DOCSLIB.ORG

The Authenticity of Mark 16:9-20

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Authenticity of Mark 16:9-20 The Authenticity of Mark 16:9-20 © 2007 James Edward Snapp, Jr. [Permission is granted to reproduce this material, except for the essay by Dr. Bruce Terry in chapter 15, in electronic form (as a computer-file) and to make printouts on a computer-printer.] Considerable effort has been made to accurately cite sources throughout this composition, including materials in the public domain. If somehow an author’s work has not been adequately credited, the author or publisher is encouraged to contact me so that the oversight may be amended. - J.E.S. Be sure to consult the footnotes as you go. Some of them significantly clarify or reinforce the text. TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER ONE: Preface (and Notes About Canonicity and Earlier Studies) PART ONE: EXTERNAL EVIDENCE CHAPTER TWO: External Evidence: A Panoramic View CHAPTER THREE: Patristic Evidence CHAPTER FOUR: Lectionary Evidence CHAPTER FIVE: Versional Evidence CHAPTER SIX: A Review of External Evidence CHAPTER SEVEN: Vaticanus and Sinaiticus CHAPTER EIGHT: Codex Bobiensis and the Short Ending CHAPTER NINE: The Long Ending’s Presence in Separate Text-types CHAPTER TEN: The Close Relationships of Witnesses Against the Long Ending CHAPTER ELEVEN: Sixty Early Witnesses PART TWO: MISCELLANEOUS OBSERVATIONS CHAPTER TWELVE: How to Lose an Ending CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Explaining the External Evidence PART THREE: INTERNAL EVIDENCE CHAPTER FOURTEEN: “Efobounto Gar” CHAPTER FIFTEEN: The Style of the Long Ending of Mark (by Dr. Bruce Terry) CHAPTER SIXTEEN: A Detailed Look at Internal Evidence Appendix One: A List of Technical Terms and an Explanation of Some Symbols Appendix Two: Mark and Proto-Mark Appendix Three: Some Doctrinal Facets of the Issue Footnotes CHAPTER ONE: Preface For centuries, the Christian church has regarded Mark 16:9-20, the “Long Ending” of Mark (a.k.a. the “Longer Ending”) as part of the New Testament. However, in 1881 B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort, reinforcing the conclusions of some scholars who preceded them, presented evidence which has convinced many people that the Gospel of Mark originally did not contain these verses.1-a Today most commentators deny, often almost casually, that Mark 16:9-20 was an original part of the Gospel of Mark. 1-b That view has affected modern Bible translations and may affect them more noticeably in the future. 1-c I contend, however, that the modern consensus is largely the result of a pandemic of commentators’ exaggerations and inaccuracies, and that the external and internal evidence build a strong cumulative case that Mark 16:9-20 was originally present in the Gospel of Mark when it was first published for church use. The statement that Mark 16:9-20 was originally present in the Gospel of Mark at that point is not the same as a statement that Mark wrote these 12 verses immediately after writing the preceding part of the book. I propose that Mark unintentionally stopped writing at the end of 16:8, leaving the unpublished and unfinished text to his surviving colleagues in Rome. These colleagues, not desiring to publish the book in its incomplete state, and simultaneously hesitant to create an ending from their own minds, decided to attach a short composition which Mark had written previously -- a composition which summarized the post-resurrection appearances of Christ. That short composition is what we known today as Mark 16:9-20. I also propose that this passage was lost from a narrow channel of textual transmission either due to an accidental loss -- that is, the loose page containing the text of the resurrection- accouonts was disconnected from the main scroll, and was lost -- or because a copyist in the second century recognized this short composition as what it had originally been -- that is, a separate composition -- he excised it from the text of the Gospel of Mark. This loss affected the transmission-stream in Egypt, from which descended all extant manuscripts which attest to the abrupt ending of the book at 16:8. Because, as I will show, the evidence favors the theory that this passage was originally present in the book, its legitimacy as part of the canonical text should not be questioned, even if questions about its authorship remain. 