Featured Mark 16: 9-20?

I don't know if this was mentioned before, but the Syriac Sinaiticus (also called the Sinaitic Palimpsest) dated late in the 4th century doesn't have the L.E. It contains Matthew and Mark.

It's interesting that Minuscule 304 --dated in the 12th century doesn't have the L.E. even though it is Byzantine. It contains Matthew and Mark.

 

jonC,
re: "That said, the passage does not alter Scripture - it does not introduce new doctrine."

Verse 9 kinda does. It is the only place in scripture - as it is translated in the KJV and similar versions - that places the resurrection on the first of the week.

 

jonC,
re: "I think John 20:1-2 and Matthew 28:1 indicate the same thing."

Those verses do not say when the resurrection actually took place. They only say that the women came to the tomb on the first of the week.

 

Just some thoughts: As some have mentioned, there is evidence for early references to the Majority Text (with the longer ending of Mark.) I appreciate that, and I happen to agree that the longer ending does belong there. However, just because a source is early doesn't make it accurate - I'm referring to Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, which are called the "oldest and best" manuscripts, primarily "best" because they're early. We don't have the original manuscripts. We have copies of copies and copies of copies of copies. You could have an "early" manuscript that is the twenty-third generation copy, and a manuscript that is a couple hundred years later, that is only an eleventh generation copy. In this case the "early" manuscript could contain many more errors than the later manuscript. Therefore, being an early manuscript alone, is not enough to discredit later manuscripts.

Also, there are a few other possibilities. What if the Majority Texts (the later manuscripts of which most, if not all, contain the longer ending of Mark), were actually present in the first and second centuries, but they were in such popular demand that they were destroyed by such great use? They were simply worn out. This could explain why no older Majority Texts (with the longer ending) are found. I don't believe the argument "There are so many of those manuscripts; surely they could have found one or two," would be valid. I wouldn't believe the Majority Texts started out with such huge numbers. They would have started small and grown over time.

Along those lines, look at the climate. Vaticanus and Sinaiticus (again - the "best" manuscripts) came from Alexandria, Egypt, an ideal climate which would preserve manuscripts beautifully. Look at the location of most of the Majority Texts - Asia Minor, with a climate that would destroy manuscripts upon much exposure. This could also explain the lack of the early Majority texts.

Speaking of location, there's something to be said about the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus coming from Alexandria, Egypt, while the Majority Texts come primarily from an area where the original Manuscripts were written/written to, and New Testament Churches were planted and influencing their society. I would think the likelihood of more trustworthy manuscripts would be greater from those in close vicinity to areas where the original manuscripts had been present.

The number of manuscripts has already been discussed in this thread, but I think it's worth a mention, because there is a reason for the huge number of manuscripts with the long ending of Mark. And again, we're not talking about but a very small number of manuscripts that are supposedly the best, on which we're putting such a high priority, and most Bibles today are based on these few manuscripts. Disclaimer - I'm not a KJVO/NKJO proponent.

Lastly, although this doesn't specifically mean what we have in vss. 9-20 are the final verses to end the Book of Mark, we can almost be assured that Mark 16:8 is not the ending to the book. "So they went out quickly and fled from the tomb, for they trembled and were amazed. And they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid." NKJV The very last line of the book being "And they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid."???? I think not.

 

Some here are Critical text preferred, some MT, others even Tr, so glad that we all can get along!

 

jonC,
re: "... I really do think that it is at the very minimum strongly implied (enough to constitute doctrine) that the discovery of the empty tomb corresponds with the Resurrection."


I'm really not trying to be difficult, but I wonder if you could point out the parts of those verses that you think strongly imply a first of the week resurrection?

BTW, I do think the resurrection probably did take place on the first of the week.

 

Agreed!

I'm a Byzantine Textform guy, myself. I enjoy your posts.

 

Really? Did the day of Pentacost come before or after the tomb?
Look at the ending of John. We find a meek and doubting Peter who is filled with shame.
The ending with people being afraid seems quite accurate to the events, which transpired over that fateful weekend.

 

It's a Variant. It's in the KJV, but not in the critical text, that is it's not found in the earlier manuscripts, so in better translations like ESV it's not there.

 

Good post, it's FASCINATING in reading John Gill's Commentary, for he lived in a time when they were bringing in the critical text, so he'd show both.

Of course all bibles have annotations, most Christians never bother to read them, but we need to know our history, or the New Atheists and their followers will eat naive Christians for breakfast!

 

You could also ask the question about the women caught in adultery in John. It's not found in any of the early texts, and scholars are almost uniform that it's not original.

 

Its a good thing though to have it included, with refernce to not being found in best texts, for just imagine a translation that just took that and longer mark ending right out!
Some would have those versions burned....