Comments
14 comments:
Stephen C. Carlson said...
Nice post. One tiny criticism: my colleague's name is spelled Kelhoffer, not Kellhofer.
Steven Avery said...
Thomas Cajetan (1469-1534), discussed by Richard Simon, could be included in your survey of traditional Mark ending doubt. And it would be a close race with Erasmus, you would have to check the exact years as to who comes first. And afaik Cajetan did not have a Greek and Latin NT and a Paraphrase where he consistently included the resurrection appearances of the Lord Jesus in Mark, as did Erasmus.
Bart Kamphuis said...
Thank you, Mr Avery, for drawing my attention to Cajetan as discussed by Simon. In preperation of my article, I have only taken into account Simon's discussion of the Eusebian sections in connection to Mark's ending (chapter 33), and I overlooked the passage you are referring to, the second half of chapter 11. Here I have found more I should have referred to in the article, such as
Grotius' defense of the Longer Ending. Besides, I think on p. 121
Simon subtly reveals that he does not consider 16:9-20 Marcan: "on ne doit nullement douter de la verité de ce Chapitre, qui est aussi ancien que l'Evangile de Saint Marc". In short, I hope to be able once to publish a revised and enlarged version of my article
By the way, wouldn't you think Cajetan's reflections on Mark's ending are in his 1530 "In Evangelia Matt., Marci, Lucae, Joannis"? I haven't been able to check that, though.
James Snapp Jr said...
Bart,
Why does the quotation of Birch in the blog-entry end so abruptly?
Did Birch say anything about the blank space after 16:8?
Yours in Christ,
Bart Kamphuis said...
Dear James, Birch does not say anything about the empty third column, neither in the manuscript description from which I quoted, nor in the collation of Mark 16. You can see for yourself, of course, since the "Quatuor Evangelia" is online now.
Steven Avery said...
Hi,
You can find a lot about the Cajetan and Catherinus Mark ending positions at:
Biblical Scholarship and the Church: A Sixteenth-century Crisis of Authority
Allan K. Jenkins, Patrick Preston
The rediscovery in the West of the original languages of the Bible gave rise in the early sixteenth century to a new interest in linguistic biblical scholarship. The question of where authority lay in relation to the translation and interpretation of the Bible became a key issue in the...
books.google.com
And I agree that the dispute may have started in the 1530 commentary, it looks like Catherinus was responding around 1532 and then more later.
Keep in mind though that Cajetan was an Aquinas expert, and at least in the Catena Aurea Aquinas does a lot of ECW referencing of the Mark ending (without bothering with the omission quibble).
Above I didn't mention Grotius because it looked like your survey was emphasizing contra argumentation. Granted, due to his early time and superb analytical reputation, Grotius might get a special nod. However I did not see
Osiander and Burgon in your paper, which seemed to indicate a study of one side of the history.
Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery
Bart Kamphuis said...
Dear Steven, thanks for the reference. About my article: in the first part the focus is not so much contra argumentation (Mill and Bengel are pro), but accumulation of relevant data until Birch. In this respect, Grotius seems to be important, from what I read in Simon, being already acquainted with all kind of evidence, both pro and contra, that is described in the article as introduced by Mill.
James Snapp Jr said...
Bart,
Hmm. So Birch mentioned that the text of B stopped at the end of 16:8, but Birch said nothing about the blank space after that.
Any idea how long researchers depend on Birch's somewhat incomplete depiction of B's testimony, before someone else made a more detailed investigation?
Yours in Christ,
James Snapp, Jr.
Steven Avery said...
Hi,
Bart .. Welcome. Thanks. Understood.
Keep in mind that Osiander, Burgon, Morison and others are "acquainted with all kind of evidence, both pro and contra".
And if you are going backwards in time from Birch, Johann Adam Osiander (1701-1756) should count.
When James Morison (1816-1893) wrote on the ending in 1873, Mark's Memoirs of Jesus Christ, p. 467-491, he was likely more familiar with the German critical scholarship than just about anybody, including Burgon. Morison referenced Burgon a couple of times, yet he finished with a quote from:
Osiander's Vindication of the Genuineness of the Last Twelve Verses of Mark:
"the Paragraph must necessarily be retained in the evangelical text"
Amen.
Similarly, Herman Gustav Hoelemann's 1885 survey in Letzte Bibelstudien referenced Osiander. Apparantly incorrectly as J. E. Osiander, which would be Johann Ernst (1792-1870) however he got the 1753 year right. Osiander was writing with the young Wilhelm Friedrich Immanuel Gesner (1733-1791).
Exercitatio Academica Nova, Qua Ostenditur, Duodecim Postrema Commata, Marci Capite Decimo Sexto Exstantia, Esse Genvina
And I've wondered if one of our language scholars would give a skilled translation of the section, which is historically significant and not long. Notice the connection to the heavenly witnesses in defense of the pure Bible text, and the reference to Lutheran scholar Johann Gerhard. Likely the elder, (1582–1637) whose Loci Theologici could be an addition to your survey of the historical Mark ending debate. Gerhard was a major contributor on the heavenly witnesses as well with the two-part 1619 dissertation being combined here:
1721 Commentatio uberior in dictum Johanneum, 1 Jo. V, 7., de tribus in coelo testibus
reader.digitale-sammlungen.de
an elite writing that would serve us well to be translated into English.
Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery
Bart Kamphuis said...
I don't know, James. In any case, I believe that in 1868 the NT part of the first fascimile edition appeared.
Steven Avery said...
Hi,
Angelo Mai's 1857 edition is reviewed in the Christian Remembrancer in 1859 and they reference the Vaticanus blank space.
Christian Remembrance (1859)
The Vatican Codex and Syriac Gospels
Again, the last twelve verses in the Textus Receptus of S. Mark arc wanting in the Vatican MS., and a blank page is left in the codex. There is a note declaring that it is exploratissimum, that the passage ought to be retained ....(continues)
So 1857/1858 may be the first accurate reference, a bit before any editions from Tischendorf or from Vercellone and Cozza. Followed by the Burgon analysis.
Yours in Jesus,
Steven
Bart Kamphuis said...
Gentlemen, I guess we are drifting off the subject of the original post somewhat. Feel free, though, to contact me (b.l.f.kamphuis at vu.nl).
2:09 pm