Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Concerning the ending of Mark's Gospel
#1
April 6, 2009

I would like to know if the Minority Greek Text (e.g., Vaticanus) has any verses in Mark Chapter 16 following verse 8. I know that the Peshitta and the Vulgate both have verses 9-20. Most English translations based on the Minority text seem to waffle on this issue and present two alternative endings.

Thanks,

Otto
Reply
#2
ograabe Wrote:April 6, 2009

I would like to know if the Minority Greek Text (e.g., Vaticanus) has any verses in Mark Chapter 16 following verse 8. I know that the Peshitta and the Vulgate both have verses 9-20. Most English translations based on the Minority text seem to waffle on this issue and present two alternative endings.

Thanks,

Otto

Shlama Akhi Otto:
The Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus don't contain anything beyond Mark 16:8. I have a copy of Constantin von Tischendorf's transcription of Novum Testamentum Vaticanum, Leipzig : Giesecke et Devrient, 1867 as well as Bibliorum Codex Sinaiticus Petropolitanus : IV: Novum Testamentum cum Barnaba et Pastore, St. Petersburg : n.p., 1862. As can be seen, the Peshitta text agrees with the Majority Greek text with the inclusion of Mark 16:9-20.

Shlama,
Stephen
Reply
#3
April 6, 2009

Thanks, Stephen.

I also found the answer at <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://biblefacts.org/history/oldtext.html#codvat">http://biblefacts.org/history/oldtext.html#codvat</a><!-- m -->

"Neither Sinaiticus or Vaticanus contain the last twelve verses of Mark (Mark 16:9-20)"

Clearly, the Minority Text is the inferior text.

Otto
Reply
#4
...

Quote:Clearly, the Minority Text is the inferior text.

The St. Catherine Monks, were using the Siniaticus leaves as scratch paper when it was found by Tischendorf and I am considering other uses for my copy of the N.I.V. <!-- s:biggrin: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/biggrin.gif" alt=":biggrin:" title="Big Grin" /><!-- s:biggrin: -->

I certainly wouldnt want it to fall into the hands of believers or those who are on their way to become believers.

I've have found a site that shows all the portions of Scripture that the Westcot & Hort text type has taken away. Though I might not agree with everything this website says, it was an eye opener to see how much of the text is not in some of the major English versions. And so I ask the question.... WHAT'S IN YOUR BIBLE? <!-- sTongue --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/poketoungeb.gif" alt="Tongue" title="Poke Tounge" /><!-- sTongue -->

The link ----> <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://av1611.com/kjbp/charts/themagicmarker.html">http://av1611.com/kjbp/charts/themagicmarker.html</a><!-- m -->

...
Reply
#5
Various scholars refer to Vaticanus and Sinaiticus as the oldest Bible manuscripts, suggesting a primacy associated with their age. However, the oldest text extant may not be the most accurate. There are over 600 manuscripts of Mark that have the last 12 verses if Chapter 16 including some that are older, and only 2 ( Vaticanus and Sinaiticus) are missing them. Yet these two are given primacy because of their being the oldest whole Bibles.

Otto
Reply
#6
Thirdwoe Wrote:...

Quote:Clearly, the Minority Text is the inferior text.

The St. Catherine Monks, were using the Siniaticus leaves as scratch paper when it was found by Tischendorf and I am considering other uses for my copy of the N.I.V. <!-- s:biggrin: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/biggrin.gif" alt=":biggrin:" title="Big Grin" /><!-- s:biggrin: -->

I certainly wouldnt want it to fall into the hands of believers or those who are on their way to become believers.

I've have found a site that shows all the portions of Scripture that the Westcot & Hort text type has taken away. Though I might not agree with everything this website says, it was an eye opener to see how much of the text is not in some of the major English versions. And so I ask the question.... WHAT'S IN YOUR BIBLE? <!-- sTongue --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/poketoungeb.gif" alt="Tongue" title="Poke Tounge" /><!-- sTongue -->

The link ----> <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://av1611.com/kjbp/charts/themagicmarker.html">http://av1611.com/kjbp/charts/themagicmarker.html</a><!-- m -->

...

Interesting akhi, do you know where I can find a citing for this? I wonder how many other Greek mss have torn out leaves/scratched off text, and how many of them are being used to translate the NT. <!-- s:biggrin: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/biggrin.gif" alt=":biggrin:" title="Big Grin" /><!-- s:biggrin: -->
Shalom, Shlama, Salaam & Yiasou.
Reply
#7
...

Sorry, I was confusing another story I read about some old Biblical manuscripts.

Tichendorf said that he first found the Siniaticus leaves in the Monistaries trash basket, and that they were being burned in the fireplace...the monks must have not thought to highly of the document me thinks....anyone that knows will tell you, that the manuscrpit is a real mess, with many corrections and mistakes and such. The good copies were used and reused to copy more copies and thus they wore out. This one was not used because of its corruptions and eventually it found a better use by the monks...to make a fire.

