The Long Ending of Mark and The Woman Caught in Adultery According To The Byzantine Text

[Conan]

Those words, in Greek, are found in the "Byzantine" text

They are also found in all independent Texts as well. Not just the Byzantine.

 

[Van]

The long ending of Mark is missing in the earliest copies in Greek, Latin, and others.

 

[John of Japan]

The two most respected mss, (א B), do not have any ending past verse 8. Other mss have the "short ending." Still others have both endings. Still others have marginal notes indicating earlier mss lacked the ending. All this indicates the endings were added by scribes.

"Most respected"? By whom? I certainly don't consider those two to be "most respected."

 

[Conan]

What is the date of the Latin translation copy in existence today of Irenaeus quoting Mark 16:19? What is the date of the Greek copy in existence today of the quote?

Why override 2 direct copies with a hearsay copy in Latin? Smells like manufactured evidence.

Irenaeus and Mark 16:19

www.thetextofthegospels.com

 

[37818]

The Latin Vulgate 405 AD.

 

[Van]

"Most respected"? By whom? I certainly don't consider those two to be "most respected."

That is a quote from the NET bible footnote, edited by Dr. Dan Wallace.

 

[Van]

Irenaeus and Mark 16:19

www.thetextofthegospels.com

So the copy of Mark having "margin note" about the long ending, GA 1582 dates to 948 CE. , The argument for the long ending is agenda driven, not logic driven.

 

[Conan]

So the copy of Mark having "margin note" about the long ending, GA 1582 dates to 948 CE. , The argument for the long ending is agenda driven, not logic driven.

It shows that quote of Irenaeus was copied in Latin and existed in Greek as well. It is called Textual Proof. In all Greek New Testaments everywhere but 2, who's copt Texts were damaged, as proven by Codex Vaticanus leaving room to add the original verses back in if the owner wished.
So are you saying that Mark intended to end his Gospel at verse 8, or that one of the first copies were damaged and Marks real ending lost to us forever?

 

[John of Japan]

That is a quote from the NET bible footnote, edited by Dr. Dan Wallace.

My opinion: Wallace is a great Greek scholar but a lousy textual critic and terrible on Bible translation. The Net Bible is a very non-literal translation. It's what you get with a "crowd-sourced" translation done with dynamic equivalence--you get a poor translation.

 

[John of Japan]

So the copy of Mark having "margin note" about the long ending, GA 1582 dates to 948 CE. , The argument for the long ending is agenda driven, not logic driven.

The argument in favor of the longer ending is absolutely logic driven. The logic is that the shorter ending leaves Christ in the grave and leaves out the Great Commission, and those two omissions prove that the longer ending is correct, when compared to the other Gospels.

 

[JD731]

If one did not have all the verses in Mark 16, where would one learn and know on what authority the preachers declared that the creatures of Mk 16:15 to whom they were charged to preach, were to believe the gospel of the risen Christ and submit to baptism in water to receive the indwelling Spirit of God, who is eternal life?

I do not know about anyone else but that is not hard for me to work out. The language is too plain and simple to miss it. I am not sure why people struggle so with such simple instructions and the promise.

Matthew told these same preachers something different as it applied to the nations. This is a transition period of major consequence and the KJV, as expected, can be trusted to be right.

 

[Van]

It shows that quote of Irenaeus was copied in Latin and existed in Greek as well. It is called Textual Proof. In all Greek New Testaments everywhere but 2, who's copt Texts were damaged, as proven by Codex Vaticanus leaving room to add the original verses back in if the owner wished.
So are you saying that Mark intended to end his Gospel at verse 8, or that one of the first copies were damaged and Marks real ending lost to us forever?

I am sorry but the so-called support for the long ending comes from copies produced after the early manuscripts without the long ending.

 

[Van]

The argument in favor of the longer ending is absolutely logic driven. The logic is that the shorter ending leaves Christ in the grave and leaves out the Great Commission, and those two omissions prove that the longer ending is correct, when compared to the other Gospels.

No it is not, it is agenda driven. The logic is that the numerous endings after verse 8 indicate addition of the endings, thus any ending after verse 8 is questionable.

 

[Van]

My opinion: Wallace is a great Greek scholar but a lousy textual critic and terrible on Bible translation. The Net Bible is a very non-literal translation. It's what you get with a "crowd-sourced" translation done with dynamic equivalence--you get a poor translation.

