Last 12 Verses of Mark: Part II

Nazaroo · #41 28th December 2005, 12:27 PM

Another observation I would like to make concerning the Ending of Mark is this:

It is quite possible that Mark was martyred before finishing his gospel.
(I am not convinced by arguments that suggest Mark would have deliberately ended it on verse 15. It is clearly missing the last/lost page.).

We obviously know that Luke used Mark to compose his own gospel, and at that time had the highest authority and respect, since his gospel was obviously quickly accepted without dispute.

It is quite likely that if Luke found Mark in the state of being missing an ending, he and he alone would have had the authority and power, and would have been the ideal person, to add an appropriate inspired final ending to Mark, and re-issue it in a completed form, both for posterity and usefulness, and to support his own gospel.

When we examine the content of the last leaf of Mark, it indeed is in total harmony with Luke's gospel, and every verse can be connected to Luke's gospel or Luke's book of Acts. Thus the probability that Luke either wrote the ending, or someone using Luke as a source wrote the ending, *if* it was not written by Mark and lost/reattached, is very high.

In this case, the ending would still be inspired, as inspired as Luke is inspired, and as inspired as Mark, since Luke used Mark as an authority, blended with the reports and testimony of other eyewitnesses of the faith.

Nazaroo · #42 29th December 2005, 03:31 AM

The following is a discussion of the Blank at the End of Mark in Codex Vaticanus and counterarguments as to its meaning:

From: "Dr. Dale M. Wheeler" <dalemw@...>
Date: Tue Apr 26, 2005 4:16 pm
Subject: Re: The End of Mark in Vaticanus bmwfamilyof10
Offline
Send Email

Jim Snapp II wrote:

<snip>

Dr. Wallace claimed, "Both Vaticanus and Sinaiticus have blank leaves
at the end of books early on (e.g., take a look at the end of Acts in
Sinaiticus--an entire blank leaf: Should we conclude that there was
originally an Acts 29 from this??)" -- but I do not think that is
true in the case of B.

At http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/hcc1/htm/i.XII.81.htm one may find a
thorough discussion of this question. Schaff cites Ezra Abbott's
observation that in B, "There are two blank columns at the end of
Nehemiah, and a blank column and a half at the end of Tobit." I
reason that if B had more blank spaces than this, then Ezra Abbott
would have mentioned it. It's within the realm of possibility that
he missed something, but I feel justified in asking for a list of the
other blank pages in Vaticanus.

Why are there two blank columns at the end of Nehemiah, and a blank
column and a half at the end of Tobit? Because that is where
copyists completed the texts assigned to them. A close examination
of the MS will show that a change of handwriting immediately
following those blank spaces, and that when the text resumes, it
starts a fresh and separate page. Meanwhile, we observe no such
handwriting-change between the end of Mark and the beginning of
Luke. Also, the Gospel of Mark ends and the Gospel of Luke begins,
on opposite sides of the same page. I think. Would anyone care to
verify or unverify these points?

I feel safe in saying that throughout Codex Vaticanus, no blank
columns are intentionally inserted except at the end of the Gospel of
Mark. The spaces at the end of Nehemiah and Tobit are just leftover
space. But nowhere in the codex does a scribe ever leave a blank
column between one book that he transcribes and the next book that he
transcribes -- except at the end of Mark. So I don't know how one
can honestly say that B has blank leaves at the end of books early on
(unless one is thus referring to the leftover spaces after Ezra and
Tobit, in which case why not just say "after Ezra and after Tobit"),
or how one can deny that the copyist of B probably had a pretty
strong suspicion that there ought to be some more text after Mark
16:8.

<snip>

Jim:

I thought it might be helpful for all to see the actual quote.

