• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

Last 12 Verses of Mark: Part II

Discussion in 'Exposition & Bible Study' started by Nazaroo, Dec 15, 2005.

  1. Nazaroo

    Nazaroo Joseph is still alive! (Gen 45.26)

    +64
    Christian
    Summary of earlier thread: (hope I got everybody)

     
    We teamed up with Faith Counseling. Can they help you today?
  2. Nazaroo

    Nazaroo Joseph is still alive! (Gen 45.26)

    +64
    Christian
    and TruthsetsYouFree's contributions:

     
  3. Nazaroo

    Nazaroo Joseph is still alive! (Gen 45.26)

    +64
    Christian
    To this thread I'd like to add my two photographs:

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]


    ...and the following comments:

     
  4. Nazaroo

    Nazaroo Joseph is still alive! (Gen 45.26)

    +64
    Christian
    And to briefly sum up the basic textual critical situation:

    There are respected and credentialed scholars on both sides of the issue as to the authenticity of the Last Verses of Mark.

    One of the most recent serious scholarly works on this topic is:

    The Last Twelve Verses of Mark by W.R. Farmer, Cambridge University Press 1974,
    who supports the authenticity of the verses, and covers the evidence and arguments extensively.

    I'm going to quote Farmer's take on the space left in Codex Vaticanus.
    After recounting Williams' attempt to explain the blank third column,
    Farmer says this:

    I can present more detailed evidences here for those interested!

    Peace
     
  5. justified

    justified Well-Known Member

    +24
    Protestant
    There are other, more nuanced reasons for the space. I haven't had a chance to examine the facsimiles, but something strikes me as odd about the pictures you have there.

    Anyways, back to the science:
    No one denies that the existance of the long endings of Mark is extremely early. It's found in A C D and translations of Irenaeus, not mention lots more. But you also have a very confused tradition wherein the verse pops up with a semi-short ending in Aleph, A, B, C, D, W and the majority; then you have part of the ending before 16:8 (A, C, D, W). In the early days, no one knew where the verses belonged.

    Add to this that the vocabulary is different, and that it is much easier reading (because it is hard to read a manuscript that ends so abruptly) and you have a high probability for a lost (or non-existant) ending which was later added in.
     
  6. Nazaroo

    Nazaroo Joseph is still alive! (Gen 45.26)

    +64
    Christian
    Oh come on. Drop the innuendo. If you think I've somehow 'faked' fascimiles of these pages, tell me where you think they differ from those in every major library in the world. That is just a cheap shot.


    Nonsense. You quote the evidence of a handful of Uncials, all from approximately the same brief time period and area, (5th century Rome, the wealthy capital of corruption and greed) and which are essentially "rich man's bibles." These rare and 'beautiful' but expensive items were commisioned for wealthy patrons of various churchs and monasteries. There is no doubt that the large amounts of money involved in their production allowed their sponsors to dictate to their heart's content any changes that suited them. And when they are examined closely, this is exactly the case.

    You had at least some credibility with the papyrii. These at least are far more representative of the thousands of cheaper (and more accurate) copies of the scriptures that real Christians who lived and died as martyrs would have used, namely the poor.

    Except for one fact: All the papyrii are from Egyptian garbage dumps around Alexandria, and so represent a very very small geographical area and narrow slice of time, and a text AFTER the peak of the persecutions. And it is known that many Egyptian scriptoriums producing these manuscripts were not Christian at all, but professional businesses contracted to do the copying and production in this period.


    The Real Explanation for the Garbage Texts in the Elegant Uncials

    It is quite sensible to suppose that the majority of poor Christians, with their own papyrii produced carefully and lovingly by themselves in their life and death struggle against persecution, were highly accurate, although not as ornate and elegant as the Codex Vaticanus et al.

    While on the other hand, the overblown and fancy productions pandering to the wealthy and made by scribes who could be bribed to do the task for cash would have been vain enough and competative enough to produce elegant caligraphy but completely careless as to the actual text. And this is precisely what the evidence reflects.

    Rich people overpay for garbage, because the people working for them hate them .
     
  7. justified

    justified Well-Known Member

    +24
    Protestant
    Like I said, I can't do that for ya as I haven't examined them. But I can tell you that in approximately 35 days I will examine them and if I remember, will get back to you.

    First of all, that's not nonesense. You've picked up the attitude again. It really does not help. You've also ignored the very important point that the entire tradition is confused. It's not just a handful, it's ALL the uncials which seem to disagree.

    Now, as to your ideas about these Uncials:
    The provenance of Aleph, A, B, C, D, W -- Aleph is Alexandrian, not Roman, and from the early fourth century, not fifth. Likewise Vaticanus. Obviously Alexandianus is from Egypt as well, 5th century. D, or Bezae, comes from the 5th century and is of unknown origin. It's probably western, but it's text-form is unlike anyother and has errors not found in other manuscripts. C, or Ephraemi, also from 5th c., is also Alexandrian. W, or Washingtonianus, is from 4-5 c., is of mixed form, making it quite important. It's western in parts and Byzantine in parts. See Hatch, The Principal Uncial Manuscripts for all of this data.

    You have no evidence for this. We know Constantine comissioned a bunch. But the codex was the way the bible was done during this time. Sinaiticus is actually a rather mundane manuscript in terms of its ornateness.

    How can you say there is no doubt? I really would like you to stop wasting my time with these types of posts and instead put up your evidence the first time. There is no evidence for corruption in this way.