From the internet:

Dr. Daniel Wallace is one of the world's leading textual critics. His ministry, the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts (CSNTM.org) is currently the most prolific organization for discovering, photographing, and cataloging ancient Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. In this class, he discusses the issues of textual variants, how ancient manuscripts were made, the types of errors that we can see in the manuscripts, the issue of the Textus Receptus and its role in the King James translation of the Bible, the historic work of Westcott and Hort, and ends with discussions of the most famous textual problems.​

​

 

[37818]

@Van
You do agree where all 100% of mss of a NT book agree that is likely what it's autograph read.

99.8% mss of Mark versus .3 mss.
And about 99.0% of whole mss of Mark without dispute. To

 

[Conan]

From the internet:

​

Dr. Daniel Wallace is one of the world's leading textual critics. His ministry, the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts (CSNTM.org) is currently the most prolific organization for discovering, photographing, and cataloging ancient Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. In this class, he discusses the issues of textual variants, how ancient manuscripts were made, the types of errors that we can see in the manuscripts, the issue of the Textus Receptus and its role in the King James translation of the Bible, the historic work of Westcott and Hort, and ends with discussions of the most famous textual problems.​

​

He misreads the evidence. He comes to the wrong conclusions.

 

[Baptizo]

If one did not have all the verses in Mark 16, where would one learn and know on what authority the preachers declared that the creatures of Mk 16:15 to whom they were charged to preach, were to believe the gospel of the risen Christ and submit to baptism in water to receive the indwelling Spirit of God, who is eternal life?

I do not know about anyone else but that is not hard for me to work out. The language is too plain and simple to miss it. I am not sure why people struggle so with such simple instructions and the promise.

Matthew told these same preachers something different as it applied to the nations. This is a transition period of major consequence and the KJV, as expected, can be trusted to be right.

It is frustrating when you make a response after what has already been posted. It just shows that you are not reading comments.

 

[John of Japan]

No it is not, it is agenda driven. The logic is that the numerous endings after verse 8 indicate addition of the endings, thus any ending after verse 8 is questionable.

You did not answer my point. It is not debating just to say, "No, I'm right."

I logically referenced how the ending of Mark (as a document in the genre of Gospel) needed to teach the resurrection (the other 3 did) and needed to have a version of the Great Commission, since the other Gospels did. Agenda? Pray tell, where is my agenda in these posts? I'm simply giving facts.

As for the "numerous endings" you referenced, this is not true. They are not numerous. Here they are:

1. There is the ending which stops at verse 8 leaves the apostles frightened and trembling: "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." This is not at all suitable for a Gospel ending, yet it is how Wallace thinks it should end.
2. There is an ending in very few mss which leaves Christ in the tomb.
3. There is what Metzger calls in his textual commentary the "traditional ending," and it also occurs in a slightly expanded version in only one Greek ms, Codex Washingtonianus.

Concerning the "traditional ending," Metzger says that it is "present in the vast number of witnesses" (A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd ed., p. 103), and then he goes on to say, "The earliest patristic witnesses to part of all of the long ending are Irenaeus and the Diatessaron" (Ibid.). Irenaeus and Tatian (author of the Diatesseron) both lived in the 2nd century, which puts the longer ending attested extremely early, in fact, much earlier than the shorter ending, or the missing ending Wallace prefers.

Again, logic rules the day. The ending attested in the 2nd century and having "a vast number of witnesses" ought to have priority,

 

[John of Japan]

From the internet:

​

Dr. Daniel Wallace is one of the world's leading textual critics. His ministry, the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts (CSNTM.org) is currently the most prolific organization for discovering, photographing, and cataloging ancient Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. In this class, he discusses the issues of textual variants, how ancient manuscripts were made, the types of errors that we can see in the manuscripts, the issue of the Textus Receptus and its role in the King James translation of the Bible, the historic work of Westcott and Hort, and ends with discussions of the most famous textual problems.​

​

Oh, well, it's on the Internet so I have to believe it!

 

[John of Japan]

I am looking at my UBS The Greek NT, 4th ed. rev. (worst typeface for a Greek NT ever!). It has double brackets around both the longer and shorter endings I referenced in my previous post (pp. 189-192). So Metzger and his team think that the original Gospel of Mark ended with v. 8. Again, here it is: "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." How in the world is it "logical" that Mark ended his Gospel with fraidy cat apostles???

Even the NET Bible includes the longer ending (but not the shorter), though in double brackets. So apparently those translators felt the lack of a credible ending to some degree.

Edited in: No one that I know of believes that the shorter ending is original. Metzger says, "The internal evidence for the shorter ending...is decidedly against its being genuine" (op cit, 105). So the only real choices for a Markan ending are the longer ending or the book ending with v. 8. There are not "numerous endings" to choose from. Either you leave the disciples afraid and trembling, or you have a victorious risen Christ sending them out with a Great Commission.