Last 12 Verses of Mark: Part II

[Nazaroo]

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]

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]

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:

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]

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]

'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]

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

 

[Nazaroo]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Nazaroo]

Here is a modern quick examination of Mark's Ending:

As far as external evidence is concerned, the retention of the last 12 verses of Mark's Gospel is warranted. Even granting the argument that the evidence for the shorter ending is added evidence for the omission, the evidence for omission still does not outweigh the evidence for inclusion. An EER over 600 is a very well-supported reading showing very good support from MSS, Versions, Fathers and Geographical spread. For the internal evidence, see the chapter on Internal Evidence.

This can be found here:

New Directions in Textual Criticism

 

[Nazaroo]

A Fantastic and detailed examination of the internal evidence for the Long Ending of Mark can be found here:

Internal Evidence for Long Ending

 

[justified]

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.

I would give up, realising that you are so far gone in your own world that there was no hope. Frankly, that you could even pretend to claim that you solved the synoptic problem is ridiculous. You haven't solved anything. You just pretend. Enough with it, already.

 

[Nazaroo]

Why do textual critics fight so hard against the two big passages, Mark's Ending, and the Pericope de Adultera?

Imagine what textual criticism would be without it. If it were admitted that we basically have the New Testament as it is meant to be, on every bedstand in every hotel in North America, and in every other home in the West, what need for textual criticism?

If all textual criticism can offer is a few hundred small 'fixes' here and there, some punctuation, or a remarkable comment about grammar, then it is nearly worthless. Why then should we pay 'professors' $100,000 a year with tenure and benefits when they can't even write a decent commentary on a passage of scripture?

Worse, why pay communist governments half a million dollars for a notoriously bad 5th century copy of the bible, when we have good copies aplenty?

Scandal? Surprise? No. Just a standard of morality and ethics set so low in universities and government that any rich kid can sqweak in without raising an eyebrow. Don't look for an ethical standard from these clowns.

 

[Nazaroo]

Who specifically wants to reject the ending of Mark, and why? The answer to this question is complex, but one obvious factor is the question of the theory of Markan Priority and the hypothetical document, 'Q'.

Those who wish to assert Markan Priority must eliminate the embarrassing ending of Mark, because it shows a clear knowledge of and dependance upon Luke/Acts, or at least upon the sources Luke used.

Markan Priority of course greatly simplifies the problem of authentic sources concerning the historical Christ, since that gospel preserves very few parables. Thus many find Markan Priority attractive, such as those scholars involved in the Jesus Seminar.

With most of Jesus' recorded sayings eliminated or reduced to a 'sayings source Q', which can then be equated to a 'proto-Thomas', the material has been shrunk to a virtual skeletal outline of the crucifixion of a Jewish Rabbi.

 

[holdon]

Here you can also add this to your list in support of Mark 16:9 to end.

Bible Treasury Volume 16, p. 335. September 1887.

