@postoffice.swbell.net> X-Sender: jstrimm@postoffice.swbell.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.3 (32) X-Priority: 1 (Highest) Date: Sat, 03 Oct 1998 22:04:03 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: James Trimm Subject: tc-list Semitic NT Project Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 6625 THE SEMITIC NEW TESTAMENT PROJECT ---------------------------------------------------------- The Semitic New Testament project is an ongoing SANJ project to produce a new and accurate translation of the New Testament taken primarily from old Hebrew and Aramaic sources. Unlike most translations this edition will not be rooted in a Greek Hellenistic text. This translation will seek to understand the text of the New Testament from the languages in which it was originally written. This is important because there are some passages in the NT which do not make sense at all in Greek, but only begin to make sense when we look at them in Hebrew and Aramaic. For example: Acts 11:27-30 And in these days prophets came from Jerusalem to Antioch. Then one of them, named Agabus, stood up and showed by the Spirit that there was going to be a great famine throughout all THE WORLD, which also happened in the days of Claudius Caesar. Then the talmidim, each according to his ability, determined to send relief to the brothers dwelling IN JUDEA. This they also did, and sent it to the elders by the hands of Barnabas and Saul. Now this doesn't make sense at all, why would those in Antioch send relief to those dwelling IN JUDEA if the famine was to strike all THE WORLD. They would be facing famine themselves. The solution lies in the fact that the word for "WORLD" in the Aramaic manuscripts is A'RA (Strong's #772) the Aramaic form of the Hebrew word ERETZ (Strong's 776). This word can mean "world" (as in Prov. 19:4) "earth" (as in Dan. 2:35) or "land" (as in Dan. 9:15) and is often used as a euphemism for "The Land of Israel" (as in Dan. 9:6). Certainly the word here is not meant to mean "world" but "land of Israel." Mt. 26:9 = Mk. 14:3 And when Y'shua was in Bethany at the house of Simon the leper, As any Bible student knows, lepers were not permitted to live in the city (see Lev. 13:46). Since ancient Hebrew and Aramaic were written without vowels, there was no distinction between the Aramaic words GAR'BA (leper) and GARABA (jar maker or jar merchant). Since in this story a woman pours oil from a jar it is apparent that Simon was a jar merchant or jar maker and not a leper. Mt. 19:12 & Acts 8:26f ....there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven's sake.... --Mt. 19:12 NKJV So he [Phillip] arose and went. And behold, a man of Ethiopia, a eunuch of great authority under Candace the queen of the Ethiopians, who had charge of all her treasury, and had come to Jerusalem to worship. --Acts 8:27 NKJV The man in Acts 8:27 appears to be a proselyte to Judaism since he seems to be making the Torah-required pilgrimage to Jerusalem (Dt. 16:16). The Torah, however, forbids a eunuch both from becoming a proselyte Jew, and from worshiping at the Temple (Dt. 23:1f). This also raises the question of why one would become a eunuch (be castrated) for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven. After all eunuchs are excluded from the assembly of Israel. The word for "eunuch" in the Aramaic manuscripts of both of theses passages is M'HAIMNA which can mean "eunuch" but can also mean "believer" or "faithful one" as it clearly means here. Mt. 19:24 = Mk. 10:25 = Lk. 18:25 ...it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God. The word for "camel" in the Aramaic manuscripts is GAMLA which can mean "camel" but can also refer to a "large rope," which is certainly the meaning here. Mt. 6:22-23 (&Mt. 20:15; Lk. 11:34) The lamp of the body is the eye, if therefore your eye is good, your whole body will be full of light. But if your eye is bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in you is darkness, how great is that darkness! In Greek and in English this passage is meaningless. However, in Hebrew and Aramaic, to have a "good eye" ("single eye" in the KJV) is an idiomatic expression meaning to be generous. Having a "bad eye" or "evil eye" is an idiomatic expression meaning to be stingy. Rev. 19:17 Then I saw an angel standing IN THE SUN; and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the birds that fly in heaven, "Come gather together for the supper of the great God... Since ancient Hebrew and Aramaic are written without vowels, B'SHESHA (in the sun) and B'SHAMESHA (in the service/ministry) are indistinguishable. Clearly the text here should read "in the service/ministry." These are just a few examples of passages from the NT that don't make sense in Greek and English but only begin to make sense when we look at them in Hebrew and Aramaic. Some of the features of the Semitic NT version will be: * Religiously neutral language ("immerse" not "baptize"; "assembly" not "church" etc.) * Judaic terminology ("Messiah" not "Christ" etc.) * Hebraic renderings of proper nouns ("Yochanan" not "John" etc.) * YHWH in the correct places in the text based on manuscript evidence. * Very literal renderings. * Insights based on the Semitic cultural and linguistic origin of the text. We plan to soon have some internet samples of this translation out on the net. This project is supported by freewill offerings. All contributions are tax deductible. Anyone who contributes $20.00 or more will receive a free copy of my book THE SEMITIC ORIGIN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT as well as a sample of this translation taken from Ephesians. If you would like to support this project just send check or money order made out to "Society for the Advancement of Nazarene Judaism" with "S.N.T.P." written on the memo line to: Society for the Advancement of Nazarene Judaism PO Box 471 Hurst, TX 76053 USA James Trimm ============================================== He who seeks will not cease until he finds, and having found he will be amazed, and having been amazed he will reign, and having reigned he will rest. - The Goodnews according to the Hebrews ============================================== The Society for the Advancement of Nazarene Judaism: PO Box 471; Hurst, TX 76053; USA http://www.nazarene.net A nonprofit organization supported by freewill offerings ============================================== E-mail discusion groups: Nazarene Judaism; Messianic Judaism; Yahwism; Lost Tribes; Book of Enoch; Semitic Origin of the New Testament; Prophecy, Sabbatarian & b-Aramaic. Subscribe at: http://www.nazarene.net ============================================== Essene Forum: Essene website, listserver & links: http://www.nazarene.net/essene/essene_forum.htm From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Oct 5 07:43:05 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id HAA18235; Mon, 5 Oct 1998 07:43:02 -0400 From: "Errol Smith & Colleen Loo" To: Subject: tc-list Sheb Tob and Isacc Velasquez Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1998 21:45:44 +1000 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1157 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <11374991774624@domain1.bigpond.com> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 989 Some time ago Prof William Petersen informed us of his critique of George Howard's work concerning the Hebrew text of Matthew contained in the work of the 14th century Shem Tob of Spain. Prof Petersen's article in the latest "New Testament Studies" journal goes a little further than his first publication in TC earlier this year. in NTS he suggests that Shem Tob may have used an Arabic translation of the gospels made by Isaac Velasquez of Spain apparently made from an Old Latin source in about 930 CE. This translation was quite popular in Spain and Morrocco for some time and was a quite plausibly accessable to Shem Tob. Does anyone know if there is any further information on this apparently unpublished Arabic text, or where one may be able to get a microfilm or photocopy of a ms. So far the only information I have is what I have gleaned from Petersen's article, Metzger's "Early Versions of the N.T.", and Voobus' "Early Versions of the N.T.". With thanks, Errol Smith. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Oct 5 10:18:00 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA18898; Mon, 5 Oct 1998 10:17:58 -0400 Message-Id: <199810051419.KAA132992@f04n01.cac.psu.edu> X-Sender: wlp1@mail.psu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0.2 Date: Mon, 05 Oct 1998 10:18:29 -0400 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "William L. Petersen" Subject: tc-list Sheb Tob and Isaac Velasquez In-Reply-To: <11374991774624@domain1.bigpond.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 4758 If I may offer a small correction: The *NTS* article does NOT propose that Shem-Tob used >an Arabic translation of the gospels made by Isaac Velasquez of Spain as Smith put it in his post. (I am reminded of the first reactions to the TC article, which interpreted me as arguing that Shem-Tob was dependent upon the Middle Dutch *Vorlage* of the Liege Harmony...) Rather, to quote the *NTS* article: "...has Howard considered the possibility that Shem-Tob might be dependent upon the same *Vorlage* as that used *in Spain* by Isaac Velasquez *in 946 CE* when he translted the separate gospels into *Arabic*? Velasquez's translation has been known for over a century, and more than sixty years ago Anton Baumstark remarked on the extraordinary fact that this Arabic translation contained *numerous variant reading which were also found in the Middle Dutch Liege Harmony. Baumstark concluded that the ***Latin separate-gsopel *Vorlage* from which Velasquez worked was *related to the Western harmoniezed gospel tradition, especially the Middle Dutch tradition.* ***" (pp. 494-495) It is this "Latin separate-gospel *Vorlage* from which Velasquez worked" which is the presumed link with Shem-Tob--recall the reading "fowl" in Matt 22:4 in both Shem-Tob and the Liege Harmony, which shows that Shem-Tob's *Vorlage* is almost certainly *LATIN* (TC article, para. 89). Dependence of Shem-Tob upon a *LATIN* Vorlage is explicitly stated at the conclusion of my *NTS* article, pp. 510-511: after pointing out (point 4, at the top of p. 511) that Velasquez's translation was made from "a Latin separate-gospel text which had numerous agreements with the Liege Harmony," I state (middle of the page) "One is forced to conclude that the *Vorlage* of Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew was a *medieval Latin manuscript of the separate gospels, whose text had been profoundly influenced by the same harmonized gospel tradition found in the Middle Dutch family of harmonies.* " Reading either article and concluding--contrary to the explicit statements asserting Latin dependence--"that Shem Tob may have used an Arabic translation of the gospels made by Isaac Velasquez of Spain" means that one has been reading too quickly. No statement in either article even remotely suggests Shem-Tob's dependence upon an Arabic source, of any sort. Please: read carefully and accurately. I go out of my way to *write* accurately; I ask my readers to make the same investment. As to Smith's questions about "further information on this apparently unpublished Arabic text, or where one may be able to get a microfilm or photocopy of a ms.": I have given the bibliographic information in the TC article: see Baumstark and Guidi; one may also consult G. Graf, *Geschichte der christlichen Arabischen Literatur* (5 vols.; Vatican, 1944-53), which is the standard work on Arabic Christian literature. The manuscripts are in Munich (Staatsbibliothek, as I recall), in Seville (Cathedral Library), and in Fez (? I am working from memory: check the sources). The Arabist of our NIAS team, Dr. Peter Joosse of Frankfurt, has obtained microfilms of three or four of the manuscripts (I forget the precise number), all, of course, in Arabic script. He is doing preliminary work on an edition and translation. Publication (if it ever occurs) will be many years down the road... As both the *TC* and the *NTS* articles indicate, we also have Baumstark's archive, which contains occasional notes on variants in Velasquez's text. Dr. August den Hollander (Amsterdam) and Dr. Ulrich Schmid (Bethel) are the curators of the archive, which is described in full in the articles. It is now in Amsterdam. --Petersen, Penn State University. At 09:45 PM 10/5/98 +1000, you wrote: >Some time ago Prof William Petersen informed us of his critique of George Howard's work concerning the Hebrew text of >Matthew contained in the work of the 14th century Shem Tob of Spain. Prof Petersen's article in the latest "New Testament >Studies" journal goes a little further than his first publication in TC earlier this year. in NTS he suggests that Shem Tob >may have used an Arabic translation of the gospels made by Isaac Velasquez of Spain apparently made from an Old Latin source >in about 930 CE. This translation was quite popular in Spain and Morrocco for some time and was a quite plausibly accessable >to Shem Tob. > >Does anyone know if there is any further information on this apparently unpublished Arabic text, or where one may be able to >get a microfilm or photocopy of a ms. So far the only information I have is what I have gleaned from Petersen's article, >Metzger's "Early Versions of the N.T.", and Voobus' "Early Versions of the N.T.". > >With thanks, Errol Smith. > From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Oct 6 14:11:12 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA28569; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 14:11:09 -0400 Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1998 14:11:07 -0400 Message-Id: <199810061811.OAA28563@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> >Date: 4 Oct 1998 19:28:17 -0000 From: "Rev. Craig R. Harmon" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list Semitic NT Project Content-Type: text Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 563 > > THE SEMITIC NEW TESTAMENT PROJECT Some of the features of the Semitic NT version will be: * Religiously neutral language ("immerse" not "baptize"; I wonder, given the intensity of the debates between "Immersion only" Church bodies and those which recognize both immersion and sprinkling/pouring, how is replacing "baptize" with "immerse" religiously neutral language? Just wondering, Rev. Craig R. Harmon ----- See the original message at http://www.egroups.com/list/tc-list/?start=4747 -- Free e-mail group hosting at http://www.eGroups.com/ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Oct 6 15:00:06 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA28996; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 15:00:02 -0400 Message-ID: <9063E24E9176D111B0580060083927B92AC086@smtp.crpc.org> From: "Lamerson, Sam" To: "'tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu'" Subject: RE: tc-list Semitic NT Project Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1998 14:57:30 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.1960.3) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 919 Craig, I had that same thought, being a Presbyterian and all. :-) Sam Lamerson Knox Seminary > -----Original Message----- > From: Rev. Craig R. Harmon [SMTP:revcraigh@iexpress.net] > Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 1998 2:11 PM > To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu > Subject: Re: tc-list Semitic NT Project > > > > > THE SEMITIC NEW TESTAMENT PROJECT > > > > Some of the features of the Semitic NT version will be: > > * Religiously neutral language ("immerse" not "baptize"; > > I wonder, given the intensity of the debates between "Immersion only" > Church bodies and those which recognize both immersion and > sprinkling/pouring, how is replacing "baptize" with "immerse" > religiously neutral language? > > Just wondering, > Rev. Craig R. Harmon > > ----- > See the original message at > http://www.egroups.com/list/tc-list/?start=4747 > -- > Free e-mail group hosting at http://www.eGroups.com/ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Oct 6 15:37:45 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA29179; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 15:37:42 -0400 From: "Perry L. Stepp" To: Subject: tc-list Let's let this thread die quickly, please! (was: Semitic NT Project) Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1998 14:44:11 -0400 Message-ID: <000201bdf159$4f1fa820$f4d0c2d0@plstepp> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <9063E24E9176D111B0580060083927B92AC086@smtp.crpc.org> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 679 (Not that I'm the arbiter of good taste or protocol or anything--just a lowly Ph.D. candidate.) As interesting as it might be, let's let this debate (BAPTIZW=immerse?) die, or take it off-list. It has nothing to do with textual criticism. Perry L. Stepp ***************************************************************** Pastor, DeSoto Christian Church, DeSoto TX Ph.D. Candidate in Religion, Baylor University #1 Cowboy Fan Keeper of the Top-10, news://alt.fan.letterman mail to: plstepp@flash.net "That depends on what the definition of the word 'is' is." --William Jefferson Clinton, 17 August 1998 ***************************************************************** From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Oct 6 15:56:56 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA29294; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 15:56:54 -0400 Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19981006042042.00c94f60@postoffice.swbell.net> X-Sender: jstrimm@postoffice.swbell.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.3 (32) Date: Tue, 06 Oct 1998 04:20:42 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: James Trimm Subject: Re: tc-list Semitic NT Project In-Reply-To: <199810061811.OAA28563@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1749 At 02:11 PM 10/6/98 -0400, you wrote: >> >> THE SEMITIC NEW TESTAMENT PROJECT > > > >Some of the features of the Semitic NT version will be: > >* Religiously neutral language ("immerse" not "baptize"; > >I wonder, given the intensity of the debates between "Immersion only" Church bodies and those which recognize both immersion and sprinkling/pouring, how is replacing "baptize" with "immerse" religiously neutral language? > This is pure linguistics. Greek BAPTIZO and Hebrew T'VILLA literally MEAN "immersion" we will use the word "immersion" because it literally translates the text and does not have the theological baggage that "baptize" does. >Just wondering, >Rev. Craig R. Harmon > >----- >See the original message at http://www.egroups.com/list/tc-list/?start=4747 >-- >Free e-mail group hosting at http://www.eGroups.com/ > > James Trimm ============================================== He who seeks will not cease until he finds, and having found he will be amazed, and having been amazed he will reign, and having reigned he will rest. - The Goodnews according to the Hebrews ============================================== The Society for the Advancement of Nazarene Judaism: PO Box 471; Hurst, TX 76053; USA http://www.nazarene.net A nonprofit organization supported by freewill offerings ============================================== E-mail discusion groups: Nazarene Judaism; Messianic Judaism; Yahwism; Lost Tribes; Book of Enoch; Semitic Origin of the New Testament; Prophecy, Sabbatarian & b-Aramaic. Subscribe at: http://www.nazarene.net ============================================== Essene Forum: Essene website, listserver & links: http://www.nazarene.net/essene/essene_forum.htm From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Oct 6 18:27:46 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA00357; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 18:27:42 -0400 Message-Id: <199810062229.AAA08665@apato.antw.online.be> Subject: Re: tc-list Jn 19.30 in the versions Date: Mer, 7 Oct 98 00:35:17 +0200 x-sender: vale5655@pop3.brus.online.be x-mailer: Claris Emailer 1.1 From: Jean VALENTIN To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 5463 To Ulrich Schmid and all those interested in the discussion: First of all, thank you for the information on the reading of the old latin version, as well as for the bibliographical informations! > >Old Latin MS n (St. Gaul) reads "omnia consummata sunt" at Jn 19.30 This means we can add this ms to the list of the versions that add the subject "everything" to the sentence of Jesus. > >You may want to consult _T. Baarda, In Search of the Diatessaron Text; >idem, Early Transmission of Words of Jesus (edd. J. Heldermann, S.J. >Noorda), Amsterdam 1983, pp. 65-78_. Therein you find some more evidence. > >>---------------- > > >It is interesting to cope with the various dimensions of readings that seem >to be only versional, but what do you mean by "common interpretative >translation"? Sorry for this perhaps strange vocabulary. I mean by this that all these translations, or versions have one element in common that is not directly translated from Greek, and that needs some process of interpretation before it is laid down in their text. Somebody who finds a literal translation of the Greek not clear enough for his readers, had probably dozens of possible solutions, like adding a subject - and he had the choice: he could have written "All that I said to my disciples is fulfilled", or "the Law and the Prophets are fulfilled", or "What I came to do is fulfilled", or "the salvation of mankind is accomplished". In such a case, it is probable that every version of the Gospels would have a different subject here, but such is not the case: most of them added "everything", though nothing in their Greek text favours that solution more than any other. They all interpret, and thus translate or paraphrase, in the same way. This is what I try to describe with my "common interpretative translation". When such a thing happens, it attracts my attention and I think I should suppose that, if these translators didn't get this directly from the Greek text, they nevertheless have a common source which they used in translating. In other words: can this coincidence, this agreement of so many translators, be simply accidental? Was the source they used a common interpretation circulating orally in the Church at that time, was it some popular exegesis which circulated in homilies (oral) or in commentaries (written)? We can't know, except if we remember that all or nearly all of the texts mentioned are known to have some (even far) genealogical connection with Tatian. >To me the problem should be assessed along the following lines: > >1) The reading under discussion is not a variant reading that is found in >the Greek textual transmission to the extend preserved and examined by now. > >2) It is found in a great variety of versional sources: However, as far as >I can see all the "eastern" sources (Arabic, Armenian, Georgian) boil down >to a Syriac origin and all the "western" sources (French, Dutch, German) >boil down to a Latin origin. > >3) In case we consider this reading genealogically significant (i.e., >unlikely to occur several times independently), we have three >possibilities: >a) It was created in Syriac and directly translated into Latin. >b) It was created in Latin and directly translated into Syriac. >c) It was created in Greek and translated into both languages. >Only in a) and b) it were possibly a translational interpretation. >In c) it were a Greek gloss that was simply taken over. Until now, I follow you, though I definitely wouldn't prefer c) until one can show me that this gloss existed indeed in Greek. Isn't it too easy to hypothesize a gloss in a manuscript which nobody has seen? On the other hand, the versions I quoted exist, and generally their genealogical links with each other and with Tatian's work is accepted. > >4) There is, however, reason to doubt that the reading under discussion is >indeed genealogically significant. It could very well be due to independent >harmonization to the immediate context (Jn 19.28!). I'm not very enthusiastic for this either, because this verse (Jn 19.28) speaks of "the Scriptures" and not of "everything". This last seems to be a creation ex-nihilo, or at least simply from the need of making a phrase with a subject other than a too indefinite one like "it". > >5) Therefore, at least to me the reading is only significant when it comes >to support already well established versional genealogies (e.g., the Arabic >Diatessaron is translated from the Syriac). I would hesitate to accept it >as undisputable evidence to bridge the gulf between the Syriac and Latin >versions either directly or by means of a conjectured Greek intermediary >stage. I agree with you, it's not "evidence" except when cumulated with the rest of the evidence, which you and the team of Dr Petersen master much more than I do! > >>(2) Remark number 1 and the fact that it is found both in Eastern and >>western versions make me suspect that the first one to propose this >>interpretation of the text was Tatian in his Diatessaron. > >Let me add that H. v. Soden (see his edition ad loc.) and D. Plooij (A >Primitive Text of the Diatessaron, Leiden 1923, p. 61) already claimed this >reading for the Diatessaron. Ulrich, thanks again for the information! Jean V. _________________________________________________ Jean Valentin - Bruxelles - Belgique e-mail: jgvalentin@arcadis.be _________________________________________________ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Oct 7 08:36:42 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA03064; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 08:36:40 -0400 From: "Thomas J. Kraus" Organization: Universitaet Regensburg To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1998 14:37:37 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: Quoted-printable Subject: Re: tc-list Recovering the Invisible? Cc: thomas-juergen.kraus@theologie.uni-regensburg.de Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.54) Message-ID: <1DA278D3C31@alf3.ngate.uni-regensburg.de> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2929 Dear Wieland, *invisible* letters have always been a problem for papyrologists. Just remember Tischendorf=B4s go on Codex Ephraemi Syri rescriptus applying Gioberti=B4s tincture (ammonium hydrosulphid) to it and by that intensifyi= ng some of the ingredients of the ancient ink while destroying some of the other material (Ephraem=B4s text and the parchment as well). You mentioned IR and UV. They only help in specific cases depending on the= material and the faintness (ingredients) of the lettes. Never mind, they were a straight leap forward. Of course, microscopes are improving and they help a lot (nevertheless, the *konfokales Laserrastermikroskop*, which C.P. Thiede claims to hold a patent on, remains a riddle to me; no patent office could give me any further information about such a thing, and Thiede ...). There are good opportunities to identify blots and traces of ink, if you make a high-quality photo of your fragment, digitalize it (almost the same step),= and try to reproduce it with applicable software or printers (you lose a massive amount of quality by that). Have you heard of the new procedure called *Mondo nuovo*? Specific photographies of one and the same manuscript are digitalized only carrying= the spectral colours in all ranges from infrared to ultraviolet light, digitalized, and then the diverging colours on the many photographies are brought together by the new software (also called *Mondo nuovo*). The software was developed by scholars in Bologna and Parma and is applicable for parchment only (as far as I know). Recently, some newspaper articles mentioned it (DIE ZEIT, no. 30, 16 july 1998, page 34; SZ, no. 171, page V2/9). But a digitalized page of a parchment codex will cost about 1,000 pounds sterling! For other computerizing procedures consult: A. Lange, Computer aided text-reconstruction and transcription. CATT-manual, Tuebingen 1993. A. Lange, Computer aided text-reconstruction (CATT) developed with the Dead Sea Scrolls, in: New Qumran texts and studies. Proceedings of the First Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies, Paris 1992, StTDJ 21, Leiden-New York-Cologne 1994, pp. 223-232. With a main focus on reconstructing fragmented texts: I.A. Moir, S. Michaelson and A.Q. Morton, Scriptures. The Use of Computers= for Fragment Location, in: ZPE 17, 1975, 119-124. Concentrating on the restauration of manuscripts: H. Harrauer, Bericht =FCber das 1. Wiener Symposium fuer Papyrusrestaurierung, Wien 1985. I hope that this is of any help for you and that my `messy=B4 confusing writing isn=B4t any problem. Sorry, I do not remember any further specific= literature dealing with your issue. Best wishes, good luck, Thomas Universit=E4t Regensburg Kath.-theol. Fakult=E4t Universit=E4tsstr. 31 D-93053 Regensburg Tel. + 49 941 943 36 90 Fax. + 49 941 943 19 86 thomas-juergen.kraus@theologie.uni-regensburg.de From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Oct 7 10:58:51 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA04307; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 10:58:49 -0400 Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1998 08:00:14 -0700 (PDT) From: Jim Deardorff To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: tc-list Mt 23:26 In-Reply-To: <1DA278D3C31@alf3.ngate.uni-regensburg.de> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 480 I came across a peculiarity here that perhaps someone can explain. The phrase KAI THS PARAYIDOS, or "and of the plate," is listed by N-A 27 as being supported by aleph, B and others, but is left out of the text. Yet its ms support seems stronger, does it not, than for omitting it. Did ordinary logic, then, play a role here, in that it does not make very much sense to speak of a plate having an interior? Jim Deardorff Oregon State University http://www.proaxis.com/~deardorj From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Oct 7 11:30:11 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA04682; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 11:30:09 -0400 Message-Id: <199810071532.RAA51470@mail.uni-muenster.de> From: "Ulrich Schmid" To: Subject: Re: tc-list Jn 19.30 in the versions Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1998 17:27:35 +0200 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 3743 On Wed, 7 Oct 1998, Jean Valentin wrote (in part): [quoting Schmid] > >It is interesting to cope with the various dimensions of readings that seem > >to be only versional, but what do you mean by "common interpretative > >translation"? > > Sorry for this perhaps strange vocabulary. I mean by this that all these > translations, or versions have one element in common that is not directly > translated from Greek, and that needs some process of interpretation > before it is laid down in their text. Somebody who finds a literal > translation of the Greek not clear enough for his readers, had probably > dozens of possible solutions, like adding a subject - and he had the > choice: he could have written "All that I said to my disciples is > fulfilled", or "the Law and the Prophets are fulfilled", or "What I came > to do is fulfilled", or "the salvation of mankind is accomplished". In > such a case, it is probable that every version of the Gospels would have > a different subject here, but such is not the case: most of them added > "everything", though nothing in their Greek text favours that solution > more than any other. They all interpret, and thus translate or > paraphrase, in the same way. This is what I try to describe with my > "common interpretative translation". Thanks for clarification. > When such a thing happens, it attracts my attention and I think I should > suppose that, if these translators didn't get this directly from the > Greek text, they nevertheless have a common source which they used in > translating. In other words: can this coincidence, this agreement of so > many translators, be simply accidental? Was the source they used a common > interpretation circulating orally in the Church at that time, was it some > popular exegesis which circulated in homilies (oral) or in commentaries > (written)? We can't know, except if we remember that all or nearly all of > the texts mentioned are known to have some (even far) genealogical > connection with Tatian. [...] >On the other > hand, the versions I quoted exist, and generally their genealogical links > with each other and with Tatian's work is accepted. This is to the very heart of the problem. Quite frankly I have some trouble tracing back the exact genealogical links between the "western" witnesses (Old Latin n, Dutch Harmonies, French Bible Translations, etc.) and Tatian's work. In order to establish that connection much more work needs to be done. Remember, the mentioned texts are (except for OL n) all medieval products of the 13th century onwards. Two absolutely crucial pieces of evidence are hitherto almost completely unexplored: a) the history of the Latin gospel texts from the 10th century onwards and b) the history of the Latin Harmony tradition. As long as these studies are lacking the connection of "western" texts with Tatian is faint. At least one thing is clear to me: The classic studies of Vogels and Plooij that tried to establish certain connections are highly questionable. [quoting Schmid] > >4) There is, however, reason to doubt that the reading under discussion is > >indeed genealogically significant. It could very well be due to independent > >harmonization to the immediate context (Jn 19.28!). > I'm not very enthusiastic for this either, because this verse (Jn 19.28) > speaks of "the Scriptures" and not of "everything". This last seems to be > a creation ex-nihilo, or at least simply from the need of making a phrase > with a subject other than a too indefinite one like "it". John 19:28 VULGATE reads: postea sciens Iesus quia iam >omnia< consummata sunt ut consummaretur scriptura dicit sitio. Therefore, I can't accept your point. Ulrich Schmid From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Oct 7 11:40:08 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA04817; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 11:40:06 -0400 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <1DA278D3C31@alf3.ngate.uni-regensburg.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1998 10:33:21 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: tc-list Mt 23:26 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1721 On Wed, 7 Oct 1998, Jim Deardorff wrote: >I came across a peculiarity here that perhaps someone can explain. The >phrase KAI THS PARAYIDOS, or "and of the plate," is listed by N-A 27 as >being supported by aleph, B and others, but is left out of the text. Yet >its ms support seems stronger, does it not, than for omitting it. Did >ordinary logic, then, play a role here, in that it does not make very much >sense to speak of a plate having an interior? The official explanation for this variant in the UBS commentary is: The weight of external evidence appears to support the longer text. At the same time the presence of AUTOU (instead of AUTWN) in B* f13 28 al seems to be a hint that the archetype lacked KAI THS PAROYIDOS. On balance, there is a slight probability that the words were inserted by copyists from ver. 25. (Note: I had, obviously, to transliterate the accented lower-case Greek of the Commentary.) The committee labelled this a D decision in both the fourth and fifth editions, meaning that they really don't know what the original text is. Looking solely at the external evidence, I incline, very slightly, to agree with them. This reading is clearly that of the "Caesarean" witnesses, and all the other types are split. At least, that's my top-of-the-head reaction; if I looked at it in more detail, I might well change my mind. :-) -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Robert B. Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn (A site inspired by the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Oct 7 13:53:11 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA05962; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 13:53:08 -0400 Message-Id: <199810071754.NAA76874@f04n01.cac.psu.edu> X-Sender: wlp1@mail.psu.edu (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0.2 Date: Wed, 07 Oct 1998 13:53:35 -0400 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "William L. Petersen" Subject: Re: tc-list Recovering the Invisible? (Imaging techniques) In-Reply-To: <1DA278D3C31@alf3.ngate.uni-regensburg.