On the Longer Ending

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
gmx
Posts: 317
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2015 4:35 am

Re: On the Longer Ending

Post by gmx »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Thu May 24, 2018 5:52 am
gmx wrote: Thu May 24, 2018 5:23 amI guess my simplistic point is this. If we accept that the LE was missing from the majority of Gk MSS in the 4th Century, it has somehow found its way back into the vast majority of the extant Gk MSS available today. My point is, by what process has it been repatriated into our extant copies?
By your own words, it was not missing from all Greek manuscripts: just from most of them. So scribes and scholars simply copied the Longer Ending from one of the few manuscripts which contained it over to those manuscripts which lacked it. Easy peasy.

Victor of Antioch even tells us that this is exactly what he did. He accepted the Longer Ending as authoritative, apparently because it was contained in a revered manuscript of Mark extant in Palestine (κατὰ τὸ Παλαιστιναῖον εὐαγγέλιον Μάρκου); so in Victor's judgment the Greek manuscripts which contained the Longer Ending were the more accurate ones. But he agreed with Eusebius that most (not all) of the Greek manuscripts lacked it. His reaction was to append (συντεθείκαμεν) the Longer Ending, as gleaned from what he deemed to be the more accurate copies (ἐξ ἀκριβῶν ἀντιγράφων), to those copies which lacked it:

Victor of Antioch, from Cramer's Catena, volume 1: Εἰ δὲ καὶ τὸ ”αναστὰς δὲ πρωῒ” μετὰ τὰ ἐπιφερόμενα παρὰ πλείστοις ἀντιγράφοις οὐ κεῖνται ἐν τῷ παρόντι Εὐαγγελίῳ, ὡς νόθα νομίσαντες αὐτὰ εἶναι, ἀλλ’ ἡμεις ἐξ ἀκριβῶν ἀντιγράφων ἐν πλείστοις εὑρόντες αὐτὰ, καὶ κατὰ τὸ Παλαιστιναῖον Εὐαγγέλιον, ὡς ἔχει ἡ ἀλήθεια Μάρκου, συντεθείκαμεν καὶ τὴν ἐν αὐτῷ ἐπιφερομένην δεσποτικὴν ἀνάστασιν, μετὰ τὸ “ἐφοβοῦντο γὰρ,” τουτέστιν ἀπὸ τοῦ “αναστὰς δὲ πρωῒ πρώτῃ σαββάτου” καὶ καθ’ ἑξῆς, μέχρι τοῦ “διὰ τῶν ἐπακολουθούντων σημείων, ἀμήν.” / But even if the words "And having risen early" along with the words following, do not appear in the existing Gospel with most copies, as they are considered spurious, we however, having found them in most of the accurate copies, and in accordance with the Palestinian Gospel, exactly as the truth of Mark is, we have added together also that in it, that follows the Master's resurrection, after the words "for they were afraid," that is, from "and having risen early on the first day of the week" and so on, up to the words "by the signs accompanying, amen."

Thanks Ben. Interesting that Eusebius (if you accept that To Marinon expresses the personal view of Eusebius) claims the complete opposite -- that it is the accurate texts that did not include the LE. If almost all of the texts omit the LE, how does Victor possibly explain that the best texts include it? I continue to believe there is some kind of foul play involved.

Furthermore, is Palestine even on the map of likely Markan provenances? Why would a Palestinian copy of gMark be regarded as authoritative?
Last edited by gmx on Thu May 24, 2018 6:20 am, edited 1 time in total.
I saw a Naked girl ,Slowly emerge in front of me,Greek hairstyle,Very beautiful,She has a beautiful [fine] profile.; She is fine in profile. the view of profile,hard to tell.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: On the Longer Ending

Post by Ben C. Smith »

gmx wrote: Thu May 24, 2018 6:07 am
Ben C. Smith wrote: Thu May 24, 2018 5:52 am
gmx wrote: Thu May 24, 2018 5:23 amI guess my simplistic point is this. If we accept that the LE was missing from the majority of Gk MSS in the 4th Century, it has somehow found its way back into the vast majority of the extant Gk MSS available today. My point is, by what process has it been repatriated into our extant copies?
By your own words, it was not missing from all Greek manuscripts: just from most of them. So scribes and scholars simply copied the Longer Ending from one of the few manuscripts which contained it over to those manuscripts which lacked it. Easy peasy.