Q. Is the close of Mark (Mark 16: 9 to the end) authentic and genuine?

A. Having long since protested against those who treat this most interesting passage and the beginning of John 8 with suspicion, I proceed to state my reasons, passing over the disputed portion in John, which has already been well defended in another place by another hand.
Even Dean Alford, who certainly does not err on the side of credulity, admits that the authority of the close of Mark is hardly to be doubted. Eusebius, and the Vat. and Sin. MSS., omit it; and several others note its absence in certain copies, but generally add, that it appears in the oldest and best. All else of the Greek MSS., all the Evangelistaria, all the Versions (except the Roman edition of the Arabic), and a large proportion of the earliest and most trustworthy Fathers are allowed to be in its favour. Lachmann, in spite of his notorious tendency to follow the very slips of the most ancient copies, edits the entire section without hesitation.
In his notes the Dean urges that the passage is irreconcilable with the other gospels, and is disconnected with what goes before; and that no less than twenty-one words and expressions occur in it (some of them repeatedly) which are never elsewhere used by Mark, whose adherence to his own phrases is remarkable, and that consequently, the internal evidence is very weighty against his authorship. That is, he believes it to be an authentic addition by another hand.
Before examining these criticisms, I must object to a reasoning which affirms or allows that to be scripture which is irreconcilable with other scriptures. If its authority be clear, every believer will feel that, with or without difficulties, all must be really harmonious. For God cannot err.
But, it is said, the diction and construction differ from the rest of the Gospel. Did the Dean or those who think with him adequately weigh the new and extraordinary circumstances which had to be recorded? In such a case strange words and phrases would be natural if Mark wrote (nor does he by any means want &#7941;&#960;&#945;&#958; &#955;&#949;&#947;&#8057;&#956;&#949;&#957;&#945; elsewhere); whereas, a supplementer, adding to Mark, would as probably have rigidly copied the language and manner of the Evangelist.
&#928;&#961;&#8061;&#964;&#8131; &#963;&#945;&#946;. (ver. 9) is alleged to be unusual. Doubtless ; yet, of the two, it is less Hebraistic than &#964;&#8134;&#962; &#956;&#953;&#8118;&#962; &#963;. (ver. 2), and each might help the other to a Gentile or a Roman ear. And, so far from being stumbled by the way Mary Magdalene is mentioned here, there seems to me much force in Jesus appearing first to her out of whom he had cast seven devils. Who so suitable first to see Him and hear from Himself the tidings of His resurrection, Who through death annuls him who had the power of death, that is, the devil ? As to the absolute use of the pronoun in 11, 12, is it not enough that the occasion here required what was needless elsewhere? — If &#960;&#959;&#961;&#949;&#965;. is found only in 10, 12, and 15, it is because the simple word best expressed what the Holy Ghost designed to say, whereas elsewhere the evangelist employed its compounds in order to convey the more graphically what was there wanted. Thus, he uses &#949;&#7984;&#963;&#960;&#959;&#961;.eight times, while Matthew, in his much larger account, has it but once. Is this the least ground for questioning Matt. 15: 17 ? So, again, Mark has &#960;&#945;&#961;&#945;&#960;&#959;&#961;.in four different chapters, Matthew once only (27: 9), Luke and John not at all. — Leaving these trivial points, the phrase &#964;&#959;&#8150;&#962; &#956;&#949;&#964;&#8125; &#945;&#8016;&#964;&#959;&#8166; is to me an argument for, rather than against, Mark's authorship. Compare with it Mark 1: 36; Mark 3: 14; and Mark 5: 40. As to &#7952;&#952;&#949;&#8049;&#952;&#951; &#8017;&#960;&#8125; &#945;&#8016;&#964;&#8134;&#962; and its difference from &#952;. &#964;&#959;&#8150;&#962; &#952;. &#945;&#8016;&#964;&#8057;&#957;, the answer is, that the word is most appropriate here and uncalled for in other places, and if the difference prove anything, it would show two hands instead of one supplementing Mark's narrative! Thus, for instance, the same verb occurs but once in all the Epistles of Paul: are we therefore, to suspect Rom. 15? Matthew has &#952;&#949;&#969;&#961;&#949;&#8061; only twice; are we for a score of such reasons as these to speculate that "another hand" added Matt. 27 and 28?