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 822 It might be worth point out that the Eastman Kodak company used to have a series of professional "handbooks" on infrared photography and UV photography. They were available at a nominal price (each was 30 pp. or so), and were done with a commercial goal in view: to encourage the sale of IR film and UV etc. filters. Twenty-five years ago, when I wrote to the FBI about advanced photography techniques for detecting faint MS writing, they directed me to Kodak...so if it's good enough for them... Digitizing (and chromatic and "angle" recording of images, which are then "digitally" reassembled) have surpassed--to the best of my knowledge--the traditional photographic techniques. Some of this has been done with parts of the Dead Sea materials. --Petersen, Penn State Univ. Cheers! --Bill. WLP1@psu.edu 865-7773 From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Oct 7 14:29:47 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA06426; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 14:29:44 -0400 Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1998 14:30:55 -0400 From: Mike Bossingham Subject: Re: tc-list Recovering the Invisible? To: "INTERNET:tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu" Message-ID: <199810071431_MC2-5BEC-B8D2@compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 230 Hi, I saw on TV here in the UK, some work done by the British Library on the Beowolf manuscript. They managed to recover text in almost impossible conditions It may be worth contacting them. Regards Mike Bossingham Maidenhead From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Oct 7 16:27:42 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA07723; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 16:27:39 -0400 Message-Id: <199810072029.WAA25777@carno.brus.online.be> Subject: Re: tc-list Jn 19.30 in the versions Date: Mer, 7 Oct 98 22:35:16 +0200 x-sender: vale5655@pop3.brus.online.be x-mailer: Claris Emailer 1.1 From: Jean VALENTIN To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 846 >John 19:28 VULGATE reads: > postea sciens Iesus quia iam >omnia< consummata sunt ut consummaretur >scriptura dicit sitio. >Therefore, I can't accept your point. Thanks for underlining - I think I read that text too quickly the other day (I must have been tired :-). So OK for the theoretical possibility of an independent harmonization with vs. 28, like you say. It should indeed be considered. I would accept it as the most likely solution were there only a few witnesses to it. But here, there's a massive agreement of so many different texts that I prefer a genealogical connection. But you are right to examine all the possibilities, and this is one. Jean V. _________________________________________________ Jean Valentin - Bruxelles - Belgique e-mail: jgvalentin@arcadis.be _________________________________________________ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Oct 7 19:10:36 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA08450; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 19:10:34 -0400 Message-ID: <361BF4EC.F6DCD6A4@research.bell-labs.com> Date: Wed, 07 Oct 1998 19:10:36 -0400 From: George Kiraz Organization: Bell Labs - Lucent Technologies X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (X11; I; IRIX 6.3 IP32) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: TC Subject: tc-list Syriac studies list Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1300 A new discussion list associated with __Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies__ [http://www.acad.cua.edu/syrcom/Hugoye] is being formed. This list is intended for scholars with interest in Syriac studies in all its aspects. Discussions are intended to be of academic and scholarly nature. If you are interested in joining this group, please email me off-line. Please write in the subject line "Hugoye-List", and (unless you know that I know you) please indicate in the message: 1. Your interests in Syriac studies briefly (1 line would do), and 2. Your affiliation. George Kiraz Hugoye General Editor -- \_\_\_\_\_\_\_ George Anton Kiraz, Ph.D. \_\_\_ \_\_\_\_ \_ \_ Language Modeling Research \_ \_ \_ \_ Bell Laboratories \_ \_ \_ \_ Lucent Technologies \_ \_\_\_ \_\_\_\_\_\_\_ \_ \_ Room 2D-446 \_ \_ 700 Mountain Ave. \_ \_ Murray Hill, NJ 07974 \_ \_ Tel. +1 908 582 4074 \_ \_ Fax. +1 908 582 3306 \_\_\_ email: gkiraz@research.bell-labs.com From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Oct 8 09:07:54 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id WAA09653; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 22:31:42 -0400 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <1DA278D3C31@alf3.ngate.uni-regensburg.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1998 21:44:59 +0400 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: Carlton Winbery Subject: Re: tc-list Mt 23:26 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1889 >On Wed, 7 Oct 1998, Jim Deardorff wrote: > >>I came across a peculiarity here that perhaps someone can explain. The >>phrase KAI THS PARAYIDOS, or "and of the plate," is listed by N-A 27 as >>being supported by aleph, B and others, but is left out of the text. Yet >>its ms support seems stronger, does it not, than for omitting it. Did >>ordinary logic, then, play a role here, in that it does not make very much >>sense to speak of a plate having an interior? > >The official explanation for this variant in the UBS commentary is: > > The weight of external evidence appears to support the longer > text. At the same time the presence of AUTOU (instead of > AUTWN) in B* f13 28 al seems to be a hint that the archetype > lacked KAI THS PAROYIDOS. On balance, there is a slight > probability that the words were inserted by copyists from > ver. 25. > >(Note: I had, obviously, to transliterate the accented lower-case >Greek of the Commentary.) > >The committee labelled this a D decision in both the fourth and >fifth editions, meaning that they really don't know what the >original text is. > >Looking solely at the external evidence, I incline, very slightly, >to agree with them. This reading is clearly that of the "Caesarean" >witnesses, and all the other types are split. At least, that's >my top-of-the-head reaction; if I looked at it in more detail, I >might well change my mind. :-) I wonder also if Luke 11:39 might have influenced a scribe or the tradition behind both Luke and Matt (maybe Q?). In Luke there a different word for plate, TOU PINAKOS. Perhaps someone will also straighten out the fact that in Luke, they are commanded to give those dirty things inside the cup for alms. Carlton L. Winbery Fogleman Professor of Religion Louisiana College Pineville, LA 71359 winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net winbery@andria.lacollege.edu From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Oct 8 09:08:16 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA09093; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 19:52:02 -0400 From: "Vinton A. Dearing" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1998 16:55:27 PST MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: tc-list recovering the invisible X-Confirm-Reading-To: "Vinton A. Dearing" X-pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.31) Message-ID: <3AD36CC30FF@113hum4.humnet.ucla.edu> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 424 For advanced photographic methods applied to the Dead Sea Scrolls and (if I remember) a major manuscript of the Hebrew Bible contact the Ancient Biblical Manuscript Center in Claremont, California, USA. I'm sorry not to have a better address; the Center has an international reputation as a repository of photographs of DSS and biblical material, so a reference librarian can provide what I cannot. Vinton A. Dearing From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Oct 8 11:30:34 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA00943; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 11:30:32 -0400 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <1DA278D3C31@alf3.ngate.uni-regensburg.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1998 10:20:17 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: tc-list Mt 23:26 (Correction) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 721 Well, I made a mistake on this thread. I see that I wrote >>The committee labelled this a D decision in both the fourth and >>fifth editions, meaning that they really don't know what the >>original text is. That first sentence should, of course, have read The [UBS] committee labelled this a D decision in both the THIRD and FOURTH editions. Guess I'm expecting an upsurge in inflation again. :-) -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Robert B. Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn (A site inspired by the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Oct 8 21:49:21 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA05263; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 21:49:20 -0400 Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1998 21:51:45 -0400 Message-Id: <199810090151.VAA24171@server1.netpath.net> X-Sender: rlmullen@server1.netpath.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Roderic L. Mullen" Subject: tc-list muratorian canon Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 306 Query for the cognoscenti: would anyone care to share an opinion about G. M. Hahneman, THE MURATORIAN FRAGMENT AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CANON (Oxford: Clarendon, 1992), in which he suggests redating the Muratorian Canon to the Fourth Century? I'll reserve my own comments for now. Thanks, Rod Mullen From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Oct 8 22:41:58 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id WAA05523; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 22:41:57 -0400 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19981008224454.00799b50@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: scarlson@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Thu, 08 Oct 1998 22:44:54 -0400 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Stephen C. Carlson" Subject: Re: tc-list muratorian canon In-Reply-To: <199810090151.VAA24171@server1.netpath.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 713 At 09:51 PM 10/8/98 -0400, you wrote: >Query for the cognoscenti: would anyone care to share an opinion about G. >M. Hahneman, THE MURATORIAN FRAGMENT AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CANON >(Oxford: Clarendon, 1992), in which he suggests redating the Muratorian >Canon to the Fourth Century? I'll reserve my own comments for now. Thanks, >Rod Mullen I've read it about two years and was persuaded that the late second century is not the best dating for the Muratorian Canon. Stephen Carlson -- Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@mindspring.com Synoptic Problem Home Page http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/ "Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35 From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Oct 8 23:21:52 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id XAA05775; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 23:21:51 -0400 Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.19981008221435.00750530@pop.flash.net> X-Sender: logsdon@pop.flash.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.2 (32) Date: Thu, 08 Oct 1998 22:14:35 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: Mike Logsdon Subject: Re: tc-list muratorian canon In-Reply-To: <199810090151.VAA24171@server1.netpath.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2502 Hahneman's work, though it is difficult to follow at times, does deal with the issue at hand--strengthening the case for a late fourth-century date and an eastern provenance designation of the fragment. Nevertheless one of his weaknesses from the outset is his overstatement regarding the Muratorian fragment to canon study. As such, he does not demonstrate why a later date necessitates a revised canon history toward a more gradual process, but instead his own dating of the Muratorian canon seems to be predicated upon this gradual process of canon formation. Still other weaknesses do occur. His argumentation is largely based on speculative postulations rather than concrete demonstrations about the contents of the fragment. Nowhere does he demonstrate a peculiarity or other aspect of the fragment that absolutely requires a fourth century dating. When he does attempt to offer a concrete characteristic, he erroneously concludes that the fragment is completely synonymous to the other fourth century catalogues. In fact, the lists in the fourth century catalogues are just that, lists. The Muratorian list, comparatively, is an expanded or apologetic commentary. What is more, Hahneman's dating is questionable since he so quickly accepts Sundberg's translation of nuperrime that is at best a mere plausible choice. In fact, Hahneman does not offer a critique of the traditional view that the reference is in fact not about the Shepherd of Hermas and Pius, but the Muratorian fragment and Pius. Hahneman rightly identifies the need to view the canon process as gradual, but over emphasizes the distinction between canon and scripture in reference to the fourth-century. In the end, Hahneman's conclusion appears plausible and his argumentation is good, but at the same time his own rejection of traditional conclusions offers little reason to completely accept his position thereby leaving readers cynical towards all positions concerning the Muratorian fragment. When one considers the abrupt ending and beginning of the fragment, cynicism towards conclusive remarks about the fragment might be a good position to maintain. At 09:51 PM 10/8/98 -0400, you wrote: >Query for the cognoscenti: would anyone care to share an opinion about G. >M. Hahneman, THE MURATORIAN FRAGMENT AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CANON >(Oxford: Clarendon, 1992), in which he suggests redating the Muratorian >Canon to the Fourth Century? I'll reserve my own comments for now. Thanks, >Rod Mullen > > > From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Oct 8 23:26:31 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id XAA05819; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 23:26:31 -0400 Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1998 23:26:30 -0400 Message-Id: <199810090326.XAA05814@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> >Date: 7 Oct 1998 22:40:30 -0000 From: "Rev. Craig R. Harmon" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list Semitic NT Project Content-Type: text Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 682 At 02:11 PM 10/6/98 -0400, you wrote: > > This is pure linguistics. Greek BAPTIZO and Hebrew T'VILLA literally MEAN > "immersion" we will use the word "immersion" because it literally > translates the text and does not have the theological baggage that > "baptize" does. I may get back to you about the meaning of BAPTIZO and T'VILLA later. At the moment, I only wish to suggest that the word "immersion" carries it's own theological baggage and is nowhere near being theologically neutral. Just my oppinion, of course. Craig R. Harmon ----- See the original message at http://www.egroups.com/list/tc-list/?start=4759 -- Free e-mail group hosting at http://www.eGroups.com/ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Oct 8 23:27:39 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id XAA05838; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 23:27:39 -0400 Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1998 23:27:38 -0400 Message-Id: <199810090327.XAA05833@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> >Date: 7 Oct 1998 22:46:34 -0000 From: "Rev. Craig R. Harmon" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list Let's let this thread die quickly, please Content-Type: text Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1173 (Not that I'm the arbiter of good taste or protocol or anything--just a > lowly Ph.D. candidate.) > I'll take your word for it (being an even lowlier STM student) that this question of mine was in bad taste (on this list at least). I apologize (mea culpa) for responding again; I had not yet read your call for the immediate death of the thread. You have heard the last of me on the topic. Craig R. Harmon > As interesting as it might be, let's let this debate (BAPTIZW=immerse?) die, > or take it off-list. It has nothing to do with textual criticism. > > Perry L. Stepp > > ***************************************************************** > Pastor, DeSoto Christian Church, DeSoto TX > Ph.D. Candidate in Religion, Baylor University > #1 Cowboy Fan > Keeper of the Top-10, news://alt.fan.letterman > mail to: plstepp@flash.net > > "That depends on what the definition of the word 'is' is." > --William Jefferson Clinton, 17 August 1998 > > ***************************************************************** > > > ----- See the original message at http://www.egroups.com/list/tc-list/?start=4757 -- Free e-mail group hosting at http://www.eGroups.com/ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Oct 9 07:34:16 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id HAA08032; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 07:34:15 -0400 From: "Mark Goodacre" Organization: The University of Birmingham To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1998 12:35:23 GMT MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: tc-list Mt 23:26 Priority: normal In-reply-to: References: Message-ID: <163BB746AD1@hhs.bham.ac.uk> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1520 On 7 Oct 98 at 21:44, Carlton Winbery wrote: > I wonder also if Luke 11:39 might have influenced a scribe or the tradition > behind both Luke and Matt (maybe Q?). In Luke there a different word for > plate, TOU PINAKOS. Perhaps someone will also straighten out the fact that in > Luke, they are commanded to give those dirty things inside the cup for alms. On the first point, the IQP's Critical Text of Q 11.39b reads THS PAROYIDOS with Matthew rather than TOU PINAKOS with Luke. I am interested by the suggestion that Q might have influenced a scribe of Matthew (if I read the words above correctly) -- on what grounds could one establish the likelihood of that? On the second point, it seems more likely that Luke 11.41 is referring to the inner Pharisee than to the inner cup. Turner suggests that one take TA ENONTA as an adverbial accusative, thus TA ENONTA DOTE ELEHMOSUNHN will mean something like "Give alms inwardly", a theme with a clearly Lukan character and paralleled not far away in 12.33-34. Thus we should probably see Luke 11.41as a Lukan redaction of the saying found in Q (so Tuckett and Kloppenborg) or Matthew (so Goulder). Mark -------------------------------------- Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@bham.ac.uk Dept of Theology Tel: +44 (0)121 414 7512 University of Birmingham Fax: +44 (0)121 414 6866 Birmingham B15 2TT United Kingdom Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre World Without Q: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/q From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Oct 9 10:28:23 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA10737; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 10:28:22 -0400 Message-Id: <199810091430.QAA247936@mail.uni-muenster.de> From: "Ulrich Schmid" To: Subject: Re: tc-list Mt 23:26 Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1998 16:25:38 +0200 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 886 On Fri, 9 Oct 1998, Mark Goodacre wrote: > On 7 Oct 98 at 21:44, Carlton Winbery wrote: > > > I wonder also if Luke 11:39 might have influenced a scribe or the tradition > > behind both Luke and Matt (maybe Q?). In Luke there a different word for > > plate, TOU PINAKOS. Perhaps someone will also straighten out the fact that in > > Luke, they are commanded to give those dirty things inside the cup for alms. > > On the first point, the IQP's Critical Text of Q 11.39b reads THS PAROYIDOS > with Matthew rather than TOU PINAKOS with Luke. I am interested by the > suggestion that Q might have influenced a scribe of Matthew (if I read the > words above correctly) -- on what grounds could one establish the likelihood of > that? No way! Assimilation to the immediate context (Mt 23.25) seems the most likely explanation (if I read the words above correctly). Ulrich Schmid From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Oct 9 13:38:42 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA02272; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 13:38:41 -0400 Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1998 12:40:12 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <199810091740.MAA16731@homer.bethel.edu> X-Sender: holmic@mailhost.bethel.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: Michael Holmes Subject: Re: tc-list muratorian canon Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 977 At 09:51 PM 10/8/98 -0400, Rod Mullen wrote: >Query for the cognoscenti: would anyone care to share an opinion about G. >M. Hahneman, THE MURATORIAN FRAGMENT AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CANON >(Oxford: Clarendon, 1992), in which he suggests redating the Muratorian >Canon to the Fourth Century? I'll reserve my own comments for now. Thanks, >Rod Mullen > My review of the book is in CBQ 56 (1994) 594-5. The last lines of it read: "H. has rightly highlighted the problematic character of the traditional dating, but nothing he has presented eliminates it or requires a later dating. His own case for a fourth-century date is just as problematic; in support of it he offers many possibilities and some probabilities, but nothing more certain than the case for the traditional date. The book, well written and engagingly presented, leaves this reviewer skeptical of all dates sugested for the MC, but of H.'s more than of the traditional one." Mike Holmes Bethel College From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Oct 10 08:18:09 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA04054; Sat, 10 Oct 1998 08:18:09 -0400 Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19981009204201.00ae57c8@postoffice.swbell.net> X-Sender: jstrimm@postoffice.swbell.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.3 (32) Date: Fri, 09 Oct 1998 20:42:01 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: James Trimm Subject: tc-list Semitic NT texts Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 5937 Several Semitic versions of New Testament books have come down to us which may have some claim to being decendants of the original Semitic text. These include the Shem Tob and Du Tillet Hebrew versions of Matthew; the Old Syriac Aramaic version of the four Gospels; The Peshitta Aramaic New Testament and the Crawford Aramaic version of Revelation. The DuTillet Hebrew version of Matthew is taken from a Hebrew manuscript of Matthew which was confiscated from Jews in Rome in 1553. It was brought to Paris by Bishop DuTillet and placed at the Biblioteque Nationale where it remains to this day as Hebrew ms. mo. 132. Both Hugh Schonfield and George Howard have stated that an ancestor of this Hebrew text underlies our current Greek text. Schonfield writes: ...certain linguistic proofs... seem to show that the Hebrew text [DuTillet] underlies the Greek, and that certain renderings in the Greek may be due to a misread Hebrew original. (An Old Hebrew Text of St. Matthew's Gospel; 1927, p. 17) The Shem Tob Hebrew version of Matthew was transcribed by Shem Tob Ben Yitzach Ben Shaprut into his apologetic work Even Bohan sometime around 1380 C.E. While the autograph of Shem Tob's Even Bohan has been lost, several mss. dating between the fifteenth and seventeenth centuries still exist. George Howard states of the Shem Tob version of Matthew: ...an old substratum to the Hebrew in Shem Tob is a prior composition, not a translation. The old substratum, however, has been exposed to a series of revisions so that the present text of Shem-Tob represents the original only in an impure form. (The Gospel of Matthew according to a Primitive Hebrew Text; 1987;p.223) It might appear from the linguistic and sociological background to early Christianity and the nature of some theological tendencies in Shem-Tob's Matthew that the Hebrew text served as a model for the Greek. The present writer is, in fact, inclined to that position. (ibid p. 225) Shem-Tob's Matthew... does not preserve the original in a pure form. It reflects contamination by Jewish scribes during the Middle Ages. Considerable parts of the original, however, appear to remain... (Hebrew Gospel of Matthew; 1995; p. 178 In addition to the Hebrew versions of Matthew we also have an Aramaic version of the Four Gospels known as the Old Syriac. Two manuscripts of this version have been discovered dating back to the 4th century. The firstwas discovered by Dr. William Cureton in 1842. The second was discovered by Mrs. Agnes Smith Lewis in 1892. After making his profound discovery, Dr. Cureton studied the Old Syriac text in detail. He concluded that at least the version of Matthew found in the Old Syriac has its basis in the Orginal Semitic text and was not merely at translation from the Greek. Cureton published his findings to the world saying: ...this Gospel of St. Matthew appears at least to be built upon the orginal Aramaic text which was the work of the Apostle himself. (Remains of a Very Ancient Recension of the Four Gospels in Syriac; 1858; p. vi) In my book the Semitic Orgin of the New Testament I show edivence that this is true of the whole of the Old Syriac. The Peshitta New Testament is the Aramaic version of the New Testament which has been preserved by the Church of the East (mentioned above). It includes all of the books except 2Peter; 2John; 3John; Jude and Revelation. These books were not canonized by the Church of the East until 508 C.E.. The Peshitta is not merely a translation from the Greek text, but rather a revision of the Old Syriac, as Arthur Voobus writes: "... the Peshitta is not a translation, but a revision pf an Old Syriac version." (Studies in the History of the Gospel Text in Syriac; 1951; p. 46 see also pp. 54-55). The Crawford Aramaic version of Revelation is a very rare, little known version. How the ms. made its way to Europe is unknown. What is known is that th ms. was purchased by the Earl of Crawford around 1860. In his possession it became catalogued Earl of Crawford's Haigh Hall, Wigin, no. 11. It has since been placed at the John Rylands Library. Concerning the variants of this version John Gwyn Writes: Two or three... are plausible readings; and might well be judged worthy of adoption if there were any ground for supposing the Apocalypse to have been originally written, or to be based on a document written, in an Aramaic idiom. (The Apocalypse of St. John in a Syriac Version Hitherto Unknown; 1897; p. lxxix) Several scholars have proposed an Aramaic or Hebrew original for this book. James Scott Trimm For further reading the following two books are currently available: THE SEMITIC ORIGIN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT by James Scott Trimm Available from: Heb/Aram NT Research Inst PO Box 471 Hurst, TX 76053 HEBREW GOSPEL OF MATTHEW by George Howard Mercer University Press 6316 Peake Rd. Macon, GA 31210-3960 James Trimm ============================================== He who seeks will not cease until he finds, and having found he will be amazed, and having been amazed he will reign, and having reigned he will rest. - The Goodnews according to the Hebrews ============================================== The Society for the Advancement of Nazarene Judaism: PO Box 471; Hurst, TX 76053; USA http://www.nazarene.net A nonprofit organization supported by freewill offerings ============================================== E-mail discusion groups: Nazarene Judaism; Messianic Judaism; Yahwism; Lost Tribes; Book of Enoch; Semitic Origin of the New Testament; Prophecy, Sabbatarian & b-Aramaic. Subscribe at: http://www.nazarene.net ============================================== Essene Forum: Essene website, listserver & links: http://www.nazarene.net/essene/essene_forum.htm From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Oct 12 17:16:20 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA07441; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 17:16:18 -0400 Message-Id: <199810122116.RAA07436@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> From: "Steve & Jules Carson-Rowland" To: "Textual List" Subject: tc-list OT scripture Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 07:20:32 +1000 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1161 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 768 I am sorry if this is a little off-topic. It it is and anyone can help with the question please reply to me off list. In Book 2 of 'Against Apion', Josephus writes: '..for, says the Scripture, "A woman is inferior to her husband in all things." ' (This is the internet version of Against Apion. My library doesn't have the Loeb Classic of this work, but the numbering of this reference in the internet version is Book 2:25.) Can anyone identify this scripture? If it is not in the canonical OT, does this impact on Josephus' view of the canon of the OT which he explains in Against Apion. (I checked Feldman's 'Josephus and Modern Scholarship: 1937-1980' but no mention was made of this particular quotation). Regards, Steve Carson-Rowland Queensland, Australia From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Oct 12 18:18:42 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA07737; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 18:18:39 -0400 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199810122116.RAA07436@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1998 17:20:27 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: tc-list OT scripture Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 903 On Tue, 13 Oct 1998, "Steve & Jules Carson-Rowland" wrote: >I am sorry if this is a little off-topic. It it is and anyone can help with >the question please reply to me off list. > >In Book 2 of 'Against Apion', Josephus writes: >'..for, says the Scripture, "A woman is inferior to her husband in all >things." ' > >(This is the internet version of Against Apion. My library doesn't have the >Loeb Classic of this work, but the numbering of this reference in the >internet version is Book 2:25.) Can you check that number? I'm looking in the Loeb Josephus, and AA 2:25 is about the Sabbath, not the relations between a woman and her husband. Is it possible that this should be II.ii.5, or some such? If not, can you give us a larger quotation to work from? Bob Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com "The one thing we learn from history -- is that no one ever learns from history." From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Oct 12 19:40:21 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA08326; Mon, 12 Oct 1998 19:40:20 -0400 Message-ID: <362293ED.D1C925FA@earthlink.net> Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1998 16:42:37 -0700 From: Bernard Taylor X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list OT scripture References: <199810122116.RAA07436@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> X-Corel-MessageType: EMail Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 481 Steve & Jules Carson-Rowland wrote: > In Book 2 of 'Against Apion', Josephus writes: > '..for, says the Scripture, "A woman is inferior to her husband in all > things." ' In the Kregel publication of the Whiston text (at 2:25), probably the text on the Internet (the text is the same), there is a footnote that says: "This text is nowhere in our present copies of the Old Testament." In answering the first of your questions, it leaves the second unaddressed. Bernard Taylor From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Oct 13 17:43:06 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA14887; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 17:43:04 -0400 Message-Id: <199810132143.RAA14882@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> From: "Steve & Jules Carson-Rowland" To: Subject: Re: tc-list OT scripture Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 07:47:12 +1000 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1161 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 897 On Tue, 13 Oct 1998, "Steve & Jules Carson-Rowland" wrote: >I am sorry if this is a little off-topic. It it is and anyone can help with the question please reply to me off list. > >In Book 2 of 'Against Apion', Josephus writes: >'..for, says the Scripture, "A woman is inferior to her husband in all things." ' > >(This is the internet version of Against Apion. My library doesn't have the Loeb Classic of this work, but the numbering of this reference in the internet version is Book 2:25.) Bob Waltz Can you check that number? I'm looking in the Loeb Josephus, and AA 2:25 is about the Sabbath, not the relations between a woman and her husband. Is it possible that this should be II.ii.5, or some such? If not, can you give us a larger quotation to work from? STEVE CR It is approx 2/3 of the way through book 2. That section (in the internet version) begins with: From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Oct 13 17:44:51 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA14930; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 17:44:49 -0400 Message-Id: <199810132144.RAA14922@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> From: "Steve & Jules Carson-Rowland" To: Subject: Re: tc-list OT scripture Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 07:49:05 +1000 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1161 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1681 On Tue, 13 Oct 1998, "Steve & Jules Carson-Rowland" wrote: >I am sorry if this is a little off-topic. It it is and anyone can help with the question please reply to me off list. > >In Book 2 of 'Against Apion', Josephus writes: >'..for, says the Scripture, "A woman is inferior to her husband in all things." ' > >(This is the internet version of Against Apion. My library doesn't have the Loeb Classic of this work, but the numbering of this reference in the internet version is Book 2:25.) Bob Waltz Can you check that number? I'm looking in the Loeb Josephus, and AA 2:25 is about the Sabbath, not the relations between a woman and her husband. Is it possible that this should be II.ii.5, or some such? If not, can you give us a larger quotation to work from? STEVE CR It is approx 2/3 of the way through book 2. That section (in the internet version) begins with: [oops, hit the wrong key last time and sent an unfinished version...] 25. But, then, what are our laws about marriage? That law owns no other mixture of sexes but that which nature hath appointed, of a man with his wife, and that this be used only for the procreation of children. But it abhors the mixture of a male with a male; and if any one do that, death is its punishment. It commands us also, when we marry, not to have regard to portion, nor to take a woman by violence, nor to persuade her deceitfully and knavishly; but to demand her in marriage of him who hath power to dispose of her, and is fit to give her away by the nearness of his kindred; for, says the Scripture, "A woman is inferior to her husband in all things."... Steve Carson-Rowland Queensland, Australia From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Oct 13 19:22:31 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA15437; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 19:22:28 -0400 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199810132144.RAA14922@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 18:21:10 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: tc-list OT scripture Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1823 On Wed, 14 Oct 1998, "Steve & Jules Carson-Rowland" wrote: >25. But, then, what are our laws about marriage? That law owns no other >mixture of sexes but that which nature hath appointed, of a man with his >wife, and that this be used only for the procreation of children. But it >abhors the mixture of a male with a male; and if any one do that, death is >its punishment. It commands us also, when we marry, not to have regard to >portion, nor to take a woman by violence, nor to persuade her deceitfully >and knavishly; but to demand her in marriage of him who hath power to >dispose of her, and is fit to give her away by the nearness of his kindred; >for, says the Scripture, "A woman is inferior to her husband in all >things."