Here's another photo of a 10th century cursive, #247 (Paris).
It shows both the shorter (intermediate)ending of Mark,
and also the typical fancy asterisks and scholia that are peppered all over most manuscripts.
The majority of these markings are not 'scholarly critical' delimiters or indications of doubt in any way, but liturgical markings to indicate to readers where to begin and end the reading for each service.
The Lectionary system and the breaking up of texts into 'pericopes' or bite-sized snacks with a lesson for use in service was very old, probably originating in the 2nd century in imitation of synagogue practices.
It is highly likely that in many cases, copyists confused the meaning of the markings, taking them for editing or correctional instructions. This is probably what caused the majority of variant readings to arise in the early 2nd century. There would have been a short period of confusion and promulgation of errors of this type before word spread backward to copyists and the text was re-corrected and stabilized.
Again this is a good quality file (JPG) 8x10 in size at about 150 dpi. 300k in size. Print it and enjoy!
__________________ "Neither do I judge thee. Sin no more." (Jn 8:11)
Last edited by Nazaroo; 23rd May 2006 at 03:19 PM.
[heavy sigh] I hate trying to read these things. Exactly what verse does this manuscript end with?
It is highly likely that in many cases, copyists confused the meaning of the markings, taking them for editing or correctional instructions. This is probably what caused the majority of variant readings to arise in the early 2nd century. There would have been a short period of confusion and promulgation of errors of this type before word spread backward to copyists and the text was re-corrected and stabilized.
You are the first person I've heard suggest that the lectionary system is from the 2nd century.
I'll transcript it for you, since it is not a normal ending.
edit: in fact, I want to leave it for a week to let bible students challenge themselves to transcribe it before checking their answers. It's too easy if the answer is just handed out, and real students need things to practise on.
Let's not take it away just yet. The majority of manuscripts are cursives (small-letter connected handwriting) and this is what people really need to try, instead of just reading printed texts from their grammars and lexicons.
__________________ "Neither do I judge thee. Sin no more." (Jn 8:11)
Last edited by Nazaroo; 17th December 2005 at 01:25 PM.
Student Guidelines for Reading and transcribing Greek and Coptic cursives:
Don't panic or become discouraged because it looks like heiroglyphics. Just remember that your sister's handwriting is probably almost as cryptic and idiosyncratic. Most of what scribes do is fairly natural and efficient, and not superfluous or excessive, especially 100 folios or so into the copying process. Most things will be decipherable and make sense eventually.
Synchronize your printed text with the exemplar. This is always your first step. Do this by searching for a common medium sized noun that is not just a pronoun or common coordinating construction like "he said". Look for names of places or categories that don't show up every other verse, but are easy to recognise in almost any handwriting. "ouranos/heaven" or "adelphos/brother" are good examples, while long compound verbs are not. Remember, you haven't yet figured out the alphabet in this particular scribe's era, or demographic location, or personal style.
Once synchronised, move a short distance in either direction from your anchor point, and start copying letters that you know you recognize. From here you can often deduce at least some of the forms of most others.
Build up a chart of this scribe's letter styles, with at least a half-dozen examples of each letter, and try to fill out the whole alphabet, carefully expanding your knowledge of the text in each direction. Constantly refer to your printed text to confirm you have the right spot, and there is no significant variant (addition or ommision or word order reversal). Make notes of any differences from your printed text on a separate worksheet.
Keep your worksheet organized with plenty of space around words and between lines, and STICK to the actual number of letters/words in each line. Follow the format of the exemplar exactly here, and number the lines. Use the margin to tag verse beginnings and endings. And leave lots of space for critical notes. Allow room to copy any scribal asterisks, scholia, or footnotes the scribe or another hand have added to the margins, and note any corrections. Try to discern if the hand is the same as the original scribe or if there are multiple hands correcting the document.
Don't strain or sweat it if you hit something you can't figure out. Work around it, or come at it from both ends and see if you can crack it that way. Keep your alphabet style chart up do date, and note where in the manuscript you have drawn from for future reference. Don't worry if you can'tsolve every problem you find on a page. Experience will pay off. Stick to it.