1-d That is the main argument of this book. A secondary point runs along these lines: the loss occurred to the archetype itself, before a copy was made which reached Ephesus in the late first century. This copy at Ephesus contained the Abrupt Ending (that is, the ending at the end of 16:8). Some copies of the Gospel of Mark were made at this stage, and were sent to Egypt where they were recopied and disseminated. Meanwhile in Ephesus, John composed a text resembling John 21:1-19 (which I shall call the “Johannine Ending”) to complete the Markan narrative which ended at 16:8. Only shortly thereafter, however, a complete copy of the Gospel of Mark, containing the Long Ending, reached Ephesus from Rome. The Johannine Ending was removed from the Gospel of Mark, and briefly became a “floating” text which was soon incorporated into John 21. Later, in the second century, the Short Ending was composed as a flourish for a copy in Egypt which was descended from a copy which had displayed the Abrupt Ending. This theory is more detailed than, but basically identical, in its first part, to the theory proposed by G.F. Maclear in 1877 that the Long Ending was added by someone other than Mark before the Gospel of Mark was published (see footnote 1-n). A NOTE ABOUT THE CANONICITY OF THE LONG ENDING Some researchers, including even some who believe that Mark did not write verses 9-20, nevertheless consider these verses a canonical text which the Lord has used to instruct His church.1- e Canonicity does not preclude co-authorship; I am confident that the Long Ending was written by Mark as a freestanding summary of Christ’s post-resurrection appearances -- perhaps as a liturgical or catechetical tool. But even if someone else wrote it, as part of a final revision prior to the publication of the Gospel of Mark, both authors’ work are part of the original text, and both are canonical. Some scholars, especially Roman Catholic scholars, say that the longstanding acceptance and usage of Mark 16:9-20 and the pronouncements of the Council of Trent1-f make it “canonically authentic” regardless of its authorship and date. However, if we were to embrace every form of Biblical text which God has used to bless the church, we would have to embrace several forms, with competing variations. Only one text can be the original inspired text written by the authors at any given point where the manuscripts differ -- and for this reason, discussion about the original form of the text of the Gospel of Mark should matter, and do matter. The contents of Mark 16:9-20 are historically and doctrinally significant. Martin Luther quoted 16:16 with great emphasis.1-g The fellowship of Churches of Christ and Christian Churches has used Mark 16:16 to augment the case for baptism for the forgiveness of sins.1-h Some Pentecostal and Charismatic groups, for better or for worse, have appealed to 16:17-18 to support various practices.1-i Most variants are of no doctrinal significance, but this one definitely is.1-j Although a theological case for the passage’s canonicity may be made based on its widespread use, dogmatically asserted inclusion, and other factors, the purpose of this essay is to employ a text-critical approach to demonstrate that, as a textual variant, the presence of 16:9-20 in the Gospel of Mark explains the rise of other variants better than other variants explain the rise of 16:9-20, and therefore this passage should be received as part of the original, canonical text of the Gospel of Mark. A NOTE ABOUT EARLIER STUDIES OF THIS ISSUE Many commentators on the Gospel of Mark have gotten their facts wrong when describing the evidence related to 16:9-20. 1-k Others have uncritically echoed the sentiment made in 1881 by Hort. 1-l Others have presented facts in ways that are highly misleading and needlessly vague. This is especially true regarding descriptions of the external evidence – manuscripts, early versions, and usage or non-usage of the passage by early church writers. In order to rectify this situation, in chapters 2-11 I will describe the external evidence. I will refer to the main variants as the Short Ending (SE, a brief one-verse conclusion), the Abrupt Ending (AE, in which 16:8 is the last verse of Mark), and the Long Ending (LE, Mark 16:9-20).1-m In chapters 12-14 I will review several hypotheses that attempt to account for the external evidence. Then in chapters 15-16 I will examine internal evidence, with a supplemental essay by Dr. Bruce Terry. Along the way, I will provide evidence and argumentation to show that the probability that the LE was an original part of the Gospel of Mark is greater than the opposite scenario. 1-n PART ONE: EXTERNAL EVIDENCE Chapter Two: The External Evidence - A Panoramic View EXTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE LONG ENDING It is sometimes said that only two out of 620 Greek manuscripts of the Gospel of Mark are 2-a missing the last twelve verses. That estimate can be improved. Today the list of Greek MSS containing the Gospel of Mark is over 1,500. It is still essentially true that only two Greek manuscripts clearly display the abrupt ending of Mark at the end of 16:8.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • University of Birmingham the Garland of Howth (Vetus Latina