As to reiterated mention of unbelief and the Lord's upbraiding the eleven with it, what more instructive, or in better keeping with the scope of the context and of the Gospel? It was wholesome for those who were about to preach to others to learn what their own hearts were, and the Lord in His own ministry sets them right before announcing their great commission. Even if we only look at the word &#7936;&#960;&#953;&#963;&#964;&#8055;&#945;,it occurs in Mark 6: 6; Mark 9: 24. If the verb is found only in Mark 16: 11, 16, what more marvellous than Luke's having it only in his last chapter (ver. 11, 41), and never once using the substantive either in the Gospel or in the Acts of the Apostles? — It is true that &#956;&#949;&#964;&#8048; &#964;. and &#8021;&#963;&#964;&#949;&#961;&#959;&#957; are found in no other passage of Mark, but his customary precision may be one reason why the former is not more common; and the latter occurs once only in Luke and John. — It is confessed that &#964;&#8056; &#949;&#8016;&#945;&#947;. &#960;. &#964;&#8131; &#954;&#964;&#8055;&#963;&#949;&#953; isin Mark's style. The fact is, neither of the later Gospels contains the noun and Matthew always qualifies it as "the gospel of the kingdom" or "this gospel;" whereas, whether or not Mark has the qualified phrases in Mark 1: 14 and Mark 14: 9 (for MSS. etc. differ), he repeatedly has "the gospel" elsewhere, as Mark 1: 15; Mark 8: 35; Mark 10: 29; Mark 13: 10. This, then, affords no slight presumption that the passage is the genuine production of Mark, as well as authentic.
&#928;&#945;&#961;&#945;&#954;&#959;&#955;.in 17, &#7952;&#960;&#945;&#954;&#959;&#955;. in20, occur nowhere. else in Mark, and that for the best of reasons; the accuracy which the compounded forms impart was demanded here, and not before, where the simple form sufficed. And this is the less surprising, inasmuch as the former appears only in Luke's preface, and the latter nowhere else, as far as the four evangelists are concerned.
As to the singularity of &#954;&#945;&#955;&#8182;&#962; &#7957;&#958;&#959;&#965;&#963;&#953;&#957;, what simpler, seeing that this promise (as well as that about the new tongues, serpents, etc.) is revealed here only, and was unquestionably verified in the subsequent history? It is the natural converse of a common scriptural designation for the sick &#959;&#7985; &#954;&#945;&#954;&#8182;&#962; &#7956;&#967;&#959;&#957;&#964;&#949;&#962;, and if the occurrence of &#7940;&#8164;&#8165;&#969;&#963;&#964;&#959;&#962; should be here objected to, the reader may find it twice already in Mark 6, while Matthew and Paul use it each only once.
Only one further objection remains worth noticing, the use of &#954;&#8059;&#961;&#953;&#959;&#962; in 19, 20. In Mark 11: 3, I suppose it is equivalent to Jehovah, and at any rate I would not press this as in point. But the absence of such a title before seems to me a beauty, not a blemish, in Mark, whose business was to exhibit the service of Jesus. But now that God had vindicated His rejected Servant by the resurrection, now that He had made Him both "Lord" and Christ, what more natural, or even necessary, than that the same Gospel which had hitherto traced Him as the Servant, Son of God, should make Him now known as "the Lord?" But this is not all. The Lord had uttered His charge to those who were, at His bidding, to replace Him as servants, and in a world-wide sphere; He was received up to heaven, and sat on the right hand of God. Now it was Mark's place, and only Mark's to add that, while they went forth and preached everywhere, the Lord was working with them. Jesus, even as the Lord, is, if I may so say, servant still. Glorious truth! And whose hand so suited to record it as his who proved by sad experience how hard it is to be a faithful servant; but who proved also that the grace of the Lord is sufficient to restore and strengthen the feeblest? (Compare Acts 13: 13; Acts 15: 38; Col. 4: 10; 2 Tim. 4: 11.)

