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
  • 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]
  • The Titles of the Gospels in the Earliest New Testament Manuscripts Simon J
    The Titles of the Gospels in the Earliest New Testament Manuscripts Simon J. Gathercole (Faculty of Divinity, West Road, Cambridge, CB3 9BS, UK; [email protected]) Prolegomena The 27th Nestle-Aland hand edition of the New Testament is without doubt an extraordinary achievement, as are its many predecessors. As has sometimes been remarked, however, it does have certain flaws, and it is the purpose of the present article to identify and attempt to rectify one of these flaws. It is unfair, however, to single out Nestle-Aland, as the problem under discussion here is shared with other NT hand editions, such as the UBS and SBL texts.1 The is- sue to be addressed in this article is that of the presentation of the titles of the four gospels in the main text of the Novum Testamentum Graece as well as in its apparatus criticus. See also the Additional Note on NA28. The Nestle-Aland Titles The problems with the presentation of titles in Nestle-Aland boil down to six, sometimes overlapping, elements. First, information provided about gospel titles in NA27 is confined to the opening titles. Modern readers of course expect that a title will be provided at the beginning of a work, but this was not necessarily true in antiquity. Ancient book titles often appeared at the end of a text. Having discussed the placement of titles in rolls, Schubart notes in re early codices: ‘Wie dort [sc. in the roll], steht auch hier [sc. in the codex] der Hauptitel am Ende des Textes …’.2 The situation is actually more complicated than Schubart suggests3, but, all the same, end-titles are very significant, and at least just as common, probably even more common than opening titles.
    [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]
  • THE LATIN NEW TESTAMENT OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 1/12/2015, Spi OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 1/12/2015, Spi
    OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 1/12/2015, SPi THE LATIN NEW TESTAMENT OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 1/12/2015, SPi OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 1/12/2015, SPi The Latin New Testament A Guide to its Early History, Texts, and Manuscripts H.A.G. HOUGHTON 1 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 14/2/2017, SPi 3 Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, OX2 6DP, United Kingdom Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries © H.A.G. Houghton 2016 The moral rights of the authors have been asserted First Edition published in 2016 Impression: 1 Some rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, for commercial purposes, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, by licence or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organization. This is an open access publication, available online and unless otherwise stated distributed under the terms of a Creative Commons Attribution –Non Commercial –No Derivatives 4.0 International licence (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), a copy of which is available at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press 198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Data available Library of Congress Control Number: 2015946703 ISBN 978–0–19–874473–3 Printed in Great Britain by Clays Ltd, St Ives plc Links to third party websites are provided by Oxford in good faith and for information only.
    [Show full text]
  • THE TEXT and TRANSMISSION of 2 THESSALONIANS by GRANT G
    THE TEXT AND TRANSMISSION OF 2 THESSALONIANS by GRANT G. EDWARDS A thesis submitted to the University of Birmingham for the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Theology and Religion School of Philosophy, Theology, and Religion College of Arts and Law University of Birmingham December 2019 University of Birmingham Research Archive e-theses repository This unpublished thesis/dissertation is copyright of the author and/or third parties. The intellectual property rights of the author or third parties in respect of this work are as defined by The Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 or as modified by any successor legislation. Any use made of information contained in this thesis/dissertation must be in accordance with that legislation and must be properly acknowledged. Further distribution or reproduction in any format is prohibited without the permission of the copyright holder. ABSTRACT The text and transmission of 2 Thessalonians has not received serious scholarly attention in more than a century. This ancient Christian letter survives in Greek in more than 600 manuscripts, but prior editions have not been based on a comprehensive and systematic selection of the extant evidence. This thesis examines the Greek manuscript tradition of 2 Thessalonians using the Teststellen method to identify the manuscripts most important for the early history of the text. Based on these manuscripts, a critical text and apparatus is presented in Chapter 2. Chapter 3 offers a textual commentary which details the rationale for the selected readings and discusses the most relevant textual variants. In Chapter 4, the genealogical relationships between the manuscripts are analyzed to ascertain what can be detected about the textual transmission of 2 Thessalonians.