... OK. For what it is worth, this is section #24 in the Loeb version, not #25. But the cause of the confusion is that the #24/25 is not the Loeb numbering system; it's the classical system. The Loeb numbers for this section are I.199-203. (For what it's worth.) So with that said, here is what the Loeb edition reveals (BTW, this is section 201 in the Loeb edition.) The Greek text reads gunh ceirwn, fhsin, andros eis apanta. toigaroun upakouetw, mh pros ubrin, all an archtai* qeos gar andri to kratos edwken. This whole passage is in brackets. There is no manuscript evidence for the omission, but the note on the Greek side says "Passage suspected by Niese; cf. Ephes. v.22 and other N.T. parallels." On the English side, the translation reads The woman, says the Law, is in all things inferior to the man. [etc.] The note attributes the quotation to Gen. 3:16. Doesn't look much like the LXX to me -- but what do I know? :-) Bob Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com "The one thing we learn from history -- is that no one ever learns from history." From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Oct 21 15:23:38 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id BAA23035; Wed, 21 Oct 1998 01:43:41 -0400 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail & News for Macintosh - 3.0c (405) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 01:49:46 +0000 Subject: tc-list FW: Mark 16:9-20 From: Blue Skies White Stars To: TC List-Digest Mime-version: 1.0 http: //zpbstimes.org Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <19981021054416406.AAA252.311@[209.12.221.105]> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1611 --> --> Hello everyone, --> --> I just subscribed, so I might be either late or early on the topic- I know --> Mark 16:9-20 has probably been hashed and re-hashed on here, so I'll keep my --> question easy--- I'm presently studying TC independently (so many resources --> available nowadays) and on my apologetics listserve, we're having a --> discussion about the Marcan passages in question as to their authenticity. --> One person on a related list (which is discussing the topic concurrently --> with my list) brought up Dean Burgon. I'm quite familiar with Metzger, but --> aside from surface info, don't know much about Burgon. I was referred to --> Burgon's 'The Last Twelve Verses of Mark' and given the impression that --> modern TC makes a mistake about asterisks/obeli in the mss which contain the --> longer ending (9-20) and that the passages are marked with a cross (?) and --> designated authentic. Metzger, on the other hand, brings up several points --> (which I concur with) for marking the passages as unauthentic (Text of the --> NT, pp. 226-29). --> --> Looking for references and general info that anyone more educated can give --> me on the subject. Thanks!! --> --> --> Kerry Gilliard --> Director/Founder --> W.I.T.N.E.S.S. Ministries --> http://tidalwave.net/~blufunk195 --> 1 Peter 3:15, Jude 3 --> Director of Music --> Open Bible Baptist Church --> 410-488-4646 --> personal site: http://zpbstimes.org/webmaster --> "There are two types of people-those searching for truth and those searching --> for an excuse not to believe---which are you?"- Kerry Gilliard, 1993 --> From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Oct 21 16:13:49 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA29181; Wed, 21 Oct 1998 16:13:49 -0400 Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 15:55:25 +0000 From: Jim West Subject: Re: tc-list FW: Mark 16:9-20 X-Sender: jwest@highland.net (Unverified) To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.32.19981021155525.0066cfe0@highland.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1149 At 01:49 AM 10/21/98 +0000, you wrote: > > >--> >--> Hello everyone, Gee- it might just be me- but is ther any way you can leave off the dashes and arrows which begin every line of your text, please, if possible. And hello to you. >--> Mark 16:9-20 [snipped] >--> Looking for references and general info that anyone can >give >--> me on the subject. Thanks!! There is absolutely no doubt that the long ending of Mark is secondary and was not a part of the earliest document. A brief glance at the textual evidence will show that it is LATE, late, late!!!!!! You may want to consult any modern (i.e., written in the last half century of so) commentary on the Gospel of Mark, like that of Eduard Schweizer, or even better, Rudolf Pesch. The long ending (as it is called) is preserved by various parties because their treasured text is based on late, virtually worthless (so far as being useful in recovering the earliest readings of any NT document), Byzantine manuscripts. Best, Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Adjunct Professor of Bible- Quartz Hill School of Theology Pastor- Petros Baptist Church jwest@highland.net From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Oct 21 17:07:43 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA29602; Wed, 21 Oct 1998 17:07:43 -0400 Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19981022090859.00c0e424@utc.campus.mci.net> X-Sender: cierpke.utc@utc.campus.mci.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 05:08:59 -0400 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Kevin W. Woodruff" Subject: Re: tc-list FW: Mark 16:9-20 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2382 Kerry: I personally don't think that Mark 16:9-20 should be included, but too often the textual evidence is dismissed too quickly. Codex Alexandrinus, Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus and Codex Bezae all have the passage. Irenaeus (120-202 A. D.) quotes the passage so it must be quite old At 01:49 AM 10/21/98 +0000, you wrote: > > >--> >--> Hello everyone, >--> >--> I just subscribed, so I might be either late or early on the topic- I >know >--> Mark 16:9-20 has probably been hashed and re-hashed on here, so I'll >keep my >--> question easy--- I'm presently studying TC independently (so many >resources >--> available nowadays) and on my apologetics listserve, we're having a >--> discussion about the Marcan passages in question as to their >authenticity. >--> One person on a related list (which is discussing the topic concurrently >--> with my list) brought up Dean Burgon. I'm quite familiar with Metzger, >but >--> aside from surface info, don't know much about Burgon. I was referred to >--> Burgon's 'The Last Twelve Verses of Mark' and given the impression that >--> modern TC makes a mistake about asterisks/obeli in the mss which contain >the >--> longer ending (9-20) and that the passages are marked with a cross (?) >and >--> designated authentic. Metzger, on the other hand, brings up several >points >--> (which I concur with) for marking the passages as unauthentic (Text of >the >--> NT, pp. 226-29). >--> >--> Looking for references and general info that anyone more educated can >give >--> me on the subject. Thanks!! >--> >--> >--> Kerry Gilliard >--> Director/Founder >--> W.I.T.N.E.S.S. Ministries >--> http://tidalwave.net/~blufunk195 >--> 1 Peter 3:15, Jude 3 >--> Director of Music >--> Open Bible Baptist Church >--> 410-488-4646 >--> personal site: http://zpbstimes.org/webmaster >--> "There are two types of people-those searching for truth and those >searching >--> for an excuse not to believe---which are you?"- Kerry Gilliard, 1993 >--> > > > Kevin W. Woodruff, M.Div. Library Director/Reference Librarian Cierpke Memorial Library Tennessee Temple University/Temple Baptist Seminary 1815 Union Ave. Chattanooga, Tennessee 37404 United States of America 423/493-4252 (office) 423/698-9447 (home) 423/493-4497 (FAX) Cierpke@utc.campus.mci.net (preferred) kwoodruf@utkux.utcc.utk.edu (alternate) http://web.utk.edu/~kwoodruf/woodruff.htm From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Oct 21 17:35:42 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA29777; Wed, 21 Oct 1998 17:35:41 -0400 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: tc-list Re:Mark 16:9-20 Message-ID: <19981021.173306.7895.0.seventh.guardian@juno.com> References: <1.5.4.32.19981021155525.0066cfe0@highland.net> X-Mailer: Juno 1.49 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-12,14-17,21-22,28-29,35-36,40-47 From: seventh.guardian@juno.com (Maurice A. Robinson) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 17:37:16 EDT Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2245 On Wed, 21 Oct 1998 15:55:25 +0000 Jim West writes: >At 01:49 AM 10/21/98 +0000, you wrote: >>--> Mark 16:9-20 >There is absolutely no doubt that the long ending of Mark is secondary >and was not a part of the earliest document. A brief glance at the >textual evidence will show that it is LATE, late, late!!!!!! [snip] >The long ending (as it is called) is preserved by various parties >because their treasured text is based on late, virtually worthless (so far as >being useful in recovering the earliest readings of any NT document), >Byzantine manuscripts. Although I am too preoccupied to get into a debate over the long ending of Mark, I am somewhat at a loss over the rhetoric and invective in Jim's message. Something better than a misleading diatribe would be preferable. Why not simply note that among the extant Greek MSS there are only two which actually omit the passage (the somewhat interrelated Alexandrian witnesses Sinaiticus and Vaticanus), while all remaining Greek MSS (save those which are missing the final page of Mark) contain the long ending, with a few containing both the long ending and the shorter ending? At least that would be factual. You might also want to note that Vaticanus happens to leave a blank space at the end of Mark (unique in the entire NT of that MS) which is nearly sufficient to contain the whole of those verses, and which likely indicates that the scribe of Vaticanus knew of the long ending and apparently had some concern regarding the omission which the blank space seems to reflect. And as for "late" and "virtually worthless" evidence, I doubt that the evidence of the Curetonian Syriac (sy-c), which contains the long ending (at least the last few verses in the extant fragments) should be so quickly discounted as mere Byzantine-era fluff. ================================================= Maurice A. Robinson Professor of NT and Greek Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ___________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Oct 21 21:45:21 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA00725; Wed, 21 Oct 1998 21:45:21 -0400 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <19981021.173306.7895.0.seventh.guardian@juno.com> References: <1.5.4.32.19981021155525.0066cfe0@highland.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 20:59:03 +0400 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: Carlton Winbery Subject: Re: tc-list Re:Mark 16:9-20 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2440 >On Wed, 21 Oct 1998 15:55:25 +0000 Jim West writes: >>At 01:49 AM 10/21/98 +0000, you wrote: > >>>--> Mark 16:9-20 > >>There is absolutely no doubt that the long ending of Mark is secondary >>and was not a part of the earliest document. A brief glance at the >>textual evidence will show that it is LATE, late, late!!!!!! > >[snip] > >>The long ending (as it is called) is preserved by various parties >>because their treasured text is based on late, virtually worthless (so >far as >>being useful in recovering the earliest readings of any NT document), >>Byzantine manuscripts. > >Although I am too preoccupied to get into a debate over the long ending >of Mark, I am somewhat at a loss over the rhetoric and invective in Jim's >message. Something better than a misleading diatribe would be preferable. > > >Why not simply note that among the extant Greek MSS there are only two >which actually omit the passage (the somewhat interrelated Alexandrian >witnesses Sinaiticus and Vaticanus), while all remaining Greek MSS (save >those which are missing the final page of Mark) contain the long ending, >with a few containing both the long ending and the shorter ending? At >least that would be factual. > >You might also want to note that Vaticanus happens to leave a blank space >at the end of Mark (unique in the entire NT of that MS) which is nearly >sufficient to contain the whole of those verses, and which likely >indicates that the scribe of Vaticanus knew of the long ending and >apparently had some concern regarding the omission which the blank space >seems to reflect. > >And as for "late" and "virtually worthless" evidence, I doubt that the >evidence of the Curetonian Syriac (sy-c), which contains the long ending >(at least the last few verses in the extant fragments) should be so >quickly discounted as mere Byzantine-era fluff. > Thanks, Maurice, for reminding us how scholars discuss such questions. It seems that I read somewhere that there is evidence that Tatian's Diatessaron used the long ending. Can someone confirm or give contra evidence? I would add that I think that it takes both external and internal (intrinsic and transcriptional) evidence to make the case that Metzger does. The external evidence alone is not so conclusive. Carlton L. Winbery Fogleman Professor of Religion Louisiana College Pineville, LA 71359 winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net winbery@andria.lacollege.edu From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Oct 21 22:00:26 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id WAA00796; Wed, 21 Oct 1998 22:00:26 -0400 Message-ID: <003901bdfd60$2f12f060$2cfeb7c7@david> From: "R. David Large" To: Subject: Re: tc-list FW: Mark 16:9-20 Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 22:03:35 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3155.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2523 Kerry: I would take serious issue with the following statement on several grounds: >There is absolutely no doubt that the long ending of Mark is secondary >and was not a part of the earliest document. A brief glance at the >textual evidence will show that it is LATE, late, late!!!!!! 1) 'Absolutely no doubt' might exist in Mr. West's mind (and perhaps a host of others) regarding the passage's authenticity claims, but the statement is simply too sweeping-- if designed to apply to the available evidence. One might readily think of the glib and dogmatic assurances proffered by the professional atheists who vanguard modern evolutionary thought. Modern opinion might have reached a consensus-- that nowhere constitutes 'ab- solutely no doubt' regarding the truth ... it merely reflects the foregone con- clusions of the skeptics whose presuppositions color their view of the facts. It would have been better stated, 'There is widespread doubt ...'. 2) "... and was not a part of the earliest document." : Aside from the fact that Mr. West's assertion is, on its face, false (many individuals are convinced other- wise after all), the statement reveals his method of arbitrating variant readings to a considerable degree: the reading of the oldest document wins. This ignores the important distinction between the age of a document's text, the age of the document bearing the text and the originality of the text itself-- which originality is often determined on bases other than the sole age of a manuscript. It also overlooks the possibility that the earliest document (assuming we are talk- ing about the original document and not the oldest MS extant) might have borne the verses in question in the beginning, only to have lost them due to the ravages of age, handling, time or accident-- all along serving as exemplar for an unknown number of copies, sent to an unknowable number of locales. 3) Quite apart from the assertion that "...textual evidence will show that it is LATE, late, late!!!!!!", equally early evidence of its use (which, I might add, logically infers its acceptance as original) is available -- I defer to Dr. Robinson's and Mr. Woodruff's comments on this point. I might add that the passage is extant across a geographic- ally and textually diverse range of evidence-- which diversity testifies to originality more than the Alexandrian codices (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus)-- and I would add 304-- testify against it. I believe the passage is genuine. R. David Large David@ezol.com From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Oct 21 23:19:21 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id XAA01099; Wed, 21 Oct 1998 23:19:20 -0400 Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 23:20:06 +0000 From: Jim West Subject: tc-list :-) X-Sender: jwest@highland.net To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.32.19981021232006.00676e84@highland.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 526 Ya see, people do have strong opinions... all ya have to do is shake 'em out of them from time to time and viola, a quiet room is soon filled with all sorts of stimulating conversation. Take a simple question- add a dash of dogmatism, and shake! And you will have a delightful meal with everything from outrage to opposition to any idea propounded... Best to all, Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Adjunct Professor of Bible- Quartz Hill School of Theology Pastor- Petros Baptist Church jwest@highland.net From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Oct 22 09:14:46 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA03481; Thu, 22 Oct 1998 09:14:45 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <19981021.173306.7895.0.seventh.guardian@juno.com> <1.5.4.32.19981021155525.0066cfe0@highland.net> Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 08:16:46 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: tc-list Re:Mark 16:9-20 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2486 I wasn't going to add my opinions on this thread, as I had already given them privately to the original poster. But a few odd thoughts on the direction of the discussion. Carlton Winbery wrote, in part: >I would add that I think that it takes both external and internal >(intrinsic and transcriptional) evidence to make the case that Metzger >does. The external evidence alone is not so conclusive. Depends on where one stands. As a person who always studies the external evidence first (and will wherever possible decide things based on the external evidence), I would state that the external evidence against the passage is pretty strong. Note: It is omitted by: * The earliest Alexandrian witnesses: Aleph B sa-ms * The earliest "Western" witnesses: (a defective but does not have space) k sin * The earliest "Caesarean" witnesses: arm-mss geo1 geoA Alternate endings are found in: * Many late Alexandrian witnesses: L Psi 579 sa-mss bo-mss pc Some sort of expression of doubt are found in: * certain "Caesarean" witnesses: f1 pc Frankly, to me that adds up to an addition. If the internal evidence happens to agree, wonderful. :-) *** "R. David Large" wrote, in part: >I believe the passage is genuine. This cries out for a definition of "genuine." There are at least three possible meanings: "Part of the original writing," "A work of the original author (but not part of *this* work)," and "Canonical." It appears that the author of the post means the first, but the term needs to be clarified. A passage may be canonical without being by the original/alleged author (witness Second Isaiah, or for that matter the whole Torah; compare also 2 Peter, etc.) Or it may be by the author without being part of the writing (perhaps Romans 16; at least part of 2 Corinthians). Etc. It sounds, though, as if the poster is a supporter of the Byzantine text. In fact, I have never heard anyone support this passage who is not a supporter of the Byzantine text. This is perhaps worth keeping in mind. *** I guess this proves Jim West's point about how dogmatic we are. :-) Not sure what the cure is.... -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Robert B. Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn (A site inspired by the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Oct 22 10:01:53 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA03797; Thu, 22 Oct 1998 10:01:53 -0400 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list FW: Mark 16:9-20 Message-ID: <19981022.095757.5463.0.seventh.guardian@juno.com> References: <003901bdfd60$2f12f060$2cfeb7c7@david> X-Mailer: Juno 1.49 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0,2-3,7-10,15-16,21-22,31-32,36-37,46-52 From: seventh.guardian@juno.com (Maurice A. Robinson) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 10:02:09 EDT Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2938 On Wed, 21 Oct 1998 22:03:35 -0400 "R. David Large" writes: > I might add that the passage is extant across a geographically and textually diverse > range of evidence-- which diversity testifies to originality more than the Alexandrian > codices (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus)-- and I would add 304-- testify against it. Side note to this point: MS 304 (12th century) is a commentary MS on Mt and Mk, in which the primary matter is the commentary. The gospel text is merely interspersed between the blocks of commentary material, and should not be considered the same as a "normal" continuous-text MS. Also, it is often very difficult to discern the text in contrast to the comments in this MS. The text of Mk 16:8 in MS 304 agrees with N27 except that it reads EICE and EIPON for EICEN and EIPON, as well as DE in place of GAR1. Following GAR2 at the close of the verse, the MS has a mark like a filled-in "o", followed by many pages of commentary, all of which _summarize_ the endings of the other gospels and even quotes portions of them. Following this, the commentary then begins to summarize the "ETERON DE TA PARA TOU MARKOU," presumably to cover the non-duplicated portions germane to that gospel in contrast to the others. There remain quotes and references to the other gospels in regard to Mary Magdalene, Peter, Galilee, the fear of the women, etc. But at this point the commentary abruptly ends, without completing the remainder of the narrative or the parallels. I suspect that the commentary (which contains only Mt and Mk) originally continued the discussion and that a final page or pages at the end of this volume likely were lost. Also, MS 304 has no note regarding the Eusebian questions regarding the ending of Mark, nor any mention of what the "AKRIBWS" manuscripts might read regarding the ending, either of which would likely be expected within a commentary MS at such a point. I would suggest that MS 304 should NOT be claimed as a witness to the shortest ending any more than the (now-discredited) claim of UBS2 that such was the case of MS 2386 (11th century). In the case of MS 2368, a page ended at 16:8 with TELOS written in abbreviated form, but the TELOS simply marked the end of a lection, and there was clear evidence that a subsequent continuing leaf had been lost (cf. Metzger, Textual Commentary, in loc.). This was also the case with several other MSS noted in the course of my research. The only Greek MSS which actually omit the long ending of Mark are Aleph and B. ============================================== Maurice A. Robinson Professor of NT and Greek Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ___________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Oct 22 12:46:46 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA04794; Thu, 22 Oct 1998 12:46:46 -0400 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: tc-list Re: Mark 16:9-20 Message-ID: <19981022.124404.5463.1.seventh.guardian@juno.com> References: <19981021.173306.7895.0.seventh.guardian@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 1.49 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0,2-7,10-14,18-19,28-34,45-51,65-66,70-71,76-77,84 From: seventh.guardian@juno.com (Maurice A. Robinson) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 12:48:15 EDT Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 4826 On Thu, 22 Oct 1998 08:16:46 -0500 "Robert B. Waltz" writes: >I wasn't going to add my opinions on this thread, as I had already >given them privately to the original poster. But a few odd thoughts >on the direction of the discussion. Although I am trying avoid debate (probably for similar reasons), I still have some odd thoughts. Oddness is my prerequisite for doing textual criticism. >Alternate endings are found in: >* Many late Alexandrian witnesses: L Psi 579 sa-mss bo-mss pc Whether this small selection (add to the pool 083, 099, 274mg, L-1602, sy-hmg, eth-mss) equals "many" is debatable, and though the MSS may be chronologically late as regards copying date, their text may still be early. However, among the Greek witnesses at least, the alternate short ending (only one!) is _always_ found in conjunction with the long ending, and with a note attached ("expression of doubt" if you like). Old Latin Bobbiensis (k) does have the short ending without the long ending, but it is the only exception. BTW -- going back to the beginning of the thread -- Burgon's 1871 book is still excellent as regards the complete and comprehensive presentation of the evidence, since very little that is new has been added to the pool. So even if one does not agree with Burgon's conclusions, his book is still valuable in this regard). >Some sort of expression of doubt are found in: >* certain "Caesarean" witnesses: f1 pc >Frankly, to me that adds up to an addition. If the internal evidence >happens to agree, wonderful. :-) Yet elsewhere, when similar early witnesses possess readings with NO expression of doubt attached, one should not thereby conclude authenticity any more than one should when the same MSS elsewhere lack words or phrases which happen to be marginally noted (cf. the longer Alexandrian reading at Mt. 27:49 or the agrapha of D at Mt 20:28 or Lk 6:4; also the omission of Mt 24:35 in Aleph*). Marginal notes and comments reflect at most an opinion current at the time in which the MS was written, maybe even an earlier opinion. The opinion may tend toward an assumption of authenticity or inauthenticity, but the weight of the totality of the evidence is far superior to those marginal or other annotations. >It sounds, though, as if the poster is a supporter of the Byzantine >text. In fact, I have never heard anyone support this passage who >is not a supporter of the Byzantine text. This is perhaps worth >keeping in mind. Mr. Large may or may not be a Byzantine supporter. I am, but it seems that this is irrelevant to the point at this variant unit, since I see no reason why any non-Byzantine supporter could not practice reasoned eclecticism on this passage and legitimately conclude authenticity for these 12 verses on the basis of the evidence they tend most to respect. The very early support from the Curetonian Syriac and Irenaeus serves as a minimum. The sources which omit are diverse (though predominantly Egyptian), but not so diverse as the sources which include. One still has to contend with the testimony of the non-Byzantine witnesses C D W Theta f13, 33, the rest of the Old Latin tradition, the Syriac tradition apart from sy-s (including the early sy-c), and the Coptic Bohairic, all very diverse and all in unquestioned support of these verses. Codex Alexandrinus (generally Byzantine in the Gospels) is the only early witness liable to the awful "Byzantine" accusation. Further, the fact that B includes the unique extended blank space at this point also could influence a reasoned eclectic to argue a pre-Vaticanus presence of the passage, perhaps in the archetype of Vaticanus. So add this to the pool supporting its possible authenticity. William Farmer certainly is not a Byzantine text supporter, but at least to my reading and recollection (correct me if I am wrong -- it has been 24 years since I read Farmer's book) in his "Last Twelve Verses of Mark" (1974), Farmer (in his own way) argues for the originality of these verses in the pre-canonical archetype of Mark's gospel. Farmer as I recall rejects the hypotheses that Mark originally ended at 16:8 or that a later summary was tacked on after the text was accepted as canonical. He argues, however, that the ending is NOT by the same author as the rest of Mark, but still that the ending was produced and completed (apparently with approval of "Mark") BEFORE the gospel was put into circulation. If this is a correct summary, then there would be at least one non-Byzantine person out there who would argue authenticity. ___________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Oct 22 16:42:16 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA07234; Thu, 22 Oct 1998 16:42:16 -0400 Message-Id: <199810222044.QAA90182@f04n07.cac.psu.edu> X-Sender: wlp1@mail.psu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0.2 Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 16:42:21 -0400 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "William L. Petersen" Subject: tc-list Mark 16:9-20 In-Reply-To: <19981022.124404.5463.1.seventh.guardian@juno.com> References: <19981021.173306.7895.0.seventh.guardian@juno.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 5285 Some observations on the "long" ending of Mark, which have not yet been made on the list (although they are certainly in the literature): (1) The *internal* evidence would seem to suggest that the long ending (16:9-20) is a pastiche of material culled from the resurrection appearances in extant NT books: > v. 9 early on the first day of the week = Matt 28.1 or Mk. 16.2 or Lk 24.1 > v. 9: first to Mary M = John 20.1, 14, 18 > v. 9: seven demons = Lk 8.2 > v.10: etc., etc. > v. 12 = Luke's Emmaus episode > v. 14 = John 10.19-29 > v. 15 = Matt 28.19 > etc., etc. Virtually *every* detail of every *appearance* cited in the "long ending" has a parallel in some other canonical gospel. This is odd, for unlike the other parallels between Mark and the other gospels (e.g., the Anointing at Bethany)--in which the parallelism is extended and often verbatim--here we find mere "echoes" of the other appearances: enough to remind you of the story, and let you identify it, but no "full" parallelism. If one wished to provide an ending for a gospel which--like Mark, if it ended at 16.8--lacked (or had lost) a *satisfactory* ending, would this not be precisely the way one would go about supplying an ending? Would one not harmonize the material from the other gospels? (Recall that only John has--as does the longer ending of Mark--an appearance to Mary M *first*. In Matt, Jesus first meets the "women" [28.9-10], while in Luke, the two Emmaus guys are the first to see him. Mark brings no "new" information to us here, and must select one of the other gospel's "first" appearance to be *his* "first" appearance.) This very different sort of parallelism and the technique of referencing (enough so you know what's being referenced, but not a full parallel) argues *against* the authenticity of the "long" ending, by my standards. The author of the long ending is, in my view, simply "cribbing" his appearances from the other gospels. (2) The unique stuff in the long ending, in vv. 17-18 (snakes & poisons, etc.), while practiced by certain Christian groups today, does not--to my knowledge--seem to have had *any* currency in Christian antiquity. Justin, Origen, etc., etc., etc., don't seem to talk about it or urge it on their followers. If, however, the "long ending" were original, then these would have been the part of the concluding verses of the oldest gospel (as per the 4 source theory); one might have expected more attention to have been given to these remarkable activities...or, conversely, to have cautioned against it (or have I missed a new test of faith at certain seminaries? Faculty first, guys... [ ;-) ])...but they don't (at least as far as I know the Fathers); instead, they simply act as if it doesn't exist. (Why? Because it probably didn't.) (3) The reference to Irenaeus shows that the long ending (IF it is THIS ending, and not some other ending which ALSO contained the "right hand of God" reference.... [recall that we've several endings floating around here, something which, simply by itself, suggests a textual disturbance...]) is old. But the silence of all other early Fathers is curious--and Irenaeus' reference is only to one part of one verse of the "long ending"--not a citation of it "en bloc." (Note that while Irenaeus specifically states the reference is from the "end of Mark" [might this be an attempt to legitimize the ending, and an interpolation into Irenaeus???], "sitting at the right hand of God" is an image found in Heb. 10.12 and Col. 3.1, and--without the "seated" bit--found in many other NT references. Again, I find this odd... How often does Irenaeus cite a reference by stating from *which* book he is drawing it, and *where*, specifically, in that book he is drawing the citation??? "Methinks the good pater doeth give his source *too* precisely." (4) Regarding the Diatessaronic witnesses, I've not checked them all, but Codex Fuldensis and the Liege Harmony have the long ending harmonized in with the other material from the other gospels, as do the Arabic and the Persian. Ephrem's *Commentary,* however, lacks any reference... Given the prominence of the ending in later MSS of Mark, it is not surprising to find the long ending in some of the harmonies. Ephrem's silence, however, matches that of Justin, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and Origen--to name only the most obvious. *** The two questions for those who wish to defend the authenticity of the long ending are (to my mind, at least): (1) *Why* would it be omitted? (2) Why are *all* of the appearances of Jesus in the "long ending" merely truncated versions of appearances described elsewhere in the gospels? This is singularly odd, for ALL the other gospels have "unique" appearances--that is, appearances unique to that gospel: Emmaus for Luke, to Mary Mag and the other Mary outside the tomb for Matt, and to Mary Mag, as a gardener, in John. *Only Mark,* if you paste on the long ending, would not have any distinctive (= "only in Mark") appearances. This suggests to me that something is rotten on the rue Nablus. V. Taylor, *The Gospel according to St. Mark* has a good section on the Greek text and the support (or lack thereof) for the long ending in the early church. --Petersen, Penn State University. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Oct 22 20:27:10 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id UAA08238; Thu, 22 Oct 1998 20:27:09 -0400 Date: 23 Oct 1998 00:28:06 -0000 Message-ID: <19981023002806.28616.qmail@findmail.com> From: "Kerry Gilliard" Subject: tc-list Re: Mark 16:9-20 In-Reply-To: <19981022.124404.5463.1.seventh.guardian@juno.com> To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1231 Maurice, You said: > Farmer as I recall rejects the hypotheses that Mark originally ended at > 16:8 or that a later summary was tacked on after the text was accepted as > canonical. He argues, however, that the ending is NOT by the same author > as the rest of Mark, but still that the ending was produced and completed > (apparently with approval of "Mark") BEFORE the gospel was put into > circulation. If this is a correct summary, then there would be at least > one non-Byzantine person out there who would argue authenticity. Now THAT's something that passed my mind during my search (BTW- thank you everyone. So much information, so little time....)- are there any other 'theories' regarding the 'origin' of the last 12 verses? Also, for those on the list who hold a 'conservative/evangelical' position regarding scripture, does the use of morphe in 16:12 (as opposed to schema, although some people consider them synonyms) present a problem with accepting the verses as authentic? Kerry Gilliard http://witness.base.org OR http://tidalwave.net/~blufunk195 1 Peter 3:15, Jude 3 ----- See the original message at http://www.egroups.com/list/tc-list/?start=4834 -- Free e-mail group hosting at http://www.eGroups.com/ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Oct 22 20:50:53 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id UAA08382; Thu, 22 Oct 1998 20:50:53 -0400 Message-ID: <00ad01bdfe1f$a4ebccc0$6ffeb7c7@david> From: "R. David Large" To: Subject: Re: tc-list Re:Mark 16:9-20 Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 20:54:06 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3155.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2861 See my comments below ... -----Original Message----- From: Robert B. Waltz To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Thursday, October 22, 1998 10:20 AM Subject: Re: tc-list Re:Mark 16:9-20 [snip] >>I believe the passage is genuine. > >This cries out for a definition of "genuine." There are at least >three possible meanings: "Part of the original writing," "A work >of the original author (but not part of *this* work)," and >"Canonical." It appears that the author of the post means the >first, but the term needs to be clarified. [snip] My definition of 'genuine' was delivered within the context of the original inquiry which addressed (to my understanding) the authenticity of the passage to Mark's gospel. I apologize for any perceived ambiguity :-) >It sounds, though, as if the poster is a supporter of the Byzantine >text. As Dr. Robinson commented, this is truly irrelevant at his point. There are no theoretical demands within eclectic text-critical praxis which re- quire the outright rejection of this passage. In fact, most (to my mind) take issue with this passage on the front of internal evidence which, as we are all aware, tends to be argued in as many ingenious ways as the number of historical facts within reach of the critic's imagination. >In fact, I have never heard anyone support this passage who >is not a supporter of the Byzantine text. I freely admit to have considerable sympathy for many Byzantine readings though I fail to see how that might apply here (unless, of course, one sees such admission as either a green light to launch an ad hominem lob or, if of a particularly warm-blooded temperament, sufficient evidence to ignite the fire with which to consume the poor heretic who made it ;-). > This is perhaps worth keeping in mind. Why? 1) Because all arguments made by Byzantine supporters can be as summar- ily dismissed as the readings they favor ... 2) Because only Byzantine supporters possess the unique mental flaws requi- site to dare peep or mutter a breath in defense of such an (universally agreed) indefensible passage ... 3) Because only Byzantine supporters get this doggoned MAD wHeN.....they fEEL EVen tHe LEast...biT QUestIoNED by THOSe OF LESSER ............iNTelIiGence ..........AND..........wISdOm....AAARRRRGGHHHH!!!!!!!