New reconstructions of Marks Ending in Aleph/B

Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by Nazaroo, Jan 22, 2011.

  1. Nazaroo

    Nazaroo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2007
    Messages:
    417
    Likes Received:
    0
    On the one hand, mr.scrivener has done a good reconstruction of the last page of Mark based on the work of James Snapp Jr, and using accurate fonts and the original photos here:

    http://nttextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2011/01/codex-vaticanus-book-borders-cont.html


    The photos are good resolution, and you can click to enlarge them.

    At the same time, there seems to be a new controversy regarding Codex Aleph (Sinaiticus): Originally, it was claimed that the second scribe "D" (also a corrector of Aleph) had replaced two pages there in exactly the same spot (the ending of Mark), and had stretched the letters to make the empty space less conspicuous.

    But on the new Sinaiticus site (British Museum photos online), at least ten consecutive pages are listed as by the corrector, scribe "D".

    Most of the rest of the manuscript, including Mark (before the ending) and Luke (after the replacement-pages) is written by scribe "A".

    It should be noted that scribe "D" replaces a handful of pages at various other points in the manuscript, and that Tischendorf attributes Judith and a few other books to him as well.

    The kicker, is that 'scribe "D"' was identified as the very same scribe that wrote Vaticanus. This is played down and denied by some, not just because of the suspicious replacement of two pages of Mark's ending, but also because it severely reduces the independence of the two manuscripts generally, and in fact would often reduce their testimony to one (MS and/or Scribe).

    It is already admitted by most critics that both manuscripts spent some time in the same scriptorium in Caesarea quite early in their history. If so, the identity of Scribe "D" in Sinaiticus as "Scribe A" of Vaticanus is quite plausible.

    But the shenanigans regarding the expansion/contraction of text to 'fill the gap' is bizzare and suspicious in any case, and suggests not only that both manuscripts knew of the long ending (Traditional ending), but that this omission by "both MSS" was part of a policy in place and enforced by the scribe of Vaticanus at the scriptorium in Caesarea in the 4th century.

    Reasonable photos of both MSS have been posted at TC-Alternate-List on Yahoo groups, for viewing, and photos of all the seams in the OT portion of Vaticanus are also online from mr. scrivener's blog.

    peace
    Nazaroo
     
  2. luke1616

    luke1616
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2010
    Messages:
    216
    Likes Received:
    0
    In plain English for this farm boy, your conclusion please?
     
  3. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    In plain English, the autographs might have been inerrant but we don't have them. It is plain silly to claim that any particular copy or edition is the perfect text with the perfect meaning. What we have is sufficient for faith and practice . . . and for making book publishers rich.
     
  4. Nazaroo

    Nazaroo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2007
    Messages:
    417
    Likes Received:
    0
    Codex Vaticanus 1209 (B) and Codex Sinaiticus (א), do not represent two independent witnesses for the omission of Mark's ending (Mk. 16:9-20).

    Both manuscripts at one time were held at a large Scriptorium in Caesarea for part of their history.

    The scribe who wrote Vaticanus and omitted Mark's ending apparently also ripped out two pages of Sinaiticus, and replaced them with pages omitting Mark's ending.

    Since one person is the source of the reading of both manuscripts, there is actually only one witness against the inclusion of the verses, the scribe of Vaticanus.

    Sinaiticus is not a witness for omitting the verses, because the original pages that he wrote are missing, and have been replaced.

    Only one 4th century manuscript out of some 2,500 surviving manuscripts omit the verses, ignoring a handful of others who seem to have been copied or translated from the text of Vaticanus.

    Since there are also earlier witnesses, (Early Fathers, Early Christian Writers from the 2nd century) who treat the ending of Mark as authentic Holy Scripture, it appears that Vaticanus' omission of the verses is a novelty, probably relating to public reading or church services.

    Whether or not Mark originally had another ending, or if it had ever been replaced with the current ending, the fact remains that Christians for almost 200 years before Vaticanus was written freely read and used and included Mark's ending when copying the Gospel of Mark.

    I hope this helps give an adequate picture for you of the textual and patristic evidence.

    peace
    Nazaroo
     
  5. Nazaroo

    Nazaroo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2007
    Messages:
    417
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have now posted a 7-article series on Codex Sinaiticus with photographs and an analysis of the "cancel-sheets" or replaced pages that contain the Ending of Mark.

    One of the most startling things about Sinaiticus is that the key pages have been lost forever, and replacement-pages were inserted even before it left the scriptorium, by another scribe.

    It appears that in this particular reading, Sinaiticus is not an 'independent' witness to omission of the text, but that this apparent omission was carried out by the same group of scribes who omitted the passage in Vaticanus.

    Here's a link to the most recent article with a new chart courtesy of Mr. Scrivener.

    http://nazaroo.blogspot.com/2011/01/sinaiticus-marks-ending-pt-7-james.html


    peace
    Nazaroo
     

Share This Page

Loading...