Is Mark 16:9-20 authentic?

[37818]

http://nazaroo.blogspot.com/2011/01/...t-7-james.html

[robrecht]

Not just me, but most of the body of Christ until the 19th century when this "correction" came again to light.

While I'm still curious as to your view of some type of authoritative or normative tradition, it is worth noting that Eusebius and Jerome were already aware of this 'correction'. While Eusebius does not necessarily want to judge either ending being authentic at the expense of the other, he does note that 'the accurate copies' of Mark, indeed 'in almost all copies of Mark', the gospel ends with 16,8 (Quaestiones Ad Marinum). Likewise, Jerome says that this section is not found in the majority of translations of Mark and in almost all of the Greek manuscripts of Mark (omnibus Graeciae libris pene, Letter 120). See also Hesychius of Jerusalem (or?) Severus of Antioch. Victor of Antioch considers the longer ending to be genuine because it is found in 'most of the accurate copies in accordance with the Palestinian Gospel of Mark', he nonetheless admits that 'in most copies this additional material in the Gospel according to Mark is not found." Marcus & Collins, ad loc.

[robrecht]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]302[/ATTACH]
http://nazaroo.blogspot.com/2011/01/...t-7-james.html

Your attachment does not work and arguing by weblink is not allowed here.

[One Bad Pig]

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

If you're going to dogmatically hold to "my view is right" and "all other views assume mine is wrong, so they can be lumped together" then dialogue is not going to be very fruitful.

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.

How does this address my synopsis of argument from the Greek?

You can look images of the manuscript here.

Thanks, but that doesn't tell me how the quires were assembled.

[37818]

Your attachment does not work and arguing by weblink is not allowed here.

The attachment does work. Right click on it. The link is merely the source for the attached image.

[robrecht]

The attachment does work. Right click on it. The link is merely the source for the attached image.

It works for you but not for others. This is a known problem that has not yet been fixed. I get the following message:

"vBulletin Message: Invalid Attachment specified. If you followed a valid link, please notify the administrator."

[37818]

If you're going to dogmatically hold to "my view is right" and "all other views assume mine is wrong, so they can be lumped together" then dialogue is not going to be very fruitful. <snip>.

Do you post anything knowing you are really wrong? I think not. Those who oppose the authenticity of the Mark 16:9-20, do so believing [in their view knowing] the evidence supports that view. In which case the're right, and I'm wrong.

[robrecht]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]302[/ATTACH]
http://nazaroo.blogspot.com/2011/01/...t-7-james.html

Reading your link here, the position taken is merely that Scribe D was aware of the longer ending and left room for it to be added later if a later scribe chose to do so. This position does not seem to support your earlier view that there was a redaction apparently to remove Mk 16,9-20. This is one of the reasons why arguing by weblink is not a good practice. We cannot be sure what opinion you are trying to advance here. Knowledge of the longer ending is hardly problematic. The choice to include it or both endings and even to comment on them makes sense without necessarily endorsing the view that either the shorter or longer endings were authentic.

[One Bad Pig]

Do you post anything knowing you are really wrong? I think not. Those who oppose the authenticity of the Mark 16:9-20, do so believing [in their view knowing] the evidence supports that view. In which case the're right, and I'm wrong.

I generally post from the POV I believe to be correct, but I am open to being persuaded that I am not. I am not so presumptuous as to assume that I have a monopoly on the truth.

[37818]

Reading your link here, the position taken is merely that Scribe D was aware of the longer ending and left room for it to be added later if a later scribe chose to do so. This position does not seem to support your earlier view that there was a redaction apparently to remove Mk 16,9-20. This is one of the reasons why arguing by weblink is not a good practice. We cannot be sure what opinion you are trying to advance here. Knowledge of the longer ending is hardly problematic. The choice to include it or both endings and even to comment on them makes sense without necessarily endorsing the view that either the shorter or longer endings were authentic.

I had argued what I argued in good faith. I'm not adverse to admitting being wrong where I can see I am wrong.

Dr Pickering had argued:

As for Codex ℵ, the folded sheet containing the end of Mark and beginning of Luke is, quite frankly,
a forgery. Tischendorf, who discovered the codex, warned that those four pages appeared to be
written by a different hand and with different ink than the rest of the manuscript. However that may
be, a careful scrutiny reveals the following: the end of Mark and beginning of Luke occur on page 3
(of the four); pages 1 and 4 contain an average of 17 lines of printed Greek text per column (there
are four columns per page), just like the rest of the codex; page 2 contains an average of 15.5 lines
of printed text per column (four columns); the first column of page 3 contains only twelve lines of
printed text and in this way verse 8 occupies the top of the second column, the rest of which is blank
(except for some designs); Luke begins at the top of column 3, which contains 16 lines of printed
text while column 4 is back up to 17 lines. On page 2 the forger began to spread the letters,
displacing six lines of printed text; in the first column of page 3 he got desperate and displaced five
lines of printed text, just in one column! In this way he managed to get two lines of verse 8 over onto
the second column, avoiding the telltale vacant column (as in B). That second column would
accommodate 15 more lines of printed text, which with the other 11 make 26. Verses 9-20 occupy
23.5 such lines, so there is plenty of room for them. It really does seem that there has been foul
play, and there would have been no need for it unless the first hand did in fact display the disputed
verses. In any event, ℵ as it stands is a forgery and therefore may not legitimately be alleged as
evidence against them.
To sum up: every extant Greek MS (about 1,700) except two (B and 304—ℵ is not ‘extant’ because
it is a forgery at this point) . . .