$%%#@!@#$$~^%$~&^% ;-) As to Dr. Robinson's comment on 304, I mentioned it primarily due to its mention and description in other standard works as evidence against the passage. The in- clusion was intended to prevent the full MS evidence (as I understood it) to be in- advertently understated in favor of the passage's inauthenticity, not as a result of any personal conviction of its value contra the passage. Your comments are not- ed and appreciated :-) R. David Large David@ezol.com From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Oct 23 00:16:06 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id AAA09045; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 00:16:06 -0400 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19981023001947.007f93b0@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: scarlson@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 00:19:47 -0400 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Stephen C. Carlson" Subject: Re: tc-list Mark 16:9-20 In-Reply-To: <199810222044.QAA90182@f04n07.cac.psu.edu> References: <19981022.124404.5463.1.seventh.guardian@juno.com> <19981021.173306.7895.0.seventh.guardian@juno.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1713 Another factor to throw into the mix is a tenth-century Armenian MS that ascribes the longer ending of Mark to Ariston. Ariston is mentioned by Papias in one of Eusebius' quotations [HE, III.39.4, cf. 7]. There is other evidence that the writings of Papias were known in Armenia around this time. For example, Orchard cites a Folker Siegert article, NTS 27:605-14, that a thirteenth-century Armenian scholar, Vardan, refers to Papias' exegesis on ALHOS and that an Armenian fragment on the Apocalyse of John quotes Papias. This suggests, if somewhat speculatively, that there is information in the lost works of Papias about the longer ending of Mark, possibly attesting to its lack of originality. It is also interesting that the Armenians may have preserved some information connecting Papias to the other major text critical problem -- the Pericope Adultera. Apparently, Vardan also stated that Papias wrote it. This statement is more explicit than Eusebius' own obscure statement that Papias has "expounded another story about a woman who was accused before the Lord of many sins, which the Gospel to the Hebrews contains." [HE, III.39.17] Papias is also connect to the writing of the Fourth Gospel in other traditions, for example, in the Old Latin Prolog to John. If there is any lost, non-hypothetical early Christian text that would be found, I would want it to be the five-volume work of Papias. It would answer so many questions about so many puzzles. Stephen Carlson -- Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@mindspring.com Synoptic Problem Home Page http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/ "Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35 From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Oct 23 01:59:43 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id BAA09249; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 01:59:43 -0400 Message-ID: <36301C4A.424B5C50@concentric.net> Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 23:03:54 -0700 From: Ken Litwak X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.07 [en] (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list Mark 16:9-20 References: <19981021.173306.7895.0.seventh.guardian@juno.com> <199810222044.QAA90182@f04n07.cac.psu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 6326 William L. Petersen wrote: > > Some observations on the "long" ending of Mark, which have not yet been > made on the list (although they are certainly in the literature): > > (1) The *internal* evidence would seem to suggest that the long ending > (16:9-20) is a pastiche of material culled from the resurrection > appearances in extant NT books: > > > v. 9 early on the first day of the week = Matt 28.1 or Mk. 16.2 or Lk 24.1 > > v. 9: first to Mary M = John 20.1, 14, 18 > > v. 9: seven demons = Lk 8.2 > > v.10: etc., etc. > > v. 12 = Luke's Emmaus episode > > v. 14 = John 10.19-29 > > v. 15 = Matt 28.19 > > etc., etc. > > Virtually *every* detail of every *appearance* cited in the "long ending" > has a parallel in some other canonical gospel. This is odd, for unlike the > other parallels between Mark and the other gospels (e.g., the Anointing at > Bethany)--in which the parallelism is extended and often verbatim--here we > find mere "echoes" of the other appearances: enough to remind you of the > story, and let you identify it, but no "full" parallelism. > > If one wished to provide an ending for a gospel which--like Mark, if it > ended at 16.8--lacked (or had lost) a *satisfactory* ending, would this not > be precisely the way one would go about supplying an ending? Would one not > harmonize the material from the other gospels? (Recall that only John > has--as does the longer ending of Mark--an appearance to Mary M *first*. > In Matt, Jesus first meets the "women" [28.9-10], while in Luke, the two > Emmaus guys are the first to see him. Mark brings no "new" information to > us here, and must select one of the other gospel's "first" appearance to be > *his* "first" appearance.) My only comment on this subject (and I tend to think the long ending is not part of the original text - but not with the aboslute, incontrovertible certainty of some) is that I don't thinkt there's much hope of making textual decisions based on what "seems" like it would be what would be supplied to fill a lacuna. The problem with this is, what then would we expect the real ending, if there was anyting beyond v.9, to have looked like? If parallel appearenaces on the one hand, but totally unique material on the other hand aren't what would have been in a presumed original ending, what would have been in that ending? Since there's really no way to determine that, I find a judgment about what would have been written by someone trying to fill the void a problematic basis for a textual decision. Ken Litwak > This very different sort of parallelism and the technique of referencing > (enough so you know what's being referenced, but not a full parallel) > argues *against* the authenticity of the "long" ending, by my standards. > The author of the long ending is, in my view, simply "cribbing" his > appearances from the other gospels. > > (2) The unique stuff in the long ending, in vv. 17-18 (snakes & poisons, > etc.), while practiced by certain Christian groups today, does not--to my > knowledge--seem to have had *any* currency in Christian antiquity. Justin, > Origen, etc., etc., etc., don't seem to talk about it or urge it on their > followers. If, however, the "long ending" were original, then these would > have been the part of the concluding verses of the oldest gospel (as per > the 4 source theory); one might have expected more attention to have been > given to these remarkable activities...or, conversely, to have cautioned > against it (or have I missed a new test of faith at certain seminaries? > Faculty first, guys... [ ;-) ])...but they don't (at least as far as I > know the Fathers); instead, they simply act as if it doesn't exist. (Why? > Because it probably didn't.) > > (3) The reference to Irenaeus shows that the long ending (IF it is THIS > ending, and not some other ending which ALSO contained the "right hand of > God" reference.... [recall that we've several endings floating around here, > something which, simply by itself, suggests a textual disturbance...]) is > old. But the silence of all other early Fathers is curious--and Irenaeus' > reference is only to one part of one verse of the "long ending"--not a > citation of it "en bloc." (Note that while Irenaeus specifically states > the reference is from the "end of Mark" [might this be an attempt to > legitimize the ending, and an interpolation into Irenaeus???], "sitting at > the right hand of God" is an image found in Heb. 10.12 and Col. 3.1, > and--without the "seated" bit--found in many other NT references. Again, > I find this odd... How often does Irenaeus cite a reference by stating > from *which* book he is drawing it, and *where*, specifically, in that book > he is drawing the citation??? "Methinks the good pater doeth give his > source *too* precisely." > > (4) Regarding the Diatessaronic witnesses, I've not checked them all, but > Codex Fuldensis and the Liege Harmony have the long ending harmonized in > with the other material from the other gospels, as do the Arabic and the > Persian. Ephrem's *Commentary,* however, lacks any reference... Given the > prominence of the ending in later MSS of Mark, it is not surprising to find > the long ending in some of the harmonies. Ephrem's silence, however, > matches that of Justin, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and Origen--to > name only the most obvious. > > *** > > The two questions for those who wish to defend the authenticity of the long > ending are (to my mind, at least): (1) *Why* would it be omitted? (2) Why > are *all* of the appearances of Jesus in the "long ending" merely truncated > versions of appearances described elsewhere in the gospels? This is > singularly odd, for ALL the other gospels have "unique" appearances--that > is, appearances unique to that gospel: Emmaus for Luke, to Mary Mag and > the other Mary outside the tomb for Matt, and to Mary Mag, as a gardener, > in John. *Only Mark,* if you paste on the long ending, would not have any > distinctive (= "only in Mark") appearances. This suggests to me that > something is rotten on the rue Nablus. > > V. Taylor, *The Gospel according to St. Mark* has a good section on the > Greek text and the support (or lack thereof) for the long ending in the > early church. > > --Petersen, Penn State University. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Oct 23 10:32:52 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA11655; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 10:32:51 -0400 Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 09:31:29 -0500 (Central Daylight Time) From: "Prof. Ron Minton" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list Re:Mark 16:9-20 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: X-X-Sender: rminton@orions0.orion.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1156 On Thu, 22 Oct 1998, Robert B. Waltz wrote: >... I would state that the external evidence against the passage is > pretty strong. Note: > > It is omitted by: > * The earliest Alexandrian witnesses: Aleph B sa-ms > * The earliest "Western" witnesses: (a defective but does not have space) > k sin > * The earliest "Caesarean" witnesses: arm-mss geo1 geoA > Alternate endings are found in: > * Many late Alexandrian witnesses: L Psi 579 sa-mss bo-mss pc > Some sort of expression of doubt are found in: > * certain "Caesarean" witnesses: f1 pc > Frankly, to me that adds up to an addition. If the internal evidence > happens to agree, wonderful. :-) As I see it we should not normally take the age difference in competing manuscripts as that important unless there are several centuries between the representatives. In this case there is not. As I see it we should not normally take the quantitative difference in competing manuscripts as that important unless there are enormous differences between the representatives. In this case there is. 1800 to 3 is significant even to those of us who despise mere "nose counting." Professor Ron Minton From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Oct 23 10:57:04 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA11998; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 10:57:03 -0400 Message-Id: <199810231458.KAA111638@f04n07.cac.psu.edu> X-Sender: wlp1@mail.psu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0.2 Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 10:57:07 -0400 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "William L. Petersen" Subject: tc-list Mark 16:9-20 In-Reply-To: <36301C4A.424B5C50@concentric.net> References: <19981021.173306.7895.0.seventh.guardian@juno.com> <199810222044.QAA90182@f04n07.cac.psu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 6246 Generally speaking, I agree with Ken Litwak's observations; there are, however, a couple points in his comments which indicate that I need to be clearer in stating my position, so as to prevent misunderstanding. I begin with the following: (1) Observation: all other gospels contain some unique resurrection appearances; (2) Mark does not. (3) All of the appearances in Mark's "long ending" are also found in other gospels. Next: If one were to "supply" an ending for a Mark which lacked one, there are three possibilities: (a) create your own appearance stories (utterly without parallels)--but this is not what we find; (b) combine parts of other canonical appearance episodes with your own unique (unparalleled) material--but this is not what we find; (c) crib off of the other appearance episodes in the canonical gospels (this would mean all of the appearances would have parallels). Our empirical observation leads us to exclude possibilities a and b, and selecting c. If one were to assume that the long ending were part of the "original" text of Mark (which is the alternative being proposed on the list), then one faces three very odd circumstances: (A) Unlike all other parallels among the gospels, where Mark gives a full narrative (take a synopsis and look at the "Cleansing of the Temple" [Mark 11:15-19, parr.], "The Question about Jesus' Authority" [Mark 11:27-33, parr.], or the "Synoptic Apocalypse" [Mark 13, parr.]), and the other gospels follow suit, here we would have *the only known case* where Mark gives a series of "one-liners" (v. 9: "he appeared first to Mary Magdalene"; v. 12: "he appeared in another form to two of them as they were walking in the country"; etc.), which are then *blown up* by the other evangelists into full stories (Luke 24:13-35 [the Emmaus episode] would be an expansion of Mark 16:12). This seems unlikely, for it is inconsistent with all other parallels among the gospels: nowhere else (if I am wrong, please give me the reference...) do we find 5 or 10 *words* in Mark being expanded in the parallel accounts into *22 verses*, as happens with the Emmaus account. The fact that this pattern of composition is *contrary to the norm* should set off alarm bells. (B) The fact that stringing together of bits and pieces of known stories from the gospels into catenae (which is essentially what we have in the long ending: a catena of resurrection appearances drawn from the other canonical gospels) was a practice in later (2nd, 3rd cent.) Christianity, and the fact that the creation of such a catena is one of the 3 things (see a-c, above) we might expect someone to do if one where needing to supply resurrection apprearances to the end of Mark, also suggests that the long ending is secondary. (C) Vincent Taylor remarks on the non-Marcan style of the long ending--a point which I find very convincing. Taylor: (p. 610): "The vocabulary and style of this section show clearly that it was not written by Mark, but is based on a knowledge of traditions found in Lk and Jn." He then proceeds to list a whole catalogue of non-Marcan features (vocabulary, grammar, etc., etc.). (Taylor also provides an excellent summary of the Patristic [non-]evidence for the long ending...) >From my prespective, then, it is not (as Ken seems to suggest) >making textual decisions based on what "seems" like it would be >what would be supplied to fill a lacuna. Rather, it is listing all the options (a, b, and c, above) as to how an abrupt, unacceptable, or lost ending of Mark might be rectified. Eliminate what is not the case (a and b of the above), and you are left with c. Is c reasonable? Yes it is. The only other possibility is that the long ending is "original"--but that faces the problems listed as A, B, C--in addition to the manuscript evidence, which *also* argues against the "originality" of the long ending. In short, what we empirically find in the long ending (i.e., a catena of resurrection appearances, entirely dependent upon the other gospels) is one of the three options for providing a satisfactory ending for Mark. There is nothing unusual about it; it requires *no* leaps in logic or evidence. It also concurs with the observed Patristic silence (*pace* Irenaeus' very [to my mind] suspicious quotation), the statements of Jerome and Eusebius (that the long ending was lacking in most mauscripts known to them), the fact that the langaugue in the long ending is not Marcan, and the empirical state of the textual evidence: it is missing in our oldest MSS (something upon which Jerome and Eusebius also note, even way back then). Arguing that the long ending is "original" requires one to abandon this very logical and consistent pattern; it also requires one to answer the following questions: (1) How does one explain its absence in the oldest MSS? (2) How does one explain its non-Marcan style? (3) How does one explain the silence of the Fathers on its remarkable, distinctive features (e.g., v. 18)? (4) How does one explain its "non-standard" parallel style (i.e., not a full parallel, as we have elsewhere in Mark and the other gospels, but just these very abbreviated "echoes" of the other resurrection appearances)? (5) How does one prove that the passage is *not* what it appears to be: a catena of appearances extracted (and condensed) from the other gospels? --Petersen, Penn State Univ. > >My only comment on this subject (and I tend to think the long ending is >not part of the original text - but not with the aboslute, >incontrovertible certainty of some) is that I don't thinkt there's much >hope of making textual decisions based on what "seems" like it would be >what would be supplied to fill a lacuna. The problem with this is, what >then would we expect the real ending, if there was anyting beyond v.9, >to have looked like? If parallel appearenaces on the one hand, but >totally unique material on the other hand aren't what would have been in >a presumed original ending, what would have been in that ending? Since >there's really no way to determine that, I find a judgment about what >would have been written by someone trying to fill the void a problematic >basis for a textual decision. > > >Ken Litwak From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Oct 23 11:38:33 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA12605; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 11:38:32 -0400 Message-Id: <199810231540.QAA08265@haymarket.ed.ac.uk> From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 16:38:26 +000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: tc-list Mark 16:9-20 Priority: normal In-reply-to: <199810231458.KAA111638@f04n07.cac.psu.edu> References: <36301C4A.424B5C50@concentric.net> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01b) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 675 Can I applaud the clarity of thought and of presentation of thought in Bill Petersen's response to Ken Litwak? Bill has very helpfully set out the *rationale* he is following in making a textual decision, which is often what is missing in the exchanges of opinions (often pre-conceived) on this list. If one is inclined to reach conclusions other than those Bill favors, then one at least has a clear presentation of positions to address (and a clear model of how to set forth a contrary view of things). L. W. Hurtado University of Edinburgh, New College Mound Place Edinburgh, Scotland EH1 2LX Phone: 0131-650-8920 Fax: 0131-650-6579 E-mail: L.Hurtado@ed.ac.uk From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Oct 23 12:02:52 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA12849; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 12:02:51 -0400 From: "Mark Goodacre" Organization: The University of Birmingham To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 17:05:46 GMT MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: tc-list Mark 16:9-20 Priority: normal In-reply-to: <199810231458.KAA111638@f04n07.cac.psu.edu> References: <36301C4A.424B5C50@concentric.net> Message-ID: Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 3354 On 23 Oct 98 at 10:57, William L. Petersen wrote: > (A) Unlike all other parallels among the gospels, where Mark gives a full > narrative (take a synopsis and look at the "Cleansing of the Temple" [Mark > 11:15-19, parr.], "The Question about Jesus' Authority" [Mark 11:27-33, > parr.], or the "Synoptic Apocalypse" [Mark 13, parr.]), and the other gospels > follow suit, here we would have *the only known case* where Mark gives a > series of "one-liners" (v. 9: "he appeared first to Mary Magdalene"; v. 12: > "he appeared in another form to two of them as they were walking in the > country"; etc.), which are then *blown up* by the other evangelists into full > stories (Luke 24:13-35 [the Emmaus episode] would be an expansion of Mark > 16:12). This seems unlikely, for it is inconsistent with all other parallels > among the gospels: nowhere else (if I am wrong, please give me the > reference...) do we find 5 or 10 *words* in Mark being expanded in the > parallel accounts into *22 verses*, as happens with the Emmaus account. The > fact that this pattern of composition is > *contrary to the norm* should set off alarm bells. I agree with Prof. Hurtado in finding Prof. Petersen's post clear and convincing. However, there are answers to the points made in this paragraph. It is not always the case that "Mark gives a full narrative . . . and the other gospels follow suit". On several occasions Mark has a barebones narrative where Matthew and Luke have a much fuller parallel. The Temptation Narrative is the most famous example (Mark 1.12-13) -- two verses in Mark against eleven in Matthew (4.1-11) and thirteen in Luke (4.1-13), not dissimilar to the Emmaus example under discussion -- two verses in Mark (16.12-13, more than "5 or 10 words") against twenty-two in Luke (24.13-35). One might think too of the Call of the Disciples in Luke (5.1-11) compared with Mark (1.16-20) or the Rejection at Nazareth in Luke (4.16-30) compared with Mark (6.1-6a). Or an even more striking example might be the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew -- 138 verses in Matthew 5-7 compared to one or two verses in Mark (1.22-23 or 1.39, depending on where one sees Matthew inserting it into the Markan outline). One of the great pains (or glories) of Synoptic Problem studies is the difficulty of establishing clear tendencies e.g. of abbreviation or expansion (see especially Ed Sanders's _Tendencies of the Synoptic Tradition_). This of course focuses the issue of Farmer's defence of the originality of these twelve verses -- he is working with a neo-Griesbachian agenda according to which Mark's omission of much of Matt. 28 and Luke 24 would be problematic. By defending the authenticity of these words, he is attempting to deal with a genuine difficulty for the Griesbach Hypothesis. While I am writing, and since no-one else has done so, perhaps I might recommend my colleague David Parker's "The Ending's of Mark's Gospel" (_The Living Text of the Gospels_, Chapter 8). Mark -------------------------------------- Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@bham.ac.uk Dept of Theology, University of Birmingham Recommended New Testament Web Resources: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre/links.htm World Without Q: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/q Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Oct 23 13:27:52 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA13336; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 13:27:52 -0400 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 10:23:47 -0700 Subject: Re: tc-list Mark 16:9-20 Message-ID: <19981023.102348.3326.0.jeffcate@juno.com> References: <19981021.173306.7895.0.seventh.guardian@juno.com> <199810222044.QAA90182@f04n07.cac.psu.edu> X-Mailer: Juno 1.49 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 3-7,10,12-13,15,18,22-28,30-179 From: jeffcate@juno.com (Jeff Cate) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 7158 In addition to the parallels that Bill mentioned from the canonical gospels, I would add that vv. 17-20 of the longer ending seem to be a pastiche of events primarily found in Acts (which of course is the sequel of a canonical gospel). v. 17 casting out demons - Acts 5:16; 8:7; 19:11-12 v. 17 speak in new tongues - Acts 10:46; 19:6 (2:4?) v. 18 pick up snakes in their hands - Acts 28:3-5 v. 18 drink any deadly poison - no direct parallel but maybe an allusion to Acts 28:3-5 since Acts describes Paul being bitten but not affected by the viper v. 18 lay their hands on the sick - Acts 5:15-16; 19:12; especially 28:8; also possibly to 3:6-7 & 20:9-12 v. 19 Jesus taken up into heaven Acts 1:9-11 (Lk 24:50-53) v. 19 sat down at right hand - Acts 2:33; 5:31; 7:55-56 (not to mention other mentions in Gospels, Pauline epis., etc.) v. 20 went out and proclaimed the good news everywhere - summary of the missionary exploits elaborated on throughout Acts (especially Paul's journeys) v. 20 confirmed the message by signs - summary statements in Acts 2:43; 5:12; 6:8; 8:6, 13; 14:13; 15:12 repeatedly mention "signs" being done by the apostles, Steven, Philip, Paul, Barnabas, et alia in confirmation of their preaching. Jeff Cate, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Christian Studies California Baptist University Riverside, California 92508 On Thu, 22 Oct 1998 16:42:21 -0400 "William L. Petersen" writes: >Some observations on the "long" ending of Mark, which have not yet >been >made on the list (although they are certainly in the literature): > >(1) The *internal* evidence would seem to suggest that the long ending >(16:9-20) is a pastiche of material culled from the resurrection >appearances in extant NT books: > >> v. 9 early on the first day of the week = Matt 28.1 or Mk. 16.2 or >Lk 24.1 >> v. 9: first to Mary M = John 20.1, 14, 18 >> v. 9: seven demons = Lk 8.2 >> v.10: etc., etc. >> v. 12 = Luke's Emmaus episode >> v. 14 = John 10.19-29 >> v. 15 = Matt 28.19 >> etc., etc. > >Virtually *every* detail of every *appearance* cited in the "long >ending" >has a parallel in some other canonical gospel. This is odd, for >unlike the >other parallels between Mark and the other gospels (e.g., the >Anointing at >Bethany)--in which the parallelism is extended and often >verbatim--here we >find mere "echoes" of the other appearances: enough to remind you of >the >story, and let you identify it, but no "full" parallelism. > >If one wished to provide an ending for a gospel which--like Mark, if >it >ended at 16.8--lacked (or had lost) a *satisfactory* ending, would >this not >be precisely the way one would go about supplying an ending? Would >one not >harmonize the material from the other gospels? (Recall that only John >has--as does the longer ending of Mark--an appearance to Mary M >*first*. >In Matt, Jesus first meets the "women" [28.9-10], while in Luke, the >two >Emmaus guys are the first to see him. Mark brings no "new" >information to >us here, and must select one of the other gospel's "first" appearance >to be >*his* "first" appearance.) > >This very different sort of parallelism and the technique of >referencing >(enough so you know what's being referenced, but not a full parallel) >argues *against* the authenticity of the "long" ending, by my >standards. >The author of the long ending is, in my view, simply "cribbing" his >appearances from the other gospels. > >(2) The unique stuff in the long ending, in vv. 17-18 (snakes & >poisons, >etc.), while practiced by certain Christian groups today, does not--to >my >knowledge--seem to have had *any* currency in Christian antiquity. >Justin, >Origen, etc., etc., etc., don't seem to talk about it or urge it on >their >followers. If, however, the "long ending" were original, then these >would >have been the part of the concluding verses of the oldest gospel (as >per >the 4 source theory); one might have expected more attention to have >been >given to these remarkable activities...or, conversely, to have >cautioned >against it (or have I missed a new test of faith at certain >seminaries? >Faculty first, guys... [ ;-) ])...but they don't (at least as far as >I >know the Fathers); instead, they simply act as if it doesn't exist. >(Why? > Because it probably didn't.) > >(3) The reference to Irenaeus shows that the long ending (IF it is >THIS >ending, and not some other ending which ALSO contained the "right hand >of >God" reference.... [recall that we've several endings floating around >here, >something which, simply by itself, suggests a textual disturbance...]) >is >old. But the silence of all other early Fathers is curious--and >Irenaeus' >reference is only to one part of one verse of the "long ending"--not a >citation of it "en bloc." (Note that while Irenaeus specifically >states >the reference is from the "end of Mark" [might this be an attempt to >legitimize the ending, and an interpolation into Irenaeus???], >"sitting at >the right hand of God" is an image found in Heb. 10.12 and Col. 3.1, >and--without the "seated" bit--found in many other NT references. >Again, >I find this odd... How often does Irenaeus cite a reference by >stating >from *which* book he is drawing it, and *where*, specifically, in that >book >he is drawing the citation??? "Methinks the good pater doeth give his >source *too* precisely." > >(4) Regarding the Diatessaronic witnesses, I've not checked them all, >but >Codex Fuldensis and the Liege Harmony have the long ending harmonized >in >with the other material from the other gospels, as do the Arabic and >the >Persian. Ephrem's *Commentary,* however, lacks any reference... >Given the >prominence of the ending in later MSS of Mark, it is not surprising to >find >the long ending in some of the harmonies. Ephrem's silence, however, >matches that of Justin, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and >Origen--to >name only the most obvious. > >*** > >The two questions for those who wish to defend the authenticity of the >long >ending are (to my mind, at least): (1) *Why* would it be omitted? >(2) Why >are *all* of the appearances of Jesus in the "long ending" merely >truncated >versions of appearances described elsewhere in the gospels? This is >singularly odd, for ALL the other gospels have "unique" >appearances--that >is, appearances unique to that gospel: Emmaus for Luke, to Mary Mag >and >the other Mary outside the tomb for Matt, and to Mary Mag, as a >gardener, >in John. *Only Mark,* if you paste on the long ending, would not have >any >distinctive (= "only in Mark") appearances. This suggests to me that >something is rotten on the rue Nablus. > >V. Taylor, *The Gospel according to St. Mark* has a good section on >the >Greek text and the support (or lack thereof) for the long ending in >the >early church. > >--Petersen, Penn State University. > > ___________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Oct 23 16:49:08 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA14969; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 16:49:07 -0400 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list Mark 16:9-20 Message-ID: <19981023.164207.5463.0.seventh.guardian@juno.com> References: <19981021.173306.7895.0.seventh.guardian@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 1.49 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0,2-5,7-10,12-16,21-22,29-30,35-36,47-48,53-54, 62-64,66-67,69,71,73,75-79,88-90,92-95,97-100,112-113,121-122, 124-125,127,129-135,141-142,152-153,165-166,178-179,187-188,190-198 From: seventh.guardian@juno.com (Maurice A. Robinson) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 16:49:54 EDT Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 10881 On Thu, 22 Oct 1998 16:42:21 -0400 "William L. Petersen" writes: >If one wished to provide an ending for a gospel which--like Mark, if >it ended at 16.8--lacked (or had lost) a *satisfactory* ending, would >this not be precisely the way one would go about supplying an ending? Would >one not harmonize the material from the other gospels? [snip] >This very different sort of parallelism and the technique of >referencing (enough so you know what's being referenced, but not a full parallel) >argues *against* the authenticity of the "long" ending, by my standards. >The author of the long ending is, in my view, simply "cribbing" his >appearances from the other gospels. Granting this line of argument (which has plausibility), this still would not nullify a text-critical position such as held by Farmer, in which the addition of the ending belongs to the pre-canonical or pre-circulation stage of this gospel. One of course then has to determine at what date a "canonical" or otherwise widely-circulated Mark began to emerge. I certainly have no problem in viewing the ending of Mark as a basic summary of the resurrection appearances and paralleling much of what is found in the other gospels (regardless of the Markan priority hypothesis or the date of the ending). However, the issue of Markan authorship of the ending properly belongs to higher criticism and probably is becoming inappropriate for the tc-list, so I will try to conclude this line of discussion before it departs textual criticism entirely. Assuming the long ending only gives a "resurrection summary" of what is found in the other gospels, why then were all the "extras" added to the longer ending of Mark which go far beyond a simple harmonization of the other resurrection accounts. E.g., the seven demons derive from Lk. 8:2 and not from any resurrection narrative. Further, if a mere precis were intended, one would presume the summary to be in harmony with and not blatantly contradict the appearance accounts in the parallel gospels. Yet the *Markan* appearance to the two walking into the country (= the Emmaus road appearance in Lk 24) ends with a statement that the assembled disciples "did NOT believe" the report of the two witnesses. Yet the Lukan account not only does NOT have the assembled disciples in unbelief, but in contrast, it is the *Eleven* who confidently announce to the Emmaus Two that "The Lord has risen and appeared to Simon!" Would a mere summary precis end up giving such blatantly opposite results rather than a close harmonization of the accounts? The same could be said regarding the addition of "believing and baptized" to the Matthean great commission. Why add extra material which alters or contradicts the original statement? Similarly, the catalogue of "signs following" is otherwise unparalleled in the other gospel accounts, as well as the session on the right hand of God. How then does one account for "extra" material -- especially extra material which contradicts the accounts from which it supposedly is drawn -- if such is supposed to be a mere precis of the other gospel accounts? Some of this material might be accounted for by drawing on more remote parallels (for whatever reason), but not all of it, and certainly not the contradictions. One of course could argue that the extra material came from non-canonical sources, now lost, but in the absence of proof this is more problematic than what it would attempt to solve. >(2) The unique stuff in the long ending, in vv. 17-18 (snakes & >poisons, etc.), while practiced by certain Christian groups today, does not--to >my knowledge--seem to have had *any* currency in Christian antiquity. >Justin, Origen, etc., etc., etc., don't seem to talk about it or urge it on >their followers. If, however, the "long ending" were original, then these >would have been the part of the concluding verses of the oldest gospel (as >per the 4 source theory); one might have expected more attention to have >been given to these remarkable activities...or, conversely, to have >cautioned against it (or have I missed a new test of faith at certain >seminaries? We probably should ask Jim West about those mountain people in Tennessee before deriving a final answer on those points. :-) However, even if the various sign gifts were not at issue in the 2nd century (though the Montanist movement might indicate the contrary), it certainly is the case that all of the signs except the drinking of poison are paralleled in the book of Acts, and one could argue that the Markan ending, if not original, at least had a basis for adding most of the signs to the long ending by creating a precis from the signs in Acts. This still would not account for the "extra" about drinking poisons, however. >(Note that while Irenaeus specifically >states the reference is from the "end of Mark" [might this be an attempt to >legitimize the ending, and an interpolation into Irenaeus???], ... >I find this odd... How often does Irenaeus cite a reference by stating >from *which* book he is drawing it, and *where*, specifically, in that book >he is drawing the citation??? "Methinks the good pater doeth give his >source *too* precisely." I would suggest this to be very much an overstatement. Why should not Irenaeus be trusted here? We generally operate on the principle that a father's specific comments on a passage are more likely to be unaltered than the NT text he quotes (since scribes were considered unlikely to alter the comments as much as they might alter from memory the NT text itself). If Irenaeus says it is from Mark, apart from variants in the patristic mss which might raise suspicion, there should be no reason to claim interpolation in Irenaeus at this point. Also, if Irenaeus is assumed here to be interpolated in the absence of evidence, then what about every other case where a father speaks? The text everywhere could fall under similar suspicion, and nothing would remain certain in patristic studies. How often Irenaeus states which biblical book he quotes from, I haven't counted. That Irenaeus does cite various OT and NT books by name on various occasions *is* clear. In fact, at the beginning of the same section in which Irenaeus mentions and quotes from the *ending* of "Mark", he also cites and quotes Mark 1:1 as being the *beginning* of that same gospel (Adv. Haer. 3.10.5). There are no variants which in either case would suggest interpolation, and such should not be claimed in the absence of compelling evidence. >The two questions for those who wish to defend the authenticity of the long >ending are (to my mind, at least): (1) *Why* would it be omitted? >(2) Why are *all* of the appearances of Jesus in the "long ending" merely >truncated versions of appearances described elsewhere in the gospels? This is >singularly odd, for ALL the other gospels have "unique" appearances ... > *Only Mark,* if you paste on the long ending, would not have any >distinctive (= "only in Mark") appearances. This suggests to me that >something is rotten on the rue Nablus. As to Q.2 first -- certainly no rule states that a "valid" gospel has to present unique material at any given point, let alone the specific item of additional resurrection appearances. The very fact that the long ending *does* include much unparalleled additional material (as noted above) serves in its own way to satisfy the demand for something unique in this ending. Regarding Q.1 -- Of course many people (not Petersen, since he has not spoken to this point) have suggested that Mark originally did not end at 16:8, but continued on with some other longer ending, which original ending was later lost (by accident or whatever; typical of what might occur with the final leaf of a codex). The loss of the original long ending then supposedly was supplemented by some non-Markan author(s) who added the shorter or long ending or both to alleviate the loss. The idea that the long ending was constructed as a precis summary of resurrection appearances in the other three gospels would then fall in line with this hypothesis. Why then might not the converse be equally possible, namely that the long ending we currently possess was original, and that a *few* mss happened to lose their final page, thus ending with 16:8? (MS 2386 mentioned earlier reflects this very situation). If this occurred on a very limited scale, it then would be no surprise to find only a few extant witnesses reflecting such an omission: so today we find Sinaiticus and (perhaps) Vaticanus among the Greeks, sy-s, a single Sahidic ms and some Armenian mss. These witnesses might each have shared the same fate of losing a final leaf or (more likely) some of them were copied or translated from common exemplars which had accidentally lost the final page of Mark. Some MSS like Bobbiensis (it-k) may have supplied the shorter ending to compensate for whatever defect lay in the exemplar before them. If accidental cause for the omission can be a likely possibility (and I see no reason why it cannot, given that some who do not favor the long ending postulate the accidental loss of a now non-extant longer ending), there is no need to seek further for intentional reasons which might cause the omission of the long ending. Some modern commentators (e.g., Frank Stagg) seem to think it more "convenient" to have Mark end without the sign gifts, since this helps to refute all the snake-handlers, strychnine drinkers, and tongue-speakers of the modern era. Given the abuses of the Montanist movement and the continuing threat of its revival in the early church, there *could* have been adequate reason to omit or at least to modify the long ending to some degree; but I do not argue that this must be the case. The accidental hypothesis is preferable, especially when only two extant mss in the entire Greek tradition are affected by the omission; both Alexandrian; both lacking the support of the remaining Alexandrian witnesses; one leaving a blank space implying at least a knowledge of the existence of the long ending; and these otherwise being supported by a mere handful of other versional witnesses. The short ending is another matter, but I don't think there is anyone who claims it to be original, despite its appearance in several Greek mss and it-k. This certainly does not solve the problem, but at least offers other possibilities worth considering. ============================================== Maurice A. Robinson Professor of NT and Greek Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ___________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Oct 23 16:54:31 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA15011; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 16:54:31 -0400 Message-ID: <36310801.65C3220B@historian.net> Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 15:49:38 -0700 From: Jack Kilmon X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: tc-list Habakkuk Font References: <36301C4A.424B5C50@concentric.