Is Mark 16:9-20 authentic?

[robrecht]

Evidence that Codex Sinaiticus original reading may have included Mark 19:9-20, that 4 pages where that reading would occur in that Codex were replaced.

I don't see how this answers my question. I asked if you believe in some kind of authoritative tradition such that what ''most of the body of Christ until the 19th century" thought about the ending of Mark's gospel should always be considered true? Even when new evidence comes to light?

[robrecht]

I work in manufacturing, there is a statical method called statistical process control (SPC). From it can be determined if a manufacturing precess is in or out of control. If inspections are being faked.

The issues of textual variants are similar. What one copy or family of copies has a variant. Others agree against it.
See http://www.walkinhiscommandments.com...ity/Iden-5.pdf See The Stream of Transmission.

This seems to be the section most relevant to my question about your argument from statistics:

This describes well how a standardized text begins to take root, thus relativizing the importance of the sheer number of manuscripts. But it also assumes that the standardized text was present from the beginning, and that assumption does not match our evidence.

[One Bad Pig]

Well there are at least two views here. 1) The original account of Mark ended with 16:20. 2) The original ending of Mark ended with 16:8.

I would add a third: Mark originally continued beyond 16:8, but the ending was lost.

What is the evidence for each view? (short explanation.)

1) The only positive evidence AFAICS is that it is in most manuscripts.
2) This has been presented above. Briefly, the transition between vv. 8-9 is grammatically awkward, the flavor of the Greek is notably different from the rest of the book, and several early manuscripts either stop at verse 8 or bracket the remainder.
3) The ending of the book at 16:8 is quite abrupt, and leaves out the post-Resurrectional ministry of Jesus.

On the premise that view 1) is true. What was the motivation of the removal of 16:9-20? That a scribe redacted by replacing 4 pages of the Codex Sinaiticus?

Given how codices were assembled, replacing the last 4 pages is unlikely to have been easily possible. I would have to examine the MS to see whether it were or not.

On the premise that view 2) is true. What was the motivation of the church at large for adding it?

Not necessarily the church at large, but scribes (more than one, since we have more than one ending - the "short ending" is evidence that the scribe responsible did not have the "long ending" or some other lost ending) felt that it was missing an account of Jesus' post-Resurrection activity.

[37818]

I would add a third: Mark originally continued beyond 16:8, but the ending was lost.

And this as possibility is rooted in the denial that Mark 16:9-20 is NOT part of the original gospel.

<snip>
2) This has been presented above. Briefly, the transition between vv. 8-9 is grammatically awkward, the flavor of the Greek is notably different from the rest of the book, and several early manuscripts either stop at verse 8 or bracket the remainder.

Let's look at that.

καὶ ἐξελθοῦσαι ταχὺ ἔφυγον ἀπὸ τοῦ μνημείου εἶχεν δὲ αὐτὰς τρόμος καὶ ἔκστασις καὶ οὐδενὶ οὐδὲν εἶπον, ἐφοβοῦντο γὰρ
And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any [man]; for they were afraid.

Ἀναστὰς δὲ πρωῒ πρώτῃ σαββάτου ἐφάνη πρῶτον Μαρίᾳ τῇ Μαγδαληνῇ ἀφ᾽ ἡς ἐκβεβλήκει ἑπτὰ δαιμόνια
Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils.

What is the difficulty? Explain.

<snip>

Given how codices were assembled, replacing the last 4 pages is unlikely to have been easily possible. I would have to examine the MS to see whether it were or not.

You can look images of the manuscript here.

[37818]

This describes well how a standardized text begins to take root, thus relativizing the importance of the sheer number of manuscripts. But it also assumes that the standardized text was present from the beginning, and that assumption does not match our evidence.

Please summarize the assumption and evidence you mean.

[37818]

I don't see how this answers my question. I asked if you believe in some kind of authoritative tradition such that what ''most of the body of Christ until the 19th century" thought about the ending of Mark's gospel should always be considered true? Even when new evidence comes to light?

The new evidence is that section of the Sinaiticus which now does not include Mark 16:9-20, those 4 leaves were a redaction took place. While it is possible that the original didn't contain Mark 16:9-20 and that redaction was to fix another problem. We cannot know the reason. It looks as if it was to remove Mark 16:9-20, as the evidence of it is described.

Most Christians, myself included, the Bible at hand is taken as the word of God, for which we accept Christ as our Savior. The tradition being the authority, the Bible translation used. For me it was the KJV. And I was 14 at the time. What did I know? Not much. KJV onlyism was around. And the NCCC RSV was the apostate Bible. "young woman" for "virgin." And other redactions. My point being the only tradition I recognize is the original autographs as the holy men of God wrote those scriptures are the authority. We have translations we typically accept as correct. Our disagreement here is over whether Mark 16:9-20 was part of the original autograph. That did not come to question for us modern Christians until the 19th century.

[Cow Poke]

"young woman" for "virgin." And other redactions.

You keep using that word. I don't think that word means what you think it means.

[37818]

You keep using that word. I don't think that word means what you think it means.

I was using the word with the understood meaning of: "The act or process of editing or revising a piece of writing." I also had the understanding that it carried the meaning of removal from a text by editing. That it has a technical meaning of being a form of editing in which multiple source texts are combined, this sense I did not have in mind. I will use some other words.