    University of Birmingham The Garland of Howth (Vetus Latina 28): A Neglected Old Latin witness in Matthew Houghton, H.A.G. License: Other (please specify with Rights Statement) Document Version Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record Citation for published version (Harvard): Houghton, HAG 2019, The Garland of Howth (Vetus Latina 28): A Neglected Old Latin witness in Matthew. in G Allen (ed.), The Future of New Testament Textual Scholarship From H. C. Hoskier to the Editio Critica Maior and Beyond. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, vol. 417, Mohr Siebeck, pp. 247-264. Link to publication on Research at Birmingham portal Publisher Rights Statement: Checked for eligibility: 25/02/2019 Houghton , H. A. G. (2019) The Garland of Howth (Vetus Latina 28): A Neglected Old Latin witness in Matthew. In G. V. Allen (Ed. ), The future of New Testament textual scholarship (pp. 247-264). Tübingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck. For non commercial use only. General rights Unless a licence is specified above, all rights (including copyright and moral rights) in this document are retained by the authors and/or the copyright holders. The express permission of the copyright holder must be obtained for any use of this material other than for purposes permitted by law. •Users may freely distribute the URL that is used to identify this publication. •Users may download and/or print one copy of the publication from the University of Birmingham research portal for the purpose of private study or non-commercial research. •User may use extracts from the document in line with the concept of ‘fair dealing’ under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (?) •Users may not further distribute the material nor use it for the purposes of commercial gain.
    [Show full text]
  • This Thesis Has Been Submitted in Fulfilment of the Requirements for a Postgraduate Degree (E.G
    This thesis has been submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for a postgraduate degree (e.g. PhD, MPhil, DClinPsychol) at the University of Edinburgh. Please note the following terms and conditions of use: • This work is protected by copyright and other intellectual property rights, which are retained by the thesis author, unless otherwise stated. • A copy can be downloaded for personal non-commercial research or study, without prior permission or charge. • This thesis cannot be reproduced or quoted extensively from without first obtaining permission in writing from the author. • The content must not be changed in any way or sold commercially in any format or medium without the formal permission of the author. • When referring to this work, full bibliographic details including the author, title, awarding institution and date of the thesis must be given. SCRIBAL HABITS IN CODEX SINAITICUS, VATICANUS, EPHRAEMI, BEZAE, AND WASHINGTONIANUS IN THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW GREGORY SCOTT PAULSON A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH, NEW COLLEGE IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY EDINBURGH, UK 2013 The thesis has been composed by the candidate and is the candidate’s own work. Gregory Scott Paulson, Ph.D. candidate ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Title Page..................................................................................................... i Declaration................................................................................................... ii Table of Contents........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Textual Variation: Theological and Social Motivation
    University of Birmingham An Introduction to Greek New Testament Commentaries with a Preliminary Checklist of New Testament Catena Manuscripts Houghton, Hugh; Parker, David License: None: All rights reserved Document Version Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record Citation for published version (Harvard): Houghton, H & Parker, D 2016, An Introduction to Greek New Testament Commentaries with a Preliminary Checklist of New Testament Catena Manuscripts. in H Houghton (ed.), Commentaries, Catenae and Biblical Tradition., 1, Texts and Studies third series, no. 3.13, Gorgias Press, Piscataway, NJ, pp. 1-36, The Ninth Birmingham Colloquium on the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, Birmingham, United Kingdom, 2/03/15. <http://gorgiaspress.com/bookshop/download/Commentaries,%20Catenae%20and%20Biblical%20Tradition.pdf > Link to publication on Research at Birmingham portal Publisher Rights Statement: Eligibility for repository: Checked on 10/5/2016 General rights Unless a licence is specified above, all rights (including copyright and moral rights) in this document are retained by the authors and/or the copyright holders. The express permission of the copyright holder must be obtained for any use of this material other than for purposes permitted by law. •Users may freely distribute the URL that is used to identify this publication. •Users may download and/or print one copy of the publication from the University of Birmingham research portal for the purpose of private study or non-commercial research. •User may use extracts from the document in line with the concept of ‘fair dealing’ under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (?) •Users may not further distribute the material nor use it for the purposes of commercial gain.
