tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19219922.post6945234694646841721..comments2024-03-03T21:51:46.662-05:00Comments on stylos: Interactions with Dr. Peter J. Gurry on "The Ending of Mark as a Canonical Crisis"Jeffrey T. Riddlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16374856944409335186noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19219922.post-38366515073247433262020-05-16T02:31:20.961-04:002020-05-16T02:31:20.961-04:00Peter Gurry
"there is the issue of whether Si...Peter Gurry<br />"there is the issue of whether Sinaitic or Curetonian MS represents the original text of the translation for Mark 16"<br /><br />Peter is involved with an implied false dichotomy. Sinaitic and Curetonian are two oddball Alexandrian corrupted mss. Curetonian evidences the Mark ending, Sinaitic is an omission ms. <br /><br />By contrast, the Peshitta has hundreds of extant mss. Later came the Philoxenian and Harklean updates. The Peshitta is no later than the 4th century, and has often been believed to be earlier, 2nd or 3rd. <br /><br />The traditional Peshitta is a far more significant evidence that the two split Alexandrian mss. We know that Egypt had an early gnostic influence, and lots of corruption by shortening of text.<br /><br />Afawk, every Syriac ms. in the Peshitta tradition supports the traditional ending of Mark.Steven Averyhttps://www.facebook.com/steven.avery.7568/noreply@blogger.com