Here are some notes I hand out to students. In this particular manuscript, there are some challenges, because the handwriting is late and very stylized. Here's how I would tackle this folio if working from scratch. First crack open your critical text of Mark (last page) or open an interlinear bible program.
A glance at the second line in this photo shows what looks like the word "mathetas"/disciple. You can now (looking at the note up the side) realise that the "Mark 16:6-20" is a bit inaccurate. Only the last two words of verse 6 are present. Verse seven starts in a bit from the left on the first line, and you can sync up with 'disciple' from verse 16:7, to get started transcribing this scribe's handwriting style.
Only work with two or three lines, until you are confident in recognizing most of the letters, and then you can follow your critical text for the long version along to the end of verse twenty.
Now the real challenge! The shorter ending in the bottom margin! Start by identifying as many key words as you can , and also fill in all the coordinating words, conjunctions, pronouns, prepositons. Try a tentative xlation of the text, and compare it with a commentary or critical note in English in some large bible like a footnoted New Jerusalem Bible or a New Revised Standard.
Now you're well on your way to reading manuscripts for yourself and collating the variants!
__________________ "Neither do I judge thee. Sin no more." (Jn 8:11)
Well, as fun as it is to work through these things, and as satisfying as it DOES feel when you're done, most of us don't have hours to spend deciphering random squiggles where the scribe went WHOOPS! because he had alzhimers. Moreover, there are dozens of manuscripts that bear on the passage -- so why show one particular 10th century cursive?
Below i've pasted in Metzger (stolen from bible-researcher.com so I don't have to type it out) on this passage.
Bruce Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (Stuttgart, 1971), pages 122-126.
16:9-20 The Ending(s) of Mark. Four endings of the Gospel according to Mark are current in the manuscripts. (1) The last twelve verses of the commonly received text of Mark are absent from the two oldest Greek manuscripts (א and B), from the Old Latin codex Bobiensis (it k), the Sinaitic Syriac manuscript, about one hundred Armenian manuscripts, and the two oldest Georgian manuscripts (written A.D. 897 and A.D. 913). Clement of Alexandria and Origen show no knowledge of the existence of these verses; furthermore Eusebius and Jerome attest that the passage was absent from almost all Greek copies of Mark known to them. The original form of the Eusebian sections (drawn up by Ammonius) makes no provision for numbering sections of the text after 16:8. Not a few manuscripts which contain the passage have scribal notes stating that older Greek copies lack it, and in other witnesses the passage is marked with asterisks or obeli, the conventional signs used by copyists to indicate a spurious addition to a document.
(2) Several witnesses, including four uncial Greek manuscripts of the seventh, eighth, and ninth centuries (L Y 099 0112), as well as Old Latin k, the margin of the Harelean Syriac, several Sahidic and Bohairic manuscripts, and not a few Ethiopic manuscripts, continue after verse 8 as follows (with trifling variations): "But they reported briefly to Peter and those with him all that they had been told. And after this Jesus himself sent out by means of them, from east to west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation." All of these witnesses except it k also continue with verses 9-20.
(3) The traditional ending of Mark, so familiar through the AV and other translations of the Textus Receptus, is present in the vast number of witnesses, including A C D K W X D Q P Y 099 0112 f 13 28 33 al. The earliest patristic witnesses to part or all of the long ending are Irenaeus and the Diatessaron. It is not certain whether Justin Martyr was acquainted with the passage; in his Apology (i.45) he includes five words that occur, in a different sequence, in ver. 20. (tou logou tou iscurou on apo ierousalhm oi apostoloi autou exelqonteV pantacou ekhruxan).