    [Show full text]
  • Making Sense of the End of Mark Pastor Russ Reaves Immanuel Baptist Church, Greensboro, NC January 27, 2009
    Making Sense of the End of Mark Pastor Russ Reaves Immanuel Baptist Church, Greensboro, NC January 27, 2009 Anyone who has ever read the Gospel of Mark carefully has likely noticed that most Bibles contain a footnote, a marginal note, or some other device or feature to indicate that there are questions about the authenticity of Mark 16:9-20. Almost every modern English version does in some way. Following are some examples of how this is done: • A bracketed heading before verses 9-20 which states, “The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20.” 1 • A footnote containing explanations similar to the following: “Some of the earliest manuscripts (or “mss.”) do not contain verses (or “vv.”) 9-20.” 2 • A footnote that reads, “Verses 9 through 20 are not found in the most ancient manuscripts, but may be considered an appendix giving additional facts.” 3 • A heading before verses 9-20 which reads, “An Ancient Appendix” or something similar. 4 • A footnote that offers a more detailed description of the situation, such as the following or similar: “Vv. (verses) 9-20 are bracketed in NU (an abbreviation for the Greek text known as Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament and United Bible Societies Greek New Testament ) as not original. They are lacking in Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus (two Greek manuscripts dating to the fourth century), although nearly all other mss. (manuscripts) of Mark contain them.” 5 • Bracketing around verses 9-20, with an explanatory notation in the footnotes stating, “Mark 16:9-20 [the portion in brackets] is contained only in later manuscripts,” or similar.
    [Show full text]
  • The Ending of the Gospel of Mark
    The ending of Mark A Textual Commentary on the Greek Gospels Vol. 2b The various endings of Mk BY WIELAND WILLKER Bremen, online published th 12 edition 2015 © all rights reserved Contents: The manuscript evidence ...................................................................................................... 3 Discussion of the external evidence ................................................................................. 4 Introductory comments in the manuscripts .................................................................... 6 Church fathers evidence ...................................................................................................... 8 Arguable evidence from the fathers .............................................................................. 13 Can a book end with ga.r? .................................................................................................... 17 Excursus: Attempts to reconstruct a lost ending ....................................................... 18 General Discussion .............................................................................................................. 22 Important literature .......................................................................................................... 24 Other various literature ................................................................................................... 25 The short ending ................................................................................................................. 27
    [Show full text]
