Announcement

Collapse

Christianity 201 Guidelines

orthodox Christians only.

Discussion on matters of general mainstream evangelical Christian theology that do not fit within Theology 201. Have some spiritual gifts ceased today? Is the KJV the only viable translation for the church today? In what sense are the books of the bible inspired and what are those books? Church government? Modern day prophets and apostles?

This forum is primarily for Christians to discuss matters of Christian doctrine, and is not the area for debate between atheists (or those opposing orthodox Christianity) and Christians. Inquiring atheists (or sincere seekers/doubters/unorthodox) seeking only Christian participation and having demonstrated a manner that does not seek to undermine the orthodox Christian faith of others are also welcome, but must seek Moderator permission first. When defining “Christian” or "orthodox" for purposes of this section, we mean persons holding to the core essentials of the historic Christian faith such as the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment. Persons not holding to these core doctrines are welcome to participate in the Comparative Religions section without restriction, in Theology 201 as regards to the nature of God and salvation with limited restrictions, and in Christology for issues surrounding the person of Christ and the Trinity. Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions.

Additionally and rarely, there may be some topics or lines of discussion that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream orthodox doctrine (in general Christian circles or in the TheologyWeb community) or that deny certain core values that are the Christian convictions of forum leadership that may be more appropriately placed within Unorthodox Theology 201. NO personal offense should be taken by such discretionary decision for none is intended. While inerrancy is NOT considered a requirement for posting in this section, a general respect for the Bible text and a respect for the inerrantist position of others is requested.

The Tweb rules apply here like they do everywhere at Tweb, if you haven't read them, now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Is Mark 16:9-20 authentic?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, by Bruce Metzger

    From Bruce Metzger's A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament:
    16.9–20 The Ending(s) of Mark

    Four endings of the Gospel according to Mark are current in the manuscripts. (1) The last twelve verses of the commonly received text of Mark are absent from the two oldest Greek manuscripts (ℵ and B), from the Old Latin codex Bobiensis (itk), the Sinaitic Syriac manuscript, about one hundred Armenian manuscripts, and the two oldest Georgian manuscripts (written a.d. 897 and a.d. 913). Clement of Alexandria and Origen show no knowledge of the existence of these verses; furthermore Eusebius and Jerome attest that the passage was absent from almost all Greek copies of Mark known to them. The original form of the Eusebian sections (drawn up by Ammonius) makes no provision for numbering sections of the text after 16.8. Not a few manuscripts that contain the passage have scribal notes stating that older Greek copies lack it, and in other witnesses the passage is marked with asterisks or obeli, the conventional signs used by copyists to indicate a spurious addition to a document.

    (2) Several witnesses, including four uncial Greek manuscripts of the seventh, eighth, and ninth centuries (L Ψ 099 0112 al), as well as Old Latin k, the margin of the Harclean Syriac, several Sahidic and Bohairic manuscripts, and not a few Ethiopic manuscripts, continue after verse 8 as follows (with trifling variations): “But they reported briefly to Peter and those with him all that they had been told. And after these things Jesus himself sent out through them, from east to west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation.” All of these witnesses except itk also continue with verses 9–20.

    (3) The traditional ending of Mark, so familiar through the AV and other translations of the Textus Receptus, is present in the vast number of witnesses, including A C D K W X Δ Θ Π Ψ 099 0112 ƒ13 28 33 al. The earliest patristic witnesses to part or all of the long ending are Irenaeus and the Diatessaron. It is not certain whether Justin Martyr was acquainted with the passage; in his Apology (i.45) he includes five words that occur, in a different sequence, in ver. 20 (τοῦ λόγου τοῦ ἰσχυροῦ ὃν ἀπὸ Ἰερουσαλὴμ οἱ ἀπόστολοι αὐτοῦ ἐξελθόντες πανταχοῦ ἐκήρυξαν).

    (4) In the fourth century the traditional ending also circulated, according to testimony preserved by Jerome, in an expanded form, preserved today in one Greek manuscript. Codex Washingtonianus includes the following after ver. 14: “And they excused themselves, saying, ‘This age of lawlessness and unbelief is under Satan, who does not allow the truth and power of God to prevail over the unclean things of the spirits [or, does not allow what lies under the unclean spirits to understand the truth and power of God]. Therefore reveal your righteousness now’ – thus they spoke to Christ. And Christ replied to them, ‘The term of years of Satan’s power has been fulfilled, but other terrible things draw near. And for those who have sinned I was handed over to death, that they may return to the truth and sin no more, in order that they may inherit the spiritual and incorruptible glory of righteousness that is in heaven.’”

    How should the evidence of each of these endings be evaluated? It is obvious that the expanded form of the long ending (4) has no claim to be original. Not only is the external evidence extremely limited, but the expansion contains several non–Markan words and expressions (including ὁ αἰὼν οὗτος, ἁμαρτάνω, ἀπολογέω, ἀληθινός, ὑποστρέφω) as well as several that occur nowhere else in the New Testament (δεινός, ὅρος, προσλέγω). The whole expansion has about it an unmistakable apocryphal flavor. It probably is the work of a second or third century scribe who wished to soften the severe condemnation of the Eleven in 16.14.