For this information, just Google "Siniaticus found in the trash."

...
Reply
#8
I found this concerning the St. Catherine Monks Sinaiticus "bonfire":

Quote:The Incredible Discovery
In 1844, the German scholar Constantine Tischendorf was touring the East in search of old manuscripts, that is, documents written by hand. In the library of the monastery of St. Catherine at Mt. Sinai he noticed a basket filled with pages of an old manuscript. Tischendorf was shocked! This was the oldest Greek writing this seasoned scholar had ever seen, and the pages were from the Greek Old Testament. Taking 43 pages out of the basket, Tischendorf asked the librarian about them. To his horror he learned the pages had been placed in the trash basket for fuel, and two basket loads of such papers had already been burned! Though the monks admitted there were more pages of the manuscript, Tischendorf's enthusiasm made them wary, and they would not show him any more. They did allow Tischendorf to take the 43 pages he had rescued with him, however, and Tischendorf urged the monks to use something else in their fires!

Link from: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.christianhistorytimeline.com/GLIMPSEF/Glimpses/glmps055.shtml">http://www.christianhistorytimeline.com ... s055.shtml</a><!-- m -->

Could this be the reason Sinaiticus is missing those verses in Mark's Gospel? <!-- s:biggrin: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/biggrin.gif" alt=":biggrin:" title="Big Grin" /><!-- s:biggrin: --> . Dunno how to explain Vaticanus as it seems no one knows for sure which "Monastery garbage can" it was pulled from <!-- s:lol: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/laugh.gif" alt=":lol:" title="Laugh" /><!-- s:lol: --> . As for scratched off text, I found this:

Quote:Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus (Paris, National Library Greek 9; Gregory-Aland no. C or 04, von Soden ?? 3) is an early 5th century Greek manuscript of the Bible,[1] the last in the group of the four great uncial manuscripts of the Greek Bible (see Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Alexandrinus and Codex Vaticanus). It receives its name, as a codex in which the treatises of Ephraem the Syrian, in Greek translations, were written over ("rescriptus") a former text that had been washed off its vellum pages, thus forming a palimpsest.[1] The later text was produced in the 12th century. The effacement of the original text was incomplete, fortunately, for beneath the text of Ephraem are the remains of what was once a complete Bible, containing both the Old Testament and the New. It forms one of the codices for textual criticism on which the Higher criticism is based.

Link from: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Ephraemi_Rescriptus">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Ephraemi_Rescriptus</a><!-- m -->

And the Zorbans say that texts like these are superior to the Peshitta? <!-- s:dontgetit: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/dontgetit.gif" alt=":dontgetit:" title="Dont Get It" /><!-- s:dontgetit: -->
Shalom, Shlama, Salaam & Yiasou.
Reply
#9
Sounds a lot like "Old Scratch"....it would seem that the worse shape a manuscript is in, the less the scribes revered it.....the more valuable it is to the empty suits sitting on high chairs in academia.
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#10
Yeah, and isn't it ironic that while the Aramaic gospel text was scratched off to write about St. Thecla, a Latin saint but the Greek text of Codex Ephraemi was scratched off to write about Mar Ephraim, a Syrian saint? Hilarious!
Shalom, Shlama, Salaam & Yiasou.
Reply
#11
According to <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.linguistsoftware.com/codexvat.htm">http://www.linguistsoftware.com/codexvat.htm</a><!-- m -->

"The Codex Vaticanus B (Vat. Gr. 1209, written in the fourth century) is considered to be the oldest extant copy of the Bible, and is, along with the Codex Sinaiticus, one of the two main witnesses supporting modern Greek texts and English translations. It contains in Greek most of the Old Testament with the Apocrypha (excluding 1 and 2 Maccabees and the Prayer of Manasses) and most of the New Testament. Codex B is believed to have reached the West in 1483, during the Council of Florence, as a gift from the Byzantine Emperor Giovanni VIII to Pope Eugenio IV. "

A color facsimile is available for study by scholars. This volume of 1560 pages was not found in a trash can!

Otto
Reply
#12
Well this is good to know, though that little image from Hebrews that akhan Paul posted way before I joined this forum sure bugs me a lot.
Shalom, Shlama, Salaam & Yiasou.
Reply
#13
...

If one were bi-lingual in Greek and Aramaic, one could see if the Codex Vaticanus squares up nicely with the Peshitta text. And one could then see how close the readings are with Siniaticus vs Vaticanus.

And then one, if one knows the English language as well, could tell us English speakers what they found.

Mr. Bauscher tells that the Peshitta text lines up with the Byzantine text type 70% of the time; while it does so with the Alexandrian text type 30%...The Vaticanus & Siniaticus are of the Alexandrian text type family.

