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

  • Mark 16:9-20 - Position-statement

    Hello everyone.

    I'm late to this discussion. Sorry about that.

    Has someone been questioning the authenticity of Mark 16:9-20? I affirm that Mark 16:9-20 is genuine canonical Scripture.

    Please state your case to the contrary, with evidence. (Sorry if this overlaps some things already said. I would like a chance, though, to revisit and test some claimes that were presented earlier.)

    Yours in Christ,

    James Snapp, Jr.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by JamesSnappJr View Post
      Hello everyone.

      I'm late to this discussion. Sorry about that.

      Has someone been questioning the authenticity of Mark 16:9-20? I affirm that Mark 16:9-20 is genuine canonical Scripture.

      Please state your case to the contrary, with evidence. (Sorry if this overlaps some things already said. I would like a chance, though, to revisit and test some claimes that were presented earlier.)

      Yours in Christ,

      James Snapp, Jr.
      Hello. Why not just read the thread rather than ask for things to be restated? Also, you may want to clarify if you mean to distinguish between authenticity (written by Mark) and canonical (recognized as scripture by the church).
      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


      • Originally posted by 37818 View Post
        The earliest citation would be from Irenaeus.
        Okay.
        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.
        This doesn't address my question; this only addresses the state of affairs when Codex Vaticanus was inscribed.
        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


        • Originally posted by JamesSnappJr View Post
          Please state your case to the contrary, with evidence. (Sorry if this overlaps some things already said. I would like a chance, though, to revisit and test some claimes that were presented earlier.)
          You are welcome to reply to posts from earlier in the thread to which you would like to respond.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Pentecost View Post
            I am sure Phat made that comment about MacArthur because he is a very strong cessationists who condemns continuationists as heretics and the variant ending of Mark could be interpreted as charismatic.
            hahaha...yep. At least someone gets where I am coming from...

            Comment


            • Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
              This doesn't address my question; this only addresses the state of affairs when Codex Vaticanus was inscribed.
              Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
              Could you please provide that proof? What are the earliest mss which contain and omit the passage, respectively? . . .
              It is my understanding the oldest manuscripts which include Mark 16:9-20 is Codex Alexandrinus and Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus and the oldest which excludes Mark 16:9-20 would be Codex Vaticanius and Codex Sinaiticus.

              Codex Vaticanius and Codex Sinaiticus being the older set. Both having some empty column after Mark 16:8. Codex Sinaiticus empty space not being large enough to hold the longer text.

              Now does this answer the question?
              . . . 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


              • Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                It is my understanding the oldest manuscripts which include Mark 16:9-20 is Codex Alexandrinus and Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus and the oldest which excludes Mark 16:9-20 would be Codex Vaticanius and Codex Sinaiticus.

                Codex Vaticanius and Codex Sinaiticus being the older set. Both having some empty column after Mark 16:8. Codex Sinaiticus empty space not being large enough to hold the longer text.

                Now does this answer the question?
                Yes, thank you.
                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


                • The skeptic Richard Carrier, Ph.D. makes a very good plausible case against Mark 16:9-20 being authentic.
                  Mark 16:9-20 as Forgery or Fabrication
                  Here is my question: What in those arguments makes it impossible for Mark 16:9-20 to be part of the original Mark?

                  ". . . They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them. We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error. . . . " -- 1 John 4:5, 6. [How shall we take this?]
                  . . . 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


                  • Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                    The skeptic Richard Carrier, Ph.D. makes a very good plausible case against Mark 16:9-20 being authentic.
                    Mark 16:9-20 as Forgery or Fabrication
                    Here is my question: What in those arguments makes it impossible for Mark 16:9-20 to be part of the original Mark?
                    I'm really not all that interested in what Richard Carrier has to say about the biblical text. The plausible arguments he makes have already been presented to you separately. Further, textual criticism is almost never a case of black and white, like your question pretends. In my opinion, the best argument against its inclusion as original is the complete lack of any reason to excise the material.
                    ". . . They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them. We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error. . . . " -- 1 John 4:5, 6. [How shall we take this?]
                    Your out of context attempt at guilt by association is noted and dismissed.
                    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


                    • Richard Carrier? Really?

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                        . . . In my opinion, the best argument against its inclusion as original is the complete lack of any reason to excise the material.
                        It is my understanding that the reason Mark 16:9-20 would not be included, is that there is a transmission stream of copies that do not include it. Two transmission streams, some with the reading, and some without.

                        The argument is whether the transmission stream with Mark 16:9-20 being original and at some point that ending had got lost on some copy and copies were made without it, or that it was an add on, not by Mark.
                        . . . 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


                        • Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                          It is my understanding that the reason Mark 16:9-20 would not be included, is that there is a transmission stream of copies that do not include it. Two transmission streams, some with the reading, and some without.

                          The argument is whether the transmission stream with Mark 16:9-20 being original and at some point that ending had got lost on some copy and copies were made without it, or that it was an add on, not by Mark.
                          So now you're abandoning the 'foul play' theory again?
                          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


                          • One Bad Pig,
                            I can thing of some reasons why someone might excise Mark 16:9-20. But it's a cumulative and nuanced case; I think we would be better off rewinding a bit, before plunging into a new vein of argument. Let's revisit the external evidence. You mentioned that the testimony of Clement and Origen seems especially important to this subject, or something like that. Why?

                            JamesSnappJr

                            Comment


                            • Cowpoke (if you're still here) -
                              After you watch John MacArthur's sermon about "The Fitting Ending" of the Gospel of Mark, I welcome you to also watch my response to the claims that he made in that sermon. My response is at YouTube in three parts (which, cumulatively, are shorter than Dr. MacArthur's sermon). The response is "The Fitting End to Some False Claims About Mark 16:9-20."

                              JamesSnappJr

                              Comment


                              • My question is, for those that reject the passage, do we still accept it as inspired since it was included in God's finished product?

                                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
                                72 views
                                3 likes
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Started by Cow Poke, 02-28-2024, 11:56 AM
                                13 responses
                                60 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Working...
                                X