Subject: Re: tc-list FW: Mark 16:9-20

From: "R. David Large" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 22:03:35 -0400

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
[email-masked]

---

From: [email-masked] (Maurice A. Robinson)
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 10:02:09 EDT

On Wed, 21 Oct 1998 22:03:35 -0400 "R. David Large" <[email-masked]>
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]