Victor of Antioch even tells us that this is exactly what he did. He accepted the Longer Ending as authoritative, apparently because it was contained in a revered manuscript of Mark extant in Palestine (κατὰ τὸ Παλαιστιναῖον εὐαγγέλιον Μάρκου); so in Victor's judgment the Greek manuscripts which contained the Longer Ending were the more accurate ones. But he agreed with Eusebius that most (not all) of the Greek manuscripts lacked it. His reaction was to append (συντεθείκαμεν) the Longer Ending, as gleaned from what he deemed to be the more accurate copies (ἐξ ἀκριβῶν ἀντιγράφων), to those copies which lacked it:

Victor of Antioch, from Cramer's Catena, volume 1: Εἰ δὲ καὶ τὸ ”αναστὰς δὲ πρωῒ” μετὰ τὰ ἐπιφερόμενα παρὰ πλείστοις ἀντιγράφοις οὐ κεῖνται ἐν τῷ παρόντι Εὐαγγελίῳ, ὡς νόθα νομίσαντες αὐτὰ εἶναι, ἀλλ’ ἡμεις ἐξ ἀκριβῶν ἀντιγράφων ἐν πλείστοις εὑρόντες αὐτὰ, καὶ κατὰ τὸ Παλαιστιναῖον Εὐαγγέλιον, ὡς ἔχει ἡ ἀλήθεια Μάρκου, συντεθείκαμεν καὶ τὴν ἐν αὐτῷ ἐπιφερομένην δεσποτικὴν ἀνάστασιν, μετὰ τὸ “ἐφοβοῦντο γὰρ,” τουτέστιν ἀπὸ τοῦ “αναστὰς δὲ πρωῒ πρώτῃ σαββάτου” καὶ καθ’ ἑξῆς, μέχρι τοῦ “διὰ τῶν ἐπακολουθούντων σημείων, ἀμήν.” / But even if the words "And having risen early" along with the words following, do not appear in the existing Gospel with most copies, as they are considered spurious, we however, having found them in most of the accurate copies, and in accordance with the Palestinian Gospel, exactly as the truth of Mark is, we have added together also that in it, that follows the Master's resurrection, after the words "for they were afraid," that is, from "and having risen early on the first day of the week" and so on, up to the words "by the signs accompanying, amen."

Thanks Ben. Interesting that Eusebius (if you accept that To Marinon expresses the personal view of Eusebius) claims the complete opposite -- that it is the accurate texts that did not include the LE.
Eusebius and Victor differ in their opinions of the genuineness of the Longer Ending. Of course, then, they are going to disagree in their assessments of which copies are the most accurate! How could they not?
If almost all of the texts omit the LE, how does Victor possibly explain that the best texts include it?
There are two separate questions at play, which you have conflated into a non sequitur.

First, there is the question of how Victor "knows" that the most accurate copies are those which contain the Longer Ending. This question I have already answered. (And it is right there in the quotation above.)

Second, there is the question of why, if the most accurate copies are those which contain the Longer Ending, the Abrupt Ending is the most common one among the manuscripts. Again, he gives his explanation right there in the quote. He says that the Longer Ending was considered spurious. The suggestion is that scribes or scholars (like Eusebius) removed the Longer Ending: and unjustly so, in Victor's opinion. To his way of thinking, when he appended the Longer Ending to those copies which lacked it, he was rectifying a loss, not adding an ending.
I continue to believe there is some kind of foul play involved.
What are you talking about? What kind of foul play are you envisioning?
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
gmx
Posts: 317
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2015 4:35 am

Re: On the Longer Ending

Post by gmx »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Thu May 24, 2018 6:20 am
gmx wrote: Thu May 24, 2018 6:07 am
Ben C. Smith wrote: Thu May 24, 2018 5:52 am
gmx wrote: Thu May 24, 2018 5:23 amI guess my simplistic point is this. If we accept that the LE was missing from the majority of Gk MSS in the 4th Century, it has somehow found its way back into the vast majority of the extant Gk MSS available today. My point is, by what process has it been repatriated into our extant copies?
By your own words, it was not missing from all Greek manuscripts: just from most of them. So scribes and scholars simply copied the Longer Ending from one of the few manuscripts which contained it over to those manuscripts which lacked it. Easy peasy.

