Freethought & Rationalism Archive

chimaira · 07-05-2005, 12:35 PM

Hello all

I makes a study on marc 16,9-20 and I need subject of the specialists on this addition, and in which manuscripts marc 16, 9-20 misses, thank you for your useful assistance.

Bye bye all .

Julian · 07-05-2005, 12:54 PM

You'll need to look around. There is a lot of info to wade through. Here is a list although I cannot vouch for its accuracy:

The following sources do not have the longer ending.
c.360 A.D. Eusebius Questions to Marianus I
193-217/220 A.D. Clement of Alexandria
225-254 A.D. Origen
407 A.D. Jerome, Epistle 120
At least 6 other ancient manuscripts
Syriac
900-1000 A.D. Armenian manuscript has it, but says it was added by Aristion, whom Papias mentions
325-350 A.D. Vaticanus: blank space there. Vaticanus does not have any other blank spaces like this in the entire manuscript.
340-350 A.D. Sinaiticus: blank space there. However, According to www.LogosResourcePages.org/uncials.htm, you can see where this text was in Sinaiticus, but it was pumiced out (erased).
The following manuscripts do have the longer ending
182-188 A.D. Irenaeus Against Heresies 3:11
110-155 A.D. (disciple of Polycarp, disciple of John)
c.170 A.D. Tatian’s Diatessaron
200 A.D. Tertullian Treatise on the Soul
At least 38 ancient Bible texts
120-150 A.D. Didache
~700 A.D. on Byzantine text family
5th century Freer Gospels
400-600 A.D. Codex Bezae manuscript
The later Alexandrian manuscripts have it also.
c.450 A.D. Alexandrinus
400-500 A.D. Ephraemi Rescriptus Manuscript
3rd-4th century Bohairic Coptic
3rd-4th century Sahidic Coptic

Julian

fta · 07-05-2005, 01:28 PM

The Catholic Encylopedia article on the Gospel of Mark, while gullibly accepting the traditional authorship, includes some useful manuscript information about the tacked-on conclusion.

chimaira · 07-09-2005, 03:54 AM

Thank you very Julian and Fta :notworthy

Chris Weimer · 07-09-2005, 09:59 PM

fta - I've noticed that about NewAdvent. They have excellent information, but the conclusion is very non-sequitur. Read the Confucianism one, for example.

07-05-2005, 12:35 PM	#1
chimaira Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: France Posts: 169	The end of Marc 16 Hello all I makes a study on marc 16,9-20 and I need subject of the specialists on this addition, and in which manuscripts marc 16, 9-20 misses, thank you for your useful assistance. Bye bye all .

07-09-2005, 03:54 AM	#4
chimaira Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: France Posts: 169	hello Thank you very Julian and Fta :notworthy

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-05-2005, 12:54 PM	#2
Julian Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Washington, DC (formerly Denmark) Posts: 3,789	You'll need to look around. There is a lot of info to wade through. Here is a list although I cannot vouch for its accuracy: The following sources do not have the longer ending. c.360 A.D. Eusebius Questions to Marianus I 193-217/220 A.D. Clement of Alexandria 225-254 A.D. Origen 407 A.D. Jerome, Epistle 120 At least 6 other ancient manuscripts Syriac 900-1000 A.D. Armenian manuscript has it, but says it was added by Aristion, whom Papias mentions 325-350 A.D. Vaticanus: blank space there. Vaticanus does not have any other blank spaces like this in the entire manuscript. 340-350 A.D. Sinaiticus: blank space there. However, According to www.LogosResourcePages.org/uncials.htm, you can see where this text was in Sinaiticus, but it was pumiced out (erased). The following manuscripts do have the longer ending 182-188 A.D. Irenaeus Against Heresies 3:11 110-155 A.D. (disciple of Polycarp, disciple of John) c.170 A.D. Tatian’s Diatessaron 200 A.D. Tertullian Treatise on the Soul At least 38 ancient Bible texts 120-150 A.D. Didache ~700 A.D. on Byzantine text family 5th century Freer Gospels 400-600 A.D. Codex Bezae manuscript The later Alexandrian manuscripts have it also. c.450 A.D. Alexandrinus 400-500 A.D. Ephraemi Rescriptus Manuscript 3rd-4th century Bohairic Coptic 3rd-4th century Sahidic Coptic Julian

07-05-2005, 01:28 PM	#3
fta Regular Member Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Oceania Posts: 334	The Catholic Encylopedia article on the Gospel of Mark, while gullibly accepting the traditional authorship, includes some useful manuscript information about the tacked-on conclusion.

07-09-2005, 09:59 PM	#5
Chris Weimer Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: none Posts: 9,879	fta - I've noticed that about NewAdvent. They have excellent information, but the conclusion is very non-sequitur. Read the Confucianism one, for example.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.