• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

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

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
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.
To repeat, the numerous variations after verse 8 are found in post #11.
 

Silverhair

Well-Known Member
Since we do not have the autographs all we can do is make the best guess we can based on the information we have.

Except for vss17 & 18, which can lead to some errant views, I see no problem with the longer ending.
 

John of Japan

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
To repeat, the numerous variations after verse 8 are found in post #11.
I don't think you read Wallace's note, or if you did you didn't understand it. (No offense intended.) In Post 79 I break it down. I'll do so again.

1. Wallace thinks Mark 16 should end at v. 8 with the disciples terrified and trembling.

2. There is a shorter ending which Wallace quotes, but nobody really accepts that ending.

3.There is the longer ending of the Byzantine textform, which fits the genre of "Gospel" quite well.

So there are only three possible endings, yet you say "numerous." Here is the definition of "numerous" from Oxford: "great in number; many." (numerous definition - Google Search) How do you get "great in number" from three?
 
Last edited:

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I could put a copy of Mark ending at verse 8 and make 1651 copies, thus the no ending would have the most numerous support.

The claim there are only three endings is false. An ending with the long is different from an ending with the long and the short. An "no ending past verse 8" ending is different from all the combinations of short and long. Post 11 enumerates many of the combinations.

Here is the NET listing of no ending witnesses:

  • Greek manuscripts (e.g., א, B, 304).
  • Syriac versions (sys).
  • Possibly Samaritan texts (sams).
  • Armenian manuscripts (armmss).
  • Manuscripts associated with Eusebius (Eusmss) and potentially from Jerusalem (Hiermss).
 

Conan

Well-Known Member
I could put a copy of Mark ending at verse 8 and make 1651 copies, thus the no ending would have the most numerous support.

The claim there are only three endings is false. An ending with the long is different from an ending with the long and the short. An "no ending past verse 8" ending is different from all the combinations of short and long. Post 11 enumerates many of the combinations.

Here is the NET listing of no ending witnesses:

  • Greek manuscripts (e.g., א, B, 304).
You couldn't get 1840 some scribes to delete or insert anything. These are all independently copied. Very, very, very rarely can you find a manuscript copied from another. In thousands of manuscripts it's what 5 or 10 copied from one another.

  • Syriac versions (sys).
There are 2 "old Syraic" version manuscripts.
Doesn't one include the longer ending? Are you certain one is missing or is it estimated to be missing? Certaily the Peshetta includes it.

  • Possibly Samaritan texts (sams).

possibly?
  • Armenian manuscripts (armmss).
Some Armenian manuscripts don't, some do?

  • Manuscripts associated with Eusebius
Doesn't Eusebius claim the ending as legitimate in the discussion?

  • (Eusmss) and potentially from Jerusalem (Hiermss).
You don't have any Greek Manuscripts from Jerusalem that lack the ending. If you did they would be named.
Accuracy of information is what we are after. Your beliefs are fine.
 

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
You couldn't get 1840 some scribes to delete or insert anything. These are all independently copied. Very, very, very rarely can you find a manuscript copied from another. In thousands of manuscripts it's what 5 or 10 copied from one another.

There are 2 "old Syraic" version manuscripts.
Doesn't one include the longer ending? Are you certain one is missing or is it estimated to be missing? Certaily the Peshetta includes it.

possibly?

Some Armenian manuscripts don't, some do?

Doesn't Eusebius claim the ending as legitimate in the discussion?

You don't have any Greek Manuscripts from Jerusalem that lack the ending. If you did they would be named.
Accuracy of information is what we are after. Your beliefs are fine.
1) All of them are copies!
2) WE still have several copies ending at verse 8.
3) The list is in the NET footnote, edited by Dr. Dan Wallace. My opinion is your post is just another "taint so."
 

Conan

Well-Known Member
1) All of them are copies!
2) WE still have several copies ending at verse 8.
3) The list is in the NET footnote, edited by Dr. Dan Wallace. My opinion is your post is just another "taint so."
My posts are to point out the bad information by Wallace, Metzger, James White and others on the ending of Mark. To dispell bad information on the subject. Doesn't matter what one's position is. It should only be supported by facts, and not misinformation from the past. Accuracy of information, not biased news.
 

John of Japan

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I could put a copy of Mark ending at verse 8 and make 1651 copies, thus the no ending would have the most numerous support.
This is not how textual criticism is done.
The claim there are only three endings is false.
Famed textual critic Bruce M. Metzger wrote, "Four endings of the Gospel according to Mark are current in the manuscripts" (A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd ed., p. 102. I have said there are only three, but that is because Metzger's fourth ending is simply the longer ending of the Byzantine textform with a few words added, and it is only extant in one ms, the Washingtonianus, and no textual critic accepts it as being the one in the autographs.

The leading book on this subject is Perspectives on the Ending of Mark, with chapters by such leading textual critics as David Alan Black, Darrell Bock, Keith Elliott, Maurice Robinson, and Daniel Wallace. This is the book of a 2005 symposium on the subject at Southeastern BTS. My son attended the symposium, and after that went to Southeastern for his PhD where he was mentored by David Alan Black, one of the authors. Then while there he was mentored in Byzantine priority by Dr. Maurice Robinson. At any rate, at the symposium there were only two endings discussed: the longer ending and the ending stopping at v. 8. I believe that book would be very helpful to you if you really want to understand the issues.


An ending with the long is different from an ending with the long and the short. An "no ending past verse 8" ending is different from all the combinations of short and long. Post 11 enumerates many of the combinations.

Here is the NET listing of no ending witnesses:

  • Greek manuscripts (e.g., א, B, 304).
  • Syriac versions (sys).
  • Possibly Samaritan texts (sams).
  • Armenian manuscripts (armmss).
  • Manuscripts associated with Eusebius (Eusmss) and potentially from Jerusalem (Hiermss).
You appear to be mixing up "readings" with "witnesses." A reading is a textual variant, whereas a witness is a passage in a ms. that has that reading.
 
Last edited:

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
My posts are to point out the bad information by Wallace, Metzger, James White and others on the ending of Mark. To dispell bad information on the subject. Doesn't matter what one's position is. It should only be supported by facts, and not misinformation from the past. Accuracy of information, not biased news.
Here are the facts, several different endings for Mark are found in copies of Mark. This is not bad information or misinformation. Therefore many scholars agree that the endings after verse 8 are questionable.
 

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
This is not how textual criticism is done.

Famed textual critic Bruce M. Metzger wrote, "Four endings of the Gospel according to Mark are current in the manuscripts" (A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd ed., p. 102. I have said there are only three, but that is because Metzger's fourth ending is simply the longer ending of the Byzantine textform with a few words added, and it is only extant in one ms, the Washingtonianus, and no textual critic accepts it as being the one in the autographs.

The leading book on this subject is Perspectives on the Ending of Mark, with chapters by such leading textual critics as David Alan Black, Darrell Bock, Keith Elliott, Maurice Robinson, and Daniel Wallace. This is the book of a 2005 symposium on the subject at Southeastern BTS. My son attended the symposium, and after that went to Southeastern for his PhD where he was mentored by David Alan Black, one of the authors. Then while there he was mentored in Byzantine priority by Dr. Maurice Robinson. At any rate, at the symposium there were only two endings discussed: the longer ending and the ending stopping at v. 8. I believe that book would be very helpful to you if you really want to understand the issues.



You appear to be mixing up "readings" with "witnesses." A reading is a textual variant, whereas a witness is a passage in a ms. that has that reading.
1) Yes, I reject majority rule textual evaluation.
2) Famed textual critic Dan Wallace's NET footnote notes several, more than 4 different endings of Mark, due to the combinations and wordings.
3) You are saying I do not understand, rather than addressing the argument from logic in the NET footnote.
4) Your special usage definitions are irrelevant, the NET footnote calls them witnesses.
 

John of Japan

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
1) Yes, I reject majority rule textual evaluation.
2) Famed textual critic Dan Wallace's NET footnote notes several, more than 4 different endings of Mark, due to the combinations and wordings.
3) You are saying I do not understand, rather than addressing the argument from logic in the NET footnote.
4) Your special usage definitions are irrelevant, the NET footnote calls them witnesses.
Just as I thought. You are not understanding Wallace's NET footnote. Since you love Wallace, I took another look at his article in the book I mentioned, Perspectives on the Ending of Mark. In it, he only discusses the three I have mentioned: ending at v. 8, the shorter ending (which he calls the Intermediate Ending), and the longer ending (LE). Surely you can at least admit, though you believe there are many endings, that there are only three important endings to be considered.

And I did address the NET footnote of Wallace, as much as I felt was necessary. This is not a high level discussion (forgive me!), so I saw no need to examine the mss he mentions one by one. I don't think any of us are qualified to do that--you, me, anyone.
 

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Just as I thought. You are not understanding Wallace's NET footnote. Since you love Wallace, I took another look at his article in the book I mentioned, Perspectives on the Ending of Mark. In it, he only discusses the three I have mentioned: ending at v. 8, the shorter ending (which he calls the Intermediate Ending), and the longer ending (LE). Surely you can at least admit, though you believe there are many endings, that there are only three important endings to be considered.

And I did address the NET footnote of Wallace, as much as I felt was necessary. This is not a high level discussion (forgive me!), so I saw no need to examine the mss he mentions one by one. I don't think any of us are qualified to do that--you, me, anyone.
1) An ad hominem aside. Clearly not a high level discussion. :)
2) The NET footnote mentions more than 3 different ending configurations. And Dr. Wallace was the NET NT Editor.
3) The fact there are multiple endings is important.
4) I agree, there is no need to "examine" MSS, but simply to conclude from the multiple endings that any ending is questionable.
 

JesusFan

Well-Known Member
Just as I thought. You are not understanding Wallace's NET footnote. Since you love Wallace, I took another look at his article in the book I mentioned, Perspectives on the Ending of Mark. In it, he only discusses the three I have mentioned: ending at v. 8, the shorter ending (which he calls the Intermediate Ending), and the longer ending (LE). Surely you can at least admit, though you believe there are many endings, that there are only three important endings to be considered.

And I did address the NET footnote of Wallace, as much as I felt was necessary. This is not a high level discussion (forgive me!), so I saw no need to examine the mss he mentions one by one. I don't think any of us are qualified to do that--you, me, anyone.
Very ironic to me in all of these textual criticism discussions that tend to get very pointed here, that we many times seem to fail to understand that few if any of us posting here are qualified to get into the nuts and bolts of these issues. I can quote Dr Wallace, another Dr Black, another Dr Robinson, yet how many of us really even understood what they all wrote down concerning this issue?
My view is still that while one can prefer a certain Greek text as best one available to use, all are profitable to study and use, and all can be used to make a good translation off from

Just feel its wrong when start to make it personable, such as when someone states only CT best, Bzt/MT/Tr all bogus, or that unless one uses TR or Bzt its bogus..

At that point, seems to be getting into like when KJVO derides all other English translations as shams and bogus to use!

And you are one of the more level headed who post here on this issue!
 
Top