Mark’s Ending

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

At least you implicitly concede that you're a hypocrite. I'll take it.

Your problems with comprehension skills have been commented upon in the past.

[Mountain Man]

Your problems with comprehension skills have been commented upon in the past.

Says the ninny who is frequently confused by common words and phrases.

[NorrinRadd]

One theory is that the last page (or if a scroll, the last column of text) was somehow torn off or lost. I remember a college teacher's comment about the last two words of Mark 16:8, "ἐφοβοῦντο γὰρ". The conjunction γὰρ is unique in that it appears as the second word in the second clause, rather than between the two clauses. But in the case of Mark 16:8, the conjunction γὰρ winds up being the last word in the sentence, a rather awkward ending, suggesting that the rest of the clause which was to follow had somehow disappeared. The sentence should have continued by stating what it was that they feared.

But I hesitate to think that a page of divinely inspired scripture somehow got lost.

IIRC, in his commentary on Mark's Gospel, Witherington rather blithely remarks that the actual ending was lost early.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

One theory is that the last page (or if a scroll, the last column of text) was somehow torn off or lost. I remember a college teacher's comment about the last two words of Mark 16:8, "ἐφοβοῦντο γὰρ". The conjunction γὰρ is unique in that it appears as the second word in the second clause, rather than between the two clauses. But in the case of Mark 16:8, the conjunction γὰρ winds up being the last word in the sentence, a rather awkward ending, suggesting that the rest of the clause which was to follow had somehow disappeared. The sentence should have continued by stating what it was that they feared.

But I hesitate to think that a page of divinely inspired scripture somehow got lost.

If this original MS was "divinely inspired" why was it not preserved ? Why do we find scraps of later copies of these "divinely inspired" texts in rubbish tips or being used as palimpsests?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Says the ninny who is frequently confused by common words and phrases.

[rogue06]

Remember this in response to my posting the photograph?

Perhaps you should show where I first said that we shouldn't judge a person on their looks and then in the next sentence proceed to do exactly that. Oh, wait. That wasn't me. That was you.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Perhaps you should show where I first said that we shouldn't judge a person on their looks and then in the next sentence proceed to do exactly that. Oh, wait. That wasn't me. That was you.

You joined in with your comment.

[Mountain Man]

IIRC, in his commentary on Mark's Gospel, Witherington rather blithely remarks that the actual ending was lost early.

The most interesting thing to me about the ending of Mark's gospel is that it should put to rest any skeptical objections that the Biblical manuscripts were poorly preserved throughout the centuries. In fact, they were so well preserved, and we have such an abundance of original manuscripts available to us today, that we know for a fact the ending of Mark was not the original! That's testament to the high degree of accuracy with which scholars have been able to reconstruct the original texts.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

The most interesting thing to me about the ending of Mark's gospel is that it should put to rest any skeptical objections that the Biblical manuscripts were poorly preserved throughout the centuries. In fact, they were so well preserved, and we have such an abundance of original manuscripts available to us today, that we know for a fact the ending of Mark was not the original! That's testament to the high degree of accuracy with which scholars have been able to reconstruct the original texts.

I have no idea from where you got that notion. There is not a single complete original MS for any of the gospel texts. The earliest surviving examples are papyrus fragments and scraps. And none of those is dated to earlier than the second century CE.

As for the ending of Mark, neither Clement of Alexandria [died c. 215 CE] nor Origen [died c. 253 CE] show any knowledge of verses nine through twenty in chapter sixteen. Furthermore, some of the earliest MSS including Siniaticus and Vaticanus both of which are dated to the fourth century, end at verse eight.

[Mountain Man]

I have no idea from where you got that notion. There is not a single complete original MS for any of the gospel texts. The earliest surviving examples are papyrus fragments and scraps. And none of those is dated to earlier than the second century CE.

As for the ending of Mark, neither Clement of Alexandria [died c. 215 CE] nor Origen [died c. 253 CE] show any knowledge of verses nine through twenty in chapter sixteen. Furthermore, some of the earliest MSS including Siniaticus and Vaticanus both of which are dated to the fourth century, end at verse eight.

We've been over this before. There are thousands of manuscripts and manuscript fragments, far more than any other ancient work, which scholars and textual critics have used to reconstruct the original texts. Just think about it logically for a moment (not one of your better skills, but give it a try): if there are enough overlapping fragments, then you don't need a complete manuscript to know what was originally written.

