Results 1 - 6 of 6
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | later versions contain this paragraph? | Mark 16:20 | James Snapp Jr | 240556 | ||
Tim, I review the full evidence for that paragraph, which commentators routinely call the "Shorter Ending," or, sometimes, the "Intermediate Ending," in the course of my book, "Authentic: The Case for Mark 16:9-20." Six Greek manuscripts contain this material. In five of them, these sentences are followed by Mark 16:9 (or by a note, and then by 16:9). Those 5 Greek manuscripts are codices L, Psi, 083 (the piece also known as 0112), 099, and 579. In one other manuscript, minuscule 274, the Shorter Ending is written in the lower margin of the page; in the text, 16:9-20 follows 16:8 (with an abbreviated lectionary-note intervening between the end of 16:8 and the beginning of 16:9, all on one line). One early (not late!) Latin manuscript, Codex Bobbiensis (it can also be spelled Bobiensis) has a highly anomalous text of Mark 16. One of its odd features is that after it presents Mark 16:8, in a shortened form, it has the Shorter Ending, but written in a way that shows that the writer was either remarkably inattentive, or was unfamiliar with the story he was copying: instead of "Peter" (Petro) he wrote the Latin word for "child" (puero), and made other mistakes as well (writing "from east to east," for example, instead of "from east to west"). Codex Bobbiensis (produced in about 430) is the only manuscript in any language that displays the Shorter Ending without also displaying at least part of 16:9 to 20. In the Ethiopic version, the Shorter Ending appears between 16:8 and 16:9 in 131 copies. Contrary to what is claimed in some commentaries, there are no Ethiopic manuscripts of Mark in which the text of chapter 16 stops at the end of 16:8. Bruce Metzger investigated this subject thoroughly in 1980 and retracted his previous claim (which was based on some earlier scholars' sloppy work). I repeat: all the Ethiopic manuscripts of Mark either have 16:8 followed by verse 9, or 16:8 followed by the Shorter Ending followed by verse 9. (The Garima Gospels, a major Ethiopic manuscript, have recently been carbon-dated to no later than the 500's; this witness has Mark 16:9-20 after 16:8.) The Bohairic version has fewer copies of Mark, and they are all pretty young, but it too testifies to the existence of the Shorter Ending, between 16:8 and 16:9 (so, one could make a case that the material has served as a sort of "bridge," wrapping up a lection for Easter-time or introducing one for Ascension-Day, much more often than it has been an ending). In the Sahidic version, one manuscript and one amulet support the form of text in which verse 8 is the last verse of chapter 16; in all other Sahidic copies, Mark ends with either the Shorter Ending and verses 9-20, or with verses 9-20 after verse 8. Bohairic MS Huntington 17 (produced in 1174) and British Museum Oriental MS 1315 include 16:9-20 after 16:8; they both feature the Shorter Ending written in their margins. Also, in a medieval Armenian copy of the Gospels (Etchmiadsin MS 303), the Shorter Ending somehow ended up at the end of the Gospel of Luke! In addition, it should be noted that although Codex L is centuries younger that Codex Bobbiensis, the form of the text of the Shorter Ending is probably older than the translated form in Codex Bobbiensis; in Bobbiensis, the Shorter Ending says that Jesus "appeared" (adparuit) to the disciples but this is not stated in the text of the Shorter Ending in L. The significance of the Shorter Ending, by the way, is that it indicates that in an ancestor of all the witnesses that contain it, the Gospel of Mark did not contain verses 9-20. As C. Williams showed in his 1914 essay "Appendices of the Gospel of Mark" (which can be found online, as a free download), it almost certainly originated somewhere in Egypt, where it impacted the text of the versions in and around that area. (Armenia itself is not in that area, of course, but Armenian monks routinely traveled to Egypt in the Middle Ages; there are even Armenian manuscripts in the monastery at St. Catherine's in Sinai.) |
||||||
2 | Where does the Shorter Ending belong? | Mark 16:20 | TiminNorthfield | 240558 | ||
Thank you, Mr. Snapp. I was a bit unclear what you meant by this statement, "The significance of the Shorter Ending, by the way, is that it indicates that in an ancestor of all the witnesses that contain it, the Gospel of Mark did not contain verses 9-20." Would you please clarify? Also, what is your conclusion on the matter? Does the Shorter Ending belong after vs. 8? |
||||||
3 | Where does the Shorter Ending belong? | Mark 16:20 | James Snapp Jr | 240559 | ||
By that statement I meant that Shorter Ending is not significant as part of the text, but by tracing its influence on the manuscripts and versions we can detect a line of common descent for several versions and a smattering of Greek manuscripts -- a line which goes back to Egypt, no later than the late 300's. (To compare: Mark 16:9-20 is over 99.5 percent of the Greek manuscripts of Mark, and has patristic support from the 100's. The Shorter Ending's Greek support consists of just 6 MSS, all of which, as I said, also include at least part of the usual 12 verses. Eusebius, in the early 300's, was aware of copies in which the text stopped at the end of 16:8, and of some copies in which the text ended a t 16:20, but he did not mention any copies in which verse 8 was followed by the Shorter Ending. My view, regarding the Shorter Ending, is that in any compilation of the original text, or in any translation of the original text, it does not belong after verse 8, or anywhere else in the text. It is manifestly a creation of a copyist who concocted it to round off the otherwise very abrupt ending at the end of verse 8. Both its external support (no Greek attestation of any kind anywhere before the 600's!) and its internal characteristics are extremely poor. In my view it has no business in any English translation, bracketed or otherwise. |
||||||
4 | Where does the Shorter Ending belong? | Mark 16:20 | DocTrinsograce | 240560 | ||
Hi, James... Welcome to the forum! I listened to your youtube lectures on this subject today. It was very interesting. One of my hermeneutics professors made the same assertion, but I had forgotten all of the reasoning behind it. Do you know of any translations that take the bolder step of excluding this passage? In Him, Doc |
||||||
5 | Where does the Shorter Ending belong? | Mark 16:20 | James Snapp Jr | 240561 | ||
Hi Doc. Thanks for taking time to listen to the lecture. (There are a few lectures about Mark 16:9-20 that I've put on YouTube. Which one was it?) When you asked, "Do you know of any translations that take the bolder step of excluding this passage?", I figure that you must be referring to verses 9-20, not to the "Shorter Ending." Back in 1836, Granville Penn published "The Book of the New Covenant," and the author relied enormously on some recent research that included a collation of Vaticanus; as a result, his text of Mark stopped at 16:8. (And in John, the story of the adulteress was absent.) And somebody -- I forget, at the moment, if it was Goodspeed or Lightfoot -- made a NT in which, in at least one edition, Mark's text stopped at 16:8. The RSV when initially published also stopped Mark's text at 16:8; verses 9-20 were only contained in a footnote. And I've heard that the most recent edition of the "New World Translation" used by the Watchtower Society cult has taken that option too. But for the most part, English translations that have had much popularity, for very long, have included Mark 16:9-20, in harmony with 99.9 percent of the Greek manuscripts of Mark, 99.9 percent of the Latin manuscripts of Mark, and 99.5 percent of the Syriac manuscripts of Mark, plus about 40 patristic citations from the era before the fall of the Roman Empire. |
||||||
6 | Where does the Shorter Ending belong? | Mark 16:20 | DocTrinsograce | 240568 | ||
Hi, James... The lectures I listened to were the two part Patristic Evidence set. This morning I am listening to your review of "Bible Secrets Revealed." In Him, Doc |
||||||