    [Show full text]
  • Six Lectures on the Text of the New Testament and the Ancient
    SIX LECTURES ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. &quot;As man is formed by nature with an incredible appetite for in arises from the Truth ; so his strongest pleasure, the enjoyment, actual communication of it to others. Without this, it would be a cold purchase, would abstract, ideal, solitary Truth, and poorly repay the labour and fatigue of the pursuit.&quot; WARBURTON, Dedication to the Divine Legation. SIX LECTURES ON THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT AND THE ANCIENT MANUSCRIPTS WHICH CONTAIN IT, CHIEFLY ADDRESSED TO THOSE &quot;\YHO DO NOT READ GREEK. 3 ( I3r F. II. SCRIVENER, M.A., LL.D, RECTOR OF ST. OTRRAKP. Cambridge: DEIGI1TON, BELL, AND CO. Hontion: GEORGE BELL AND SONS. 1875 Cambrtorjc : PRINTED BY C. J. CLAY, M.A. AT THE UNIVERSITY TO THE BARONESS BURDETT-COUTTS THE FOLLOWING PAGES UEING THE SUBSTANCE OF POPULAR LECTURES ON A BRANCH OF SACRED LEARNING IN WHICH SHE TAKES A LIVELY AND PRACTICAL INTEREST ARE RESPECTFULLY DEDICATED 15 Y II EK GRATEFUL FRIEND AND SERVANT THE AUTHOR. .Yc.iY/K&iT 2, 187 i. CONTENTS. LECTURE I. TAGI: PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS AND GENERAL VIEW OP T1IE SUBJECT ... ... ... ... 1 1. Study of Textual criticism neither difficult iior unfruitful. 2. Holy Scripture, like all other ancient books, preserved to our times by means of manuscripts, 3. which, in the course of ages, necessarily came to differ from each other. 4. Extent of these differences roughly estimated. 5. Purpose of this science hence inferred. The sacred autographs utterly lost. 6. Sources of information open to us for the centuries before our oldest extant manuscripts existed, by moans of versions and ecclesiastical writers.
    [Show full text]
  • A Scribe and His Manuscript: an Investigation Into the Scribal Habits of Papyrus 46 (P
    A SCRIBE AND HIS MANUSCRIPT: AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE SCRIBAL HABITS OF PAPYRUS 46 (P. CHESTER BEATTY II – P. MICH. INV. 6238) by EDGAR BATTAD EBOJO A thesis submitted to The University of Birmingham for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Theology and Religion School of Philosophy, Theology and Religion College of Arts and Law The University of Birmingham 07 January 2014 University of Birmingham Research Archive e-theses repository This unpublished thesis/dissertation is copyright of the author and/or third parties. The intellectual property rights of the author or third parties in respect of this work are as defined by The Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 or as modified by any successor legislation. Any use made of information contained in this thesis/dissertation must be in accordance with that legislation and must be properly acknowledged. Further distribution or reproduction in any format is prohibited without the permission of the copyright holder. ABSTRACT This thesis is an investigation into the scribal habits of 46, attempting to enrich further the information database about the sociology of ancient book production and to explore how these habits might have affected the transmission of the texts of the New Testament in general and the corpus Paulinum in particular. Given this end, this thesis challenges the traditional methods of locating the “scribal habits” of a particular manuscript, specifically methods that are text-focused. Crucial to developing a viable methodology is articulating how the conceptual category of “scribal habits” is to be understood before we can sufficiently isolate them. Using an integrative approach (i.e., the composite employment of papyrology, codicology, palaeography, and textual criticism), this thesis proposes that “scribal habits” are to be found in everything that a particular scribe recurrently did and did not do in the manuscript, encompassing all the stages of its production and its eventual use.
    [Show full text]
  • A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, Vol. I. by Frederick Henry Ambrose Scrivener
    The Project Gutenberg EBook of A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, Vol. I. by Frederick Henry Ambrose Scrivener This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at http://www.gutenberg.org/license Title: A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, Vol. I. Author: Frederick Henry Ambrose Scrivener Release Date: June 28, 2011 [Ebook 36548] Language: English ***START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK A PLAIN INTRODUCTION TO THE CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, VOL. I.*** A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament For the Use of Biblical Students By The Late Frederick Henry Ambrose Scrivener M.A., D.C.L., LL.D. Prebendary of Exeter, Vicar of Hendon Fourth Edition, Edited by The Rev. Edward Miller, M.A. Formerly Fellow and Tutor of New College, Oxford Vol. I. George Bell & Sons, York Street, Covent Garden Londo, New York, and Cambridge 1894 Contents Preface To Fourth Edition. .5 Description Of The Contents Of The Lithographed Plates. .9 Addenda Et Corrigenda. 30 Chapter I. Preliminary Considerations. 31 Chapter II. General Character Of The Greek Manuscripts Of The New Testament. 54 Chapter III. Divisions Of The Text, And Other Particulars. 98 Appendix To Chapter III. Synaxarion And Eclogadion Of The Gospels And Apostolic Writings Daily Throughout The Year. 127 Chapter IV. The Larger Uncial Manuscripts Of The Greek Testament.