And...of the thousands of Greek manuscript copies that have been discovered. 95% represent the Byzantine text type readings, while the Alexandiran text type accounts for 5% of the readings.

This means that those Egyptian copies weren???t copied so much. This seems to me to suggest that they were not considered to be of much value all through the ages, while the others were.

It is also of note, since we are on the subject, that the Roman Catholic institution had Jerome use the Alexandrian text type for its Latin Vulgate translation.

The Byzantine text type, also known as the Syrian or Antiochian text type, was what the Greek Eastern Orthodox and the Protestant groups went with.

The believers in Antioch were the first to be called "Christians". And around the same time and after, in Egypt, there were those who were first called "Gnostics"

Could there be any connection?

...
Reply
#14
Thirdwoe Wrote:...

If one were bi-lingual in Greek and Aramaic, one could see if the Codex Vaticanus squares up nicely with the Peshitta text. And one could then see how close the readings are with Siniaticus vs Vaticanus.

And then one, if one knows the English language as well, could tell us English speakers what they found.

Mr. Bauscher tells that the Peshitta text lines up with the Byzantine text type 70% of the time; while it does so with the Alexandrian text type 30%...The Vaticanus & Siniaticus are of the Alexandrian text type family.

And...of the thousands of Greek manuscript copies that have been discovered. 95% represent the Byzantine text type readings, while the Alexandiran text type accounts for 5% of the readings.

This means that those Egyptian copies weren???t copied so much. This seems to me to suggest that they were not considered to be of much value all through the ages, while the others were.

This is a Greek Orthodox explanation of why they still prefer the Byzantine/Majority Text over the Alexandrian/Minority Text:

Although there are good scholarly arguments both for and against using the Byzantine Majority Text over the Critical Text, many Orthodox hierarchs and theologians take the following into consideration:

* When a scribe had a choice of manuscripts to copy, he would normally copy the one that he trusted the most, thus causing the most trusted text to be copied more often;
* The Holy Spirit takes an active interest in preserving what He has inspired and in what the Church has used for her liturgical life. At the very least, the Byzantine textual tradition reflects ???the life of the Spirit in the Church??? and can be considered ???the ecclesiastical text??? and an assured witness.
(The Eastern / Greek Orthodox Bible, Volume III: The New Testament, Introduction).

Thirdwoe Wrote:It is also of note, since we are on the subject, that the Roman Catholic institution had Jerome use the Alexandrian text type for its Latin Vulgate translation.

The Byzantine text type, also known as the Syrian or Antiochian text type, was what the Greek Eastern Orthodox and the Protestant groups went with.

True, though the LXX version the Orthodox use is Alexandrian not Byzantine, this is a link to the official Greek Othodox LXX, published by the church of Greece: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.apostoliki-diakonia.gr/bible/bible.asp?contents=old_testament/contents.asp&main=OldTes">http://www.apostoliki-diakonia.gr/bible ... ain=OldTes</a><!-- m -->.

Thirdwoe Wrote:The believers in Antioch were the first to be called "Christians". And around the same time and after, in Egypt, there were those who were first called "Gnostics"

Could there be any connection?

...

Hmm... could be.
Shalom, Shlama, Salaam & Yiasou.
Reply
#15
...

I???m not sure that the Septuagint has a Byznatine text type like the NT, unless I am un-informed. There was always just one Septuagint text I think, while there were other Greek OT translations made, I don't think that there was a separate text type tradition like there is in the Greek NT.

And even in the Greek NT, until the 1880's when W&H took to edit the NT based on the new found Alexandrian texts, there was always in English, the Greek as found in the Byzantine Text.

So this "critical text" is a relatively new development, based on some missing verses not found in a handful of manuscripts out of thousands of the others.

How much is missing? Try about 30 whole verses through out the NT and a total word count that would add up to the whole books of 1st & 2nd Peter.

If interested below are a few links...the 1st shows what is not present in some new English NT's based upon the Westcot & Hort "Alexandrian text". And no, (I'm not a KJV only nut) it???s just the only site I have found that shows this in an easy format, and the 2nd is an English translation straight from the Siniaticus.

Some say that there is no doctrine destroyed if one was to use only the Alexandrian text type, but there is the fact that in both Matt 17:21 which is missing in Siniaticus, and Mark 9:29, which lacks the rest of the verse, where it says "...and fasting" at the end, it seems to me that if this statement is true and that Messiah declared this, then no one would be fasting in this instance, just praying, if all they knew as Scripture was this "critical text".

1st: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://av1611.com/kjbp/charts/themagicmarker.html">http://av1611.com/kjbp/charts/themagicmarker.html</a><!-- m -->

2nd: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.sinaiticus.com/">http://www.sinaiticus.com/</a><!-- m -->

...
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)