Results 1 - 4 of 4
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | 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. |
||||||
2 | 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 |
||||||
3 | 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. |
||||||
4 | 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 |
||||||