(4) In the fourth century the traditional ending also circulated, according to testimony preserved by Jerome, in an expanded form, preserved today in one Greek manuscript. Codex Washingtonianus includes the following after ver. 14: "And they excused themselves, saying, 'This age of lawlessness and unbelief is under Satan, who does not allow the truth and power of God to prevail over the unclean things of the spirits [or, does not allow what lies under the unclean spirits to understand the truth and power of God]. Therefore reveal thy righteousness now -- thus they spoke to Christ. And Christ replied to them, 'The term of years of Satan's power has been fulfilled, but other terrible things draw near. And for those who have sinned I was delivered over to death, that they may return to the truth and sin no more, in order that they may inherit the spiritual and incorruptible glory of righteousness which is in heaven.' "
How should the evidence of each of these endings be evaluated? It is obvious that the expanded form of the long ending (4) has no claim to be original. Not only is the external evidence extremely limited, but the expansion contains several non-Markan words and expressions (including o aiwn outoV, amartanw, apologew, alhqinoV, upostrefw) as well as several that occur nowhere else in the New Testament (deinoV, oroV, proslegw). The whole expansion has about it an unmistakable apocryphal flavor. It probably is the work of a second or third century scribe who wished to soften the severe condemnation of the Eleven in 16.14.
The longer ending (3), though current in a variety of witnesses, some of them ancient, must also be judged by internal evidence to be secondary. (a) The vocabulary and style of verses 9-20 are non-Markan. (e.g. apistew, blaptw, bebaiow, epakolouqew, qeaomai, meta tauta, poreuomai, sunergew, usteron are found nowhere else in Mark; and qanasimon and toiV met autou genomenoiV, as designations of the disciples, occur only here in the New Testament). (b) The connection between ver. 8 and verses 9-20 is so awkward that it is difficult to believe that the evangelist intended the section to be a continuation of the Gospel. Thus, the subject of ver. 8 is the women, whereas Jesus is the presumed subject in ver. 9; in ver. 9 Mary Magdalene is identified even though she has been mentioned only a few lines before (15.47 and 16.1); the other women of verses 1-8 are now forgotten; the use of anastaV de and the position of prwton are appropriate at the beginning of a comprehensive narrative, but they are ill-suited in a continuation of verses 1-8. In short, all these features indicate that the section was added by someone who knew a form of Mark that ended abruptly with ver. 8 and who wished to supply a more appropriate conclusion. In view of the inconcinnities between verses 1-8 and 9-20, it is unlikely that the long ending was composed ad hoc to fill up an obvious gap; it is more likely that the section was excerpted from another document, dating perhaps from the first half of the second century.
The internal evidence for the shorter ending (2) is decidedly against its being genuine. Besides containing a high percentage of non-Markan words, its rhetorical tone differs totally from the simple style of Mark's Gospel.
Finally it should be observed that the external evidence for the shorter ending (2) resolves itself into additional testimony supporting the omission of verses 9-20. No one who had available as the conclusion of the Second Gospel the twelve verses 9-20, so rich in interesting material, would have deliberately replaced them with four lines of a colorless and generalized summary. Therefore, the documentary evidence supporting (2) should be added to that supporting (1). Thus, on the basis of good external evidence and strong internal considerations it appears that the earliest ascertainable form of the Gospel of Mark ended with 16.8. At the same time, however out of deference to the evident antiquity of the longer ending and its importance in the textual tradition of the Gospel, the Committee decided to include verses 9-20 as part of the text, but to enclose them within double square brackets to indicate that they are the work of an author other than the evangelist.
-----------
..A more correct inference would seem to be that the scribe knew that the gospel did NOT end at 16:8, ...but...was producing a copy which could be ended according to the wishes of others. That the scribe considered the form of the gospel which ended with 16:8 as the authentic one, is by no means clear. He only knew that the text..up to 16:8 was largely undisputed, ad that what if anything was to follow 16:8 was a matter of dispute. By not copying anything beyond 16:8 he met the essential requirement of those who felt the gospel needed either an ending or some word of explanation following 16:8. By including the ornament and subscription kata markcon afterward, the scribe was 'finishing' his work. It could 'go out' of the scriptorium in this form. Buy any purchaser or user easily could have had the ornament and subscription erased and, in the space allowed, he could have ended the gospel according to his own decision or he could have used it without alteration. The advantage of this form of the text is that it allows for some further treatment of a disputed matter. It is certainly copied in such a way that an ending may be added if desired. Whe the space left blank is more than necessary for the shorter ending or slightly less than needed for the longer ending is not entirely clear. ...All this is in keeping with a situation in which the longer ending is known, but disapproved, and where it is felt prudent to allow for something further to be written in the space left blank." (ibid. pg 58-9)
A few things on this guy (and Scrivener, and Burgeon, et. al. who happen to try to defend the long ending based on Vaticanus' omission:
One has to admit that we have no clue whatsoever why there is an open column in Vaticanus. It is an interesting theory that perhaps the copyist knew of a longer ending. Yet, why was it not copied in? As an Alexandrian manuscript it would have had a corrector as well (as evidenced by the multiple hands on the text). Now, Farmer says that the scribe was playing it safe and conservatively by ending at 16:8 -- I'm not sure what to say to that. It's a leap of logic and cannot be substantiated. It's legitimate to suggest that the column was left free because the scribe was aware of a longer ending (this I can concede as a POSSIBILITY). It's quite another to assign an entire complex of motivations to a scribe during a time in history when there few qualms with amending a text and correcting it to a better version.