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 745 I have placed a new scribal font on my website as a companion to the DSSFont designed after 1QISa. This one is based on the script of the Pesher Habakkuk. Like all of my scribal fonts, it does require some "scribing" using your character spacing utility to raise lameds or lower finials and adjustment of point size to approximate the textual exemplar. I hope it is useful. The purpose of these fonts are to assist you in your publications where you would prefer to use the original script rather than modern square characters or transliterations. Their use in the classroom may assist your students in their familiarity with the original scripts. You can download the font at http://www.historian.net/files.htm Hope ya like it. Jack From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Oct 23 17:51:14 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA15239; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 17:51:14 -0400 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: tc-list Re: Mark 16:9-20 Message-ID: <19981023.174755.5463.2.seventh.guardian@juno.com> References: <00ad01bdfe1f$a4ebccc0$6ffeb7c7@david> X-Mailer: Juno 1.49 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0,2-6,9-12,14-16,18-22,24-26 From: seventh.guardian@juno.com (Maurice A. Robinson) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 17:52:19 EDT Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1122 On Thu, 22 Oct 1998 20:54:06 -0400 "R. David Large" writes: >1) Because all arguments made by Byzantine supporters can be as >summarily dismissed as the readings they favor ... Except of course when the very same arguments are made in favor of the non-Byzantine reading, in which case they become "lucid" and "compelling". :-) >2) Because only Byzantine supporters possess the unique mental flaws >requisite to dare peep or mutter a breath in defense of such an (universally >agreed) indefensible passage ... That is it! I have a mental flaw. I *knew* there was an explanation somewhere which might surpass "oddness". :-) >3) Because only Byzantine supporters get this doggoned MAD .... This point is totally wrong. I actually get only mildly amused. Usually it is the other side who becomes enraged at pro-Byzantine intransigence. :-) ___________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Oct 23 17:51:33 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA15255; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 17:51:32 -0400 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list Mark 16:9-20 Message-ID: <19981023.174755.5463.3.seventh.guardian@juno.com> References: <19981021.173306.7895.0.seventh.guardian@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 1.49 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0,2-4,6-7,9-12,14,16-18,23-25,29-31,40-45,47-48, 50-54,57-67,69-74,76-81,84-87 From: seventh.guardian@juno.com (Maurice A. Robinson) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 17:52:19 EDT Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 3697 On Fri, 23 Oct 1998 10:57:07 -0400 "William L. Petersen" writes: >(A) Unlike all other parallels among the gospels, where Mark gives a >full narrative (take a synopsis and look at the "Cleansing of the Temple" >[Mark 11:15-19, parr.], "The Question about Jesus' Authority" [Mark >11:27-33, parr.], or the "Synoptic Apocalypse" [Mark 13, parr.]), and the other >gospels follow suit, here we would have *the only known case* where >Mark gives a series of "one-liners" [snip] > nowhere else (if I am wrong, please give me the reference...) do we find 5 or 10 >*words* in Mark being expanded in the parallel accounts into *22 verses*, as >happens with the Emmaus account. It might not be a "series", but quite obviously in the Temptation account, Mark gives an extremely brief and succinct "one-line" account in contrast with the other Synoptic Gospels (having respectively 11 and 13 verses as parallels to Mark's one). I'm not exactly convinced that Mark had to operate under some rule which precluded succinct one-liners.... >(C) Vincent Taylor remarks on the non-Marcan style of the long ending... >Taylor: (p. 610): "The vocabulary and style of this section show clearly that it was >not written by Mark, but is based on a knowledge of traditions found in Lk and Jn." >He then proceeds to list a whole catalogue of non-Marcan features (vocabulary, >grammar, etc., etc.). And Burgon similarly (Last Twelve Verses, pp. 136-190) goes to the other extreme in pointing out pro-Markan evidence in relation to the long ending and also demonstrating by _reductio ad absurdum_ that the *opening* 12 verses of Mark actually contain as much "non-Markan" stylistic and vocabulary material as do the last 12 verses, even though that section is of unquestioned authenticity. Burgon further notes that there are *true* stylistic parallels between the opening verses of Mark's gospel and the closing verses in the long ending. If Taylor is to be read on the one hand, then Burgon should be read on the other. >The only other possibility is that the long ending is "original" :-) >the statements of Jerome and Eusebius (that the long ending was lacking in most >manuscripts known to them) Again, see Burgon, pp. 38-57 for a very different understanding of the testimony of Eusebius and Jerome. >Arguing that the long ending is "original" requires one to abandon >this very logical and consistent pattern Actually it only requires one to allow for "normal" patterns of transmission, accidental omission, and localized regional variant possibilities... > it also requires one to answer the following questions: >(1) How does one explain its absence in the oldest MSS? Already discussed by me previously. (2) How does one explain its non-Marcan style? Burgon's discussion has been mentioned above. (3) How does one explain the silence of the Fathers on its remarkable, distinctive >features Also see Burgon. >(e.g., v. 18)? (4) How does one explain its "non-standard" parallel >style (i.e., not a full parallel, as we have elsewhere in Mark and the other >gospels, but just these very abbreviated "echoes" of the other >resurrection appearances)? Already discussed by me previously. >(5) How does one prove that the passage is *not* what it appears to be: a catena of >appearances extracted (and condensed) from the other gospels? By the "extra material"; already discussed by me previously. ___________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Oct 23 18:00:40 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA15353; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 18:00:39 -0400 Message-ID: <36311783.FEB3A248@historian.net> Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 16:55:48 -0700 From: Jack Kilmon X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list Mark 16:9-20 References: <19981021.173306.7895.0.seventh.guardian@juno.com> <19981023.174755.5463.3.seventh.guardian@juno.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 211 This has been an interesting thread and a busy week has prevented me from catching all of it. How do the TC-listers feel about the theory that the Yohannine appendix was originally the ending of Mark? Jack From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Oct 23 18:26:31 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA15512; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 18:26:30 -0400 Message-ID: <011001bdfed4$a5400500$44feb7c7@david> From: "R. David Large" To: Subject: Re: tc-list Re: Mark 16:9-20 Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 18:29:48 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3155.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 649 >>3) Because only Byzantine supporters get this doggoned MAD .... > >This point is totally wrong. I actually get only mildly amused. Usually >it is the other side who becomes enraged at pro-Byzantine intransigence. Actually, this point was only made to inject a little humor into the debate. Sarcasm is a little hard to convey in print ... it gets me in trouble some- times :-) I do confess to mild bewilderment at those who seek to sweep away any and all arguments for the originality of this passage on the basis of, "Oh, you must be one of those pro-Byzantine folk!". I guess I be one them there varmints ;-) R. David Large David@ezol.com From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Oct 23 18:30:20 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA15547; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 18:30:19 -0400 Message-ID: <011301bdfed5$2d0c1e60$44feb7c7@david> From: "R. David Large" To: Subject: Re: tc-list Mark 16:9-20 Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 18:33:35 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3155.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 3821 My comments follow: -----Original Message----- From: William L. Petersen To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Thursday, October 22, 1998 5:48 PM Subject: tc-list Mark 16:9-20 >Some observations on the "long" ending of Mark, which have not yet been >made on the list (although they are certainly in the literature): > >(1) The *internal* evidence would seem to suggest that the long ending >(16:9-20) is a pastiche of material culled from the resurrection >appearances in extant NT books: [snip] This is not so convincing to me as it might sound at the first, especially when one considers Mark's often succint and summary style. Witness the begin- ning of his Gospel, especially 1:9-20, where in the space of 11 verses 4 ma- jor events (Jesus' Baptism, Temptation, Commencement of Ministry and Call of the Apostles), spanning about six months' time, are narrated for us. Compare these 11 verses (200 words in NA-27) to Matthew who uses 26 ver- ses (454 words in NA-27) or Luke's 73 verses (and whopping 1,169 words in NA-27) to cover the same ground (albeit with surplus genealogical and other material). The pastiche idea is certainly compatible to the evidence, and I see no problem with these verses being any kind of post-resurrection summary-- even if based on the ample oral material at Mark's disposal. They are not, however, intrinsical- ly non-Marcan because of this summary quality. >Virtually *every* detail of every *appearance* cited in the "long ending" >has a parallel in some other canonical gospel. This is odd, for unlike the >other parallels between Mark and the other gospels (e.g., the Anointing at >Bethany)--in which the parallelism is extended and often verbatim--here we >find mere "echoes" of the other appearances: enough to remind you of the >story, and let you identify it, but no "full" parallelism. The key word is *virtually*. There is some quite interesting original material not, it would seem, as easily explicable as mere synoptic cribbing. Material which, to my mind, savors more of original authorship than an effort to fill in the blank. Dr. Robinson's comments (which just arrived in my e-mailbox) address these passages I have in mind more eloquently than I dare attempt, so I will defer to his contribution here. I might add that the ostensibly contradictory details would, along with the unique collocation of belief with baptism as prerequisite for salva- tion, certainly be the 'harder' type of internal evidence usually given preference among competing readings ... though (admittedly) the hardest reading of all is the Gospel ending at verse 8-- which methinks impossible rather than hardest ;-) >If one wished to provide an ending for a gospel which--like Mark, if it >ended at 16.8--lacked (or had lost) a *satisfactory* ending, would this not >be precisely the way one would go about supplying an ending? Would one not >harmonize the material from the other gospels? Perhaps and perhaps ... it is a plausible explanation, but not *necessary* and, on the basis of other factors, a stronger case for originality prevails (IMHO). [snip] >(2) The unique stuff in the long ending, in vv. 17-18 (snakes & poisons, >etc.), while practiced by certain Christian groups today, does not--to my >knowledge--seem to have had *any* currency in Christian antiquity. Justin, >Origen, etc., etc., etc., don't seem to talk about it or urge it on their >followers. No wonder! Never has 'walking by faith' been so dangerous :-) [snip] >"Methinks the good pater doeth give his source *too* precisely." Hmmm ... I thought a Patristic reference was especially solid if it gave the detailed reference of its source. Methinks "too precisely" perhaps because "too Byzantine"?? ;-) R. David Large David@ezol.com From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Oct 23 19:14:25 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA15752; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 19:14:24 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <36311783.FEB3A248@historian.net> References: <19981021.173306.7895.0.seventh.guardian@juno.com> <19981023.174755.5463.3.seventh.guardian@juno.com> Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 18:17:07 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Ending of John (Was: Re: tc-list Mark 16:9-20) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1398 On Fri, 23 Oct 1998, Jack Kilmon wrote: >This has been an interesting thread and a busy week has prevented me from >catching all of it. How do the TC-listers feel about the theory that >the Yohannine appendix was originally the ending of Mark? This is only a personal feeling, but I don't think this is possible. At least, the ending of John cannot have come *verbatim* from the ending of Mark. I won't claim to have done detailed vocabulary studies, but the ending of John sounds "Johannine" to me. Not the theology, the language. It's simple -- simple enough that even I can understand it. :-) Writings from Mark don't sound that way. I suppose it is possible that the final chapter came from Mark with "Johannine" rewriting. But that's an awfully complex explanation.... In any case, it's not a question on which textual criticism can offer an opinion. And since I was just recently attacked in another venue for being a poor theologian (which is absolutely false; I'm not a theologian at all :-), I will stick with what I know and say no more. :-) -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Robert B. Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn (A site inspired by the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Oct 24 00:30:21 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id AAA16367; Sat, 24 Oct 1998 00:30:21 -0400 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list Mark 16:9-20 Message-ID: <19981024.003000.17567.0.seventh.guardian@juno.com> References: <19981021.173306.7895.0.seventh.guardian@juno.com> <19981023.174755.5463.3.seventh.guardian@juno.com> <36311783.FEB3A248@historian.net> X-Mailer: Juno 1.49 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0,2-5,7-10 From: seventh.guardian@juno.com (M A Robinson) Date: Sat, 24 Oct 1998 00:31:30 EDT Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 608 On Fri, 23 Oct 1998 16:55:48 -0700 Jack Kilmon writes: >This has been an interesting thread and a busy week has prevented me >from catching all of it. How do the TC-listers feel about the theory that >the Yohannine appendix was originally the ending of Mark? In the absence of any manuscript evidence to that effect, I don't.. ___________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Oct 24 05:53:11 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id FAA17680; Sat, 24 Oct 1998 05:53:11 -0400 Message-ID: <3631A895.6FEBF6A8@historian.net> Date: Sat, 24 Oct 1998 05:14:45 -0500 From: Jack Kilmon X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.07 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list Mark 16:9-20 References: <19981021.173306.7895.0.seventh.guardian@juno.com> <19981023.174755.5463.3.seventh.guardian@juno.com> <36311783.FEB3A248@historian.net> <19981024.003000.17567.0.seventh.guardian@juno.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2824 M A Robinson wrote: > > On Fri, 23 Oct 1998 16:55:48 -0700 Jack Kilmon > writes: > > >This has been an interesting thread and a busy week has prevented me > >from catching all of it. How do the TC-listers feel about the theory > that > >the Yohannine appendix was originally the ending of Mark? > > In the absence of any manuscript evidence to that effect, I don't.. It seems there are two elements to this. First, whether John 21 was original to 4G and second, if not, where did it originate. John 21 does contain similarities of style with 4G and familiar Yohannine words unique to 4G. "The Sea of Tiberias" in 21:1 as a name for the Sea of Galilee is unique to 4G. The reference to "Thomas, the twin" is unique to 4G as is the "beloved disciple." The use of the word "anthrakia" (21:9) has a NT usage only at Jn 18:18 and the grammatical style is very similar. The absence of ms evidence, as you suggest, can only tell us that Ch 21 was part of 4G at the time of P66 and P75 near the turn of the 3rd century. This is the strongest evidence for TC since the rule that "you can only go with wuccha got" is the "iron curtain" of TC. The evidence for the interpolation of 7:53-8:11 is clear because of its absence in the ms before D. Not so with 21. >From a form standpoint, however, 21 is discontinuous from the storyline of 1-20. It seems odd that the disciples who have just witnessed the risen Jesus then drop everything to go back to Galilee to take up fishing where nowhere in 4G is it mentioned that they were fisherman, a motif that originates in Mark. This going back home to Galilee to fish is at odds with ch 20 where "they went back to their homes" (20:10) in the vicinity of Jerusalem, later to see Jesus again the same day in Jerusalem. Words which appear in this fishing motif of 21 do not appear anywhere else in 4G which suggests this fishing motif is not Yohannine. There are a number of words used in ch 21 not used in 1-20 but common to the synoptics. 21 is a mixture of Yohannine and synoptic themes. I have to give serious consideration to the strong argument Powell makes for 21 originating with Mark. The "fishers of men" theme from Mark and the miraculous catch of fish from John appear as a single unit in Luke. The first words spoken to a disciple in Mark is "follow me." The last words spoken by Jesus in John 21 is "follow me." That John 21 could be a Yohannine rewrite of the ending of Mark is certainly possible from the standpoint of a number of arguments but, alas and alack, the absence of any ms of John that excludes it leaves this issue on the doorstep for TC. Jack -- ______________________________________________ Min d'LA rokHEM l'maRAN yeSHUa meshyCHA niheYAH. maRAN aTHA Jack Kilmon jkilmon@historian.net http://www.historian.net From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Oct 24 10:06:59 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA18211; Sat, 24 Oct 1998 10:06:59 -0400 Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.19981024085955.007647c4@pop.flash.net> X-Sender: logsdon@pop.flash.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.2 (32) Date: Sat, 24 Oct 1998 08:59:55 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: Mike Logsdon Subject: Re: tc-list Mark 16:9-20 In-Reply-To: <3631A895.6FEBF6A8@historian.net> References: <19981021.173306.7895.0.seventh.guardian@juno.com> <19981023.174755.5463.3.seventh.guardian@juno.com> <36311783.FEB3A248@historian.net> <19981024.003000.17567.0.seventh.guardian@juno.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 3623 On a canon and authorship aside, it is of course possible that Mark was the author of the 4th Gospel if one accepts P. Parkers assertions. See P. Parker, "John the Son of Zebedee and the Fourth Gospel," Journal of Biblical Literature 81 (1962): 35-43; idem "John and John Mark," Journal of Biblical Literature 79 (1960): 97-110. Parker makes a strong case for the Markan authorship of the 4th. Gospel, but this largely requires a unique reading of Papias as well as a revision of traditional synoptic issues (i.e. traditional Markan authorship and Synoptic reliance). Of course this makes him hesitant to accept his own arguments. Just an aside to the on-going Mark debate. At 05:14 AM 10/24/98 -0500, you wrote: >M A Robinson wrote: >> >> On Fri, 23 Oct 1998 16:55:48 -0700 Jack Kilmon >> writes: >> >> >This has been an interesting thread and a busy week has prevented me >> >from catching all of it. How do the TC-listers feel about the theory >> that >> >the Yohannine appendix was originally the ending of Mark? >> >> In the absence of any manuscript evidence to that effect, I don't.. > >It seems there are two elements to this. First, whether John 21 was >original to 4G and second, if not, where did it originate. > >John 21 does contain similarities of style with 4G and familiar >Yohannine >words unique to 4G. "The Sea of Tiberias" in 21:1 as a name for the >Sea of Galilee is unique to 4G. The reference to "Thomas, the twin" >is unique to 4G as is the "beloved disciple." The use of the word >"anthrakia" (21:9) has a NT usage only at Jn 18:18 and the grammatical >style is very similar. > >The absence of ms evidence, as you suggest, can only tell us that >Ch 21 was part of 4G at the time of P66 and P75 near the turn of >the 3rd century. This is the strongest evidence for TC since the >rule that "you can only go with wuccha got" is the "iron curtain" >of TC. The evidence for the interpolation of 7:53-8:11 is clear >because of its absence in the ms before D. Not so with 21. > >>From a form standpoint, however, 21 is discontinuous from the >storyline of 1-20. It seems odd that the disciples who have just >witnessed the risen Jesus then drop everything to go back to >Galilee to take up fishing where nowhere in 4G is it mentioned >that they were fisherman, a motif that originates in Mark. >This going back home to Galilee to fish is at odds with >ch 20 where "they went back to their homes" (20:10) in >the vicinity of Jerusalem, later to see Jesus again the >same day in Jerusalem. > >Words which appear in this fishing motif of 21 do not >appear anywhere else in 4G which suggests this fishing motif >is not Yohannine. There are a number of words used in >ch 21 not used in 1-20 but common to the synoptics. >21 is a mixture of Yohannine and synoptic themes. > >I have to give serious consideration to the strong >argument Powell makes for 21 originating with Mark. >The "fishers of men" theme from Mark and the miraculous >catch of fish from John appear as a single unit in Luke. > >The first words spoken to a disciple in Mark is >"follow me." The last words spoken by Jesus in John >21 is "follow me." > >That John 21 could be a Yohannine rewrite of the ending >of Mark is certainly possible from the standpoint of >a number of arguments but, alas and alack, the >absence of any ms of John that excludes it leaves >this issue on the doorstep for TC. > >Jack > > > >-- >______________________________________________ > >Min d'LA rokHEM l'maRAN yeSHUa meshyCHA niheYAH. maRAN aTHA > >Jack Kilmon >jkilmon@historian.net > >http://www.historian.net > > From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Oct 24 12:01:38 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA18469; Sat, 24 Oct 1998 12:01:37 -0400 Date: Sat, 24 Oct 1998 12:05:26 -0400 Message-Id: <199810241605.MAA05702@server1.netpath.net> X-Sender: rlmullen@server1.netpath.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Roderic L. Mullen" Subject: Re: tc-list Mark 16:9-20 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 326 Huh? Is there some manuscript evidence for this? --Rod Mullen At 04:55 PM 10/23/98 -0700, you wrote: > > >This has been an interesting thread and a busy week has prevented me from >catching all of it. How do the TC-listers feel about the theory that >the Yohannine appendix was originally the ending of Mark? > >Jack > > From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Oct 24 12:21:31 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA18615; Sat, 24 Oct 1998 12:21:30 -0400 Date: Sat, 24 Oct 1998 09:23:16 -0700 (PDT) From: Jim Deardorff To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list Mark 16:9-20 In-Reply-To: <19981023.164207.5463.0.seventh.guardian@juno.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 3571 On Fri, 23 Oct 1998, Maurice A. Robinson wrote: >[...] > I certainly have no problem in viewing the ending of Mark as a basic > summary of the resurrection appearances and paralleling much of what is > found in the other gospels (regardless of the Markan priority hypothesis > or the date of the ending). However, the issue of Markan authorship of > the ending properly belongs to higher criticism and probably is becoming > inappropriate for the tc-list, so I will try to conclude this line of > discussion before it departs textual criticism entirely. [...] It appears that your conclusion of this line of discussion didn't yet take hold, Maurice. Let me then try to conclude it. Seriously, though, whether or not Markan priority is correct in general *does* have bearing on TC. > Assuming the long ending only gives a "resurrection summary" of what is > found in the other gospels, why then were all the "extras" added to the > longer ending of Mark which go far beyond a simple harmonization of the > other resurrection accounts. E.g., the seven demons derive from Lk. 8:2 > and not from any resurrection narrative. > > Further, if a mere precis were intended, one would presume the summary to > be in harmony with and not blatantly contradict the appearance accounts > in the parallel gospels. Yet the *Markan* appearance to the two walking > into the country (= the Emmaus road appearance in Lk 24) ends with a > statement that the assembled disciples "did NOT believe" the report of > the two witnesses. Yet the Lukan account not only does NOT have the > assembled disciples in unbelief, but in contrast, it is the *Eleven* who > confidently announce to the Emmaus Two that "The Lord has risen and > appeared to Simon!" Would a mere summary precis end up giving such > blatantly opposite results rather than a close harmonization of the > accounts? > > The same could be said regarding the addition of "believing and baptized" > to the Matthean great commission. Why add extra material which alters or > contradicts the original statement? [...] The following scenario is consistent with the external evidence or tradition that Matthew in a Hebraic form preceded Mark: 1) The writer of Mark then had no other post-crucifixion accounts to guide him than what was in Hebraic Matthew. For various fairly evident reasons he did not trust Matthew's account at all from Mt 28:9 on, and having no others to substitute for it, he omitted it. At the same time he stressed the theme of fear, as P. Parker has emphasized Mark does in connection with the Jewish disciples and witnesses. 2) After Mark and Luke appeared on the scene, it became imperative that Hebraic Matthew be translated into Greek if it were to retain its authority and were to be available to gentiles. Hebraic Matthew had itself lacked its longer ending, including Mt 28:19-20. The longer ending to Matthew was added (to Greek Matthew) at this time, along with other, more minor, alterations. Hebraic Matthew was retired from circulation as soon as possible after Greek Matthew came out. 3) Considerably later, Mark's longer ending was similarly added, most likely by another person, drawing upon the post-crucifixion accounts of the other gospels. But it was not so well attested, being later in time than the appearance of Greek Matthew and due to too many copies of earlier Mark already being in existence. The greater emphasis in Mark (in the Mark without the longer ending) upon baptism than in Matthew accounts for the stronger role of baptism in its longer ending. Jim Deardorff From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Oct 24 13:12:17 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA18739; Sat, 24 Oct 1998 13:12:17 -0400 Message-ID: <36320F84.CEF4DA20@historian.net> Date: Sat, 24 Oct 1998 12:33:56 -0500 From: Jack Kilmon X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.07 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list Mark 16:9-20 References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1401 Jim Deardorff wrote: > > > The following scenario is consistent with the external evidence or > tradition that Matthew in a Hebraic form preceded Mark: > > 1) The writer of Mark then had no other post-crucifixion accounts to guide > him than what was in Hebraic Matthew. For various fairly evident reasons > he did not trust Matthew's account at all from Mt 28:9 on, and having no > others to substitute for it, he omitted it. At the same time he stressed > the theme of fear, as P. Parker has emphasized Mark does in connection > with the Jewish disciples and witnesses. > Jim: I cannot see any evidence, from a linguistic standpoint, that Matthew was ever written in Hebrew. Other than an Aramaic substratum to the "sayings" material, Matthew seems to be all compositional Greek to me. In fact, given Matthew's treatments of the sayings, I am not sure that he was not using even a Greek translation of those. His sometimes clumsy transliterations of Aramaic words and his reliance on the LXX sometimes makes me doubt that he was even competent in a Semitic language. I am convinced that the "Hebrew (Aramaic) Matthew" of Eusebius' citation of Papias was an early sayings source and not the Gospel of Matthew. Jack -- ______________________________________________ Min d'LA rokHEM l'maRAN yeSHUa meshyCHA niheYAH. maRAN aTHA Jack Kilmon jkilmon@historian.net http://www.historian.net From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Oct 24 14:36:53 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA18975; Sat, 24 Oct 1998 14:36:53 -0400 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 24 Oct 1998 19:38:16 +0100 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: Steven Carr Subject: Re: tc-list Mark 16:9-20 In-Reply-To: <36320F84.CEF4DA20@historian.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1110 In message <36320F84.CEF4DA20@historian.net>, Jack Kilmon writes >I cannot see any evidence, from a linguistic standpoint, that Matthew >was ever written in Hebrew. Other than an Aramaic substratum to the >"sayings" material, Matthew seems to be all compositional Greek to me. >In fact, given Matthew's treatments of the sayings, I am not sure >that he was not using even a Greek translation of those. His >sometimes clumsy transliterations of Aramaic words and his >reliance on the LXX sometimes makes me doubt that he was even >competent in a Semitic language. It is very clear that the author of Matthew relied on the LXX, but could you give me some examples of clumsy transliterations of Aramaic words please? Assuming Markan priority, it seems unlikely to me that Matthew and Luke had Mark 16:9-20 available to them in its present form. They diverge from that and from each other much more than they diverge from Mark 16:1-8. >I am convinced that the "Hebrew (Aramaic) Matthew" of Eusebius' >citation of Papias was an early sayings source and not the >Gospel of Matthew. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Oct 24 15:26:55 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA19167; Sat, 24 Oct 1998 15:26:54 -0400 Message-Id: <199810241928.PAA18899@pike.sover.net> X-Sender: nichael@sover.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0.2 Date: Sat, 24 Oct 1998 15:18:33 -0400 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: Nichael Lynn Cramer Subject: Re: tc-list Mark 16:9-20 Cc: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu In-Reply-To: References: <36320F84.CEF4DA20@historian.