There is no doubt of the fact that this section had its present place in the second century, i.e., before any existing witness which omits it or questions its authorship. And even Tregelles, notoriously subservient as he was to favourite voices of antiquity and to points of detail, owns, that the very difficulties it contains (exaggerated as I have shown them to be) afford a strong presumption in its favour. Thought and expression point to Mark only. It is therefore genuine, as well as authentic.

​

 

[Nazaroo]

To add an author to that reference,
its The writings of William Kelly: Answers to Questions from the Bible Treasury Vol. 16.

And can be found here online:

Treasury Vol.16 excerpts

 

[Nazaroo]

Just to update the full description of the four-page folio of Sinaiticus (which was removed and replaced...) here is a recent and careful description of that problem with an analysis by one of the textual people on TC-List:

[ quote]
Dear Webber,

Here's what is going on in Sinaiticus.

The four-page bifolium (picture a single sheet of paper folded in the
middle so as to form four pages, like a church bulletin) on which, in
Sinaiticus, the text of Mark 14:54-Luke 1:56 appears, is a cancel-
sheet. It was not produced by the scribe who produced the
surrounding pages. It was made by the diorthotes, the supervisor who
oversaw the production of the manuscript and who was responsible for
proof-reading.

If you were to take the trouble to count the letters in the lines in
each column in this bifolium, and compare them to the usual scribe's
usual rate of letters-per-column (about 630 letters per column), you
would notice that the first column has 635 letters (congruent to the
normal rate), the second column has 650 (slightly higher than usual,
but nothing really eye-catching), and the third column has 639 (the
normal rate again). Then things get weird. Column 4 has 707
letters -- quite a significant increase! But in column 5, the number
of letters drops to 592. Column 6 has 593. Column 7 has 604.
Column 8 has 605. And in column 9, the rate of letters-per-column
drops to a staggering 552. Then column 10 has only 37 letters, but
since this is where the text of the Gospel of Mark ends, that's not
weird (since it was the normal practice to start a book at the top of
a column, it was inevitable that the preceding book would often not
end at the very bottom of the preceding column).

Now, remembering that the main scribe's average rate of letters-per-
column was about 630, let's consider the text of Luke 1:1-56 in this
bifolium (in columns 11-16). Column 11: 681. Column 12: 672.
Column 13: 702. Column 14: 687. Column 15: 725. Column 16:
679. All consistently well above the main scribe's typical rate,
right? Right. But why?

Before explaining that, let me first answer your question about the
variant in Mark 16:6, which is sort of woven into the larger question
of what the diorthotes was doing. First, the omission of "TON
NAZARHNON" is just an accidental mistake (either in the diorthotes'
exemplar, or else committed by the diorthotes), in which someone's
line of sight skipped from TON to TON. (The same mistake happens to
appear in the same passage in Codex Bezae as well.)

Next question: why wasn't "IHSOUN" contracted? Because although the
diorthotes compacted his script in column 4 (the column with 707
letters), after 15:19 that compaction stops, and instead of
compaction, we see him stretching his script -- a consistent drop of
about 30-40 letters per column at first (in columns 5, 6, 7, and 8)
but a drastic drop in column 9. It's in column 9 that Mark 16:6
occurs. So -- to answer your question -- it seems evident that the
diorthotes wrote IHSOUN in full for the same reason that he stretched
his handwriting in this portion of the text: in order to make the
text fill as much space as it possibly could.

By answering your questions I have raised another: why was the
diorthotes attempting to make the text of Mark 16 fill as much space
as it possibly could? Well that's a good question. There's only one
reason for a diorthotes to go through the trouble of making a cancel-
sheet: because he detected a major flaw in the original scribe's
work. So it seems safe to say that somewhere in Mark 14:54-Luke
1:56, the original scribe made a major mistake, and the diorthotes
took it upon himself to correct the error by means of a cancel-
sheet.

And now for some ideas about what happened next.

The diorthotes made a note of the number of columns which were, in
the rejected pages, needed for the text of Mark. (That would be 10
columns -- which, assuming that the main scribe did not compact his
handwriting, precludes the possibility that the original pages
included the Long Ending of Mark.) Then he proceeded to begin the
cancel-sheet in column 11 -- that is, instead of beginning in Mark
14, he began to write the cancel-sheet at the beginning of the Gospel
of Luke, drastically compacting the text so that, when he finally
reached the end of column 16, it would interlock smoothly with the
resuming text. (This cannot be proven, of course, but it seems
logical, since that was the most difficult part of the making of the
cancel-sheet; this way, if the diorthotes didn't achieve the desired
result, he would have only wasted the time it took to write six
columns rather than 16. Plus, if the diorthotes had not already
written the Lukan text, he would probably have finished the Markan
text in col. 9, deciding to stretch the Lukan text instead of
compacting it.)