Schaff's whole quote is (which addresses both mss and gives the list):

1. The section is wanting altogether in the two oldest and most valuable uncial manuscripts, the Sinaitic ( ) and the Vatican (B). The latter, it is true, after ending the Gospel with Mark 16:8 and the subscription kata mapkon, leaves the remaining third column blank, which is sufficient space for the twelve verses. Much account is made of this fact by Drs. Burgon and Scrivener; but in the same MS. I find, on examination of the facsimile edition, blank spaces from a few lines up to two-thirds and three-fourths of a column, at the end of Matthew, John, Acts, 1 Pet. (fol. 200), 1 John (fol. 208), Jude (fol. 210), Rom. (fol. 227), Eph. (fol. 262), Col. (fol. 272). In the Old Testament of B, as Dr. Abbot has first noted (in 1872), there are two blank columns at the end of Nehemiah, and a blank column and a half at the end of Tobit. In any case the omission indicates an objection of the copyist of B to the section, or its absence in the earlier manuscript he used.
I add the following private note from Dr. Abbot:, "In the Alexandrian MS. a column and a third are left blank at the end of Mark, half a page at the end of John, and a whole page at the end of the Pauline Epistles. (Contrast the ending of Matthew and Acts.) In the Old Testament, note especially in this MS. Leviticus, Isaiah, and the Ep. of Jeremiah, at the end of each of which half a page or more is left blank; contrast Jeremiah, Baruch, Lamentations. There are similar blanks at the end of Ruth, 2 Samuel, and Daniel, but the last leaf of those books ends a quaternion or quire in the MS. In the Sinaitic MS. more than two columns with the whole following page are left blank at the end of the Pauline Epistles, though the two next leaves belong to the same quaternion; so at the end of the Acts a column and two-thirds with the whole of the following page; and at the end of Barnabas a column and a half. These examples show that the matter in question depended largely on the whim of the copyist; and that we can not infer with confidence that the scribe of B knew of any other ending of the Gospel."

******************************************************************
Dale M. Wheeler, Ph.D.
Prof., Biblical Languages/Bible Multnomah Bible College
8435 NE Glisan St. Portland, OR 97220
V: 503-251-6416 E: dalemw@multnomah.edu
******************************************************************

From: "voxverax" <snapp@...>
Date: Wed Apr 27, 2005 1:22 am
Subject: Ezra Abbot and the End of Mark in Vaticanus voxverax
Offline
Send Email

Dr. Wheeler:

Thanks for posting the text from the CCEL site. Consider the
following:

"... but in the same MS. I find, on examination of the facsimile
edition, blank spaces from a few lines up to two-thirds and
three-fourths of a column, at the end of Matthew, John, Acts, 1 Pet.
(fol. 200), 1 John (fol. 208), Jude (fol. 210), Rom. (fol. 227), Eph.
(fol. 262), Col. (fol. 272)."

True, but irrelevant. No one is claiming that there's anything
unusual about blank space that appears in a column where the text of
the book has ended further up the column.

"In the Old Testament of B, as Dr. Abbot has first noted (in 1872),
there are two blank columns at the end of Nehemiah, and a blank
column and a half at the end of Tobit."

Yup. The ends of copyists' assigned texts.

"In any case the omission indicates an objection of the copyist of B
to the section, or its absence in the earlier manuscript he used."

Or maybe the copyist's knowledge of two endings.

"I add the following private note from Dr. Abbot:, "In the
Alexandrian MS. a column and a third are left blank at the end of
Mark, half a page at the end of John, and a whole page at the end of
the Pauline Epistles. (Contrast the ending of Matthew and Acts.)"

This is not a description of Codex Vaticanus. Codex Vaticanus does
not have "half a page" blank at the end of John. John ends in the
first column of a page (with six lines of text, followed by a
decorative line and "kata Iwnanhn"), and the book of Acts begins at
the top of the second column. Abbot seems to have been describing
Codex Alexandrinus here.

"In the Old Testament, note especially in this MS. Leviticus, Isaiah,
and the Ep. of Jeremiah, at the end of each of which half a page or
more is left blank; contrast Jeremiah, Baruch, Lamentations. There
are similar blanks at the end of Ruth, 2 Samuel, and Daniel, but the
last leaf of those books ends a quaternion or quire in the MS."

It was nice of Dr. Abbot to share these observations about Codex
Alexandrinus, but they are still observations about A, not B. And
when he proceeds to mention gaps in Aleph, he's still describing
features that are not featured of B.

The examples that he cites to "show that the matter in question
depended largely on the whim of the copyist" do nothing of the sort,
and in a way they do the opposite: B's consistent avoidance of such
gaps between books makes the gap at the end of Mark stand out in
bolder relief. It would be silly of me to say that since copyists
Ted, Ed, and Fred like to put spaces between books, this shows that
copyist Bernard also likes to intentionally put spaces between books
-- especially if I can hold up a codex made by Bernard in which he
has avoided putting spaces between books (other than the space after
Mark). But that seems to be the essence of the case that Abbot was
trying to make.