Now when I looked as the Codex Sinaiticus I saw the longer blank column than that of Codex Vaticanus. And that was not being mentioned. Note on that link, the one column has more letters not less. Supporting the notion that the the replacement of the 4 pages were to allow for the Mark 16:9-20 reading, not its removal.

[37818]

I generally post from the POV I believe to be correct, but I am open to being persuaded that I am not. I am not so presumptuous as to assume that I have a monopoly on the truth.

Just because I am lead to believe something seems sure so to think I'm right on something does not mean I have a monopoly on the truth either.

[37818]

It works for you but not for others. This is a known problem that has not yet been fixed. I get the following message:

"vBulletin Message: Invalid Attachment specified. If you followed a valid link, please notify the administrator."

As a guest, not logged in, I can open the attachment too.

[37818]

Even if it can be proven that Mark 16:9-20 is an added revision, not of the original. It is, as I see it, to have been proven that Mark 16:9-20 was existent prior to any of the now existent mss which omit it.

[One Bad Pig]

Even if it can be proven that Mark 16:9-20 is an added revision, not of the original. It is, as I see it, to have been proven that Mark 16:9-20 was existent prior to any of the now existent mss which omit it.

Could you please provide that proof? What are the earliest mss which contain and omit the passage, respectively? What is our earliest non-MS proof of its existence?

[37818]

I had argued what I argued in good faith. I'm not adverse to admitting being wrong where I can see I am wrong.

Dr Pickering had argued:

As for Codex ℵ, the folded sheet containing the end of Mark and beginning of Luke is, quite frankly,
a forgery. Tischendorf, who discovered the codex, warned that those four pages appeared to be
written by a different hand and with different ink than the rest of the manuscript. However that may
be, a careful scrutiny reveals the following: the end of Mark and beginning of Luke occur on page 3
(of the four); pages 1 and 4 contain an average of 17 lines of printed Greek text per column (there
are four columns per page), just like the rest of the codex; page 2 contains an average of 15.5 lines
of printed text per column (four columns); the first column of page 3 contains only twelve lines of
printed text and in this way verse 8 occupies the top of the second column, the rest of which is blank
(except for some designs); Luke begins at the top of column 3, which contains 16 lines of printed
text while column 4 is back up to 17 lines. On page 2 the forger began to spread the letters,
displacing six lines of printed text; in the first column of page 3 he got desperate and displaced five
lines of printed text, just in one column! In this way he managed to get two lines of verse 8 over onto
the second column, avoiding the telltale vacant column (as in B). That second column would
accommodate 15 more lines of printed text, which with the other 11 make 26. Verses 9-20 occupy
23.5 such lines, so there is plenty of room for them. It really does seem that there has been foul
play, and there would have been no need for it unless the first hand did in fact display the disputed
verses. In any event, ℵ as it stands is a forgery and therefore may not legitimately be alleged as
evidence against them.
To sum up: every extant Greek MS (about 1,700) except two (B and 304—ℵ is not ‘extant’ because
it is a forgery at this point) . . .

Now when I looked as the Codex Sinaiticus I saw the longer blank column than that of Codex Vaticanus. And that was not being mentioned. Note on that link, the one column has more letters not less. Supporting the notion that the the replacement of the 4 pages were to allow for the Mark 16:9-20 reading, not its removal.

Dr Pickering had the following foot note, which I missed:

Tischendorf, who discovered Codex Aleph, warned that the folded sheet containing the end of Mark and the beginning of
Luke appeared to be written by a different hand and with different ink than the rest of the manuscript. However that may be,
a careful scrutiny reveals the following: the end of Mark and beginning of Luke occur on page 3 (of the four); pages 1 and 4
contain an average of 17 lines of printed Greek text per column (there are four columns per page), just like the rest of the
codex; page 2 contains an average of 15.5 lines of printed text per column (four columns); the first column of page 3
contains only twelve lines of printed text and in this way verse 8 occupies the top of the second column, the rest of which is
blank (except for some designs); Luke begins at the top of column 3, which contains 16 lines of printed text while column 4
is back up to 17 lines. On page 2 the forger began to spread out the letters, displacing six lines of printed text; in the first
column of page 3 he got desperate and displaced five lines of printed text, just in one column!
In this way he managed to get two lines of verse 8 over onto the second column, avoiding the telltale vacant column
(as in Codex B). That second column would accommodate 15 more lines of printed text, which with the other eleven make
26. Verses 9-20 occupy 23.5 such lines, so there is plenty of room for them. It really does seem that there has been foul
play, and there would have been no need for it unless the first hand did in fact display the disputed verses. In any event,
Aleph as it stands is a forgery (in this place) and therefore may not legitimately be alleged as evidence against them.