Victor of Antioch even tells us that this is exactly what he did. He accepted the Longer Ending as authoritative, apparently because it was contained in a revered manuscript of Mark extant in Palestine (κατὰ τὸ Παλαιστιναῖον εὐαγγέλιον Μάρκου); so in Victor's judgment the Greek manuscripts which contained the Longer Ending were the more accurate ones. But he agreed with Eusebius that most (not all) of the Greek manuscripts lacked it. His reaction was to append (συντεθείκαμεν) the Longer Ending, as gleaned from what he deemed to be the more accurate copies (ἐξ ἀκριβῶν ἀντιγράφων), to those copies which lacked it:

Victor of Antioch, from Cramer's Catena, volume 1: Εἰ δὲ καὶ τὸ ”αναστὰς δὲ πρωῒ” μετὰ τὰ ἐπιφερόμενα παρὰ πλείστοις ἀντιγράφοις οὐ κεῖνται ἐν τῷ παρόντι Εὐαγγελίῳ, ὡς νόθα νομίσαντες αὐτὰ εἶναι, ἀλλ’ ἡμεις ἐξ ἀκριβῶν ἀντιγράφων ἐν πλείστοις εὑρόντες αὐτὰ, καὶ κατὰ τὸ Παλαιστιναῖον Εὐαγγέλιον, ὡς ἔχει ἡ ἀλήθεια Μάρκου, συντεθείκαμεν καὶ τὴν ἐν αὐτῷ ἐπιφερομένην δεσποτικὴν ἀνάστασιν, μετὰ τὸ “ἐφοβοῦντο γὰρ,” τουτέστιν ἀπὸ τοῦ “αναστὰς δὲ πρωῒ πρώτῃ σαββάτου” καὶ καθ’ ἑξῆς, μέχρι τοῦ “διὰ τῶν ἐπακολουθούντων σημείων, ἀμήν.” / But even if the words "And having risen early" along with the words following, do not appear in the existing Gospel with most copies, as they are considered spurious, we however, having found them in most of the accurate copies, and in accordance with the Palestinian Gospel, exactly as the truth of Mark is, we have added together also that in it, that follows the Master's resurrection, after the words "for they were afraid," that is, from "and having risen early on the first day of the week" and so on, up to the words "by the signs accompanying, amen."

Thanks Ben. Interesting that Eusebius (if you accept that To Marinon expresses the personal view of Eusebius) claims the complete opposite -- that it is the accurate texts that did not include the LE.
Eusebius and Victor differ in their opinions of the genuineness of the Longer Ending. Of course, then, they are going to disagree in their assessments of which copies are the most accurate! How could they not?
If almost all of the texts omit the LE, how does Victor possibly explain that the best texts include it?
There are two separate questions at play, which you have conflated into a non sequitur.

First, there is the question of how Victor "knows" that the most accurate copies are those which contain the Longer Ending. This question I have already answered. (And it is right there in the quotation above.)

Second, there is the question of why, if the most accurate copies are those which contain the Longer Ending, the Abrupt Ending is the most common one among the manuscripts. Again, he gives his explanation right there in the quote. He says that the Longer Ending was considered spurious. The suggestion is that scribes or scholars (like Eusebius) removed the Longer Ending: and unjustly so, in Victor's opinion. To his way of thinking, when he appended the Longer Ending to those copies which lacked it, he was rectifying a loss, not adding an ending.
I continue to believe there is some kind of foul play involved.
What are you talking about? What kind of foul play are you envisioning?
Ben, I genuinely intend no offense, but I believe your responses here are somewhat disingenuous.

We are talking here about men (Eusebius & Victor of Antioch) who in their own minds are tasked with preserving the inspired word of God. I do not believe that in the span of 100 years, one is excising 12 verses of the Gospel on account of it being spurious, and another is adding it on reverse grounds. We're not talking about a comic book. If there was genuine argument over the authority of the 12 verses in question, I expect we would have a more authoritative statement by many of the Fathers concerning the genuineness of the verses (cf. Marcion). We know the verses are early. We think we know most manuscripts omitted them by 300 CE. That the documentary record does not seem to reflect a great controversy in the early church on the matter defies explanation.