Yours in Christ,

Jim Snapp II
Curtisville Christian Church
Indiana (USA)

Nazaroo · #43 30th December 2005, 07:21 PM

Concerning Tischendorf's bogus story of how he "found" the manuscript Codex Sinaiticus, recall that previously our friend posted a 'version' of Tischendorf's claims, and this as well:

Originally Posted by justified

How is it evidence? And who are you to assign motivation? The manuscript was given up willingly. Perhaps it should have been returned, but this has no bearing on the textual history of Mark! Por Dios!

Oh yes, and just to pick up on this:

Here is what the BBC News has to tell us about how the original owners of the manuscript feel about Tischendorf's version of events:

It remained there until the middle of the 19th Century when a visiting German scholar, Constantin von Tischendorf, took parts of it away to Germany and Russia. To this day, the monastery officially regards it as stolen.

Here is the link to the BBC story:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4739369.stm

I think this just about says it all,
and it clearly explains why the Vatican didn't want Tischendorf to have 'access' to Codex Vaticanus either without strict supervision. And even then he broke the agreement and had to negotiate to have access to it again.

He who is untrustworthy in a small thing is untrustworthy in a large thing.

Nazaroo · #44 30th December 2005, 10:29 PM

Originally Posted by Nazaroo

Regarding my previous point in post #6 and the response in post #7,

I would like to note here that not only are the papyrii from a narrow geographical area and time, but it is actually more extreme than that!
Over half the papyrii are from a single garbage dump in Egypt. The 'rest' are of unknown origin and later or unknown date. And finally, you will notice that the number of papyrii useful to establishing actual readings and texts is less than the number of UNCIALs!

And to give the reader a notion of how far away that is from the central Roman Empire and the mainstream transmission and copying of the New Testament, here is a map of the place where virtually all the papyrii came from:

Map of Papyrus-Town

Nazaroo · #45 3rd January 2006, 08:06 PM

'Conybeare expressed his indebtedness to Dean John Burgon's monograph (on the ending of Mark) and states his opinion that "perhaps no one so well sums up the evidence for and against" these concluding verses of Mark (The Expositor, 4,viii 1913, pg 241).

As far as I can learn, no adequate reply to Dean Burgon has ever been written.' (Zwemer, the Last Twelve Verses, pg 8)

Conybeare was of course one of the leading founders of Septuagint studies, and his joint work with Stock on Septuagint grammar is still an essential tool in O.T. research.

justified · #46 5th January 2006, 03:27 AM

Are you done yet? For crying out loud, it's going to be term time again when you're done...

Nazaroo · #47 5th January 2006, 04:05 AM

Originally Posted by justified

Are you done yet? For crying out loud, it's going to be term time again when you're done...

What are you waiting for?

Or better yet, what are you going to say now that you've already uploaded Metzger's opinion, and we have the latest studies linked?

justified · #48 5th January 2006, 07:05 AM

I didn't upload Metzger's opinion. That was someone else. I commented on it. I'm just waiting for you to finish posting all this incoherent data so that I can refute it.

Nazaroo · #49 5th January 2006, 07:49 PM

I'm just waiting for you to finish posting all this incoherent data so that I can refute it.

(1) Why not make your goal simply to investigate the evidence imparitally and look at it afresh, rather than 'refute' it because you have a pre-formed opinion?

(2) Why are a half-dozen strong efforts by expert scholars to be characterized as 'incoherent data'?

I thought the basic data is not in any real dispute. Do you really feel that these scholars failed to organize it in some way, and that you can organize the same data in a more 'coherent' fashion?

Don't you mean rather that you simply differ in the interpretation of the basic evidence, and in the weight you would assign to the various arguments and proposals made to explain that evidence?

What's to refute?

Nazaroo · #50 9th January 2006, 07:02 AM

Well, I just had a thought.
What if someone were to spend a large amount of time on 'refuting' whatever is here,
and then I am forced to post my deep analysis of the structure of Mark whichsolves the 'Synoptic Problem'? I guess we'd have to start all over again.