    The longer ending (3), though current in a variety of witnesses, some of them ancient, must also be judged by internal evidence to be secondary. (a) The vocabulary and style of verses 9–20 are non–Markan (e.g. ἀπιστέω, βλάπτω, βεβαιόω, ἐπακολουθέω, θεάομαι, μετὰ ταῦτα, πορεύομαι, συνεργέω, ὕστερον are found nowhere else in Mark; and θανάσιμον and τοῖς μετ᾿ αὐτοῦ γενομένοις, as designations of the disciples, occur only here in the New Testament). (b) The connection between ver. 8 and verses 9–20 is so awkward that it is difficult to believe that the evangelist intended the section to be a continuation of the Gospel. Thus, the subject of ver. 8 is the women, whereas Jesus is the presumed subject in ver. 9; in ver. 9 Mary Magdalene is identified even though she has been mentioned only a few lines before (15.47 and 16.1); the other women of verses 1–8 are now forgotten; the use of ἀναστὰς δέ and the position of πρῶτον are appropriate at the beginning of a comprehensive narrative, but they are ill–suited in a continuation of verses 1–8. In short, all these features indicate that the section was added by someone who knew a form of Mark that ended abruptly with ver. 8 and who wished to supply a more appropriate conclusion. In view of the inconcinnities between verses 1–8 and 9–20, it is unlikely that the long ending was composed ad hoc to fill up an obvious gap; it is more likely that the section was excerpted from another document, dating perhaps from the first half of the second century.

    The internal evidence for the shorter ending (2) is decidedly against its being genuine. Besides containing a high percentage of non–Markan words, its rhetorical tone differs totally from the simple style of Mark’s Gospel.

    Finally it should be observed that the external evidence for the shorter ending (2) resolves itself into additional testimony supporting the omission of verses 9–20. No one who had available as the conclusion of the Second Gospel the twelve verses 9–20, so rich in interesting material, would have deliberately replaced them with a few lines of a colorless and generalized summary. Therefore, the documentary evidence supporting (2) should be added to that supporting (1). Thus, on the basis of good external evidence and strong internal considerations it appears that the earliest ascertainable form of the Gospel of Mark ended with 16.8. At the same time, however, out of deference to the evident antiquity of the longer ending and its importance in the textual tradition of the Gospel, the Committee decided to include verses 9–20 as part of the text, but to enclose them within double square brackets in order to indicate that they are the work of an author other than the evangelist.

    Shorter Ending

    For a discussion of the shorter ending, see the section (2) in the comments on verses 9–20 above. The reading Ἰησοῦς is to be preferred to the others, which are natural expansions. It is probable that from the beginning the shorter ending was provided with a concluding ἀμήν, and that its absence from several witnesses (L copboms ethmost mss) is due either to transcriptional oversight or, more probably, to the feeling that ἀμήν is inappropriate when verses 9–20 follow.

    Variant Readings Within [Mark] 16.9–20

    Since the passage 16.9–20 is lacking in the earlier and better manuscripts that normally serve to identify types of text, it is not always easy to make decisions among alternative readings. In any case it will be understood that the several levels of certainty ({A}, {B}, {C}) are within the framework of the initial decision relating to verses 9 to 20 as a whole.

    16.14–15 ἐπίστευσαν. καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς {A}

    For the addition preserved in W, see section (4) in the comments on verses 9–20 above.

    16.17 λαλήσουσιν καιναῖς {B}

    Although it is possible that καιναῖς may have been added in imitation of καινὴ διαθήκη and καινὸς ἄνθρωπος, it is more probable that it dropped out of several witnesses through homoeoteleuton with the following καὶ ἐν ταῖς [i.e. κἂν ταῖς].

    16.18 [καὶ ἐν ταῖς χερσὶν] ὄφεις {C}

    Although it is possible that the expression καὶ ἐν ταῖς χερσίν was added in imitation of the account in Ac 28.3–6, a majority of the Committee preferred to follow the Alexandrian group of witnesses. At the same time, in view of the absence of any good reason to account for the omission of the words from such witnesses as A Dsupp W Θ Π ƒ13 28 700 itc, dsupp, l, o, q vg syrp, pal al, it was thought appropriate to enclose them within square brackets.

    16.19 κύριος Ἰησοῦς {C}

    Among the several titles applied to Jesus by the Church, the use of κύριος standing alone appears to be a later development, more solemn than κύριος Ἰησοῦς.

