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

[JesusFan]

Advocates of the Byzantine textform position such as Dr. Maurice Robinson do not "count mss" and do not use the majority methods of Hodges and Farstad, or Wilbur Pickering.

Please clarify. In your very long quote I only see four.

And how is Wallace more knowledgeable than "famed textual critic" Metzger, who I quoted as saying four Greek endings?

I have quoted Metzger contra your understanding of Wallace. And while I respect Wallace's worldwide pursuit of new Greek mss, and his Greek expertise (I've taught from his textbook), in textual criticism he is not in the class of Metzger, who (though I disagree with him) is one of the editors of the UBS text, and author of authoritative books on textual criticism.

I'll wait for you to specifically give from your Wallace quote the "more than four" Greek endings, because I don't see it.

Both Dr Wallace and Dr Metzger were far more knowledgably in the field of textual criticism, and especially Wallace in the Greek texts, than pretty much any in say KJVO camp.

 

[JesusFan]

I remain persuaded Mark 16:9-20 is original to Mark.

Proverbs 30:5-6, Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

Those translations that have it as a footnote of not being found in originals, do you still see them as being valid English bibles ?

 

[37818]

Those translations that have it as a footnote of not being found in originals, do you still see them as being valid English bibles ?

How?

 

[Conan]

Both Dr Wallace and Dr Metzger were far more knowledgably in the field of textual criticism, and especially Wallace in the Greek texts, than pretty much any in say KJVO camp.

While that is true. They know a lot more than the KJVO camp. But those two are still both wrong about what the best Greek Manuscripts are, and what Greek editions to use in Bible translation. Heck, if we are going to be honest, KJVO has more accurate Greek Texts than those two. While those two will improve a reading or two, they will get 7 or 8 more wrong. No offense meant brother.

 

[John of Japan]

Both Dr Wallace and Dr Metzger were far more knowledgably in the field of textual criticism, and especially Wallace in the Greek texts, than pretty much any in say KJVO camp.

On the other hand, Byzantine priority advocate Dr. Maurice Robinson, with a PhD in textual criticism, has more education and experience in the field than Wallace, and Metzger believes there are errors in Scripture (he mentored Bart Ehrman in this, who then became an atheist), so I'll go with Robinson any time.

 

[JesusFan]

On the other hand, Byzantine priority advocate Dr. Maurice Robinson, with a PhD in textual criticism, has more education and experience in the field than Wallace, and Metzger believes there are errors in Scripture (he mentored Bart Ehrman in this, who then became an atheist), so I'll go with Robinson any time.

All of them would be preferred to be reading and going with then those who make up the camp of textual experts and scholars in the Kjvo camp

Just curious, did Dr Metzger actually teach that the originals themselves had errors and mistakes in them?

 

[JesusFan]

How?

Are the esv/Nas/Niv valid translations?

 

[JesusFan]

While that is true. They know a lot more than the KJVO camp. But those two are still both wrong about what the best Greek Manuscripts are, and what Greek editions to use in Bible translation. Heck, if we are going to be honest, KJVO has more accurate Greek Texts than those two. While those two will improve a reading or two, they will get 7 or 8 more wrong. No offense meant brother.

None taken, but still do see CT and MT and BZT Greek texts as essentially stating to us the same bible, its just more a matter of preference and convections

 

[37818]

Are the esv/Nas/Niv valid translations?

Yes, as matter of some degree. Personally of those three I prefer the NASB.

 

[37818]

Are the esv/Nas/Niv valid translations?

Now Jesus taught the nonbelievers in John 8:47, He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.

Now Mark 16:9-20 being God's word. And I was not to believe that?

Now the if the added words in 1 John 5:7-8, were also the God breathed word of God, and I was not to believe that. It would be the same result for me.

Now I believe Mark 16:9-20 to be Holy Scripture. And the saved who do not are still saved.

 

[Conan]

 

[John of Japan]

All of them would be preferred to be reading and going with then those who make up the camp of textual experts and scholars in the Kjvo camp

Just curious, did Dr Metzger actually teach that the originals themselves had errors and mistakes in them?