    [Show full text]
  • An Introduction to the New Testament Manuscripts and Their Texts D
    Cambridge University Press 978-0-521-71989-6 - An Introduction to the New Testament Manuscripts and their Texts D. C. Parker Frontmatter More information AN INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT MANUSCRIPTS AND THEIR TEXTS This is the first major English-language introduction to the earliest manuscripts of the New Testament to appear for over forty years. An essential handbook for scholars and students, it provides a thorough grounding in the study and editing of the New Testament text combined with an emphasis on dramatic current developments in the field. Covering ancient sources in Greek, Syriac, Latin and Coptic, it * describes the manuscripts and other ancient textual evidence, and the tools needed to study them * deals with textual criticism and textual editing, describing modern approaches and techniques, with guidance on the use of editions * introduces the witnesses and textual study of each of the main sections of the New Testament, discussing typical variants and their significance. A companion website with full-colour images provides generous amounts of illustrative material, bringing the subject alive for the reader. d. c. parker is Edward Cadbury Professor of Theology in the Department of Theology and Religion and a Director of the Institute for Textual Scholarship and Electronic Editing, University of Birmingham. His publications include The Living Text of the Gospels (1997) and Codex Bezae: an Early Christian Manuscript and its Text (1992). © Cambridge University Press www.cambridge.org Cambridge University Press 978-0-521-71989-6 - An Introduction to the New Testament Manuscripts and their Texts D. C. Parker Frontmatter More information AN INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT MANUSCRIPTS AND THEIR TEXTS D.
    [Show full text]
  • The New Testament: We Don't Have What They Originally Had Richard
    The New Testament: We Don’t Have What They Originally Had Richard Carrier, Ph.D. www.richardcarrier.info Problem #1 • All scholars agree no manuscript reflects the original, and all are quite divergent from it • The text in modern bibles is a hypothetical creation of 20th century scholars • But scholars are often wrong in their judgments (many of their decisions are dubious or debatable) • In fact they often disagree with each other and admit to being uncertain about countless of their textual decisions • The NT text is therefore a product of fallible human opinions Problem #2 • This means for ~ 2,000 years Christians had the wrong bible, a NT full of errors & distortions • Modern bibles are better but still print readings we know are false (and fail to mention hundreds of cases where the original reading is uncertain or disputed) • And you can’t just assume the reconstructed text is the correct text because scholars remain in disagreement and uncertain about many points • So you have to be very suspicious and careful when arguing from the text of the New Testament Problem # 3 • Rate of error and distortion in visible period (~ 200-600 A.D.) is very high (by 600 A.D., 5-10% of the text is wrong). • Rate of error behind the curtain can be expected to be no less (there is no evidence otherwise). • Therefore, there must have been many changes behind the curtain that won’t show in any surviving manuscripts. • In fact the minimum rate of distortion would be 1% per century, so for the first 100 years at least 1 in 100 verses will have been distorted before we get any manuscripts to detect them by.
    [Show full text]
  • Rethinking the Western Non-Interpolations: a Case for Luke Re-Editing His Gospel
    Rethinking the Western Non-interpolations: A Case For Luke Re-editing His Gospel by Giuseppe Capuana BA (Mus), GradDipEd, BTheol (Hons) A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Philosophy University of Divinity 2018 Abstract This thesis presents a new paradigm for understanding the Western non-interpolations. It argues that when Luke originally wrote his Gospel it did not contain 22:19b–20; 24:3b, 6a, 12, 36b, 40, 51b and 52a. However, at a later time, around the time Luke wrote Acts, he returned to his Gospel creating a second edition which contained these readings. My thesis makes the case that the paradigm of scribal interpolation is problematic. Working under this paradigm the results of external and internal evidence appear conflicting and scholars are generally forced to give greater preference to one set of evidence over the other. However, a balanced weighting of the external and internal evidence points us towards the notion that Luke was responsible for both the absence and the inclusion of 22:19b–20; 24:3b, 6a, 12, 36b, 40, 51b and 52a. Chapter one introduces the Western non-interpolations. It also makes the case that the quest for the original text of Luke’s Gospel should not be abandoned. Chapter two is on the history, theory and methodology of the Western non-interpolations. It begins with an overview of the text-critical scholarship emerging during the nineteenth century, particularly the influence of Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort. It also covers the period after Westcott and Hort to the present.
    [Show full text]