On the subject of "foul play", I'm not taking To Marinon or Letter to Hedibia at face value.
I saw a Naked girl ,Slowly emerge in front of me,Greek hairstyle,Very beautiful,She has a beautiful [fine] profile.; She is fine in profile. the view of profile,hard to tell.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: On the Longer Ending

Post by Ben C. Smith »

gmx wrote: Thu May 24, 2018 7:00 am
Ben C. Smith wrote: Thu May 24, 2018 6:20 am
gmx wrote: Thu May 24, 2018 6:07 am
Ben C. Smith wrote: Thu May 24, 2018 5:52 am
gmx wrote: Thu May 24, 2018 5:23 amI guess my simplistic point is this. If we accept that the LE was missing from the majority of Gk MSS in the 4th Century, it has somehow found its way back into the vast majority of the extant Gk MSS available today. My point is, by what process has it been repatriated into our extant copies?
By your own words, it was not missing from all Greek manuscripts: just from most of them. So scribes and scholars simply copied the Longer Ending from one of the few manuscripts which contained it over to those manuscripts which lacked it. Easy peasy.

Victor of Antioch even tells us that this is exactly what he did. He accepted the Longer Ending as authoritative, apparently because it was contained in a revered manuscript of Mark extant in Palestine (κατὰ τὸ Παλαιστιναῖον εὐαγγέλιον Μάρκου); so in Victor's judgment the Greek manuscripts which contained the Longer Ending were the more accurate ones. But he agreed with Eusebius that most (not all) of the Greek manuscripts lacked it. His reaction was to append (συντεθείκαμεν) the Longer Ending, as gleaned from what he deemed to be the more accurate copies (ἐξ ἀκριβῶν ἀντιγράφων), to those copies which lacked it:

Victor of Antioch, from Cramer's Catena, volume 1: Εἰ δὲ καὶ τὸ ”αναστὰς δὲ πρωῒ” μετὰ τὰ ἐπιφερόμενα παρὰ πλείστοις ἀντιγράφοις οὐ κεῖνται ἐν τῷ παρόντι Εὐαγγελίῳ, ὡς νόθα νομίσαντες αὐτὰ εἶναι, ἀλλ’ ἡμεις ἐξ ἀκριβῶν ἀντιγράφων ἐν πλείστοις εὑρόντες αὐτὰ, καὶ κατὰ τὸ Παλαιστιναῖον Εὐαγγέλιον, ὡς ἔχει ἡ ἀλήθεια Μάρκου, συντεθείκαμεν καὶ τὴν ἐν αὐτῷ ἐπιφερομένην δεσποτικὴν ἀνάστασιν, μετὰ τὸ “ἐφοβοῦντο γὰρ,” τουτέστιν ἀπὸ τοῦ “αναστὰς δὲ πρωῒ πρώτῃ σαββάτου” καὶ καθ’ ἑξῆς, μέχρι τοῦ “διὰ τῶν ἐπακολουθούντων σημείων, ἀμήν.” / But even if the words "And having risen early" along with the words following, do not appear in the existing Gospel with most copies, as they are considered spurious, we however, having found them in most of the accurate copies, and in accordance with the Palestinian Gospel, exactly as the truth of Mark is, we have added together also that in it, that follows the Master's resurrection, after the words "for they were afraid," that is, from "and having risen early on the first day of the week" and so on, up to the words "by the signs accompanying, amen."

Thanks Ben. Interesting that Eusebius (if you accept that To Marinon expresses the personal view of Eusebius) claims the complete opposite -- that it is the accurate texts that did not include the LE.
Eusebius and Victor differ in their opinions of the genuineness of the Longer Ending. Of course, then, they are going to disagree in their assessments of which copies are the most accurate! How could they not?
If almost all of the texts omit the LE, how does Victor possibly explain that the best texts include it?
There are two separate questions at play, which you have conflated into a non sequitur.

First, there is the question of how Victor "knows" that the most accurate copies are those which contain the Longer Ending. This question I have already answered. (And it is right there in the quotation above.)

