Is Mark 16:9-20 authentic?

[robrecht]

So now you're back to the 'foul play' idea. Were Eusebius and Jerome also part of the evil conspiracy?

[robrecht]

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.

This is true of practically every variant. Copies typically reflect variants in their Vorlage and cannot be assumed to be actual first instance of a variant.

[One Bad Pig]

So now you're back to the 'foul play' idea. Were Eusebius and Jerome also part of the evil conspiracy?

I'm sorta interested in why this purported foul play took place. What could possibly motivate someone to remove the post-Resurrection ministry of Jesus from one out of four gospels? What would that accomplish?

[robrecht]

I'm sorta interested in why this purported foul play took place. What could possibly motivate someone to remove the post-Resurrection ministry of Jesus from one out of four gospels? What would that accomplish?

I don't think we should assume foul play. The supposition in 37818's link was much more innocent:

However, Scribe D, likely the Overseer and Corrector of the scriptorium, knew this would be highly unsatisfactory, and wished to at least leave a nearly blank column to tip off future users and enable them to copy in the Ending if they chose to. Scribe D then, was aware of the Long Ending. Even though he did not allow sufficient space for it, due to his desire to keep the look of the manuscript professional and standardize the book-seams, he did feel compelled to make sure that at least the option was available and the problem highlighted.

[One Bad Pig]

I don't think we should assume foul play. The supposition in 37818's link was much more innocent:

I was referring to the Pickering quote a few posts up - and 37818 clearly believes that the "Long Ending" is original.

[robrecht]

I was referring to the Pickering quote a few posts up - and 37818 clearly believes that the "Long Ending" is original.

Oh, I know. There's no good rationale for a purposeful deletion of Mk 16,9-20.

[37818]

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?

The earliest citation would be from Irenaeus. That the Codex Vaticanus has the blank column can be regarded as a strong testament that the reading of Mark 16:9-20 is the older reading than that of that codex' omission.

[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."

On a different computer or using a different browser (which I'm doing now), I get that error message too.

[37818]

ME-Aleph-Char-Chart.jpg[the main image was too large]

The Codex Sinaiticus of the 16 columns, the mean count of the 15 columns are about 652 characters each. All the characters distributed over the 16 columns would be a mean of 614 characters. If we were to suppose the original had Mark 16:9-20, then the mean number of characters per column would need to be about 676 characters each.

[robrecht]

... That the Codex Vaticanus has the blank column can be regarded as a strong testament that the reading of Mark 16:9-20 is the older reading than that of that codex' omission.

No, that does not follow. It probably indicates awareness of one or more alternative endings, but it in no way indicates that the longer ending was older.

[Cow Poke]

No, that does not follow. It probably indicates awareness of one or more alternative endings, but it in no way indicates that the longer ending was older.

I truly am impressed with your patience, and am considering the need for same in my own dealings on Tweb.

[37818]

No, that does not follow. It probably indicates awareness of one or more alternative endings, but it in no way indicates that the longer ending was older.

And what other ending of Mark after 16:8 are you referring to? Irenaeus is cited to refer to that longer ending you are disputing. Irenaeus was well before Codex Vaticanus.

[37818]

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.

Well, Mary M was not with the women entering the tomb, she had ran off. Neither Matthew, Mark, nor Luke informs us of this detail. Mark makes an indirect reference to this by reintroducing Mary M in verse 9. Which John in his later given account gives us this detail that Mary M upon seeing the stone had be rolled away runs off before the other women inter the tomb.

[robrecht]

And what other ending of Mark after 16:8 are you referring to? Irenaeus is cited to refer to that longer ending you are disputing. Irenaeus was well before Codex Vaticanus.

The shorter ending of course:

Παντα δε τα παρηγγελμενα τοις περι τον Πετρον συντομως εξηγγειλαν. μετα δε ταυτα και αυτος ο Ι{ησου}ς εφανη αυτοις, και απο ανατολης και αχρι δυσεως εξαπεστειλεν δι αυτων το ιερον και αφθαρτον κηρυγμα της αιωνιου σωτηριας. αμην.

And they reported all the instructions briefly to Peter's companions. Afterwards Jesus himself, through them, sent forth from east to west the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation. Amen.

See also the Freer logion which is sometimes included in the longer ending.

[robrecht]

Well, Mary M was not with the women entering the tomb, she had ran off. Neither Matthew, Mark, nor Luke informs us of this detail. Mark makes an indirect reference to this by reintroducing Mary M in verse 9. Which John in his later given account gives us this detail that Mary M upon seeing the stone had be rolled away runs off before the other women inter the tomb.

You were asking about the text of Mark, not that of John.