Steven Avery

May I suggest the Jim Snapp website for that material. I do not 'dismiss' internal evidence, in some textual cases it is very significant.

Under this theory, with the overwhelming and varied external evidence for the ending, it is hard to see what great significance one could find in a couple of manuscripts omitting the ending, since those omissions are 200 and more years after the supposed interpolation. It is also hard to come up with a realistic scenario for the interpolation 'taking over' so completely (Greek, Old Latin, Aramaic, Vulgate, etc). This is a question that comes up in many other textual variant considerations as well.

Here I tend to agree. The real issue is the underlying paradigms and methodologies of understanding the text. There are all sorts of fundamental questions.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
Queens, NY
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Vorkosigan

You're kidding me, right? Prax, it is plain common sense that if I am an ancient copyist and I am confronting two copies of Mark, one with an ending that appears truncated, and one that does not, which ending will I choose? Further, there is a "ratchet effect" -- while that choice confronts every copyist aware of two different endings, once the Long Ending is chosen, it will remain in all further copies (who would unchoose it? Who would think to delete it and return to 16:8?). Hence, it will spread rapidly until it is found in all surviving lines.

Vorkosigan

judge

IIRC Paul tends to think jesus is not quoting the psalm. So from this perspective the Hebrew tanak is irrelevant.

Steven Avery

Even to get to that place you already have to have a copy of the longer ending in all sorts of geographical areas and languages. Somebody just stuck it in the second century, and it quickly was referenced by early church writers and took over the whole transmission line. The main evidence for this is the squirrelly situation with two fourth century manuscripts ?

As mentioned before, it is hard to separate out such theories from the overall textual view. In modern textual theory, if a verse is attested to by Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, that is virutal proof of its authenticity, even if much earlier church writers, and the overwhelming majority of lines and manuscripts disagree with the Aleph and B reading. Also if the Aleph and B reading is an error that is held in its favor. This the whole edifice that needs to be put to the wrecking ball, and then start fresh.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Vorkosigan

Yes, what's the problem? Many interpolations are widely known.

No, for there are several different endings. So it didn't in fact take over.

Here we go again. The main evidence against the Longer Ending consists of both the manuscript situation AND the internal evidence of the text. BOTH indicate the writer of Mark was not the creator of that ending.

I agree that textual judgments are driven by the models of transmission that scholars have developed. But on either model the internal evidence of Mark indicates that the Long Ending is a forgery.

Vorkosigan

Steven Avery

known in some circles, while others consider the same verses as examples of omissions.

98% or so. Jim Snapp has the best pagse on the variants. Basically there is one other, lightly attested, which itself has a variant.

Then you would do well to check other models, since you have clearly missed at least one model. Perhaps you would study the views of Professor Maurice Robinson as a start.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Doesn't this seem strange to you, if the Aramaic words are extremely close or identical ?

Vorkosigan

The transmission mdel is irrelevant. The internal evidence -- content and structure -- indicate that the original writer of Mark never wrote that. In this particular case it is not important whether you adopt the mainstream transmission models or the religiously-driven tranmission models of conservative scholars. Neither is revelant. The internal evidence trumps both.

Vorkosigan

judge

Um ..maybe.
Maybe it would be strange for jesus to quote a psalm.

I don't have a view either way myself. He may be and he may not be. I do not se any reason to automatically conclude that the psalm is being quoted.

Biut are these few brief words identical to something? If so what are they identical to? And if they are not identical then perhaps a psalm is not being quoted after all.

Steven Avery

The Aramaic Peshitta of Psalm 22:1 and

Matthew 27:46 (KJB)
And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

Mark 15:34
And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

Are very close. You can check with an Aramaic text or an Aramaic afficiondo exactly how close. This is the case whether you translate the NT verses as above or "...for this I was spared."

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic