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

[Van]

@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

I am sorry Sir, but numerous copies of corrupted text does not make them seem more reliable.

 

[Van]

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.

Several early copies of the ending of Mark differ, some with the long ending, some with the short ending, some with both, some with the short ending located elsewhere and some with the book ending at verse 8. See Post #11.

 

[JD731]

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

Of course you are right and I plead guilty as charged. My comment was a fly over deal because I have no interest in discussing the subject except as it applies to logic concerning the apostolic commission. I really was not looking for a response. But, as my old sergeant used to say; "as you were."

 

[Van]

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,

You didn't even bother to address the logic presented calling into question endings beyond verse 8.

Note how my response was edited to remove how I addressed "logic."

Here it is again:

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]

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

I was just illustrating that other well qualified people disagree with you.

 

[37818]

I am sorry Sir, but numerous copies of corrupted text does not make them seem more reliable.

So am I to understand, that you are persuased all of Mark 16:9-20 are the corrupted text?

 

[Conan]

In real life, Mark 16:9-20 is supported by over 1,650 Greek Manuscripts, and is absent from 3. Overwhelming evidence. The scribe of Codex Vaticanus obviously knew of the long ending, because he left a blank column to add it in later. His copy text was damaged, but knew the long ending. Codex Sinaiticus has it's original sheet replaced at the ending. Those scribes are missing much Text through eye skip, and were not good copyists . Information on the carelessness of Sinaiticus scribes. Critical use of manuscripts

The Miseducation of Jimmy Wallace re: Mark 16:9-20

www.thetextofthegospels.com

 

[Van]

So am I to understand, that you are persuased all of Mark 16:9-20 are the corrupted text?

No. Please read my posts. My position, held by those that put brackets around Mark 16:9-20 is that the ending is questionable and may not be part of the inspired text.

 

[37818]

No. Please read my posts. My position, held by those that put brackets around Mark 16:9-20 is that the ending is questionable and may not be part of the inspired text.

 

[Van]

My position, held by those that put brackets around Mark 16:9-20 is that the ending is questionable and may not be part of the inspired text.

 

[Conan]

My position, held by those that put brackets around Mark 16:9-20 is that the ending is questionable and may not be part of the inspired text.

Let us assume for awhile you are correct. Do you think Mark intended to end his Gospel, or rather, "The Beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God" at 16:8? Or do you think he wrote some ending that has been lost for all time? You do not have to say of course.

 

[Van]

Let us assume for awhile you are correct. Do you think Mark intended to end his Gospel, or rather, "The Beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God" at 16:8? Or do you think he wrote some ending that has been lost for all time? You do not have to say of course.

I am not a mind reader, I do not know if Mark, inspired by the Holy Spirit, intended to end at verse 8. The issue is not taking away or adding to scripture, as best we can. I have stated my view, which is the view of many.

 

[37818]

I am not a mind reader, I do not know if Mark, inspired by the Holy Spirit, intended to end at verse 8. The issue is not taking away or adding to scripture, as best we can. I have stated my view, which is the view of many.

How do you identify any variat is the Godbreathed reading?

 

[Van]

How do you identify any variat is the Godbreathed reading?

My position is clear, your question takes no position. Yes, variant readings suggest one or the other or both may not be inspired.

 

[37818]

My position is clear, your question takes no position. Yes, variant readings suggest one or the other or both may not be inspired.

What about where whole books in our New Testament are being called to question?

 

[Van]

What about where whole books in our New Testament are being called to question?

Totally off topic, what about Mr. Trump's new plane?

 

[37818]

Totally off topic, what about Mr. Trump's new plane?

.

. . . or both [variants] may not be inspired.

 

[Van]

.

Topic, the validity of the long ending of Mark.
Van's position, should be bracketed as it is questionable as to whether inspired or added.
Variant readings suggest one or the other or both may not be inspired.

 

[John of Japan]

You didn't even bother to address the logic presented calling into question endings beyond verse 8.

Note how my response was edited to remove how I addressed "logic."

Here it is again:

​

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.​

​

Again, as I have said, there are not "numerous endings," as you have said. There are only three, really, and the "shorter ending" is rejected by both sides, meaning that (once again) we leave the disciples frightened and trembling (neither of the "added" endings), or we have the resurrection of Christ and the Great Commission in the only ending that makes logical sense, the longer ending from the Byzantine textform.

 

[John of Japan]

I was just illustrating that other well qualified people disagree with you.

Understood. I couldn't resist.