[robrecht]

Please summarize the assumption and evidence you mean.

The assumption is that there was an early standardized text based on original autographs. The evidence of early manuscripts indicates less standardization among earlier manuscripts.

[robrecht]

The new evidence is that section of the Sinaiticus which now does not include Mark 16:9-20, those 4 leaves were a redaction took place. While it is possible that the original didn't contain Mark 16:9-20 and that redaction was to fix another problem. We cannot know the reason. It looks as if it was to remove Mark 16:9-20, as the evidence of it is described.

Most Christians, myself included, the Bible at hand is taken as the word of God, for which we accept Christ as our Savior. The tradition being the authority, the Bible translation used. For me it was the KJV. And I was 14 at the time. What did I know? Not much. KJV onlyism was around. And the NCCC RSV was the apostate Bible. "young woman" for "virgin." And other redactions. My point being the only tradition I recognize is the original autographs as the holy men of God wrote those scriptures are the authority. We have translations we typically accept as correct. Our disagreement here is over whether Mark 16:9-20 was part of the original autograph. That did not come to question for us modern Christians until the 19th century.

So the idea is that what ''most of the body of Christ until the 19th century" thought about the ending of Mark's gospel should always be considered true? Is that correct?

[37818]

The assumption is that there was an early standardized text based on original autographs. The evidence of early manuscripts indicates less standardization among earlier manuscripts.

Holy Scripture was Holy Scripture upon being written and presented to the churches. And passed down.

So the idea is that what ''most of the body of Christ until the 19th century" thought about the ending of Mark's gospel should always be considered true? Is that correct?

Holy Scripture as received and handed down by the churches were being regarded as true. Variant readings come to light, and the evidence of it is weighed, and then counted. It was in the 19th century the belief was by some, that Mark 16:9-20 might not be original. The evidence and how it is to be understood is what we are discussing. On the basis that Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus being older were better manuscripts omitting Mark 16:9-20 that it was and is so being supposed as not original. Along with citations of church fathers.

[robrecht]

Holy Scripture was Holy Scripture upon being written and presented to the churches. And passed down.

How is that related to your argument from the law of statistics?

Holy Scripture as received and handed down by the churches were being regarded as true. Variant readings come to light, and the evidence of it is weighed, and then counted. It was in the 19th century the belief was by some, that Mark 16:9-20 might not be original. The evidence and how it is to be understood is what we are discussing. On the basis that Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus being older were better manuscripts omitting Mark 16:9-20 that it was and is so being supposed as not original. Along with citations of church fathers.

Earlier manuscripts are better because they precede the standardization of the Byzantine text. The earlier variant readings are then weighed by their ability to explain other variants and their agreement with an author's style.

[37818]

How is that related to your argument from the law of statistics?

Copyist errors, spelling, omissions, transposition of words or letters are some. Then there are the deliberate changes made to the text. The supposed addition to Mark, Mark 16:9-20. Or as those who believe Mark 16:9-20 is original, the deliberate removal. Which seems to have been done.

Earlier manuscripts are better because they precede the standardization of the Byzantine text.

That is what is supposed, but not absolutely true in all cases.

The earlier variant readings are then weighed by their ability to explain other variants and their agreement with an author's style.

Not just with an early variant, but should be done with the variants and what ever history can be shown for them.

[robrecht]

Copyist errors, spelling, omissions, transposition of words or letters are some. Then there are the deliberate changes made to the text. The supposed addition to Mark, Mark 16:9-20. Or as those who believe Mark 16:9-20 is original, the deliberate removal. Which seems to have been done.

Again, how is this related to an argument from statistics?

That is an unsubstantiated premise.

No, it is a long established observation.

[robrecht]

Let's look at that.

καὶ ἐξελθοῦσαι ταχὺ ἔφυγον ἀπὸ τοῦ μνημείου εἶχεν δὲ αὐτὰς τρόμος καὶ ἔκστασις καὶ οὐδενὶ οὐδὲν εἶπον, ἐφοβοῦντο γὰρ
And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any [man]; for they were afraid.

Ἀναστὰς δὲ πρωῒ πρώτῃ σαββάτου ἐφάνη πρῶτον Μαρίᾳ τῇ Μαγδαληνῇ ἀφ᾽ ἡς ἐκβεβλήκει ἑπτὰ δαιμόνια
Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils.

What is the difficulty? Explain.

16,9 reintroduces the day and time of day (πρωῒ πρώτῃ σαββάτου , when this has already been given in 16,1-2 (διαγενομένου τοῦ σαββάτου ... λίαν πρωῒ τῇ μιᾷ τῶν σαββάτων.

16,9 introduces who Mary Magdalene is, even 'though she was already part of this very scene (16,1) and the immediately preceding one (15,40.47).

16,9 No explanation is given for why Mary Magdalene is now all by herself at the same time of day, when just previously she was with a group of women.

In 16,6-7 we are told that Jesus is not here and that he is already on his way to Galilee where his disciples will see him, but in 16,9-20 he (Jesus' name is not mentioned) is still there when he appears to Mary Magdalene and later to the disciples, who did not believe Mary's report and did not travel to Galilee.