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1520 As many have pointed out, this is way off the track of TC, but... > writes >>I cannot see any evidence, from a linguistic standpoint, that Matthew >>was ever written in Hebrew. Other than an Aramaic substratum to the >>"sayings" material, Matthew seems to be all compositional Greek to me. Indeed, given that both of Matthew's primary sources (i.e. Q and Mark) were themselves in Greek it seems highly unlikely that the "original" Matthew would itself have been written in anything other than Greek. >>I am convinced that the "Hebrew (Aramaic) Matthew" of Eusebius' >>citation of Papias was an early sayings source and not the >>Gospel of Matthew. This is a very important point, usually neglected by the proponents of a putative "Hebrew original Matthew". That is that the logic --the line of argument-- that supports Papias' "saying collection" being a Hebrew proto-Matthew is precisely the same logic that would support the collection being identified with the Synoptics Saying Source. Now, I don't think anyone has strongly argued that "Q" was in fact what Papias was writing about. But, nonetheless the logic --and the evidence-- is identical. (In fact, it is arguably stronger given that we have much independent evidence supporting the existence of the SSS and virtually none supporting the existence of the proto-Matthew). -- Nichael Cramer nichael@sover.net deep autumn-- http://www.sover.net/~nichael/ my neighbor what does she do From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Oct 24 22:22:57 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id WAA20065; Sat, 24 Oct 1998 22:22:57 -0400 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list Mark 16:9-20 Message-ID: <19981024.222212.4519.0.seventh.guardian@juno.com> References: X-Mailer: Juno 1.49 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0,2-13,18-19,22-27,30-36 From: seventh.guardian@juno.com (M A Robinson) Date: Sat, 24 Oct 1998 22:23:39 EDT Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1888 >On Sat, 24 Oct 1998 12:33:56 -0500 Jack Kilmon writes: >>Jim Deardorff wrote: >> The following scenario is consistent with the external evidence or >> tradition that Matthew in a Hebraic form preceded Mark: >I cannot see any evidence, from a linguistic standpoint, that Matthew >was ever written in Hebrew. Other than an Aramaic substratum to the >"sayings" material, Matthew seems to be all compositional Greek to me. >In fact, given Matthew's treatments of the sayings, I am not sure >that he was not using even a Greek translation of those. I am thankful that I am now (I trust) out of this discussion; but to show the peculiarities and whims affecting each of us as individuals: after my sharp disagreement with Kilmon regarding Jn 21, I now end up for the most part in agreement with Kilmon regarding the Hebraic Matthew hypothesis and its supposed effect on the ending of Mark. At least my reasoning in both cases remains consistent -- lack of direct manuscript evidence precludes very much speculation as to what might have been (C.C. Torrey or C.S.C. Williams to the contrary). >I am convinced that the "Hebrew (Aramaic) Matthew" of Eusebius' >citation of Papias was an early sayings source and not the >Gospel of Matthew. Same here, except I am not fully convinced as to exactly *what* Papias really meant, even though I am quite certain it was not a Hebrew or Aramaic gospel of Matthew. ============================================================== Maurice A. Robinson, Ph. D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina, USA ___________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Oct 24 22:22:59 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id WAA20076; Sat, 24 Oct 1998 22:22:58 -0400 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list Mark 16:9-20 Message-ID: <19981024.222212.4519.1.seventh.guardian@juno.com> References: <19981021.173306.7895.0.seventh.guardian@juno.com> <19981023.174755.5463.3.seventh.guardian@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 1.49 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0,2-4,8-13,21-26,29-33,38-39,50-56,66-72,85-92,95-102 From: seventh.guardian@juno.com (M A Robinson) Date: Sat, 24 Oct 1998 22:23:39 EDT Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 5326 On Sat, 24 Oct 1998 05:14:45 -0500 Jack Kilmon writes: >M A Robinson wrote: Since there is no text-critical material to discuss here, I will avoid much comment on Jn 21. The arguments for the pre-canonical stages and whether it is an appendix, etc., probably are more appropriate for b-greek or another forum. >The absence of ms evidence, as you suggest, can only tell us that >Ch 21 was part of 4G at the time of P66 and P75 near the turn of >the 3rd century. It doesn't even tell us that much, since P75 is not even extant to that point (p66 extends in fragments to Jn 21:9). One could, however, reasonably presume that P75 would have agreed with every other known witness in including that chapter. We do know, textually, that ch. 21 is part of all the Greek witnesses which we possess and also all the versional witnesses. No source out there omits Jn 21, and all speculation regarding the structure and composition of the fourth gospel reverts back to the gray area involving pre-transmissional history. >This is the strongest evidence for TC since the >rule that "you can only go with wuccha got" is the "iron curtain" >of TC. A quite reasonable rule, in my opinion, since it tends to prevent or at least mollify overly-wild speculation which goes beyond the preserved evidence. >The evidence for the interpolation of 7:53-8:11 is clear >because of its absence in the ms before D. I doubt whether anyone would think that I would concur with this view. :-) Neither that I would consider the D-text of the Pericope Adulterae to reflect the original form of the text. What the original form of the text is, however, I do not have a clue at this point, since there is no "Byzantine" form of the text which dominates in this passage. As for the period antedating D, there are precisely four extant Greek MS witnesses: P66, P75, Aleph, and B -- all Egyptian and three of them textually related. From the same century as D are A C T and W, all of which omit, but the only one of which is the odd one out textually is A, the others also being predominantly Alexandrian here. For some of us the question regarding omission among the localized Alexandrian texttype and its primary witnesses is of more significance than the possibility of interpolation. But this discussion I cannot pursue further, since I am swamped with a plethora of detail in hand that I slowly and meticulously have to wade through before reaching final conclusions regarding the text of the PA.. >It seems odd that the disciples who have just >witnessed the risen Jesus then drop everything to go back to >Galilee to take up fishing where nowhere in 4G is it mentioned >that they were fisherman John often presupposes the existence of and a reader's familiarity with the other canonical gospels. This can be demonstrated: e.g., in the trial before Pilate in John, the question, "Are you a King" (Jn 18:33) comes apparently out of thin air or Pilate's mind -- until one notes that the Lukan account (Lk 23:2) has the crowd making the specific charge that Jesus claims to be a King in opposition to Caesar, which does not occur in John (cf. Jn. 18:29-30). So there should be no problem if John presumes a familiarity not only with the fact that some disciples were fishers, but also that they were specifically commanded in Mt and Mark to go into Galilee and wait for an appearance. >This going back home to Galilee to fish is at odds with >ch 20 where "they went back to their homes" (20:10) in >the vicinity of Jerusalem, later to see Jesus again the >same day in Jerusalem. It is only Peter and John returning from the tomb on Resurrection Sunday back to wherever they and the other disciples are staying during the feast of Unleavened Bread.....where does this "returning to their homes" come from? I know the KJV says that ("unto their own home"), but the Greek says only APHLQON OUN PALIN PROS (E)AUTOUS OI MAQHTAI, and certainly reflects nothing about their actual homes or city of residence. Also, since the gospels (including John) all agree that the initial resurrection appearances occurred in Jerusalem on that Sunday, and since Mt/Mk make it clear that there also were to be appearances in Galilee, and given the comment in Acts that there were 40 days of appearances -- there should be nothing at all surprising about the Galilee fishing expedition in Jn 21, given that John does presuppose knowledge of the other gospel material. >That John 21 could be a Yohannine rewrite of the ending >of Mark is certainly possible from the standpoint of >a number of arguments but, alas and alack, the >absence of any ms of John that excludes it leaves >this issue on the doorstep for TC. Actually from a text-critical standpoint, the door is closed, and the issue will likely remain on the doorstep, since TC really has nothing to do with it. ============================================================== Maurice A. Robinson, Ph. D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina, USA. ___________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Oct 24 22:46:42 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id WAA20184; Sat, 24 Oct 1998 22:46:41 -0400 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list Mark 16:9-20 Message-ID: <19981024.224556.4519.2.seventh.guardian@juno.com> References: X-Mailer: Juno 1.49 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-2,4-10,18-19,28-34 From: seventh.guardian@juno.com (M A Robinson) Date: Sat, 24 Oct 1998 22:47:13 EDT Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2015 Also moving beyond the tc-list proper, but with some significance.... On Sat, 24 Oct 1998 19:38:16 +0100 Steven Carr writes: >Assuming Markan priority, it seems unlikely to me that Matthew and Luke >had Mark 16:9-20 available to them in its present form. They diverge >from that and from each other much more than they diverge from Mark >16:1-8. But are you not allowing Markan priority (source criticism) to drive the conclusion (text-criticism) in such a case? Are the divergences of Mt and Lk from Mk in regard to their long ending parallels being made the test of Markan authenticity? It seems that this is placing the proverbial cart (higher criticism) before the horse (lower criticism), and I wonder whether this should be the case when merely attempting to establish textual authenticity of the "autograph" or "original canonical form" or whatever in Mark itself.. What then would occur should one follow Griesbach (as e.g., John Wenham) in arguing Matthean priority? Or Robert L. Lindsey in arguing Lukan priority? Or Eta Linnemann in arguing no source dependency whatsoever? In the first two cases, the hypothesis of "Markan abridgement" could apply, and the longer ending of Mark might find support; but this likely would be just as illegitimate an imposition of higher over lower criticism, and lead to no valid results within the field of textual criticism. I thus remain unconvinced of the wisdom or sufficiency of such an approach as opposed to dealing with the textual and transmissional evidence directly. ============================================================== Maurice A. Robinson, Ph. D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina, USA ___________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Oct 25 03:08:21 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id DAA20681; Sun, 25 Oct 1998 03:08:20 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Sun, 25 Oct 1998 01:04:48 -0700 Subject: Re: tc-list Mark 16:9-20 Message-ID: <19981025.010448.9430.0.jeffcate@juno.com> References: <19981021.173306.7895.0.seventh.guardian@juno.com> <19981023.174755.5463.3.seventh.guardian@juno.com> <3631A895.6FEBF6A8@historian.net> X-Mailer: Juno 1.49 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-1,8-9,17-18,29-30,35-41,43-121 From: jeffcate@juno.com (Jeff Cate) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 5430 Jack, Your theory (which personally I find improbable based on textual and stylistic grounds) does raise an interesting question regarding the origination of *all* the endings of Mark. The reader of Mark expects an appearance in Galillee (to Peter?) based on Mk 14:28 and 16:7. I would presume that those references are what lead you to concoct the notion of John 21 as a rewrite of an unknown, original ending of Mark in the first place. Quite curiously, none of our extant endings of Mark [nothing beyond 16:8; long; short; Freer Logion] mention Galilee or Peter specifically. Matthew's Gospel picks up on the need to mention an appearance in Galilee (Mt 26:32; 28:7, 10) and does so (Mt 28:16). The scribe of Mk 16:9-20 for whatever reason didn't sense the same need to mention an appearance in Galilee, even though the long ending is based on sources other than Mark, presumeably including Matthew which did address the anticipation for a Galilean appearance. Therefore, I see this lack of a specific mention of Galilee in 16:9-20 as one of many indications of the non-Markan style of the long ending (granted, this one is an argument from silence). In light of Mk 14:28 and 16:7, it seems quite difficult to explain 16:9-20 as originally part of Mark. If 16:9-20 originally followed 16:8, then why no mention of an appearance in Galilee when 16:9-20 presumes to summarize for the reader a wide spectrum of Jesus' appearances? Was the evangelist so careless to forget to mention an appearance of Jesus in Galilee after such bold statements in 14:28 and 16:7? Or did the scribe of 16:9-20 simply not clue in to the refs in 14:28 and 16:7 as he/she attempted to compile post-resurrection episodes from other sources? BTW, none of the references in Mark (or Matthew for that matter) necessarily anticipate a private meeting of Jesus and Peter like we find in Jn 21:15-22. In Mt 26:32; 28:7, 10; Mk 14:28; 16:7, the anticipated appearance in Galilee is to be to you (pl.) (HUMAS), i.e., Peter and the other disciples, not you (sg.), i.e., not necessarily to Peter alone. Jeff Cate, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Christian Studies California Baptist University Riverside, California 92508 On Sat, 24 Oct 1998 05:14:45 -0500 Jack Kilmon writes: >M A Robinson wrote: >> >> On Fri, 23 Oct 1998 16:55:48 -0700 Jack Kilmon > >> writes: >> >> >This has been an interesting thread and a busy week has prevented >me >> >from catching all of it. How do the TC-listers feel about the >theory >> that >> >the Yohannine appendix was originally the ending of Mark? >> >> In the absence of any manuscript evidence to that effect, I don't.. > >It seems there are two elements to this. First, whether John 21 was >original to 4G and second, if not, where did it originate. > >John 21 does contain similarities of style with 4G and familiar >Yohannine >words unique to 4G. "The Sea of Tiberias" in 21:1 as a name for the >Sea of Galilee is unique to 4G. The reference to "Thomas, the twin" >is unique to 4G as is the "beloved disciple." The use of the word >"anthrakia" (21:9) has a NT usage only at Jn 18:18 and the grammatical >style is very similar. > >The absence of ms evidence, as you suggest, can only tell us that >Ch 21 was part of 4G at the time of P66 and P75 near the turn of >the 3rd century. This is the strongest evidence for TC since the >rule that "you can only go with wuccha got" is the "iron curtain" >of TC. The evidence for the interpolation of 7:53-8:11 is clear >because of its absence in the ms before D. Not so with 21. > >>From a form standpoint, however, 21 is discontinuous from the >storyline of 1-20. It seems odd that the disciples who have just >witnessed the risen Jesus then drop everything to go back to >Galilee to take up fishing where nowhere in 4G is it mentioned >that they were fisherman, a motif that originates in Mark. >This going back home to Galilee to fish is at odds with >ch 20 where "they went back to their homes" (20:10) in >the vicinity of Jerusalem, later to see Jesus again the >same day in Jerusalem. > >Words which appear in this fishing motif of 21 do not >appear anywhere else in 4G which suggests this fishing motif >is not Yohannine. There are a number of words used in >ch 21 not used in 1-20 but common to the synoptics. >21 is a mixture of Yohannine and synoptic themes. > >I have to give serious consideration to the strong >argument Powell makes for 21 originating with Mark. >The "fishers of men" theme from Mark and the miraculous >catch of fish from John appear as a single unit in Luke. > >The first words spoken to a disciple in Mark is >"follow me." The last words spoken by Jesus in John >21 is "follow me." > >That John 21 could be a Yohannine rewrite of the ending >of Mark is certainly possible from the standpoint of >a number of arguments but, alas and alack, the >absence of any ms of John that excludes it leaves >this issue on the doorstep for TC. > >Jack > > > >-- >______________________________________________ > >Min d'LA rokHEM l'maRAN yeSHUa meshyCHA niheYAH. maRAN aTHA > >Jack Kilmon >jkilmon@historian.net > >http://www.historian.net > ___________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Oct 25 09:37:08 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA21847; Sun, 25 Oct 1998 09:37:08 -0500 Message-ID: <36333CB0.DFED6110@historian.net> Date: Sun, 25 Oct 1998 08:58:56 -0600 From: Jack Kilmon X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.07 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list Mark 16:9-20 References: <19981021.173306.7895.0.seventh.guardian@juno.com> <19981023.174755.5463.3.seventh.guardian@juno.com> <3631A895.6FEBF6A8@historian.net> <19981025.010448.9430.0.jeffcate@juno.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2139 Jeff Cate wrote: > > Jack, > > Your theory (which personally I find improbable based on textual and > stylistic grounds) does raise an interesting question regarding the > origination of *all* the endings of Mark. The reader of Mark expects an > appearance in Galillee (to Peter?) based on Mk 14:28 and 16:7. I would > presume that those references are what lead you to concoct the notion of > John 21 as a rewrite of an unknown, original ending of Mark in the first > place. > Actually, I didn't concoct it Jeff, but I like intriguing speculations and Evan Powell's "Lost Gospel" is very convincing. I think it very likely that none of the various Markan endings are original to the autograph and that there are two possibilities: 1. The original ending was lost. 2. There never was an ending. Or are there just two? There is a textual witness to Mark that may give us the ending. Matthew! If we accept that Matthew used Mark, didn't he also use the ending? If we go to Matthew and extract the ending, would we get something like...... Mt.28:9 (Mark 16:9) And Jesus himself met them and said, Good Morning. Mt.28:9 (Mark 16:10) And they went to him and clasped his feet, and bowed to the ground before him. Mt.28:10 (Mark 16:11) Jesus said to them, you need not be afraid Mt.28:10 (Mark 16:12) Go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee and they will see me there. Mt. 28:8 (Mark 16:13) And they went with great joy and ran to tell his disciples. Mt.28:16 (Mark 16:14) And the eleven disciples went to Galilee to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. Mt.28:19 (Mark 16:15 And Jesus came up to them and said, go and preach the good news to all the heathen. I will always be with you, to the end. Now just put it in Markan Greek and ya gottit! Nuttin to it (g) Jack -- ______________________________________________ Min d'LA rokHEM l'maRAN yeSHUa meshyCHA niheYAH. maRAN aTHA Jack Kilmon jkilmon@historian.net http://www.historian.net From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Oct 25 10:30:30 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA21994; Sun, 25 Oct 1998 10:30:30 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Sun, 25 Oct 1998 07:31:11 -0800 Subject: Re: tc-list Mark 16:9-20 Message-ID: <19981025.073111.7174.0.jeffcate@juno.com> References: <19981021.173306.7895.0.seventh.guardian@juno.com> <19981023.174755.5463.3.seventh.guardian@juno.com> <36333CB0.DFED6110@historian.net> X-Mailer: Juno 1.49 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-4,10-54 From: jeffcate@juno.com (Jeff Cate) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2462 >Actually, I didn't concoct it Jeff, but I like intriguing speculations >and Evan Powell's "Lost Gospel" is very convincing. I think it very >likely that none of the various Markan endings are original to the >autograph and that there are two possibilities: Maybe, concoct wasn't the right word. I too like to invest intriguing theories since that's how we can avoid overlooking the obvious. I haven't read Powell. I'm curious how he explains the current status of the ms evidence for Mk and Jn as well as sees Jn 21 as a "rewrite" of an original ending of Mark. "Rewrite" would be quite an understatement due to the Johannine themes in the passage. Jeff Cate, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Christian Studies California Baptist University Riverside, California 92508 > >1. The original ending was lost. >2. There never was an ending. > >Or are there just two? There is a textual witness to Mark that may >give us the ending. Matthew! If we accept that Matthew used >Mark, didn't he also use the ending? If we go to Matthew and >extract the ending, would we get something like...... > >Mt.28:9 (Mark 16:9) And Jesus himself met them and said, > Good Morning. >Mt.28:9 (Mark 16:10) And they went to him and clasped his feet, > and bowed to the ground before him. >Mt.28:10 (Mark 16:11) Jesus said to them, you need not be afraid >Mt.28:10 (Mark 16:12) Go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee > and they will see me there. >Mt. 28:8 (Mark 16:13) And they went with great joy and ran to > tell his disciples. >Mt.28:16 (Mark 16:14) And the eleven disciples went to Galilee > to the mountain to which Jesus had directed > them. >Mt.28:19 (Mark 16:15 And Jesus came up to them and said, go and > preach the good news to all the heathen. > I will always be with you, to the end. > >Now just put it in Markan Greek and ya gottit! Nuttin to it (g) > >Jack >-- >______________________________________________ > >Min d'LA rokHEM l'maRAN yeSHUa meshyCHA niheYAH. maRAN aTHA > >Jack Kilmon >jkilmon@historian.net > >http://www.historian.net > ___________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Oct 25 13:21:22 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA22353; Sun, 25 Oct 1998 13:21:21 -0500 Date: Sun, 25 Oct 1998 10:23:08 -0800 (PST) From: Jim Deardorff To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list Mark 16:9-20 In-Reply-To: <36320F84.CEF4DA20@historian.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 3954 On Sat, 24 Oct 1998, Jack Kilmon wrote: > Jim Deardorff wrote: > > > The following scenario is consistent with the external evidence or > > tradition that Matthew in a Hebraic form preceded Mark: > > > > 1) The writer of Mark then had no other post-crucifixion accounts to guide > > him than what was in Hebraic Matthew. For various fairly evident reasons > > he did not trust Matthew's account at all from Mt 28:9 on, and having no > > others to substitute for it, he omitted it. At the same time he stressed > > the theme of fear, as P. Parker has emphasized Mark does in connection > > with the Jewish disciples and witnesses. > Jim: > > I cannot see any evidence, from a linguistic standpoint, that Matthew > was ever written in Hebrew. Other than an Aramaic substratum to the > "sayings" material, Matthew seems to be all compositional Greek to me. Jack, It's pretty plausible that if Matthew had been written first in Greek, its Sea (QALLASA) of Galilee would have been the Lake (LIMNH) of Luke. This is an example occurring in narration, not just in sayings -- an example of non-compositional Greek. The "fell on their faces" type of Aramaism occurs at four spots in Matthew. In keeping with the basics of the Augustinian tradition, the authors of Mark and Luke are seen as having perpetuated this Aramaism. There's another weak point in your argument: the sayings from an original written "sayings" source do need to have had their own contexts, and those contexts would also have been written in Aramaic, and constitute narration. Such narrative evidently was translated into Greek at some point. This also responds to Nichael, who wrote: >...the logic -- the line of argument -- that supports Papias' "saying >collection" being a Hebrew proto-Matthew is precisely the same logic that >would support the collection being identified with the Synoptics Saying >Source [SSS]. However, the SSS sayings themselves, being in writing, would originally have been embedded within narration. Otherwise, the various questions by the disciples, scribes, Pharisees... could not have been linked to Jesus' replies. Try it some time: take just the sayings -- the discourse, the questions and answers -- scramble them up in whichever order, and then try to make sense of them. So I see logic as being on the side of Papias' Logia being a Hebrew or Aramaic source, which after editing led to Hebraic Matthew. A key point that has been missed by several, however, is that Hebraic Matthew was translated into Greek at some point. This might have occurred before the second synoptic gospel was written, or before the third, or only after the third gospel was written. The latter is most plausible, as the motivation for Hebraic Matthew to be set into Greek would have been greatest at that point. So how would you revise your argumentation, Jack, to take this into account -- the translator of Hebraic Matthew into Greek having (the gospels of) Mark and Luke on hand when doing his job? > In fact, given Matthew's treatments of the sayings, I am not sure > that he was not using even a Greek translation of those. His > sometimes clumsy transliterations of Aramaic words and his > reliance on the LXX sometimes makes me doubt that he was even > competent in a Semitic language. It should be evident also that the translator of Matthew's Hebraic scriptural citations would likely have made use of the LXX, since in it the translation had already been done for him, and in using it he would be "getting it right." But a lot of Matthew's scriptural citations and allusions had been stretched or distorted too much by its author for the translator to be able to use the LXX very much on them. The above is in response also to Steven Carr, who wrote: >It is very clear that the author of Matthew relied on the LXX... Replace "author" with "translator" or with "translator or author," and then this would cover the possibilities. Jim Deardorff From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Oct 25 16:22:59 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA22714; Sun, 25 Oct 1998 16:22:59 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list Mark 16:9-20 Message-ID: <19981025.155530.4519.3.seventh.guardian@juno.com> References: <19981021.173306.7895.0.seventh.guardian@juno.com> <19981023.174755.5463.3.seventh.guardian@juno.com> <36333CB0.DFED6110@historian.net> X-Mailer: Juno 1.49 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0,2-12,14-15,17,19,21,24-28,36 From: seventh.guardian@juno.com (M A Robinson) Date: Sun, 25 Oct 1998 16:24:31 EST Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1903 On Sun, 25 Oct 1998 08:58:56 -0600 Jack Kilmon writes: >1. The original ending was lost. >2. There never was an ending. >Or are there just two? There is a textual witness to Mark that may >give us the ending. Matthew! If we accept that Matthew used >Mark, didn't he also use the ending? If we go to Matthew and >extract the ending, would we get something like...... > >Mt.28:9 (Mark 16:9) And Jesus himself met them and said, Good Morning. >Mt.28:9 (Mark 16:10) And they went to him and clasped his feet, and bowed to the > ground before him. >Mt.28:10 (Mark 16:11) Jesus said to them, you need not be afraid >Mt.28:10 (Mark 16:12) Go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee and they will see me >there. >Mt. 28:8 (Mark 16:13) And they went with great joy and ran to tell his disciples. >Mt.28:16 (Mark 16:14) And the eleven disciples went to Galilee to the mountain to >which Jesus had directed them. >Mt.28:19 (Mark 16:15 And Jesus came up to them and said, go and preach the > >good news to all the heathen. I will always be with you, to the end. Thank you Jack. Griesbach is justified, albeit in reverse. :-) You have made a good case (though arguing in the opposite direction) for the third possibility, namely that the long ending of Mark is original. Matthean priority and Markan abridgement fit the parallels cited quite nicely. The abridgement hypothesis, however, still does not explain the Lukan parallels within the long ending, so this is not a complete solution by a long shot, but certainly can stand in support of the long ending as original to Mark, for those who might choose to see it that way. ___________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Oct 25 16:23:01 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA22721; Sun, 25 Oct 1998 16:23:00 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list Mark 16:9-20 Message-ID: <19981025.155529.4519.2.seventh.guardian@juno.com> References: <19981021.173306.7895.0.seventh.guardian@juno.com> <19981023.174755.5463.3.seventh.guardian@juno.com> <19981025.010448.9430.0.jeffcate@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 1.49 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-5,7,10-16,21-22,28-29,36-41,46-47,63-70,85-91 From: seventh.guardian@juno.com (M A Robinson) Date: Sun, 25 Oct 1998 16:24:31 EST Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 5218 On Sun, 25 Oct 1998 01:04:48 -0700 jeffcate@juno.com (Jeff Cate) writes: > The reader of Mark expects >an appearance in Galilee (to Peter?) based on Mk 14:28 and 16:7. >Quite curiously, none of our extant endings of Mark . .. . mention Galilee or Peter >specifically. . . . The scribe of Mk 16:9-20 for whatever reason didn't sense the same >need to mention an appearance in Galilee, even though the long ending is based >on sources other than Mark, presumably including Matthew which did >address the anticipation for a Galilean appearance. >Therefore, I see this lack of a specific mention of Galilee in 16:9-20 >as one of many indications of the non-Markan style of the long ending Something here is non-sequitur -- IF the long ending of Mark is non-Markan, and (as has been suggested) IF the long ending is merely a summary "cribbed" from the other gospels, then the *lack* of a Galilean appearance in the long ending should be inexplicable, assuming a wholesale borrowing and abridgement from the other three gospels. It seems a difficult task to maintain two contradictory opinions, on the one hand claiming that the existence of parallels in the long ending argues direct dependency on and abridgment of existing materials, but on the other hand claiming that the inclusion of unique material or lack thereof (as in the non-mention of Galilee) implies an identical inauthenticity of the passage.. I would like to know exactly *what* would have to be included or excluded from the long ending of Mark which might provide clear evidence of Markan *authenticity.* My more corrupt nature suspects that the only evidence which might suggest authenticity would be if Codex Vaticanus had included the long ending instead of leaving a blank space. Had that occurred, I am certain that a plethora of internal argumentation would exist in favor of Markan authenticity rather than the reverse :-) >If 16:9-20 originally followed 16:8, then why no mention >of an appearance in Galilee when 16:9-20 presumes to summarize for the >reader a wide spectrum of Jesus' appearances? This indeed is a good question, but I suspect it belongs more to exegesis and hermeneutics. If the parallels are followed (and summary dependency must allow for this), then the commission in Mk 16:15ff in fact *is* a Galilean appearance, even if not specifically stated (cf. Mt 28:16, 19ff). The only real question to be answered in such a case is whether the author of the long ending (or Mark as the case may be) was under any obligation to specifically identify locations. It appears that he was not: in the long ending Jerusalem is not mentioned, though it certainly is the venue for 16:9-11, 14; Emmaus is not mentioned in regard to 16:12-13; nor is Jerusalem mentioned as the location from which the Ascension took place in 16:19-20; Galilee likewise is not mentioned in the 16:15ff section. Now, *why* Mark or the author chose to write as he did remains a problem regardless of whether the long ending is considered authentic or not. Do I have an answer? No -- but then I do not consider this a text-critical question as much as an interpretative one, and I often am quite incertain regarding interpretative difficulties. As far as I can guess, it likely was "known" (from oral tradition?) that the great commission was delivered in Galilee; if so, then that which was common knowledge did not have to be stated particularly in Mark's compressed "summary statement." >a private meeting of Jesus and Peter like we >find in Jn 21:15-22. In Mt 26:32; 28:7, 10; Mk 14:28; 16:7, the >anticipated appearance in Galilee is to be to you (pl.) (HUMAS), i.e., >Peter and the other disciples, not you (sg.), i.e., not necessarily to >Peter alone. Is anybody taking the time to read the full context of Jn 21? *Where* does John 21 claim or even suggest that this is a "private" meeting? Jesus certainly has something to say directly to Peter in vv.15ff (hence the singular pronoun), but it is in the company of at least (Jn. 21:2) Thomas, Nathanael, James and John, and "two other disciples". This group went fishing with Peter (21:3), were with Peter when he jumped into the sea and swam ashore (21:7), and this group had already rowed back in the ship and rejoined Peter and Jesus on the beach for breakfast (21:8-14). When all of them had finished dining (21:15 HRISTHSAN), Jesus then addressed Peter in the presence of them all (there is no indication that anyone had departed), and Peter even points out the Beloved Disciple standing behind him and asks about his fate (21:20) -- why would anyone claim this to be a "private" discussion and thereby attempt to insert a wedge of difficulty beyond the problems which already exist in the resurrection parallels? ============================================================== Maurice A. Robinson, Ph. D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina, USA ___________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Oct 26 04:31:46 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id EAA24361; Mon, 26 Oct 1998 04:31:46 -0500 Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Mark Goodacre" Organization: University of Birmingham To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 09:32:47 GMT MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Papias, Q and Synoptic-L? (was Re: tc-list Mark 16:9-20) Priority: normal In-reply-to: <199810241928.PAA18899@pike.sover.net> References: X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.52) Message-ID: Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 749 On 24 Oct 98 at 15:18, Nichael Lynn Cramer wrote: > As many have pointed out, this is way off the track of TC, but... This is just a suggestion, but perhaps the time has come to move the non-TC elements in this discussion over to Synoptic-L where it would more obviously be at home? For those unfamiliar with Synoptic-L, details are available on its web site at: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l Mark ------------------------------------------- Dr Mark Goodacre M.S.Goodacre@bham.ac.uk Dept of Theology, University of Birmingham Recommended New Testament Web Resources: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre/links.htm World Without Q: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/q Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Oct 26 09:09:47 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA25408; Mon, 26 Oct 1998 09:09:46 -0500 Message-Id: <199810261411.OAA04842@haymarket.ed.ac.uk> From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 14:09:31 +000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: tc-list Mark 16:9-20 Priority: normal In-reply-to: <19981023.164207.5463.0.seventh.guardian@juno.com> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01b) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 450 Can I mention a PhD thesis on Mk 16:9-20 that is perhaps the most thorough relavtively recent study attempting to answer for its origin & it relevance in early copies of Mark: Paul Mirecki, "Mark 16:9-20: Composition, Tradition, and Redaction" (ThD Harvard Univ., 1986). Larry Hurtado L. W. Hurtado University of Edinburgh, New College Mound Place Edinburgh, Scotland EH1 2LX Phone: 0131-650-8920 Fax: 0131-650-6579 E-mail: L.Hurtado@ed.ac.uk From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Oct 26 13:17:15 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA27319; Mon, 26 Oct 1998 13:17:15 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list Mark 16:9-20 Message-ID: <19981026.131348.5463.1.seventh.guardian@juno.com> References: <199810261411.OAA04842@haymarket.ed.ac.uk> X-Mailer: Juno 1.49 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0,2-11,16-22 From: seventh.guardian@juno.com (Maurice A. Robinson) Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 13:18:44 EST Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1148 On Mon, 26 Oct 1998 14:09:31 +000 "Professor L.W. Hurtado" writes: >Can I mention a PhD thesis on Mk 16:9-20 that is perhaps the >most thorough relavtively recent study attempting