  • New Testament Textual Criticism: the Application of Thoroughgoing Principles Supplements to Novum Testamentum
    New Testament Textual Criticism: The Application of Thoroughgoing Principles Supplements to Novum Testamentum Editors M.M. Mitchell Chicago D.P. Moessner Dubuque Editorial Board L. Alexander, Sheffield – F. Bovon, Cambridge MA C. Breytenbach, Berlin J.K. Elliott, Leeds – C.R. Holladay, Atlanta M.J.J. Menken, Tilburg – J. Smit Sibinga, Amsterdam J.C. Thom, Stellenbosch – P. Trebilco, Dunedin VOLUME 137 New Testament Textual Criticism: The Application of Thoroughgoing Principles Essays on Manuscripts and Textual Variation By J.K. Elliott LEIDEN • BOSTON 2010 This book is printed on acid-free paper. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Elliott, J. K. (James Keith) New Testament textual criticism : the application of thoroughgoing principles : essays on manuscripts and textual variation / by J.K. Elliott. p. cm. — (Supplements to Novum Testamentum, ISSN 0167-9732 ; v. 137) Includes index. “Publications by J.K. Elliott”—P. ISBN 978-90-04-18952-2 (hardback : alk. paper) 1. Bible. N.T.—Criticism, Textual. I. Title. BS2325.E49 2010 225.4’046—dc22 2010039950 ISSN 0167-9732 ISBN 978 90 04 18952 2 Copyright 2010 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints BRILL, Hotei Publishing, IDC Publishers, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers and VSP. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Brill has made all reasonable efforts to trace all right holders to any copyrighted material used in this work. In cases where these efforts have not been successful the publisher welcomes communications from copyright holders, so that the appropriate acknowledgements can be made in future editions, and to settle other permission matters.
    [Show full text]
  • Year C 2021/2022
    Year C 2021/2022 Year C focuses on the Gospel of Luke. The semi-continuous Old Testament readings are of prophetic proclamation chosen in chronological order and highlighting Jeremiah. The second, New Testament, readings are chosen mainly from Galatians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Timothy and 2 Thessalonians. Advent Christmas Nov. 25, 2021 through Dec. 23, 2021 Dec. 24, 2021 through Jan. 6, 2022 Time after Epiphany Lent Jan. 7 through Mar. 1, 2022 Mar. 2 through Apr. 13, 2022 The Three Days Easter Apr. 14 through Apr. 16, 2022 Apr. 17 through June 8, 2022 Time after Pentecost June 9 through Nov. 23, 2022 YEAR C 2021/2022 – Advent This Church Year Calendar, Propers, and Daily Lectionary uses the Revised Common Lectionary as it appears in Evangelical Lutheran Worship (2006). Scripture references are from the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible. The appointed psalm refrain for Sundays and festivals comes from the verse in parentheses. DAY AND DATE FIRST READING SECOND READING PSALM Thu – Nov 25 Nehemiah 9:6-15 1 Thessalonians 5:1-11 Psalm 25:1-10 Thu. Nov. 25 — Day of Thanksgiving (U.S.A.) Readings Deuteronomy 8:7-18 Psalm 65 (3) 2 Corinthians 9:6-15 Luke 17:11-19 Prayer of the Day Almighty God our Father, your generous goodness comes to us new every day. By the work of your Spirit lead us to acknowledge your goodness, give thanks for your benefits, and serve you in willing obedience, through Jesus Christ, our Savior and Lord. Gospel Acclamation Alleluia. God is able to provide you with every blessing | in abundance, so that by always having enough of everything, you may share abundantly in ev- | 'ry good work.