Then the diorthotes started to write the text of Mark on the cancel-
sheet, beginning in the middle of 14:54. He wrote at a normal rate
of letters-per-column until column 4, and then began to compact his
script, and then after 15:19 (in col. 5) he stretched his script, all
the way to the end of 16:8.

Why these shifts in the rates of letters-per-column in the cancel-
sheet in Mark? One possibility is that the diorthotes vacillated
between Mark-endings: at first, his intention was to follow an
exemplar which did not contain the Long Ending (by which I mean that
it either contained the Short Ending or the Abrupt Ending). Then he
changed his mind and compacted the script, intending to include the
Long Ending after 16:8. But at 15:19, he changed his mind again and
decided to use the Abrupt Ending -- but having already compacted so
much text, he now risked reaching the end of Mark 16:8 before
reaching the end of column 9, which would have resulted in a blank
column between the end of Mark and the beginning of Luke. Regarding
such a thing as unartistic, he resorted to drastic script-stretching
(including the non-contraction of IHSOUN in 16:6) to ensure that
there would be at least a little bit of text in column 10. (It
didn't help that he, or his exemplar, accidentally skipped a chunk of
15:47-16:1!)

That's not the only possibility, though. (Instead of vacillating
about endings of Mark, he could have merely vacillated about whether
to stretch the Lukan text by starting in col. 10, or compact the
Lukan text by starting in col. 11.) And it should be emphasized that
the reason why the diorthotes made the cancel-sheet in the first
place probably had nothing to do with the ending(s) of the Gospel of
Mark, but because the main scribe had omitted text somewhere in Luke
1:1-56. It remains possible, though, that the main scribe had
perpetuated the Short Ending in addition to omitting text from Luke
1, and by making a cancel-sheet the diorthotes killed two birds with
one stone.

(Someone might wonder, "Suppose that the original pages of Sinaiticus
displayed the Short Ending at the end of column 9, and began the
Gospel of Luke at the top of column 10. Couldn't the diorthotes
proceed to make the cancel-sheet solely for the purpose of expunging
the Short Ending from the text?" The difficulty with that theory is
with the rate of letters-per-column in Luke in the cancel-sheet.
Writing at his usual rate, if the main scribe had started to write
Luke at the top of column 10 instead of at the top of column 11, he
would have reached Luke 1:56 long before reaching the end of the last
page of the bifolium. So it seems clear that whatever other features
the original pages displayed, Luke had to begin at the top of column
11.) (This does not entirely preclude, though, the possibility that
the main scribe had brought the text of Mark to a close with the
Abrupt Ending in column 9, left column 10 entirely blank, and then
started Luke.)

Somewhere in there I hope I have answered your question.

Yours in Christ,

James Snapp, Jr.
Curtisville Christian Church
Indiana (USA)
[ /quote]

What is the gist of this detailed description? This:

The two pages surrounding the Last 12 verses of Mark were deliberately removed, and replaced with two pages that are missing the last 12 verses. The obvious inference is that the original pages HAD the verses! So Sinaiticus (the original scribe) is a strong witness for the inclusion of at least some kind of ending for Mark other than the one in Vaticanus.

Enjoy!
Nazaroo

 

[Nazaroo]

Here's another tantalizing tidbit from TClist in the continuing discussion of the Ending of mark:

Eeyore:

You first wrote :

> (1) (earlier note first Since you yourself observe
> that
> this 'corrector' does not follow the habits of the
> original hand, why
> do you take the view that it *is* the original
> scribe? Many scribes
> and correctors from the same period (even
> scriptorium) can look
> alike, especially for short bursts. Here however,
> you seem to be
> sidestepping the strongest evidence for two
> different hands.