to answer for its >origin & it relevance in early copies of Mark: >Paul Mirecki, "Mark 16:9-20: Composition, Tradition, and >Redaction" (ThD Harvard Univ., 1986). Could you provide us a summary of conclusions, Larry? I would add a Ph.D. thesis by Stephen L. Cox, "A History and Critique of Scholarship Concerning the Markan Endings" (PhD Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1991, external reader Metzger). Cox concluded that Mark originally ended at 16:8, despite my best efforts to persuade him differently :-). ============================================== Maurice A. Robinson Professor of NT and Greek Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ___________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Oct 27 05:32:19 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id FAA00828; Tue, 27 Oct 1998 05:32:18 -0500 Message-Id: <199810271034.KAA24122@haymarket.ed.ac.uk> From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 10:32:15 +000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: tc-list Mark 16:9-20 Priority: normal In-reply-to: <19981026.131348.5463.1.seventh.guardian@juno.com> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01b) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1319 > On Mon, 26 Oct 1998 14:09:31 +000 "Professor L.W. Hurtado" > writes: > > >Can I mention a PhD thesis on Mk 16:9-20 that is perhaps the > >most thorough relavtively recent study attempting to answer for its > >origin & it relevance in early copies of Mark: > >Paul Mirecki, "Mark 16:9-20: Composition, Tradition, and > >Redaction" (ThD Harvard Univ., 1986). In reply Maurice Robinson asks: > Could you provide us a summary of conclusions, Larry? It's been a number of years since I read Mirecki's dissertation, and I don't own a copy to refresh my memory. But in general he argues that the 16:9-20 is a very old ending (though likely not original), with ample connections to ideas, needs, concerns circulating in the very early church. That is, he offers a view for *why* (not merely now) this "long ending" may have been felt needed & serviceable to early Christians. Mirecki draws upon his dissertation in his essay "The Authentic Saying in Mark 16:16: Formal and Redactional Features," in _The Future of Early Christianity: Essays in Honor of Helmut Koester_, ed. B. A. Pearson (Fortress, 1991). Larry Hurtado L. W. Hurtado University of Edinburgh, New College Mound Place Edinburgh, Scotland EH1 2LX Phone: 0131-650-8920 Fax: 0131-650-6579 E-mail: L.Hurtado@ed.ac.uk From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Oct 28 13:54:40 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA09157; Wed, 28 Oct 1998 13:54:40 -0500 Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 13:54:39 -0500 Message-Id: <199810281854.NAA09152@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> >Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 19:17:05 -0500 (EST) From: Bruce Terry To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: tc-list Mark 16:9-20 Style Content-Type: text Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 12324 On Oct. 23, 1998, William L. Petersen wrote: >(C) Vincent Taylor remarks on the non-Marcan style of the long ending--a >point which I find very convincing. Taylor: (p. 610): "The vocabulary >and style of this section show clearly that it was not written by Mark, >but is based on a knowledge of traditions found in Lk and Jn." He then >proceeds to list a whole catalogue of non-Marcan features (vocabulary, >grammar, etc., etc.). (Taylor also provides an excellent summary of the >Patristic [non-]evidence for the long ending...) May I suggest that the case for non-Marcan style has been overstated. Since discourse is my interest, I have done some study in this area and a prelimary write-up is available for inspection at: ftp://bible.acu.edu/greek/papers/markend_style.txt In my studies I have have found that most of the stylistic features of the ending which are non-Marcan do in fact occur in Mark. I note especially that the case for non-Marcan vocabulary is overstated (no baseline study was done to determine how many new words to expect). There are 13 words used once in the long ending which occur nowhere else in Mark; however, if one looks at short sections 2-5 verses in length (of which the long ending contains four) in the last 5 chapters of Mark, the ratio of words used only once to verses is 1.1, meaning that in 12 verses one would expect 13 new words to be used once which have not been used elsewhere. This is exactly what is found in the long ending. The "high" number of vocabulary words not found elsewhere in Mark are an argument _for_ Marcan authorship, not an argument against. It is easy to read a passage and make up stylistic rules for ancient authors. It is much more time consuming to do the spade work to find out what their styles (or rather their range of styles) actually were. More details on this can be found in the posting to B-Greek in the summer of 1996 when we discussed this previously on that forum. For those curious about the above essay, I append a summary below: --Bruce ************************************************************************** Bruce Terry Prof. of Bible and Humanities Ohio Valley College phone: 304/485-7384 ext. 153 4501 College Parkway fax: 304/485-3106 Parkersburg, WV 26101 e-mail: rbterry@ovc.edu ************************************************************************** A SUMMARY OF THE STYLE OF THE LONG ENDING OF MARK Textual critics usually object to Mark's authorship of these verses on the basis of supposed differences of style between them and the rest of the Gospel of Mark. However, an in depth study of the stylistic features in question reveals that almost all of them can be found elsewhere in Mark. For convenience of discussion, these features may be categorized under four headings: juncture, vocabulary, phraseology, and miscellaneous. Objections Based on Juncture Five objections have been raised concerning the juncture of verses 8 and 9: 1) the subject of verse 8 is the women, whereas Jesus is the presumed subject of verse 9; 2) the other women of verses 1-8 are forgotten in verses 9-20; Mark 2:13; 6:45; 7:31; 8:1; and 14:3 all meet the following conditions: a) the verse begins a new section; b) Jesus is the presumed subject (referred to only as "he"); c) the previous verse does not refer to Jesus; d) the previous verse has a subject other than Jesus; and e) the subject of the previous verse is not mentioned in the new section. 3) in verse 9 Mary Magdalene is identified even though she has been mentioned only a few lines before; flashbacks that give additional information are also found in Mark 3:16, 17; 6:16; and 7:26. 4) while the use of anastas de ("Now rising") and the position of proton ("first") are appropriate at the beginning of a comprehensive narrative, they are ill-suited in a continuation of verses 1-8; and verse 9 is the start of a new section on resurrection appearances. 5) the use of the conjunction gar ("for") at the end of verse 8 is very abrupt. short clauses of three words (Mark 1:16; 11:18) and four words (Mark 1:38; 3:21; 5:42; 9:49; 14:70; 15:14; 16:4) that contain gar are found in Mark. Objections Based on Vocabulary Three objections are raised on the grounds of vocabulary: 1) sixteen words used in this section are not used elsewhere in the Gospel of Mark; a) eight of these sixteen do have their word root used elsewhere in Mark; b) three of these sixteen words are found only in the post-resurrection accounts in the story of Jesus' life; and c) other twelve verse sections in Mark match or exceed this: 1) the first 12 verses of chapter 1 contain 16 words used only once in Mark 2) the first 12 verses of chapter 14 contain 20 such words 3) the 12 verses of Mark 15:40-16:4, contain 20 to 22 such words, depending on textual variants that are not used elsewhere in Mark. d) thirteen of these words are used only once in Mark. 1) in the 661 undisputed verses in Mark, there are 555 words used only once. 2) for chapters, the ratio of words used only once to verses varies between .37 in chapter 3 and 1.15 in chapter 15 with 1.08 for the long ending of Mark; chapter 7, 13, and 15 exceed this. 3) for short (2-5 verse) sections (like the four in the long ending of Mark), the ratio of words used only once to verses varies between .00 and 2.4 with an average for chapters 12-16 of 1.1; this means twelve verses of short sections in the latter part of Mark should contain thirteen words used only once, which is exactly what the long ending of Mark contains. 2) three of these words are used more than once in this section; a) there are 77 such words within 12 verse spans in Mark. b) the long ending of Mark has a unique-words-used-more-than-once to verse ratio of .25 c) for chapters, this ratio varies between 0 to .25 (chapter 2 has 7 such words in 28 verses) d) for sections, this ratio varies from 0 to 1 (Mark 2:18-22) e) Mark 2:18-22 contains 5 words used 3 to 6 times only in this section in Mark plus 7 words used only once in Mark! f) other examples include: 1) sporos ("seed," Mark 4:26, 27), 2) sunthlibo ("throng, press," Mark 5:24, 31), 3) telones ("tax-collector, publican," Mark 8:9, 20), and 4) huperetes ("servant, officer, guard, attendant," Mark 14:54, 65). 3) this section does not contain some of Mark's favorite words: eutheos or euthus (both meaning "immediately") and palin ("again"). a) the last fifty-three verses do not contain them; and b) of the 650 sets of twelve consecutive verses in Mark, not considering the last twelve verses, 229 sets (35%+) do not contain euthus, eutheos, or palin; c) nine words that are used more often in the rest of Mark than in the other gospels are also found in the last twelve verses. Objections Based on Phraseology Three objections are raised on the grounds of phraseology: 1) eight phrases used in this section are not used elsewhere in Mark; in the twelve verses of Mark 15:42-16:6 there are nine phrases used which are not found elsewhere in Mark. 2) similar but different phrases (prote sabbatou "first of the week" and mia ton sabbaton ("one of the week") are used elsewhere in Mark; and a) in Mark 2:23, 24 the sabbath is referred to in the plural form in Greek (ta sabbata) while three verses later in verses 27-28 Mark switches to the singular form (to sabbaton), both with a singular meaning; b) in Mark 5:2 the word that Mark uses for "tomb" is mnemeion while in verses 3 and 5 he switches to the similar word mnema; and c) the same variation is found in Mark 15:56-16:8. 3) the phrase oi met' autou genomenoi ("those having been with him") is used to designate the disciples only here. a) the past flavor given to the phrase by the use of the aorist participle genomenoi ("having been") would hardly have been appropriate previous to the crucifixion; and b) the shorter expression oi met' autou ("those with him") is found three times elsewhere in Mark (1:36; 2:25; and 5:40). Miscellaneous Objections Five miscellaneous objections have also been raised to Mark's authorship: 1) It is claimed that Mark's usual style is to expand the accounts of incidents in Christ's life as compared with the other Gospels while this section condenses the accounts; a) Mark gives only seven verses to John the Baptist's preaching, b) Mark gives only three verses to Jesus' baptism, and c) Mark gives only two verses to His temptation 2) It is noted that Mark has a fondness for the word kai ("and") which is lacking in this section; a) the scant usage of kai in this section is paralleled in the twelve verse sections of Mark 7:15-26 (only eight uses of kai, six joining clauses) and 13:26-37 (only nine uses of kai, four joining clauses); b) the first four verses of the Gospel do not contain a single coordinating conjunction. 3) It is claimed that ekeinos ("that one") and the contraction kakeinos ("and that one") are used in a weakened sense of simply "he," "she," or "they" in this section as opposed to the rest of the Gospel; a) the contracted form kakeinos is used absolutely in Mark 12:4, 5 4) It is noted that Jesus is referred to as "the Lord" or "the Lord Jesus" only in this section of Mark; a) term "Lord" is also used in reference to Christ in Mark 1:3; 2:28; 7:28; 11:3; and 12:36-37; and b) Luke also uses the heightened term "the Lord Jesus" only in Luke 24:3, after His resurrection. 5) And it is noted that the only appearances recorded in this ending of Mark are also recorded in the other Gospels, implying that the writer relied on the other Gospels for his information. this section contains new information about the appearances not revealed elsewhere. For example, this section alone tells us a) that the disciples were "mourning and weeping" (v. 10), b) that Christ appeared to the two on the road in a "different form" (v. 12), c) and that one of the signs to follow the disciples would be the drinking of deadly things without harmful results (v.18). Cumulative Style and Peak In conclusion, we see that all the objections to Mark's authorship of this section based on style fall into one of two classes: (1) either the stylistic feature in question is found elsewhere in Mark, or (2) there is a reasonable explanation for its presence. By far the largest number of objections fall in the first category. This indicates that it is not correct to state that this long ending is not in Mark's style. It is possible that someone might object that it is not that these stylistic features are not found elsewhere in Mark, but that they are rare in Mark, being used infrequently by him. Thus it is the cumulative factor of using so many rare stylistic features in one place that makes this section non-Marcan. This objection is well-taken and must be given consideration. With the recent discovery of the concept of peak, however, this frequent use of rare features in an important part of the story is exactly what should be expected. Peak is a area of grammatical turbulence. Little used features become prominent in peak sections and often used features are abandoned. Background devices become foregrounded and vice versa. In languages around the world, peak has been shown to occur in sections of climax and denouement, and sometimes inciting incident, in narratives told by good storytellers. If the crucifixion is the climax, the resurrection is the denouement. One would expect this to be a peak area in which the use of expected stylistic features is abandoned in favor of less frequently used ones. Rather than revealing that Mark is not the author of these last twelve verses, this different cumulative style may show that he was a good storyteller. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Oct 28 18:39:52 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA11774; Wed, 28 Oct 1998 18:39:51 -0500 From: "Vinton A. Dearing" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 15:44:26 PST MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: tc-list forwarding query X-Confirm-Reading-To: "Vinton A. Dearing" X-pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.31) Message-ID: <5A51C313D7B@113hum4.humnet.ucla.edu> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 504 I have received a request that I cannot answer, but some of you probably can "I am interested to find an URL (Internet link) for the tele chargement of the NT text in Greek, with diacritics, spirits etc. (either 4USB, either NT27" The writer is Gabriel Golea, a NT PhD student in the Faculte de Theologie Protestante, University of Strasbourg, whose home address is 4, rue Schumann, 67000 - Strasbourg, tel. 03.88.61.95.64. His e-mail address is golea@ushs2.u-strasbg.fr Vinton A. Dearing From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Oct 29 00:01:30 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id AAA12739; Thu, 29 Oct 1998 00:01:29 -0500 From: "Peter Burton" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu, miqra@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu, ane@asmar.uchicago.edu, hebraisticum@goofy.zdv.Uni-Mainz.de Subject: tc-list SBL TC-Hebrew Bible Meetings Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Mailer: POPmail 2.3b8 Message-Id: <3637f7145416981@mhub4.tc.umn.edu> Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 23:03:17 -0600 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 800 FYI - hope the duplication is not overwhelming - forwarded message with agreement of sender: ------ From: Sidnie White Crawford May I invite all who are interested in comparing the merits of the Hebrew University Bible Project and the Biblia Hebraica Quinta to attend the two sessions of the Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible section at the Annual Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature in Orlando this November. At one session there will be a panel critiquing the first fascicle of BHQ, with two of the editors responding. At the second session Professors Shemaryahu Talmon, Emanuel Tov, and Galen Marquis will present the latest fasciscle of the HUBP. Sincerely, Sidnie White Crawford Co-Chair, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible ------ Peter Burton From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Oct 29 00:47:17 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id AAA12836; Thu, 29 Oct 1998 00:47:17 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 21:47:34 -0800 Subject: Re: tc-list Mark 16:9-20 Style Message-ID: <19981028.214743.3198.1.jeffcate@juno.com> References: <199810281854.NAA09152@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> X-Mailer: Juno 1.49 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-1,4-10,13-14,16-17,19-20,26-27,32-33,36-40,47-48,58-63 From: jeffcate@juno.com (Jeff Cate) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 3339 Bruce, I don't have time to respond to every single item you compiled to argue for the Markan style of 16:9-20. The immediate weaknesses of a few of them leaped off the screen: >4) It is noted that Jesus is referred to as "the Lord" or "the Lord >Jesus" only in this section of Mark; > a) term "Lord" is also used in reference to Christ in Mark 1:3; >2:28; 7:28; 11:3; and 12:36-37; and Your collection of the references to Jesus as KURIOS in Mark is misleading. Independently, Mark does *not* use KURIOS in a Christological or messianic fashion in 1:1-16:8. In Mk 1:3, KURIOS is not Mark's personal choice of words, instead; KURIOS is nested in a scriptural quotation. In Mk 2:28, KURIOS is used in a description of Jesus' authority over the Sabbath. In Mk 7:28, the *vocative* KURIOS is used by the Syrophenecian woman and should best be translated "sir" (as in the NRSV), unless you think the householder in Mt 13:27, the father in Mt 21:30, the bridegroom in Mt 25:11, the "master of the slaves" in Mt 25:20, 22, 24, Pilate in Mt 27:63 (among others) should be translated "Lord" and be considered equal in status to Jesus as KURIOS in Mk 7:28. In Mark 11:3 KURIOS is found in a quotation that Jesus wants the two disciples to make if they are questioned about "borrowing" the donkey. KURIOS is not a Christological or messianic title in 11:3 as in 16:19-20. Instead, based on Jesus' quotation, the two disciples would end up looking like servants sent out on business for their earthly master. In Mk 12:36-37, Jesus is discussing the use of KURIOS in Psalm 110. Again, the use of KURIOS is not Mark's personal choice of words, but is based on scriptural citation and related discussion. > b) Luke also uses the heightened term "the Lord Jesus" only in >Luke 24:3, after His resurrection. You didn't mention that Luke uses the phrase "Lord Jesus" not just in Lk 24:3, but in Acts 1:21; 4:33; 7:59; 8:16; 11:20; 15:11; 16:31; 19:5, 13, 17; 20:24, 35; 21:13. This does not even include the references to the "Lord Jesus Christ" in Acts 11:17; 28:31. BTW, the phrase (whether including "Christ" or not) is found *nowhere* else in any of the canonical Gospels. This points to the *Lucan* nature of the phrase, not the Markan nature of the phrase. Oh, BTW, you still didn't address my previous post. If Mk 16:9-20 is original to Mark, why no mention of Galilee in Mk 16:9-20 when it's emphasized in 14:28 and 16:7. This is especially intriguing since 16:7 is a mere two verses away from the supposedly original longer ending? Did Mark forget two verses later to mention it? Matthew solved the problem by mentioning an appearance in Galilee (Mt 28:16). Luke solved the problem by not mentioning that Jesus would be seen in Galilee (i.e., there are no parallels to Mk 14:28; 16:7 in Luke) -- of course, Luke needs to keep the disciples and the appearances in the Jerusalem vicinity for the beginning of the sequel (Acts). Why no Galilee in Mk 16:9-20? Jeff Cate, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Christian Studies California Baptist University Riverside, California 92508 ___________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Oct 29 01:37:56 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id BAA12992; Thu, 29 Oct 1998 01:37:55 -0500 Message-ID: <36380D4D.7C185B18@concentric.net> Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 22:38:05 -0800 From: Ken Litwak X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.07 [en] (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list Mark 16:9-20 Style References: <199810281854.NAA09152@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1193 Style, I think, is nearly useless as a criteria for TC decisions. The reasons is that evidence can be used to prove just about anyting. Dawsey has made a case that based on style, Luke and Acts have different authors. If that can be deonstrated for Acts, there's no telling what you could demonstrate with a mere 10 verses of Mark. IMHO, you would need an enormous sample size to even begin to show what someone's style cuold be because style differs based on genre. So you need lots of genres, ots of material and eventhen, no firm decisins can be made. As noted by Maurice, someone showed that the beginning of mark was unMarkan as much as theend. That just goes to prove how useless an analysis of "style" can be. Style should not be used as a criterion for texual decisions because our decisions about style refelct ONLY what we think an author would or could have done and say nothing about the actual possiblities. If you think that Luke and Acts have the same author, then you shouldn't be using style to ague about the enidngof Mark, because there is clear stylistic evidence that Luke and Acts had different authors -- if you accept that kind of data as valid. Ken Litwak From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Oct 29 01:57:29 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id BAA13045; Thu, 29 Oct 1998 01:57:29 -0500 Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 02:00:40 -0500 From: "E. Bruce Brooks" Subject: tc-list Mark 16:9-20 Style To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <0F1K00A33U2PX7@pobox1.oit.umass.edu> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 346 Topic: Mk 16:9-20 Style From: Bruce In Response To: Ken Litwak (29 Oct 98) KEN: . . . The reason is that evidence can be used to prove just about anything. Dawsey has made a case that based on style, Luke and Acts have different authors. BRUCE: Could I have a more exact reference on this, please? E Bruce Brooks University of Massachusetts From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Oct 29 16:22:15 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA18140; Thu, 29 Oct 1998 16:22:15 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list Mark 16:9-20 Style Message-ID: <19981029.161501.5463.1.seventh.guardian@juno.com> References: <199810281854.NAA09152@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> <36380D4D.7C185B18@concentric.net> X-Mailer: Juno 1.49 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0,2-5,11-12,16-17,21-23,25-27,33-34,39-45 From: seventh.guardian@juno.com (Maurice A. Robinson) Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 16:23:31 EST Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2356 On Wed, 28 Oct 1998 22:38:05 -0800 Ken Litwak writes: >Style, I think, is nearly useless as a criteria for TC decisions. I would be cautious here, because (taken strictly) this could imply that internal evidence itself is not useful or valuable for determining the text, whether under rigorous eclecticism (e.g. Elliott) or reasoned eclecticism, or even within what is erroneously thought to be a primarily external-based Byzantine-priority hypothesis. I for one am not ready to throw out the baby with the bathwater.... >IMHO, you would need an enormous sample size to even begin to show what >someone's style could be because style differs based on genre. So you need lots >of genres, lots of material and even then, no firm decisions can be made. I don't know about that; maybe I'm more skeptical about sweeping assertions....But I do think Nigel Turner seemed to do fairly well in describing "style" in his section of Moulton's grammar, and this without a massive sample size. >As noted by Maurice, someone showed that the beginning of mark was >unMarkan as much as the end. That just goes to prove how useless an analysis of >"style" can be. Burgon. But on the contrary, Burgon was not trying to demolish the argument from style, but only to show that the extreme claims made against Markan style in the last 12 verses could be shown to apply within the first 12 verses, which latter in theory no one should consider inauthentic (but see R. Way-Rider, "The Lost Beginning [sic!] of St. Mark's Gospel, _Studia Evangelica_ VII: 553-556). Burgon further went on to note, however, not only evidences of Markan style in both the first 12 and last 12 verses, but also syntactical and structural parallels in a chiastic manner which link the opening and closing of the gospel thematically. So neither I nor Burgon are rejecting the style criteria or arguing that it is wholly subjective and useless. ============================================== Maurice A. Robinson Professor of NT and Greek Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ___________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Oct 29 16:22:17 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA18144; Thu, 29 Oct 1998 16:22:16 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: tc-list Re: Mark 16:9-20 Style Message-ID: <19981029.161500.5463.0.seventh.guardian@juno.com> References: <199810281854.NAA09152@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> <19981028.214743.3198.1.jeffcate@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 1.49 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-9,13-19,28-33,36-39,43-49 From: seventh.guardian@juno.com (Maurice A. Robinson) Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 16:23:31 EST Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2482 On Wed, 28 Oct 1998 21:47:34 -0800 jeffcate@juno.com (Jeff Cate) writes: >>b) Luke also uses the heightened term "the Lord Jesus" only in >>Luke 24:3, after His resurrection. > >You didn't mention that Luke uses the phrase "Lord Jesus" not just in >Lk 24:3, but in Acts 1:21; 4:33; 7:59; 8:16; 11:20; 15:11; 16:31; >19:5, 13, 17; 20:24, 35; 21:13. I fail to see how Lukan use of this phrase *beyond* his gospel establishes anything in regard to the gospels themselves, particularly when (as pointed out) Luke himself refrains from using the term until a post-resurrection context exists. >BTW, the >phrase (whether including "Christ" or not) is found *nowhere* else in >any of the canonical Gospels. This points to the *Lucan* nature of the >phrase, not the Markan nature of the phrase. Seems that this assumes the point to be proven, making the Markan long ending _a priori_ inauthentic when in fact the existence of the phrase within that long ending is being adduced as one evidence of authenticity. Markan borrowing ("cribbing") from Luke of course cannot be ruled out as a hypothesis, but one similarly should not say the phrase occurs "nowhere else" when in the present context it indeed is there. By the same analogy, the *shorter* ending of Mark must be the product of Mark himself since it uses "Jesus" alone to describe the risen Lord, with none of the "Lukan" trappings. >Oh, BTW, you still didn't address my previous post. If Mk 16:9-20 is >original to Mark, why no mention of Galilee in Mk 16:9-20 when it's >emphasized in 14:28 and 16:7. Bruce may not have addressed that point, but I certainly dealt with it in what should be considered an adequate and sufficient manner (not repeated here). Why belabor this point as if it had never been answered? >Why no Galilee in Mk 16:9-20? As I asked previously, why no place names whatsoever in Mk 16:9-20, even though various changes of venue obviously occur? Answer: because the author of that section did not choose to mention any place names. Little more can be determined beyond that. ============================================== Maurice A. Robinson Professor of NT and Greek Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ___________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Oct 30 02:09:42 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id CAA19848; Fri, 30 Oct 1998 02:09:41 -0500 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 07:10:29 +0000 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: Steven Carr Subject: tc-list Authorship and Style In-Reply-To: <199810222044.QAA90182@f04n07.cac.psu.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (16) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 267 Assuming style shows that Luke and Acts are by different authors, leading to the conclusion that matters of style cannot tell if two works are by different authors, should we take seriously the claim that the 'Western' version of Acts is a revision by Luke himself? From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Oct 30 02:11:44 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id CAA19873; Fri, 30 Oct 1998 02:11:43 -0500 Message-ID: <363966C0.31BDE4D9@concentric.net> Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 23:12:00 -0800 From: Ken Litwak X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.07 [en] (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list Mark 16:9-20 Style References: <0F1K00A33U2PX7@pobox1.oit.umass.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1917 James M. Dawsey, "The Literary Unity of Luke-Acts: Questions of Style. A Task for Literary Critics," NTS (1989) 35:48-66. Parsosn and Pervo, Rethinking the Unity of Luke and Acts work from Dawsey and go further. So if style can be easily identified, and stylistic criteria can be used to show that Luke and Acts have different authors, in spie of the fact that most scholars think they have the same author, what is to be made of arguments from style? At least may I ask for some methodological rigor? Define exactly what constitutes style, what are acceptable exceptions to it by an authorand how one may expectit to regularly be played out in various situations. SInce we lack so much material, I think it's hard to come up with conclusions in this regard. How can I validlly say what Mark or LUke or Paul _could_ have written? Indeed, in my early forties these days, I find myself writing words that I have never written before, even though Ihave known them for years and addressing issues I've never addressed (it was hard to talk about Java programming three years ago). I'm writing stuff in my dissertation on LUke-Acts in a manner I've never written anything and discussing topics I've never discussed. It should be easy to say, based on "style" and vocabulary, that I couldn't possibly be the author of my dissertation. So if we want to use style as a basis, what exactly does that mean? Ken Litwak Trinity College/Univiersity of Bristol Bristol,England (and Java instructor in California) E. Bruce Brooks wrote: > > Topic: Mk 16:9-20 Style > From: Bruce > In Response To: Ken Litwak (29 Oct 98) > > KEN: . . . The reason is that evidence can be used to prove just about > anything. > Dawsey has made a case that based on style, Luke and Acts have different > authors. > > BRUCE: Could I have a more exact reference on this, please? > > E Bruce Brooks > University of Massachusetts From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Oct 30 02:55:19 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id CAA20048; Fri, 30 Oct 1998 02:55:19 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 23:55:28 -0800 Subject: tc-list Re: Mark 16:9-20 Style Message-ID: <19981029.235542.9566.1.jeffcate@juno.com> References: <199810281854.NAA09152@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> <19981029.161500.5463.0.seventh.guardian@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 1.49 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-12,20-21,23-31,33-37,39-43,48-53,58-66,71-72,77-82 From: jeffcate@juno.com (Jeff Cate) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 4085 >>>b) Luke also uses the heightened term "the Lord Jesus" only in >>>Luke 24:3, after His resurrection. >> >>You didn't mention that Luke uses the phrase "Lord Jesus" not just in > >>Lk 24:3, but in Acts 1:21; 4:33; 7:59; 8:16; 11:20; 15:11; 16:31; >>19:5, 13, 17; 20:24, 35; 21:13. > >I fail to see how Lukan use of this phrase *beyond* his gospel >establishes anything in regard to the gospels themselves, particularly >when (as pointed out) Luke himself refrains from using the term until >a post-resurrection context exists. Assuming a two-source hypothesis, it would be odd to find Luke using "Lord Jesus" within his Gospel since the phrase is used by neither Mark nor Q, unless some pecular Lukan source had used it. The use of "Lord Jesus" in 16:19-20 is similar to the repeated use of "Lord Jesus" in Acts. On a previous post, I already argued for Mk 16:17-20 as being a pastiche based on *Acts*. "Lord Jesus" in 16:19-20 is further evidence for 16:17-20 being dependent not just on episodes, but even on phrasing, from Acts. >>BTW, the phrase (whether including "Christ" or not) is found *nowhere* else in >>any of the canonical Gospels. This points to the *Lucan* nature of the >>phrase, not the Markan nature of the phrase. >Seems that this assumes the point to be proven, making the Markan long >ending _a priori_ inauthentic when in fact the existence of the phrase >within that long ending is being adduced as one evidence of >authenticity. You are arguing my point precisely. The use of "Lord Jesus" is out of character for Mark 1:1-16:8. >Markan borrowing ("cribbing") from Luke of course cannot >be ruled out as a hypothesis, Mark as in the entire Gospel or Mark as in 16:9-20? If the latter, that is precisely my point. Mk 16:9-20 is dependent upon Luke and Acts. >but one similarly should not say the phrase occurs >"nowhere else" when in the present context it indeed is there. I don't follow your logic here. It is nowhere *else.* How do you define "nowhere else"? I define that to be found in no place other than the designated location. "Lord Jesus" is only found in Mk 16:19-20, irregardless of whether you think Mk 16:9-20 was original or not. It is found *nowhere else* in Mark. >By the same analogy, the *shorter* ending of Mark must be the >product of Mark himself since it uses "Jesus" alone to describe the >risen Lord, with none of the "Lukan" trappings. No, you've jumped ahead to conclusions. The shorter ending's use of "Jesus" instead of "Lord" or "Lord Jesus" does not necessitate that it be the product of Mark himself. It doesn't rule out the possibility, but it does not mean the shorter came from Mark. There are plenty of other reasons to rule out Markan authorship of the shorter ending. >>Why no Galilee in Mk 16:9-20? > >As I asked previously, why no place names whatsoever in Mk 16:9-20, >even though various changes of venue obviously occur? Answer: because >the author of that section did not choose to mention any place names. >Little more can be determined beyond that. Sorry that I missed your previous explanation. You've made my point exactly. Why the lack of geographical designations if Mk 16:9-20 came from the same author as Mk 1:1-16:8? Based on Occam's razor, isn't it just more plausible that Mk 16:9-20 is from a different author at a later time that didn't pick up on the need to mention Galilee? I'm not arrogant enough to think that my responses are the final word to this matter, but I'm going to sign off on this one for another day because I don't want to weary the good people on this list. My apologies for too many posts on a stylistic issue of TC. Maurice, I welcome your responses to my personal e-mail address. Jeff Cate, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Christian Studies California Baptist University Riverside, California 92508 ___________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Oct 30 10:03:31 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA22153; Fri, 30 Oct 1998 10:03:31 -0500 Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.19981030210109.0076dd8c@pop.flash.net> X-Sender: logsdon@pop.flash.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.2 (32) Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 21:01:09 -0600 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: Mike Logsdon Subject: Re: tc-list Mark 16:9-20 Style In-Reply-To: <363966C0.31BDE4D9@concentric.net> References: <0F1K00A33U2PX7@pobox1.oit.umass.