    [Show full text]
  • Pericope Adulterae 1/20
    András Handl: Tertullianus on the Pericope Adulterae 1/20 TERTULLIANUS ON THE PERICOPE ADULTERAE (JOHN 7,53–8,11) Abstract Although Terullianus is deeply engaged in discussions on Christian marriage, adultery, and on the remission of (grave) sins, he never addressed the story of the woman caught in adultery known today from the Gospel of John. This essay argues that his silence cannot be explained by suppression because of the explosive nature of the story in relation to penitential discipline and to his own views and arguments. Rather, it proposes that the pericope adulterae was unknown in Carthage at his time. 1. Introduction The story of the woman caught in adultery in the Gospel of John (7,53–8,11) represents one of the most mysterious New Testament passages. Omitted in early manuscripts, the circulation and dissemination of the pericope adulterae (henceforth the PA) is controversially discussed. Already C. R. Gregory (1846–1917) claimed that the PA had been “very often read, and especially at a very early time.”1 H. Riesenfeld (1913–2008) assessed that the Latin translation of the passage ”appears sporadically before the Vulgate and then in the entire Vulgate tradition.”2 This judgement has been criticised by T. O'Loughlin. Based on the number of extant Vetus Latina fragments, he came to the conclusion that the PA “was more likely [included] than not to have been present [in the Vetus Latina] prior to the dominance of the Vulgate.”3 According to J. W. Knust, “the pericope was present only in a few copies of John in the early second century―which seems to be a likely conclusion given the patristic and manuscript evidence.”4 In a statement―often considered as the actual communis opinio―, B.
    [Show full text]
  • Kilpatrick' Greek New Testament Edition of 1958
    Early Readers, Scholars and Editors of the New Testament Texts and Studies 11 Series Editor H. A. G. Houghton Editorial Board Jeff W. Childers Christina M. Kreinecker Alison G. Salvesen Peter J. Williams Text and Studies is a series of monographs devoted to the study of Biblical and Patristic texts. Maintaining the highest scholarly standards, the series includes critical editions, studies of primary sources, and analyses of textual traditions. Early Readers, Scholars and Editors of the New Testament Papers from the Eighth Birmingham Colloquium on the Textual Criticism of the New Testament Edited by H. A. G. Houghton 2014 Gorgias Press LLC, 954 River Road, Piscataway, NJ, 08854, USA www.gorgiaspress.com Copyright © 2014 by Gorgias Press LLC All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning or otherwise without the prior written permission of Gorgias Press LLC. 2014 ܚ ISBN 978-1-4632-0411-2 ISSN 1935-6927 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Birmingham Colloquium on the Textual Criticism of the New Testament (8th : 2013 : University of Birmingham) Early readers, scholars, and editors of the New Testament : papers from the Eighth Birmingham Colloquium on the Textual Criticism of the New Testament / edited by H.A.G. Houghton. pages cm. -- (Texts and studies, ISSN 1935-6927 ; 11) Proceedings of the Eighth Birmingham Colloquium on the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, held in the Orchard Learning Resource Centre at the University of Birmingham, March 4-6, 2013.
    [Show full text]
  • A New Descriptive Inventory of Bentley's Unfinished New Testament Project
    TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism 25 (2020): 111–128 A New Descriptive Inventory of Bentley’s Unfinished New Testament Project* An-Ting Yi, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam Jan Krans, Protestantse Theologische Universiteit, Amsterdam Bert Jan Lietaert Peerbolte, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam One of Eldon J. Epp’s areas of expertise is the scholarly history of New Testament textual criticism. He offers an excellent overview of its different stages, including Bentley’s un- finished New Testament project. Yet, many aspects can be refined by studying the -ma terials left by Bentley, preserved at Wren Library of Trinity College (TCL), Cambridge. This contribution offers an up-to-date descriptive inventory of all the remaining archive entries, containing bibliographical information, precise descriptions, relevant second- ary literature, and parts of the reception history. 1. Introduction1 One of Eldon J. Epp’s lifelong interests is the history of New Testament textual scholarship. No- tably his two articles in The New Cambridge History of the Bible not only distinguish periods for the history of the printed Greek New Testament text, but they also become a standard reference for those who want to delve into this issue.2 In these contributions he draws an encompassing picture of the historical developments of text-critical methods of the New Testament, begin- ning from Erasmus until the present day. A key figure contributing to these developments is the renowned eighteenth-century Cambridge classical scholar Richard Bentley (1662–1742). In fact, Epp already mentioned Bentley’s name and his famous Proposals for Printing of 1720 in a 1976 article when tracing the history of the “critical canons” of the New Testament text.3 Since * Our thanks first go to the staff of Wren Library of Trinity College, who generously helped us during our stay in Cambridge, November 2018.