Second, there is the question of why, if the most accurate copies are those which contain the Longer Ending, the Abrupt Ending is the most common one among the manuscripts. Again, he gives his explanation right there in the quote. He says that the Longer Ending was considered spurious. The suggestion is that scribes or scholars (like Eusebius) removed the Longer Ending: and unjustly so, in Victor's opinion. To his way of thinking, when he appended the Longer Ending to those copies which lacked it, he was rectifying a loss, not adding an ending.
I continue to believe there is some kind of foul play involved.
What are you talking about? What kind of foul play are you envisioning?
Ben, I genuinely intend no offense, but I believe your responses here are somewhat disingenuous.
In what way? You have me very confused.
We are talking here about men (Eusebius & Victor of Antioch) who in their own minds are tasked with preserving the inspired word of God. I do not believe that in the span of 100 years, one is excising 12 verses of the Gospel on account of it being spurious, and another is adding it on reverse grounds.
I do not believe that, either. I do not for one second believe that Eusebius excised the Longer Ending from any Marcan manuscripts.
On the subject of "foul play", I'm not taking To Marinon or Letter to Hedibia at face value.
I can understand your hesitation on the letter to Hedibia. But what do you think is going on with To Marinus?

Do you think that the Longer Ending of Mark is genuine?
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
gmx
Posts: 317
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2015 4:35 am

Re: On the Longer Ending

Post by gmx »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Thu May 24, 2018 7:10 am
gmx wrote: Thu May 24, 2018 7:00 am
Ben C. Smith wrote: Thu May 24, 2018 6:20 am
gmx wrote: Thu May 24, 2018 6:07 am
Ben C. Smith wrote: Thu May 24, 2018 5:52 am

By your own words, it was not missing from all Greek manuscripts: just from most of them. So scribes and scholars simply copied the Longer Ending from one of the few manuscripts which contained it over to those manuscripts which lacked it. Easy peasy.

Victor of Antioch even tells us that this is exactly what he did. He accepted the Longer Ending as authoritative, apparently because it was contained in a revered manuscript of Mark extant in Palestine (κατὰ τὸ Παλαιστιναῖον εὐαγγέλιον Μάρκου); so in Victor's judgment the Greek manuscripts which contained the Longer Ending were the more accurate ones. But he agreed with Eusebius that most (not all) of the Greek manuscripts lacked it. His reaction was to append (συντεθείκαμεν) the Longer Ending, as gleaned from what he deemed to be the more accurate copies (ἐξ ἀκριβῶν ἀντιγράφων), to those copies which lacked it:

Victor of Antioch, from Cramer's Catena, volume 1: Εἰ δὲ καὶ τὸ ”αναστὰς δὲ πρωῒ” μετὰ τὰ ἐπιφερόμενα παρὰ πλείστοις ἀντιγράφοις οὐ κεῖνται ἐν τῷ παρόντι Εὐαγγελίῳ, ὡς νόθα νομίσαντες αὐτὰ εἶναι, ἀλλ’ ἡμεις ἐξ ἀκριβῶν ἀντιγράφων ἐν πλείστοις εὑρόντες αὐτὰ, καὶ κατὰ τὸ Παλαιστιναῖον Εὐαγγέλιον, ὡς ἔχει ἡ ἀλήθεια Μάρκου, συντεθείκαμεν καὶ τὴν ἐν αὐτῷ ἐπιφερομένην δεσποτικὴν ἀνάστασιν, μετὰ τὸ “ἐφοβοῦντο γὰρ,” τουτέστιν ἀπὸ τοῦ “αναστὰς δὲ πρωῒ πρώτῃ σαββάτου” καὶ καθ’ ἑξῆς, μέχρι τοῦ “διὰ τῶν ἐπακολουθούντων σημείων, ἀμήν.” / But even if the words "And having risen early" along with the words following, do not appear in the existing Gospel with most copies, as they are considered spurious, we however, having found them in most of the accurate copies, and in accordance with the Palestinian Gospel, exactly as the truth of Mark is, we have added together also that in it, that follows the Master's resurrection, after the words "for they were afraid," that is, from "and having risen early on the first day of the week" and so on, up to the words "by the signs accompanying, amen."