Yes, it is well known that he did, and that the way he taught textual criticism is partly what drove Bart Ehrman to atheism. Metzger was Ehrman's prof and mentor at Princeton. They did the 4th ed. together of The Text of the New Testament.

 

[Van]

So far so good.

So far so good.

So far so good.

This is not a new ending, but simply indicates mss which have endings 2 and 3, both.

Not a different ending, but simply the ending at v. 8.

I actually mentioned this version of the longer ending. You have here at the very most 4 endings, which I held to 3 endings because the last one is simply a different version of the long ending. "W" is Washingtonianus, which I have already discussed, and it is the only ms which has this version of the long ending, so it does not help your cause in the slightest. So, there are not "numerous endings," but only 4 at the maximum.

4) I did not say a new ending, scholars consider it a "different" ending because of its differing configuration.

5) Again, a different configuration, with margin notes saying some earlier copies ended at verse 8.

6) Again, you claim 4 or 3, but other scholars, such as those approving the NET footnote, see the basis of many more that call into question the text after verse 8.

 

[John of Japan]

4) I did not say a new ending, scholars consider it a "different" ending because of its differing configuration.

5) Again, a different configuration, with margin notes saying some earlier copies ended at verse 8.

6) Again, you claim 4 or 3, but other scholars, such as those approving the NET footnote, see the basis of many more that call into question the text after verse 8.

Same old same old. "Move along, folks, nothing new here."

 

[Van]

Same old same old. "Move along, folks, nothing new here."

Yes, the NET footnote is not new, and it puts forth a view contradictory to that of JOJ.

All the different configurations of text after verse 8 suggest some or all may be non-inspired additions to Mark's inspired text.

Early church fathers indicated they were aware of longer endings, but supported the view Mark ended at verse 8.

The effort to claim Mark 16:9-20 is not questionable, and should not be independently relied upon for doctrine is without merit.

 

[John of Japan]

Yes, the NET footnote is not new, and it puts forth a view contradictory to that of JOJ.

No new news there.

All the different configurations of text after verse 8 suggest some or all may be non-inspired additions to Mark's inspired text.

Early church fathers indicated they were aware of longer endings, but supported the view Mark ended at verse 8.

​

It seems clear to me that in his letter to Marinus, in discussing the problem of harmonizing Matthew 28:1 and Mark 16:9, Eusebius not only quotes from the perspective of the person who would regard the Longer Ending as spurious—where he reports that “the accurate copies” end at 16:8—but that he himself also affirms that this was the ending of Mark “in nearly all the copies” (to Marinus 1).8 Eusebius does also attempt a harmonization, for the sake of argument, assuming that the Longer Ending was part of the text of Mark, but Eusebius is offering a complex double sort of approach here.9 What is also clear is that, in the construction of his influential Canon Tables, Eusebius did not include the Longer Ending of Mark.10​

Where is this quote from? You don't source it.

The effort to claim Mark 16:9-20 is not questionable, and should not be independently relied upon for doctrine is without merit.

In the NET footnote, Wallace refers to Jerome (340-420) and Eusebius (he doesn't say which Eusebius, but they both lived about the same time). If he is referring to the church historian Eusebius, he died in 342. Neither of these are "early church fathers," but both are Post-Nicene fathers. All we can say of these two men is that they had access to Antiochan texts but not Byzantine. (Both were regional.)

 

[Conan]

99.7 % Manuscripts testify to the Long ending. Only 3 manuscripts omit the long ending, probably because of damaged copy text.

 

[Conan]

You can post taint so till the cows come home, the long ending by Mark is considered by the majority of scholars to be questionable.

The majority of textual scholars are usually wrong.

Here is a typical internet source response:

​

​

Eusebius, an early church father, quoted a statement regarding the Gospel of Mark's ending, specifically mentioning "the accurate copies". He noted that in these copies, the Gospel concluded with Mark 16:8, where the women were afraid, and not with the longer ending (Mark 16:9-20).​

​

Elaboration: ​

Eusebius's quote is relevant to textual criticism of the New Testament, particularly concerning the varying endings of the Gospel of Mark. He observed that some manuscripts ended at verse 8, while others included verses 9-20. He used the term "accurate copies" to refer to the manuscripts ending at verse 8, suggesting that these were the most reliable and authentic versions.​

​

I do not believe that is an accurate view of the issue. This version is even more misleading than the NET footnote. Compare the 2.