The popular idea is that textual criticism has been able to recover the NT text with 99% accuracy. That's a total of three pages in your average Bible without study notes being in question. Textual critics Westcott and Hort asserted [Hunt.IntNT, 13] that the parts of the NT "still subject to doubt can hardly amount to more than a thousandth part" of the NT - which would be less than a third of a page.

Generally, however, it seems that very few scholars in this field are willing to be so bold. Most scholars in this field seem to settle for vague phrases, ranging from speaking of the "retreating mirage" of the original text to Comfort's assurance that "there are several manuscripts that are quite accurate copies of the original text."[Comf.TNT, 29] Scholars outside the field are more bold; France asserts that "among the textual variants in the gospels there are only two which throw doubt on more than a verse or two of the traditional text" - the ending of Mark and the adultery story in John [Franc.EvJ, 135-6], with the other variants bearing only on details of sentimental value.

[...]

Is any matter of the Christian faith affected by any variant reading?

This is the most important issue for the average believer, and the good news is this: No doctrine of Christianity is in the least dependent on ANY textual variant.

A major study of this issue has been performed by Ehrman [Ehr.OxC], who locates several orthodox-oriented corruptions of the NT text that were designed to halt illicit interpretations of verses by heretics. We shall take a special look at his study at the end of this section.

Objection: The later church conspired to eliminate discrepancies and made purposeful changes to the text of the NT.

We will look at this matter more closely when dealing with Ehrman's work; for the moment, let it only be said that textual conspiracies such as are often suggested would be practically impossible - there is no way that the church could have eliminated ALL known readings of a given text.

Beyond that, what is the direct evidence and data for textual corruption? 95% of the errors found in the NT text are recognized as unintentional [Patz.MNT, 138]. This includes confusion of similar letters, repetition of words or sentences, and just plain bad copying.

The remaining 5% of errors includes revised spelling and grammar, harmonization of similar passages, elimination of textual difficulties, and, indeed, theological or doctrinal changes. However, let it not be said that there was some systematic or even informal conspiracy to change the NT text.

Also working against any idea that some important text was lost or added is evidence that textual criticism was already in process as early as the second and third century! Origen complains of negligence and audacity by scribes; Jerome takes note of various scribal errors, and so on. [Metz.TNT, 152-4] These fellows, at least, were on guard against any variations. To this we may also add that scribal science used in Alexandria on the NT in the early decades also ensured careful treatment of the text.

In summary, here is a general admonition regarding charges of NT textual corruption: Until solid textual evidence is found for such changes, all that we are being offered with such objections is supposition. Rather than citing some particular textual difficulty, all we have [from] the typical critic is some vague idea that somewhere, somehow, we must be missing SOMETHING that will cause problems for the Christian faith.

https://www.tektonics.org/lp/nttextcrit.php

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

We've been over this before. There are thousands of manuscripts and manuscript fragments, far more than any other ancient work,

There are indeed but none of them are the original MSS. They are copies of copies of copies and not, as you wrote:

an abundance of original manuscripts

[Mountain Man]

There are indeed but none of them are the original MSS. They are copies of copies of copies and not, as you wrote:

an abundance of original manuscripts

Yes, original manuscripts, as in authentic ancient texts and not forgeries. If I had meant the physical compositions of the original authors, then I would have said so.

[Diogenes]

I'm fine considering the long ending of Mark as suspect in its canonicity.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Yes, original manuscripts, as in authentic ancient texts and not forgeries. If I had meant the physical compositions of the original authors, then I would have said so.

They are not the original MSS as they do not exist any more.

The question being is the later ending of Mark a forgery? It was clearly not written by the original author.

[tabibito]

They are not the original MSS as they do not exist any more.

An acceptable claim.

The question being is the later ending of Mark a forgery?

There seems to be a distinct lack of intent to deceive in the content, which gives rise to the question, "what end would this supposed forgery be intended to achieve?" Commentators' supplementary notes would be quite likely.

It was clearly not written by the original author.

Lack of conclusive (to the level of beyond reasonable doubt) evidence makes that a subjective assessment. "In all probability, not added by the original author" would be a reasonable claim.