Thanks Ben. Interesting that Eusebius (if you accept that To Marinon expresses the personal view of Eusebius) claims the complete opposite -- that it is the accurate texts that did not include the LE.
Eusebius and Victor differ in their opinions of the genuineness of the Longer Ending. Of course, then, they are going to disagree in their assessments of which copies are the most accurate! How could they not?
If almost all of the texts omit the LE, how does Victor possibly explain that the best texts include it?
There are two separate questions at play, which you have conflated into a non sequitur.

First, there is the question of how Victor "knows" that the most accurate copies are those which contain the Longer Ending. This question I have already answered. (And it is right there in the quotation above.)

Second, there is the question of why, if the most accurate copies are those which contain the Longer Ending, the Abrupt Ending is the most common one among the manuscripts. Again, he gives his explanation right there in the quote. He says that the Longer Ending was considered spurious. The suggestion is that scribes or scholars (like Eusebius) removed the Longer Ending: and unjustly so, in Victor's opinion. To his way of thinking, when he appended the Longer Ending to those copies which lacked it, he was rectifying a loss, not adding an ending.
I continue to believe there is some kind of foul play involved.
What are you talking about? What kind of foul play are you envisioning?
Ben, I genuinely intend no offense, but I believe your responses here are somewhat disingenuous.
In what way? You have me very confused.
In the sense that you seem to believe that it could be genuine, given all the other doctrinal squabbles we are so well informed about, that we only have the faintest of signatures of the orthodox church toggling the authenticity of a large portion of the Gospel, as late as 400 CE.
We are talking here about men (Eusebius & Victor of Antioch) who in their own minds are tasked with preserving the inspired word of God. I do not believe that in the span of 100 years, one is excising 12 verses of the Gospel on account of it being spurious, and another is adding it on reverse grounds.
I do not believe that, either. I do not for one second believe that Eusebius excised the Longer Ending from any Marcan manuscripts.
On the subject of "foul play", I'm not taking To Marinon or Letter to Hedibia at face value.
I can understand your hesitation on the letter to Hedibia. But what do you think is going on with To Marinus?
I think there was no such individual as Marinus. To whom, or for what purpose, Eusebius was writing, I have no idea. Perhaps a form of propaganda. I consider as suspect the assertion that it represents the viewpoint of Eusebius.
Do you think that the Longer Ending of Mark is genuine?
I don't know. I have generally tended towards the view that the original gMark did not end at 16:8, and that neither of the additions are original. But it is not a view I hold with any great conviction.
I saw a Naked girl ,Slowly emerge in front of me,Greek hairstyle,Very beautiful,She has a beautiful [fine] profile.; She is fine in profile. the view of profile,hard to tell.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: On the Longer Ending

Post by Ben C. Smith »

gmx wrote: Thu May 24, 2018 7:39 am
Ben C. Smith wrote: Thu May 24, 2018 7:10 am
gmx wrote: Thu May 24, 2018 7:00 amBen, I genuinely intend no offense, but I believe your responses here are somewhat disingenuous.
In what way? You have me very confused.
In the sense that you seem to believe that it could be genuine, given all the other doctrinal squabbles we are so well informed about, that we only have the faintest of signatures of the orthodox church toggling the authenticity of a large portion of the Gospel, as late as 400 CE.
I think you have disingenuity confused with a different concept. There is nothing disingenuous about my position, which I hold in all sincerity.

We know (quite apart from To Marinus) that Eusebius rejected the authenticity of the Longer Ending. We know that other churchmen accepted the authenticity of the Longer Ending. Thus, there was a disagreement on this issue, whether you think the record is what we should expect from such a disagreement or not.
I think there was no such individual as Marinus. To whom, or for what purpose, Eusebius was writing, I have no idea. Perhaps a form of propaganda. I consider as suspect the assertion that it represents the viewpoint of Eusebius.
Okay, let us run with that a bit. Let us assume that To Marinus is a forgery for some reason. We still know that Eusebius rejected the Longer Ending, so that does not change. And we still have Victor of Antioch, a century later, affirming that most Greek manuscripts lack that Ending. We also still know that most churchmen accepted the Longer Ending. What exactly have you gained by removing To Marinus from consideration? What changes for you?
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 2110
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: On the Longer Ending

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin »

gmx wrote: Thu May 24, 2018 5:23 am I guess my simplistic point is this. If we accept that the LE was missing from the majority of Gk MSS in the 4th Century, it has somehow found its way back into the vast majority of the extant Gk MSS available today. My point is, by what process has it been repatriated into our extant copies? Is it possible that it has been re-translated from Latin (eg Vulgate) into Greek? If so, what value can you place on the Gk style of the final product of a passage that has been translated from Gk into Latin, and Latin back into Gk, three to four hundred years apart? That is what I am contending could have occurred, if one assumes that most Gk manuscripts lacked the LE in the 4th Century, in order to arrive at the current extant manuscript evidence for the LE.