​

Why this quote is significant:​

• Textual Criticism:
  Eusebius's observation highlights the existence of different versions of the Gospel of Mark in antiquity, which is a key point in textual criticism.

​

There were not different versions of Mark circulating ever. Post one if you have one.

• Influence of the Longer Ending:
  The quote suggests that the longer ending (Mark 16:9-20) was not present in the earliest and most authoritative copies.

Hogwash. If that were true were are they? There would be dozens or hundreds of manuscripts like that if that were true. 1650 verses 3 suggests your information is not true. The record is different verses your claim.

• 
  Early Church Understanding:
  It provides insight into how the early church viewed the text of Mark and its various endings.
  
  

The record shows differently. 1650 verses 3.

 

[John of Japan]

You can post taint so till the cows come home, the long ending by Mark is considered by the majority of scholars to be questionable.

Here is a typical internet source response:

​

​

Eusebius, an early church father, quoted a statement regarding the Gospel of Mark's ending, specifically mentioning "the accurate copies". He noted that in these copies, the Gospel concluded with Mark 16:8, where the women were afraid, and not with the longer ending (Mark 16:9-20).​

​

Elaboration: ​

Eusebius's quote is relevant to textual criticism of the New Testament, particularly concerning the varying endings of the Gospel of Mark. He observed that some manuscripts ended at verse 8, while others included verses 9-20. He used the term "accurate copies" to refer to the manuscripts ending at verse 8, suggesting that these were the most reliable and authentic versions.​

​

​

Why this quote is significant:​

• Textual Criticism:
  Eusebius's observation highlights the existence of different versions of the Gospel of Mark in antiquity, which is a key point in textual criticism.

​

• Influence of the Longer Ending:
  The quote suggests that the longer ending (Mark 16:9-20) was not present in the earliest and most authoritative copies.
  Early Church Understanding:
  It provides insight into how the early church viewed the text of Mark and its various endings.

You didn't source the previous quote, and now you don't source this one. That is unethical. If someone went to all the trouble to write and post something, they should at least get credit for it.

And if the source is anonymous, that is even worse. I don't allow my students to use anonymous sources in their research papers, and indeed just today corrected a paper that used an anonymous source, and I disallowed it. I understand someone not wanting to have their real identity on something like the Baptist Board (but personally, I am open here), but I'm not talking about that.

In regards to Eusebius, he was not a Bible scholar, but a church historian. (I've read his work.) So the quote of him means little to me.

 

[JD731]

My thoughts; hope no one minds.

Ac 8:25 And they, when they had testified and preached the word of the Lord, returned to Jerusalem, and preached the gospel in many villages of the Samaritans. This event took place 8 years after the resurrection of Jesus Christ and the verse defines the word of the Lord as the gospel.in this instance. The "they" in this context is Peter and John, apostles, who were sent from Jerusalem to fulfill their apostolic calling to stand in the authority of Jesus Christ, retaining and forgiving sins. These Samaritan converts had been baptized in water by Phillip but he could not lay hands on them, giving them the Holy Ghost. This action required an apostle and it is clearly in line with the commission in John 20 and in Mark 16:15-16. The next we hear of Phillip was in the desert preaching to a Hamite and baptizing him in water after he believed Jesus Christ is the son of God, because he was not of the family of Jacob.

21 Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.
22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:
23 Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.

Interestingly, Peter did not remit the sins of the devilish Simon in Acts 8.

Where was the word of the Lord that these preachers were following if not in the last 12 verses of Mark?

We have a corresponding incident with Paul several years later in the first 7 verses of Acts 19 when he met 12 disciples of John the Baptist who had not heard the gospel and Paul likewise required they be baptized in water and have his apostles hands laid on them to receive the Spirit.

This proves better than textual criticism that we must have the last 12 verses in Mark otherwise we could not be sure how to understand these baptism verses as they relate to the Jews and not to gentile Christians.

Remember, the word of the Lord is a title for Jesus Christ and he is mentioned in 13 verses in the NT.