    16.20 σημείων. {B}

    On the addition of ἀμήν in most witnesses, see the comment on Mt 28.20.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by 37818 View Post
      The majority of manuscripts have Mark 16:9-20. The vast majority. Only a very few of manuscripts omit it. Read that PDF I linked to.
      What this means is that the text became standardized over the first several centuries, after which time the great majority of manuscripts through the middle ages reflected this standardized text for the most part up until the invention of the printing press and the first printed New Testament in the 16th century. That's an awful lot of manuscripts but the sheer number of these manuscripts over some thousand years is not really important in and of itself. Much more important is the development of a hypothetical tree that best explains the origin of all the different readings. Most meaningful variants developed relatively quickly so the age of a manuscript, in and of itself, is also not necessarily the most important criterion. Early and wide geographic representation of a reading can be important and in this case it is the strongest argument in favor of the longer reading. But the strongest arguments for a given reading are, in my opinion, internal consistency with an author's style and explanatory power to make plausible the development of the other variants.
      βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
      ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

      אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by 37818 View Post
        The majority of manuscripts have Mark 16:9-20. The vast majority. Only a very few of manuscripts omit it. Read that PDF I linked to.
        Originally posted by robrecht View Post
        What this means is that the text became standardized over the first several centuries, after which time the great majority of manuscripts through the middle ages reflected this standardized text for the most part up until the invention of the printing press and the first printed New Testament in the 16th century. That's an awful lot of manuscripts but the sheer number of these manuscripts over some thousand years is not really important in and of itself. Much more important is the development of a hypothetical tree that best explains the origin of all the different readings. Most meaningful variants developed relatively quickly so the age of a manuscript, in and of itself, is also not necessarily the most important criterion. Early and wide geographic representation of a reading can be important and in this case it is the strongest argument in favor of the longer reading. But the strongest arguments for a given reading are, in my opinion, internal consistency with an author's style and explanatory power to make plausible the development of the other variants.


        Succinctly brilliant.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by 37818 View Post
          Not a valid argument. Since the non variant New Testament text, as a whole, constitutes the majority text as well.
          See Robrecht's response.
          The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

          Comment


          • #35
            Thanks as usual for the lesson.
            "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by robrecht View Post
              What this means is that the text became standardized over the first several centuries, after which time the great majority of manuscripts through the middle ages reflected this standardized text for the most part up until the invention of the printing press and the first printed New Testament in the 16th century. That's an awful lot of manuscripts but the sheer number of these manuscripts over some thousand years is not really important in and of itself. Much more important is the development of a hypothetical tree that best explains the origin of all the different readings. Most meaningful variants developed relatively quickly so the age of a manuscript, in and of itself, is also not necessarily the most important criterion. Early and wide geographic representation of a reading can be important and in this case it is the strongest argument in favor of the longer reading. But the strongest arguments for a given reading are, in my opinion, internal consistency with an author's style and explanatory power to make plausible the development of the other variants.
              It is either really the word of God or it is NOT. If it is not, God is not very good at keeping His word.

              Now in saying this, I am by no means an inerrant interpreter, nor is anyone else for that matter.

              The long reading is nevertheless older than the Cpdex Vaticanus or Codex Sinaiticus for that matter.
              . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

              . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

              Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                It is either really the word of God or it is NOT. If it is not, God is not very good at keeping His word.
                Perhaps it is our expectations of God that need examination?
                "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by John Reece View Post


                  Succinctly brilliant.
                  Succinctly false, in my book.
                  . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                  . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                  Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
                    Perhaps it is our expectations of God that need examination?
                    So are you saying I do not know God? (John 17:3?)
                    . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                    . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                    Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                      So are you saying I do not know God? (John 17:3?)


                      I fully admit I do not fully know God.
                      The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                        Succinctly false, in my book.
                        So, 37 -- may I call you 37? -- I admit sometimes I just skim, and don't read as deeply as I should, so lemme just ask point blank.... Are you suggesting you're pretty much 100% certain that the "long ending" is supposed to be part of the Scripture? (I don't want to misconstrue your position)
                        The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                          So are you saying I do not know God? (John 17:3?)
                          No. That is absolutely putting words in my mouth that I did not say, or did not come close to saying.
                          "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
                            No. That is absolutely putting words in my mouth that I did not say, or did not come close to saying.
                            I'll say it! I don't think he FULLY knows God, and the verse cited was Jesus talking to His Father about the people knowing the "true God" as opposed to the many false Gods. I don't think it implied "fully knowing".
                            The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                              Succinctly false, in my book.
                              Does the text need to be from the original author to be inspired of God?
                              Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                              Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                              sigpic
                              I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                                It is either really the word of God or it is NOT. If it is not, God is not very good at keeping His word.
                                Is it your view that God in his Providence does not allow there to be scribal alterations in the text transmission process?
                                βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                                ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                                אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Thoughtful Monk, 03-15-2024, 06:19 PM
                                35 responses
                                166 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Started by KingsGambit, 03-15-2024, 02:12 PM
                                4 responses
                                49 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Thoughtful Monk  
                                Started by Chaotic Void, 03-08-2024, 07:36 AM
                                10 responses
                                119 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post mikewhitney  
                                Started by Cow Poke, 02-29-2024, 07:55 AM
                                14 responses
                                71 views
                                3 likes
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Started by Cow Poke, 02-28-2024, 11:56 AM
                                13 responses
                                59 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Working...
                                X