As always, I accept my arguments are naive, and happy to be corrected on any points.
I think that you raise some interesting questions, but perhaps you want to draw too many conclusions.

imho Carrier's observation is true. The Gospel of Mark and the LE have a different word choice. This observation is one of several, from which Carrier draws the conclusion that GMark and the LE were not written from the same author.

I think that your argument is unable to negate that observation, but can only provide another explanation for the differences in vocabulary. It is therefore just directed against Carrier's conclusion, but can not do anything against the correctness of the observation. It should be remembered that your assumption the LE is a retranslation is far from certain.

However, I find your reflections much more interesting with regard to the question of which battles were fought in early Christianity for the end of GMark. :cheers:
gmx
Posts: 317
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2015 4:35 am

Re: On the Longer Ending

Post by gmx »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Thu May 24, 2018 7:58 am We know (quite apart from To Marinus) that Eusebius rejected the authenticity of the Longer Ending.
Can you provide particulars of this? I was only aware or the evidence of To Marinus.
I saw a Naked girl ,Slowly emerge in front of me,Greek hairstyle,Very beautiful,She has a beautiful [fine] profile.; She is fine in profile. the view of profile,hard to tell.
gmx
Posts: 317
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2015 4:35 am

Re: On the Longer Ending

Post by gmx »

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: Fri May 25, 2018 1:05 am
gmx wrote: Thu May 24, 2018 5:23 am I guess my simplistic point is this. If we accept that the LE was missing from the majority of Gk MSS in the 4th Century, it has somehow found its way back into the vast majority of the extant Gk MSS available today. My point is, by what process has it been repatriated into our extant copies? Is it possible that it has been re-translated from Latin (eg Vulgate) into Greek? If so, what value can you place on the Gk style of the final product of a passage that has been translated from Gk into Latin, and Latin back into Gk, three to four hundred years apart? That is what I am contending could have occurred, if one assumes that most Gk manuscripts lacked the LE in the 4th Century, in order to arrive at the current extant manuscript evidence for the LE.

As always, I accept my arguments are naive, and happy to be corrected on any points.
I think that you raise some interesting questions, but perhaps you want to draw too many conclusions.

imho Carrier's observation is true. The Gospel of Mark and the LE have a different word choice. This observation is one of several, from which Carrier draws the conclusion that GMark and the LE were not written from the same author.

I think that your argument is unable to negate that observation, but can only provide another explanation for the differences in vocabulary. It is therefore just directed against Carrier's conclusion, but can not do anything against the correctness of the observation. It should be remembered that your assumption the LE is a retranslation is far from certain.

However, I find your reflections much more interesting with regard to the question of which battles were fought in early Christianity for the end of GMark. :cheers:
Thanks for the reply KK. I agree with you, my argument is merely a reinterpretation of the significance of Carrier's observation. At this stage, I don't automatically accept that the LE was missing from most Gk mss in the 4th century. But for argument's sake, if that postulate were true, one possible explanation for the non-Markan vocabulary is that it is a retranslation, rather than a simple reinstatement of the earlier Gk. The problem is clearly made more difficult by the absence of early Markan manuscript evidence.
I saw a Naked girl ,Slowly emerge in front of me,Greek hairstyle,Very beautiful,She has a beautiful [fine] profile.; She is fine in profile. the view of profile,hard to tell.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: On the Longer Ending

Post by Ben C. Smith »

gmx wrote: Fri May 25, 2018 5:08 am
Ben C. Smith wrote: Thu May 24, 2018 7:58 am We know (quite apart from To Marinus) that Eusebius rejected the authenticity of the Longer Ending.
Can you provide particulars of this? I was only aware of the evidence of To Marinus.
The Eusebian Canons go up only to Mark 16.8.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Post Reply