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2451 Well for Mark it seems that stylistic matters are confined to the singular "Markan" text though this certainly does not simplify the issue. What you describe below is more of an issue for multiple texts written by one author and is somewhat reductionistic. Since this discussion arose in relation to Mark, your arguments against style as an issue for making decisions about the ending of Mark seem to dissipate. What I would like to see is your own methodological rigor? How or on what basis will you make a textual decision? Ever by Internal issues? What does legitimately consitute an internal issue? I must assume that textual decision, for you, will always have to be the oldest reading available in all cases? Otherwise I cannot see how you would decide between a newer reading over and older reading except for some type of internal evidence, whatever that may be for you, which is essentially a matter of style--especially in the case of Mark. > At least may I ask for some methodological rigor? Define exactly what >constitutes style, what are acceptable exceptions to it by an authorand >how one may expectit to regularly be played out in various situations. >SInce we lack so much material, I think it's hard to come up with >conclusions in this regard. How can I validlly say what Mark or LUke or >Paul _could_ have written? Indeed, in my early forties these days, I >find myself writing words that I have never written before, even though >Ihave known them for years and addressing issues I've never addressed >(it was hard to talk about Java programming three years ago). I'm >writing stuff in my dissertation on LUke-Acts in a manner I've never >written anything and discussing topics I've never discussed. It should >be easy to say, based on "style" and vocabulary, that I couldn't >possibly be the author of my dissertation. So if we want to use style >as a basis, what exactly does that mean? > > >Ken Litwak >Trinity College/Univiersity of Bristol >Bristol,England >(and Java instructor in California) > > >E. Bruce Brooks wrote: >> >> Topic: Mk 16:9-20 Style >> From: Bruce >> In Response To: Ken Litwak (29 Oct 98) >> >> KEN: . . . The reason is that evidence can be used to prove just about >> anything. >> Dawsey has made a case that based on style, Luke and Acts have different >> authors. >> >> BRUCE: Could I have a more exact reference on this, please? >> >> E Bruce Brooks >> University of Massachusetts > > From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Oct 30 21:06:52 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA26782; Fri, 30 Oct 1998 21:06:52 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: tc-list Mk 16:19-20 KURIOS IHSOUS Message-ID: <19981030.210806.4519.3.seventh.guardian@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 1.49 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-22,24-98,100,102-116 From: seventh.guardian@juno.com (M A Robinson) Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 21:08:30 EST Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 5872 >From jeffcate@juno.com (Jeff Cate): >>>BTW, the phrase (whether including "Christ" or not) is found >>>*nowhere* else in any of the canonical Gospels. This points to the >>>*Lucan* nature of the phrase, not the Markan nature of the phrase. >>Seems that this assumes the point to be proven, making the Markan long >>ending _a priori_ inauthentic when in fact the existence of the phrase >>within that long ending is being adduced as one evidence of >>authenticity. >You are arguing my point precisely. The use of "Lord Jesus" is out of >character for Mark 1:1-16:8. Then somewhere we are talking past each other. I was NOT at that point arguing that "Lord Jesus" was "out of character" for Mk.1:1-16:8; only that (as Lk 24:3 demonstrates) such a phrase is not "_in_ character" for ANY gospel _before_ the point of the resurrection, so it cannot be used as a stylistic criterion against Mk. 1:1-16:8 any more than it can be considered as evidence that Lk 1:1-24:2 is "non-Lukan" merely because that portion of text similarly does not contain the phrase. But in fact someone else _did_ point out that phrase in the long ending as evidence for authenticity and not inauthenticity, and that alone is what I was picking up on. >>Markan borrowing ("cribbing") from Luke of course cannot >>be ruled out as a hypothesis, >Mark as in the entire Gospel or Mark as in 16:9-20? If the latter, >that is precisely my point. Mk 16:9-20 is dependent upon Luke and >Acts. Take your choice...(a) If one accepts Lindsay's theory of Lukan priority, then the whole gospel of Mark could be subject to the charge of borrowing from Luke and probably could find support in a number of instances. (b) If the hypothesis were that the long ending was _not_ original and reflected a summary taken from the other three gospels and Acts, then that theory _is_ supported by the presence of the phrase. But I hold to neither: my contention rather is merely that (c) the presence of the phrase "Lord Jesus" in itself does _not_ argue for _either_ Markan inauthenticity of the long ending nor a dependence upon either Lk or Acts. >>but one similarly should not say the phrase occurs >>"nowhere else" when in the present context it indeed is there. >I don't follow your logic here. It is nowhere *else.* How do you >define "nowhere else"? I define that to be found in no place other >than the designated location. "Lord Jesus" is only found in Mk >16:19-20, irregardless of whether you think Mk 16:9-20 was original or >not. It is found *nowhere else* in Mark. The latter qualification is granted; it also is found "nowhere else" in Luke's gospel besides 24:3. So what is thereby established? That Lk 24:3 is not Lukan? The point in context (as I read it) was that it was found "nowhere else" _except_ in Lk/Acts, and thus there was _no_ possibility that such could have occurred _independently_ in Mark, whether 1:1-16:8 or within whatever its original ending may have been. It was on this basis that the phrase was being used to demonstrate the inauthenticity of Mk 16:9-20, which was already assumed to be non-authentic etc. -- which is precisely what I suggested as a non-sequitur and assuming the point to be proven. >>By the same analogy, the *shorter* ending of Mark must be the >>product of Mark himself since it uses "Jesus" alone to describe the >>risen Lord, with none of the "Lukan" trappings. >No, you've jumped ahead to conclusions. The shorter ending's use of >"Jesus" instead of "Lord" or "Lord Jesus" does not necessitate that it >be the product of Mark himself. It doesn't rule out the possibility, >but it does not mean the shorter came from Mark. There are plenty of >other reasons to rule out Markan authorship of the shorter ending. Actually, I was being facetious, and attempting a reductio ad absurdum. Should have put the smiley in.... :-) >>>Why no Galilee in Mk 16:9-20? >>As I asked previously, why no place names whatsoever in Mk 16:9-20, >>even though various changes of venue obviously occur? Answer: because >>the author of that section did not choose to mention any place names. >>Little more can be determined beyond that. >Sorry that I missed your previous explanation. You've made my point >exactly. Why the lack of geographical designations if Mk 16:9-20 came >from the same author as Mk 1:1-16:8? Based on Occam's razor, isn't it >just more plausible that Mk 16:9-20 is from a different author at a >later time that didn't pick up on the need to mention Galilee? Why? This again assumes that Mark at every juncture _has_ to provide geographical indicators. Even if he did so for 1:1-16:8 at every possible opportunity, it still does not force him to do so in the remainder. But in fact the writer did not identify geographical location at every opportunity: a very cursory examination brings forth at least the following changes of venue which have no location named: 2:23; 3:1, 13, 19b; 4;1, 5:21; 6:1, 6, 32; 8:1; 9:2; 10:17. I simply remain loath to tell Mark exactly how he would have had to have written in order to convince later readers of his authorship. >I'm going to sign off on this one for another day >because I don't want to weary the good people on this list. Probably everyone is wearied, and I hope to sign off on this angle of discussion also. See my next post which brings things back to TC and probably negates the whole line of discussion anyway.... ============================================================== Maurice A. Robinson, Ph. D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina, USA ___________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Oct 30 21:07:53 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA26804; Fri, 30 Oct 1998 21:07:53 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: tc-list Mk 16:19-20 redux Message-ID: <19981030.210807.4519.4.seventh.guardian@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 1.49 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-76,78-84,86-123 From: seventh.guardian@juno.com (M A Robinson) Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 21:08:31 EST Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 5534 >From jeffcate@juno.com (Jeff Cate): Repeating portions from the previous thread which were not addressed in my previous post, solely to provide context: >>>>b) Luke also uses the heightened term "the Lord Jesus" only in >>>>Luke 24:3, after His resurrection. >>>You didn't mention that Luke uses the phrase "Lord Jesus" not just in >>>Lk 24:3, but in Acts 1:21; 4:33; 7:59; 8:16; 11:20; 15:11; 16:31; >>>19:5, 13, 17; 20:24, 35; 21:13. I wrote: >>I fail to see how Lukan use of this phrase *beyond* his gospel >>establishes anything in regard to the gospels themselves, >>particularly when (as pointed out) Luke himself refrains from using >>the term until a post-resurrection context exists. Jeff Cate now writes: >Assuming a two-source hypothesis, it would be odd to find Luke using >"Lord Jesus" within his Gospel since the phrase is used by neither >Mark nor Q, unless some peculiar Lukan source had used it. The use of >"Lord Jesus" in 16:19-20 is similar to the repeated use of "Lord >Jesus" in Acts. On a previous post, I already argued for Mk 16:17-20 >as being a pastiche based on *Acts*. "Lord Jesus" in 16:19-20 is >further evidence for 16:17-20 being dependent not just on episodes, >but even on phrasing, from Acts. Things now will start getting interesting, since I now return directly to text critical aspects of this situation. I let the discussion run its course without stating the obvious, and my one real question still is whether anyone ever bothers to consult a textual apparatus before drawing conclusions. Here is the summary of the evidence, compiled from the Nestle27 apparatus at the pertinent point: Mk. 16:19 Nestle27 -- O MEN OUN KURIOS IHSOUS Variant1 -- O MEN KURIOS IHSOUS Variant2 -- O MEN OUN KURIOS Variant3 -- O MEN OUN KURIOS IHSOUS CRISTOS Nestle27 is supported by K Delta f1 f13 33 565 579 892c 1241 1424 2427 L-2211 al it vg-cl sy cop Ir-lat. Variant1 (omitting OUN but retaining KURIOS IHSOUS) is supported by C* L W L-844 pc Variant2 (omitting IHSOUS) is supported by "M" (= Byz) Dsupp Theta Psi it-l vg-st vg-ww Variant3 (adding CRISTOS post IHSOUS) is supported by W it-o bo-mss So, while everyone seemed so intent on making a case from KURIOS IHSOUS, the Byzantine Majority reading **totally omitted** the key word IHSOUS, and it therefore was _never_ pertinent to the discussion of authenticity from the perspective of those who were arguing in favor of the long ending (if anyone favoring the long ending thinks otherwise, let me know). The fact that the editors of N27 chose to claim it as part of the "original" form for the long ending does not militate against this point, unless one first concurs with their decision on reasonable internal grounds. Very few who claim long-ending-authenticity would concur with their decision; most would prefer to follow the Byzantine majority at this point. If so, the point of the KURIOS IHSOUS reading is moot. Why should this be the case? Basic principles of internal evidence. Had the longer term KURIOS IHSOUS been original to the long ending, it is unlikely that _any_ scribe would have omitted it, save by accident. Homoioteleuton _is_ possible from "KS IS" to "KS", but while scattered MSS might accidentally omit, the likelihood that virtually _all_ MSS would do so and/or _never_ have the error corrected is highly unlikely. Rather, the addition of IHSOUS in less than two dozen Greek MSS and some versional witnesses reflecting Byzantine, Alexandrian, "Caesarean" and Western diversity (not always in line with the text of their respective texttypes) seems to point to relatively independent instances of the typical "pious expansion" so often charged against the Byzantine majority. The addition of CRISTOS to IHSOUS in the similarly diverse witness group W it-o bo-mss demonstrates an even more extended "pious expansion". If this is valid, then all the claims regarding KURIOS IHSOUS as a "non-Markan term" which would prove inauthenticity fall by the wayside. To requote Jeff's statement: >On a previous post, I already argued for Mk 16:17-20 >as being a pastiche based on *Acts*. "Lord Jesus" in 16:19-20 is >further evidence for 16:17-20 being dependent not just on episodes, >but even on phrasing, from Acts. If the long ending therefore _never_ originally read "Lord Jesus," then the claimed dependency on either Luke or Acts is no longer evidenced, and all discussion to that point is irrelevant. The _real_ issue with which now to deal is the use of the articular KURIOS standing alone in Mk 16:19-20 (occurring twice in two verses!) and whether _that_ term is "Markan" or "non-Markan." (For point of reference, the articular KURIOS occurs with reference to Jesus as Lord in Mk. 5:19; 11:3; 12:36; and [within a metaphor where the referent seems obvious] 13:35, so in point of fact, the use of the articular KURIOS _without_ addition of IHSOUS argues in _favor_ of and not against "Markan authenticity"). Maybe now the previous discussion can terminate, and something more text-critical arise in its place. :-) ============================================================== Maurice A. Robinson, Ph. D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina, USA ___________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Oct 30 23:23:07 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id XAA27168; Fri, 30 Oct 1998 23:23:06 -0500 Message-ID: <363A90BC.ABEEFDE5@concentric.net> Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 20:23:24 -0800 From: Ken Litwak X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.07 [en] (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list Mark 16:9-20 Style References: <0F1K00A33U2PX7@pobox1.oit.umass.edu> <3.0.2.32.19981030210109.0076dd8c@pop.flash.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 4455 Mike Logsdon wrote: > > Well for Mark it seems that stylistic matters are confined to the singular > "Markan" text though this certainly does not simplify the issue. What you > describe below is more of an issue for multiple texts written by one author > and is somewhat reductionistic. Since this discussion arose in relation to > Mark, your arguments against style as an issue for making decisions about > the ending of Mark seem to dissipate. What I would like to see is your own > methodological rigor? How or on what basis will you make a textual > decision? Ever by Internal issues? What does legitimately consitute an > internal issue? I must assume that textual decision, for you, will always > have to be the oldest reading available in all cases? Otherwise I cannot > see how you would decide between a newer reading over and older reading > except for some type of internal evidence, whatever that may be for you, > which is essentially a matter of style--especially in the case of Mark. > Mike, perhaps I wasn't clear. My point is not about multiple book authorship. My point is that, if so many scholars think that Luke and Acts had the same author, yet Dawsey and others can argue against common authorship on stylistic grounds, then "style" must be so slippery a term that it may be inherently unhelpful. I don't have a definition of style that would be helpful. That's the point. To make an argument about style, you need to define the term precisely enough that data you offer to make an argument should be able to persuade. IF you don't define he term carefully enough to account for anomalies, changes in rhetorical strategy, one-time use of a word or phrase, etc., then I don't know what kind of evidence you could offer for style that should be taken as able to persuade (not persuasive but even logical to make an argument based on it). So that's what I'm after: a definition of style that is precise enough that I can take data, apply it to that definition, and come up with an answer that some text probably is or probably isn't by a given author. I don't' expect exactitude, since this is after all the Humanities, and there's no way to test the validity of our results on anything other than modern texts. This is like offering an intertextual analysis of of the use of the Scriptures of Israel in the NT without ever stopping to say which of several competing, incompatible views of intertextuality you are using. As for me, I don't think I rely solely upon external evidence. For one thing, if I read one MS of John 17 in which Jesus prays that God will "not keep them from the Evil one" and every other MS says that he prayed that would would "keep them from the Evil one", then I presume this one copyist messed up, and it's not hard in the text to see how he or she might have put an extra negative particle in. I can also surmise from the content of the prayer in John 17 that such a statement would be out of keeping with what the rest of the prayer said. So I might well make a judgment on a reading based on its internal consistency with what I think the co-text says. I tend to think, based on how I read the argument of Romans 1-4, that Rom 5:1 should be read with the indicative of ECW, not the subjunctive. So turning aside from style as too slippery a criterion doesn't mean that I am forced to use only external evidence. Internal consistency, however, is not style. Style would apply more if, say, Mark always the Greek vocabulary that would have been found on the 1st century equivalent of the GRE, instead of the sort of Greek vocabulary one would have found in the equivalent of the Athens TImes (I am of course being anachronistic but you surely get the point?). SO if Mark ALWAYS used very rare, pedantic vocabulary, and some disputed verse or verses used common street vocabulary, the authenticity of those verses might be argued against on this basis of vocabulary, BUT you would also have to account for the source of the statement, its rhetorical context and purpose and so forth, which could easily influence one's choice of vocabulary. The problem with style, for me, is to assume that it is so easily quantifiable that apparent exceptions can be clearly identified and that, a priori, those must be non-Markan, or non-Pauline, etc. What do you think? Ken Litwak Ph.D. student, NT Trinity College/Univ. of Bristol Bristol, England (and Java instructor in California) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Oct 31 04:47:12 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id EAA27942; Sat, 31 Oct 1998 04:47:11 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Sat, 31 Oct 1998 01:43:02 -0800 Subject: Re: tc-list Mk 16:19-20 redux Message-ID: <19981031.014745.3222.2.jeffcate@juno.com> References: <19981030.210807.4519.4.seventh.guardian@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 1.49 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 2-3,5-22,52-89,98-102,104-109,111-112,114-122, 134-135,143-144,151-156 From: jeffcate@juno.com (Jeff Cate) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 8568 I responded privately to Maurice just as I said I would regarding the lengthy stylistic issue that we have been debating. This post I choose to make public since it is debating a variant within 16:19. On Fri, 30 Oct 1998 21:08:31 EST seventh.guardian@juno.com (M A Robinson) writes: >Jeff Cate now writes: > >>Assuming a two-source hypothesis, it would be odd to find Luke using >>"Lord Jesus" within his Gospel since the phrase is used by neither >>Mark nor Q, unless some peculiar Lukan source had used it. The use of >>"Lord Jesus" in 16:19-20 is similar to the repeated use of "Lord >>Jesus" in Acts. On a previous post, I already argued for Mk 16:17-20 >>as being a pastiche based on *Acts*. "Lord Jesus" in 16:19-20 is >>further evidence for 16:17-20 being dependent not just on episodes, >>but even on phrasing, from Acts. > >Things now will start getting interesting, since I now return directly >to text critical aspects of this situation. I let the discussion run >its course without stating the obvious, and my one real question still >is whether anyone ever bothers to consult a textual apparatus before >drawing conclusions. Yes, we do consult the textual apparatus. I had already suspected variant readings on this phrase before I made my initial reply several days ago. I had suspected variant readings in the mss because (1) refs to Jesus are notorious for slight alterations by adding/omitting words such as Lord and Christ; and (2) the refs to "Lord" and "Lord Jesus" are so out of character for Mk 1:1-16:8 I suspected that some scribe might have attempted to alter them, even though Mark was such a neglected Gospel in interpretive history and many scribes might not pick up on the slight change in style. The variation unit is also fully apparent in the differences in English translations (KJV vs. NRSV) yet alone Greek texts (TR and NA27). Therefore, even if you use a Bible software program which does not include a textual apparatus the variation unit is apparent. Even though you erroneously assumed I had no awareness of the variation unit, in fact, I was fully aware of it, but unlike you I was in agreement with the NA27 textual decision. Just because you personally want to change many of the textual decisions in the NA27 and others of us are in agreement with the majority of them does *not* mean that we are not *aware* of the textual variants. And no, this does *not* mean that I agree with all the decisions of the NA27/UBS4. I do not consider the NA27/UBS4 to be the new TR that needs no re-evaluating. We must all constantly re-evaluate the evidence. Just because I agreed with the UBS4/NA27 on this instance does *not* mean that I have not done my TC work as you assume. Personally, I wasn't going to mention the variant because the external evidence seems pretty decisive and it wouldn't help me to mention the variant reading. I knew you might, and you did (although in a derogatory manner I wasn't expecting). BTW, there are quite a few other lines of thought on this entire issue that I haven't mentioned that I was expecting you to mention, but that does *not* mean that I am not aware of those. I'll let you bring those up instead of arguing your case against myself for you. > >Here is the summary of the evidence, compiled from the Nestle27 >apparatus at the pertinent point: > >Mk. 16:19 > >Nestle27 -- O MEN OUN KURIOS IHSOUS >Variant1 -- O MEN KURIOS IHSOUS >Variant2 -- O MEN OUN KURIOS >Variant3 -- O MEN OUN KURIOS IHSOUS CRISTOS > >Nestle27 is supported by K Delta f1 f13 33 565 579 892c 1241 1424 > 2427 L-2211 al it vg-cl sy cop Ir-lat. > >Variant1 (omitting OUN but retaining KURIOS IHSOUS) is supported by > C* L W L-844 pc > >Variant2 (omitting IHSOUS) is supported by "M" (= Byz) Dsupp Theta Psi > it-l vg-st vg-ww > >Variant3 (adding CRISTOS post IHSOUS) is supported by W it-o bo-mss > >So, while everyone seemed so intent on making a case from KURIOS IHSOUS, >the Byzantine Majority reading **totally omitted** the key word IHSOUS, >and it therefore was _never_ pertinent to the discussion of >authenticity from the perspective of those who were arguing in favor of >the long ending (if anyone favoring the long ending thinks otherwise, >let me know). > >The fact that the editors of N27 chose to claim it as part of the >"original" form for the long ending does not militate against this >point, unless one first concurs with their decision on reasonable >internal grounds. Very few who claim long-ending-authenticity would >concur with their decision; most would prefer to follow the Byzantine >majority at this point. If so, the point of the KURIOS IHSOUS reading >is moot. Au contraire. You assume wrongly. Just because one feels 16:9-20 is not authentic, does *not* mean that 16:9-20 is not *early.* It's appearance in the church fathers alone indicates an early date and a *pre-Byzantine* date, I might add. Therefore, the NA27 presentation of the 16:9-20 should *not* be based on the Byzantine majority reading alone because that is not necessarily the "weightiest" evidence for the original form of the longer reading. Mk 16:9-20 is not a Byzantine addition, it occured at an early stage and therefore, the evidence for the original form of the longer ending must be based on the "weightiest" evidence. >Why should this be the case? Basic principles of internal evidence. >Had the longer term KURIOS IHSOUS been original to the long ending, it >is unlikely that _any_ scribe would have omitted it, save by accident. >Homoioteleuton _is_ possible from "KS IS" to "KS", but while scattered MSS >might accidentally omit, the likelihood that virtually _all_ MSS would >do so and/or _never_ have the error corrected is highly unlikely. > >Rather, the addition of IHSOUS in less than two dozen Greek MSS and >some versional witnesses reflecting Byzantine, Alexandrian, >"Caesarean" and Western diversity (not always in line with the text of their >respective texttypes) seems to point to relatively independent >instances of the typical "pious expansion" so often charged against the Byzantine >majority. The addition of CRISTOS to IHSOUS in the similarly diverse >witness group W it-o bo-mss demonstrates an even more extended "pious >expansion". > >If this is valid, then all the claims regarding KURIOS IHSOUS as a >"non-Markan term" which would prove inauthenticity fall by the >wayside. If the external evidence was evenly divided, your internal arguments would make more sense: the shorter being original (KURIOS) being changed to the longer (KURIOS IHSOUS). But that certainly is not a hard and fast rule, especially when it comes to variants in names since there are other factors at work that take precedence over the one reading being longer and another being shorter (cf. IHSOUS TON BARABBAN in Mt 27:16-17 where the prefered reading of NA27 is the longer). Homoioteleuton is certainly possible as you mentioned, but you dismissed it to quickly. If such an unintentional error (KSIS to KS) occurred early enough, there would not seem grounds for later scribes to intentionally correct the text, especially since it would have *entered* the Byzantine stream in the form of KS not KSIS. I don't think the internal evidence for opting for KURIOS over KURIOS IHSOUS in Mk 16:19 is conclusive in either direction. What seems to indicate the choice for KURIOS IHSOUS over IHSOUS is the *external* evidence which you too quickly dismissed. The combined witness of K Delta f1 f13 33 565 579 892c 1241 1424 2427 L-2211 al it vg-cl sy cop Ir-lat is pretty substantial and early support for KURIOS IHSOUS, especially when you realize that Sinaiticus and Vaticanus render no evidence for this variation unit since they omit the entirety of 16:9-20. Therefore, I feel that there are reasonable grounds to argue for the stylistic evidence of "Lord Jesus" pertaining to Mk 16:9-20. Maurice, if you really feel the entire stylistic argument of "Lord Jesus" was a moot point due to your preference for the variant reading "Lord", then why did you respond ad nauseum to all these stylistic arguments? Or was it that *you* returned to the textual apparatus and discovered _ex eventu_ that the variant existed :-) Jeff Cate, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Christian Studies California Baptist University Riverside, California 92508 ___________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Oct 31 12:59:36 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA29824; Sat, 31 Oct 1998 12:59:35 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: tc-list A Markan Excursus Message-ID: <19981031.125927.4519.0.seventh.guardian@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 1.49 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-20,25-113 From: seventh.guardian@juno.com (M A Robinson) Date: Sat, 31 Oct 1998 12:59:48 EST Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 6362 An excursus of sorts: It is probably little known, but interesting that MS 2145 of the 12th century contains a *third* form of the ending of Mark, this one specifically "cribbed" from the long ending. It serves as a good example of what one might expect in a summary precis. (Interestingly, this MS is like virtually all others in containing without question the long ending in its usual location. This summary is taken from the two leaves which _precede_ the Markan title page). For reference purposes: MS 2145 is a vellum MS completed 23 Feb 1144 by the scribe John, containing the four gospels, lacking Mt. 1:1-9:28. The PA is missing from its main text; added in margin by later hand. (Information and summary quotation taken from Kurt Treu, _Die Griechischen Handschriften des Neuen Testaments in der UdSSR_ [Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1966], pp.92-95). Here is MS 2145's summary of the Markan long ending: ANASTAS O CRISTOS WFQH MARIA, AF HS TA Z DAIMONIA EXEBALEN. EKEINH EIPE TOIS MAQHTAIS. OI DE HPISTHSAN. EPEITA WFQH EN TH ODW TOIS DUSIN, EITA TOIS ENDEKA. KAI WNEIDISE THN APISTIAN AUTWN, KAI APESTEILEN AUTOUS KHRUSSEIN KAI BAPTIZEIN KAI SHMEIA POIEIN. KAI META TAUTA ANELHFQH. KAI TOUTO TO TELOS ECEI TO KATA MARKON EUAGGELION. The summary is good, short, and reasonable; and if one had not seen the long ending, this precis nevertheless would fairly accurately reflect that ending. But what is more pertinent to the discussion of "cribbing" and borrowing from the other gospels in the supposed creation of the long ending is the amount of paraphrase found in this precis versus the amount of identity of wording. How was this summary created from the long ending? Certainly not directly, but with careful and creative paraphrasing, locking in to a few words here and there from the original source. Note below the entire long ending with the only materials capitalized being those found in the MS 2145 summary (allowing Z = EPTA): ------------------------------------------------------------ 9 ANASTAS de prwi prwth sabbatou efanh prwton MARIA th magdalhnh AF HS ekbeblhkei EPTA DAIMONIA. 10 EKEINH poreuqeisa aphggeilen TOIS met autou genomenois penqousin kai klaiousin 11 kakeinoi akousantes oti zh kai eqeaqh up auths HPISTHSAN 12 meta de tauta DUSIN ex autwn peripatousin efanerwqh en etera morfh poreuomenois eis agron 13 kakeinoi apelqontes aphggeilan tois loipois oude ekeinois episteusan 14 usteron anakeimenois autois TOIS ENDEKA efanerwqh KAI WNEIDISE THN APISTIAN AUTWN kai sklhrokardian oti tois qeasamenois auton eghgermenon ouk episteusan 15 kai eipen autois poreuqentes eis ton kosmon apanta khruxate to euaggelion pash th ktisei 16 o pisteusas KAI baptisqeis swqhsetai o de apisthsas katakriqhsetai 17 SHMEIA de tois pisteusasin tauta parakolouqhsei en tw onomati mou daimonia ekbalousin glwssais lalhsousin kainais 18 ofeis arousin kan qanasimon ti piwsin ou mh autous blayh epi arrwstous ceiras epiqhsousin kai kalws exousin 19 o men oun kurios META to lalhsai autois ANELHFQH eis ton ouranon kai ekaqisen ek dexiwn tou qeou 20 ekeinoi de exelqontes ekhruxan pantacou tou kuriou sunergountos kai ton logon bebaiountos dia twn epakolouqountwn shmeiwn amhn ----------------------------------------------------------- A total of 21 words are identical out of 55 in the precis itself (38%) and out of (I think I counted correctly) 166 in the actual long ending (12%). What is of significance here is that so few words have direct parallel with the material being summarized. True, some other words merely appear in different form (e.g. the summary has KHRUSSEIN KAI BAPTIZEIN while the actual text has "khruxate" and "baptisqeis" [widely separated]). But even if the near parallels were noted, the summary still would bear little direct parallel with the whole of what is being "cribbed". Applying these observations to the long ending of Mark as it stands, what becomes significant is this: _some_ episodes in the long ending (e.g. the road to Emmaus parallel) might fit in well with the type of summary pattern demonstrated in MS 2145. But other passages not only remain longer than would be expected in a precis summary, but they also have many more direct verbal parallels to wording found in the other gospels from which they are supposedly "cribbed" (these are not given here, but if need be, I will be happy to demonstrate). Add to this the question of all the "new" material being added to the long ending which has NO parallel and which properly should not have appeared within a summary precis and the question of source or motive becomes significant. Finally, the idea of a summary pastiche loosely compiled from within Acts and the Epistles regarding the ascension and sitting at the right hand of God seems to go far beyond the normal style of a mere summary, if the pattern seen in MS 2145 is any indication of what really occurs in the preparation of such. Note also that the so-called "shorter ending" is not actually a precis summary at all. Notice its text in comparison to the long ending with identical words capitalized (some of these quite generously): panta DE ta parhggelmena TOIS peri ton petron suntomws exhggeilan. META DE TAUTA kai autos o ihsous apo anatolhs kai acri dusews exapesteilen di autwn to ieron kai afqarton khrugma ths aiwniou swthrias. (5 words out of 33 in the short ending identical to words appearing in the long ending = 15%;if counted against the 166 words in the long ending itself, the parallel is a dismal 3%; compared to this the 38% and 12% respectively from the MS 2145 precis is a huge amount). Interestingly there are some terms in the shorter ending which come close to the precis summary in MS 2145, e.g. EXAPESTEILEN vs 2145's APESTEILEN. But the extremely low percentage of parallel identity in the shorter ending as compared to the 2145 precis here tends to indicate that the shorter ending was NOT intended as a precis, but as a _substitute_ for the long ending (I have a theory regarding this, but that will have to wait for a paper I am preparing) Just a few random thoughts....feel free to differ. ___________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Oct 31 15:10:56 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA00395; Sat, 31 Oct 1998 15:10:55 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list Mk 16:19-20 redux Message-ID: <19981031.150942.4519.2.seventh.guardian@juno.com> References: <19981030.210807.4519.4.seventh.guardian@juno.com> <19981031.014745.3222.2.jeffcate@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 1.49 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0,2-9,14-15,23-24,33-42 From: seventh.guardian@juno.com (M A Robinson) Date: Sat, 31 Oct 1998 15:09:52 EST Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2365 Leaving out the much longer body preceding material (which deserves a more detailed response, Jeff Cate wrote: >if you really feel the entire stylistic argument of "Lord Jesus" was a >moot point due to your preference for the variant reading "Lord", then >why did you respond ad nauseum to all these stylistic arguments? Or >was it that *you* returned to the textual apparatus and discovered _ex >eventu_ that the variant existed :-) Since I have the electronic Byzantine Textform ever before me as I edited it, I do know what the Byzantine readings happen to be :-). My responses were structured to allow (for the sake of argument) that the "Lord Jesus" phrase was the "original" reading in what was presumed to be a "non-authentic" long ending, neither of which views I hold. Had I not presented my case within that framework, the point I was making regarding the inapplicability of the phrase in Mark to either normative Markan usage or to Lukan dependency would have had no hearing, since I would have been viewed as merely taking potshots from outside. In order for a proper debate to occur, one has to at points suspend judgment and assume the hypothetical validity of the point under discussion, as well as state the case in a manner which the opposing side would consider valid. My views regarding the Byzantine text and the authenticity of the long ending is (or should be) clear to all. But whether I would or would not agree with the authenticity of the phrase in Mk 16:19 was *not* pertinent to the point that I was trying to make, viz., that the phrase (if genuine) neither established nor disproved Markan authenticity, and so I continued the discussion primarily to show that within the argumentative framework the point being adduced was invalid in and of itself, regardless of what other views might exist outside the immediate scope of the debate. I hope that clarifies. ============================================================== Maurice A. Robinson, Ph. D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina, USA ___________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]