    Still waiting for evidence. But on the papyrii, it is extremely fragmentary, and none is extant for the end of Mark.

    BTW, the reason the papyri were preserved in Egypt is of course the climate. It doesn't mean it was a garbage dump, and even if it were, who gives a crap? It's still evidence. Just because you have a bunch of Arabs in the middle ages burning the NT doesn't mean anything. Stop the ad hominem and get to the point. You are wasting everyone's time with this type of argument.
     
  8. Nazaroo

    Nazaroo Joseph is still alive! (Gen 45.26)

    +64
    Christian
    If you haven't even bothered to verify the evidence, what business do you have casting doubt upon my evidence, and my integrity?
    I must have got that from you!
    No. But your erroneous claim that the entire tradition is confused just shows you are. "All the Uncials SEEM to disagree" . (a) 'All the uncials' IS just a handful! (b) some of the UNCIALS obviously have the long ending.

    (a) Basically you agree that all the UNCIALS are a handful, and they all date from mainly the 4th and 5th centuries.

    (b) The whole idea of 'text-types' is under serious dispute in this field. They are too 'liquid' to be nailed down, and most textual critics nowadays satisfy themselves with characterizing them as 'tendencies' .

    (c) Codeces like D (Bezae) can hardly be called a 'text-type' but are rather just a bad and perverse editing job. 80% of its worst errors are first generation/lone witness type of errors, most likely invented or created by the scribe who executed the manuscript.

    (d) While a couple of the UNCIALS have been classified as 'Alexandrian' mainly because of agreement with Codex Alexandrinus, again, the 'Alexandrian' text-type is more a deliberate editing style practised by the Egyptian 'scribe/editors'

    (e) their very divergance among themselves although described by critics as evidence of a 'wide and variable, unsolidified' textual stream (read: 'goldmine' for textual critics), in fact really reflects appalling copying and deliberate mutilation of the text. Colwell's collations (which I have here) show just how pathetic the scribes of manuscripts like P66 and P75 really are.

    Call it a thesis. Thanks for enabling me to avoid furnishing any, since you just furnished evidence yourself. Yeah this was the way the bible was done at this time --- in rich churches in busy commercial centers and for wealthy commissioning patrons.
    No. I would really like you to stop wasting my time with petty innuendos against the clear photographic evidence I provided, before even bothering to check your paranoid fantasies.

    If photographic fascimiles aren't evidence, I don't know what is.

    You're waiting for evidence, but admitting there isn't any. Please. the 'who gives a crap' seems extreme. Can you tone that down a touch?

    No. I provided photographic evidence, the best kind there is, which people can examine for themselves, instead of listening to 'professors' hoard it and explain it for them.

    You naturally feel gelded by an opponent who has literally pounds of photographs at his disposal, preventing you from having any cogent rebuttal.

    I noticed you didn't even remark upon Farmer's intelligent assessment of the photographic evidence of Vaticanus which I posted. Is he not expert enough a witness for you? Or do you feel you can provide a better explanation of the photo?
     
  9. justified

    justified Well-Known Member

    +24
    Protestant
    Photographic evidence which shows that the ending is not there. My goodness.
     
  10. Nazaroo

    Nazaroo Joseph is still alive! (Gen 45.26)

    +64
    Christian
    No one is disputing that.
    We are merely pointing out the hopeless inadequacy of the typical misleading footnotes in modern translations of the NT, suggested by the 'scholars' who want to think for us.

    As far as the one and a half blank columns in the codex Vaticanus,
    never has the argument from silence spoken more eloquently of guilty knowledge.

    Let me repeat my previous question. I think you must have missed it:

    I noticed you didn't even remark upon Farmer's intelligent assessment of the photographic evidence of Vaticanus which I posted. Is he not expert enough a witness for you? Or do you feel you can provide a better explanation of the photo?
     
  11. Nazaroo

    Nazaroo Joseph is still alive! (Gen 45.26)

    +64
    Christian
    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!
     
  12. justified

    justified Well-Known Member

    +24
    Protestant
    [heavy sigh] I hate trying to read these things. Exactly what verse does this manuscript end with?

    You are the first person I've heard suggest that the lectionary system is from the 2nd century.
     
  13. Nazaroo

    Nazaroo Joseph is still alive! (Gen 45.26)

    +64
    Christian
    But I'll wager a guess, not the last. ;)

    Peace to you, Justified. :amen:
     
  14. justified

    justified Well-Known Member

    +24
    Protestant
    right, so, what verse does the ms end with? I imagine you know since you posted it...
     
  15. Nazaroo

    Nazaroo Joseph is still alive! (Gen 45.26)

    +64
    Christian
    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.
     
  16. Nazaroo

    Nazaroo Joseph is still alive! (Gen 45.26)

    +64
    Christian
    Student Guidelines for Reading and transcribing Greek and Coptic cursives:

    1. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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!

     
  17. justified

    justified Well-Known Member

    +24
    Protestant
    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 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.
     
  18. Nazaroo

    Nazaroo Joseph is still alive! (Gen 45.26)

    +64
    Christian
    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.

    The Full Detailed Description of Codex Vaticanus from A to Z
     
  19. justified

    justified Well-Known Member

    +24
    Protestant
    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.

    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.

    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."
     
  20. Nazaroo

    Nazaroo Joseph is still alive! (Gen 45.26)

    +64
    Christian
    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.
     
Loading...