    [Show full text]
  • 500Th Anniversary of the Printing of the Greek New Testament
    THE 500TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE PRINTING OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. DOES THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS STILL HAVE A FUTURE? LESLIE McFALL The Complutensian Polyglot was the first complete printing of the Greek New Testament. It was printed on 10 January 1514, but it disappeared until 1522.1 In the meantime Erasmus stole the show. This appearance and disappearance of the Complutensian Polyglot may be likened to the time when Tamar give birth to twins. Zerah put out his hand and the midwife tied a scarlet thread around his wrist, which he then withdrew into his mother’s womb, and his brother Perez came out first (Gen 38:27-30). It can be said of Zerah and the Complutensian, “This one came out first,” but both went back into a hidden place and did not see the light of day until Perez and Erasmus put in their appearance. The Complutensian has the honor of being the first to be printed, but Erasmus’s Greek text has the honor of being the first to be published, and the first to be put into the hands of the Church. Following a study of the origin of the text of the Complutensian Polyglot (hereafter CP), the focus of this article will broaden out into a study of the emergence of the Textus Receptus2 from 1 The full title of the work is Biblia Sacra Polyglotta, complectentia Vetus Testamentum Hebraico, Graeco, et Latino idiomate; Novum Testamentum Graecum et Latinum, et vocabularium Hebraicum et Chaldaicum Veteris Testamenti, cum Grammaticâ Hebraicâ, necnon Dictionario Graeco; studio, operâ et impensis Cardinalis Francisci Ximenez de Cisneros.
    [Show full text]
  • A Textual Commentary on the Greek Received Text of the New Testament, Volume 2 (Matthew 15-20), 2009
    i A TEXTUAL COMMENTARY ON THE GREEK RECEIVED TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT Being the Greek Text used in the AUTHORIZED VERSION also known as the KING JAMES VERSION also known as the AUTHORIZED (KING JAMES) VERSION also known as the KING JAMES BIBLE also known as the SAINT JAMES VERSION by Gavin Basil McGrath B.A., LL.B. (Sydney University), Dip. Ed. (University of Western Sydney), Dip. Bib. Studies (Moore Theological College). Formerly of St. Paul’s College, Sydney University. Textual Commentary, Volume: 2 St. Matthew’s Gospel Chapters 15-20. Verbum Domini Manet in Aeternum “The Word of the Lord Endureth Forever” (I Peter 1:25). ii McGrath, Gavin (Gavin Basil), b. 1960. A Textual Commentary on the Greek Received Text of the New Testament, Volume 2 (Matthew 15-20), 2009. Available on the internet http://www.gavinmcgrathbooks.com . Published & Printed in Sydney, New South Wales. Copyright © 2009 by Gavin Basil McGrath. P.O. Box 834, Nowra, N.S.W., 2541, Australia. Dedication Sermon, preached at Mangrove Mountain Union Church, Mangrove Mountain, N.S.W., 2250, Australia, on Thursday 5 November, 2009. Oral recorded form presently available at http://www.sermonaudio.com/kingjamesbible . This copy of Volume 2 (Matt. 15-20) incorporates corrigenda changes from Appendix 6 of the Revised Volume 1 (Matt. 1-14) © 2010 by Gavin Basil McGrath, Appendix 6 of Volume 3 (Matt. 21-25) © 2011 by Gavin Basil McGrath; Appendix 6 of Volume 4 (Matt. 26-28) © 2012 by Gavin Basil McGrath; Appendix 6 of Volume 5 (Mark 1-3) © 2015 by Gavin Basil McGrath; and Appendix 6 of Volume 6 (Mark 4 & 5) © 2016 by Gavin Basil McGrath.
    [Show full text]