Subject: RE: tc-list Mk 16

From: "Michael L. Kennedy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 00:42:27 -0500

It is interesting that you suggested that it is "blasphemous" to speak 
about a shorter ending to Mark, a variation which is supported by the 
manuscripts.

Blasphemy is when God, or something related to him, is cursed or reviled 
instead of being honored. I don't think God is dishonored by not 
attributing something to him that he never said.

~MLK

-----Original Message-----
From:	robert s. morse [SMTP:[email-masked]]
Sent:	Saturday, January 23, 1999 1:56 PM
To:	[email-masked]
Subject:	tc-list Mk 16

Dear Gentlemen:

I appreciate getting information about New Testament text. (The part
that's blasphemous I simply delete.) Glad too to see that there is still
an interest in Mark 16, after the whole question was "settled" a hundred
years ago. After working on the subject for quite a few years (in
writing a book), I can only say that my confidence in its originality
grows stronger every time I encounter fresh evidence. There are some
areas, however, that seem not to be covered very well in the works I
have been privileged to delve into. For example, how many Georgian MSS
carry the passage? What are the confines of the "Jerusalem Lectionary"?
Does the Armenian tradition have lectionary MSS, and if so, what sort of
testimony do they bear on this? Glad for any help that might be
available.

Bob Morse

---

From: "robert s. morse" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 21:44:14 -0700

> testimony do they bear on this? Glad for any help that might be

I never suggested that acceptance of the Shorter Passage (Mark 16:8 c-d)
was blasphemy! Nor that discussion about Mark's conclusion is
necessarily blasphemous, or that it has been in the contributions so far
in tc. I accept both passages as scripture. Sorry for causing
misunderstanding. I agree with with your definition.

Bob