Yet in my opinion this is all subsidiary. We know that the ending was disputed in the early church. We know the Armenian and Georgian differ from certain OL mss and codex W and codex L...I don't much care what one particular scribe MIGHT have been thinking. What matters in terms of fact is that the manuscript lacks the passage, and there for is a positive attestation to the fact that the shortest ending is original.
Yet in my opinion this is all subsidiary. We know that the ending was disputed in the early church. We know the Armenian and Georgian differ from certain OL mss and codex W and codex L...I don't much care what one particular scribe MIGHT have been thinking. What matters in terms of fact is that the manuscript lacks the passage, and there for is a positive attestation to the fact that the shortest ending is original.
But what does matter is that the 'scholars' and editors of critical Greek texts and modern translations have deliberately misled the reader on these critical issues.
He who is untrustworthy in a small thing is untrustable in a big thing.
And as to the reason Vaticanus was abandoned, as it clearly WAS, and sat on a shelf in the Vatican for nearly 1000 years, the answer is the quality of the text itself. Anyone with even a basic familiarity of the New Testament would spend about five minutes with Vaticanus and conclude it was USELESS and UNFIXABLE.
There was no conspiracy to hide the thing, only a reluctance to waste time with it.
I've been through this site before. It's done quite a good job and I appreciated the research. Very complimentary of the ms, as well.
But what does matter is that the 'scholars' and editors of critical Greek texts and modern translations have deliberately misled the reader on these critical issues.
He who is untrustworthy in a small thing is untrustable in a big thing.
How did we get from me disagreeing with you to you saying that scholars have misled people? Scholars like Metzger have not forgotten about the empty column -- they simpliy choose to work with what is verifiable.
And as to the reason Vaticanus was abandoned, as it clearly WAS, and sat on a shelf in the Vatican for nearly 1000 years, the answer is the quality of the text itself. Anyone with even a basic familiarity of the New Testament would spend about five minutes with Vaticanus and conclude it was USELESS and UNFIXABLE.
No, it sat on a shelf for less than that. The site you just gave me talks about critical marks which were probably being used in the 7th century. The manuscript has a long history, and the miniscule corrections show it was still be used at divers times in the middle ages.
The reason it was rediscovered on a Vatican shelf is because Europe had become entrenched in the Latin church which followed the Vulgate -- who cared what this said? Same way with Sinaiticus -- how were a bunch of semi-literate monks in the Egyptian desert going to know they were about to burn one of the important Greek texts extant?
Please, start giving evidence, not inference. You want to attack Vaticanus -- go right ahead. But attack it with evidence, not "it wasn't used, so therefore it's bad."
how were a bunch of semi-literate monks in the Egyptian desert going to know they were about to burn one of the important Greek texts extant?
Have you ever thought about the sheer implausibility of Tschendorf's story? He was a thief, and his removal of a national treasure from a foreign country was scandalous and inexcusable.
And where is the manuscript now? It has been photographed and x-rayed to death.
Surely the new thieves can finally return it. It is no longer needed for purposes of scholarship...
When it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, its a criminal.
__________________ "Neither do I judge thee. Sin no more." (Jn 8:11)
Linear Mode