Well, my gut feeling is that the original scribe makes
the notation at 16:6, and if the original hand makes
this comment, then by extrapolation he probably makes
the other 2 (two) as well. Why? He might have placed
them in the margin for the following reasons:

1. Out of frustration, he spells out the name of
"Jesus" just in case some of his fellow scribes might
misunderstand who exactly is being announced as risen
from the dead. Especially those who might doubt its
really Jesus, if TON NARARHNON is not included.

2. The scriptorium itself may have been under pressure
to conform to a particular text, i.e., one like
Vaticanus, yet out of their fidelity to the Word, and
their own highest principles, choose to "conform,"
albeit only in the margins.


> (2) If as you pose, the corrector is also the
> original copyist, how
> can this be called a 'textual war'? Is he at war
> with himself?

My remarks above address this question to a certain
extent. But I suppose I might add that (and I'm sure
you are aware of this), there were many anathemas
being declared in those days. Conformity seems to
have been the "big idea" for the now State Church.
Even Origen of Alexandria was honoured in this way.

However, even if the original scribe in the same who
makes the marginal notation with an insertion/removal
mark, there is also aother notations which seem to me
to be done my another hand. Note the remarks that are
less "neat-n-tidy" and which are bunched-up at the end
of lines, sometimes between lines, and so forth.
That's why I suspect at least two scribes evident on
the pages of Mark. Nonetheless, there might be a
third scribe eveident in those instances where dots
have been placed above words and phrases (e.g., Mk.
9:43b). However, even in this third instance, the
meaning of the dots is not clear. My first assumption
is that they belong to some sort of ancient
text-critical apparatus. But I might be wrong. They
could be also there for emphasis.

The theory that you outline below is very plausible.

Sincerely,

Webber Young.


> Let me propose what seems to me to be a plausible

> (a) The corrector is *not* the original copyist, but
> an overseer.

> (b) The corrector uses a 'Vatican-like' exemplar or
> master copy for
> corrections. But the scribe of Sinaiticus used
> instead the 'best'
> (or the only) master copy available in the
> scriptorium where he
> worked.

> Now picture this:
>
> (1) In scriptorium 'Sinaiticus', the copyist
> executes his best copy
> from his oldest exemplar(s), following both the text
> and possibly the
> canon as he knows it.
> (2) The manuscript (possibly one of the ones
> commissioned under
> Constantine or whatever) is transported to its
> destination for final
> checking and approval.
>
> (3) There, perhaps as you suggest, it is 'edited' to
> conform to
> the 'Eusebius-approved' text or what have you.
>
> (4) Meanwhile, Codex Vaticanus is executed in
> scriptorium 'Vaticanus', from an exemplar likely a
> descendant of P75
> or some such piece of work, already having been
> edited in stages to
> conform to the 'new text standard'.
>
> (5) Its all a lovely bit of Alexandrian editing and
> massaging, but
> the result is a text that no modern textual critic
> would have
> concocted from the same evidence, using (hopefully)
> more modern
> methods and hypotheses.
>
> Just a thought,
> Eeyore.
>

 

[Joey44]

"Although there is no direct internal evidence of authorship, it was the unanimous testimony of the early church that this Gospel was written by John Mark. (From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 1488)"So, in reality, we don't really know whether Mark was the sole author of this Gospel or not.

(http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2016:9-20;&version=31;)

The above text reads: "The most reliable early manuscript and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20."

Now my concern to this corruption is who are the "ancient witnesses"?

Further regarding this Gospel, we read the following commentary about Mark 16:9-20:
"Serious doubts exists as to whether these verses belong to the Gospel of Mark. They are absent from important early manuscripts and display certain peculiarities of vocabulary, style and theological content that are unlike the rest of Mark. His Gospel probably ended at 16:8, or its original ending has been lost. (From the NIV Bible Foot Notes, page 1528)"

To say the least in my case here, how can you take bits and pieces of it and say some of it belongs to him and some of it doesn't!

If Mark wasn't the one who wrote Mark 16:9-20, then who did? And how can you prove the ownership of the other person? And as we saw in the first quote above, we don't even know that John Mark was the one who wrote the so called "Gospel of Mark".