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

[JD731]

The manner in which God has revealed his NT ways to the world has much to do with the order of the 4 gospel accounts. They are as follows;

1) Matthew - Ministry to the Jews - Jerusalem - a King
2) Mark - Ministry to the circumcision = Judaea - a Servant
3) Luke - Ministry to the Samaritans - A Man
4) John - Ministry to the world - God

This is the route of the ministry to the world in a metaphor:

Joh 2:13 And the Jews’ passover was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem,
Joh 3:22 After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized.
Joh 4:3 He left Judaea, and departed again into Galilee. 4 And he must needs go through Samaria.
43 ¶ Now after two days he departed thence, and went into Galilee.

The two days of this age represented by two days and a new planting in Matthew 13 a microcosm of this church age..
The planting:
1) Seed fell by the wayside - Jerusalem - Hardness
2) Seed fell on stoney ground - Judaea - shallow no depth
3) Seed fell on thorny ground - Samaria - Choked out by the Judaizers -Asia Minor where the "strangers and Pilgrims" from the 722 BC dispersion were.
4) Seed fell on good ground - Gentiles - Fruit bearing (Shemites-Hamites- Japhethites - varying growth rates)

The ministry of the apostles and prophets: Acts 1 = instructions - The history of Acts - Tracking the travel.

Ac 1:8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in 1) Jerusalem, and 2) in all Judaea, and 3) in Samaria, and 4) unto the uttermost part of the earth.

It is proper that God put this travel plan of the gospel in his scriptures 4 times because the number four is his number for the world. There are 4 winds, 4 seasons, 4 directions, 4 elements etc. etc.. The 4th gospel writer, John, uses the number 4 in his gospel 4 times. God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son to save us in the world).

So, lets look at Mark and who his gospel was written to. These 11 apostles and 70 elders spent the first 7 years preaching to no one except those in the land of Jerusalem and Judaea. What, you ask, does that have to do with Mark 16? Well, the Jews require a sign and Jesus loaded up his preachers whom he was sending to Jerusalem and Judaea with miracle sign working abilities to confirm their gospel preaching was sanctioned by God and to give evidence that Jesus Christ was the son of God and Messiah of Israel and their redeemer.

1Co 1:21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.

Men who cast doubt on the words of Mark are aiding the enemy and are ignorant of the ways of God. God says he cannot be known by the worldly wisdom of these scholars who seem to always come down on the side of doubt and division about the words of God. I am warning against these scholars.

Matthew represents the King coming to Jerusalem only to be rejected and killed.
Mark represents the servant doing the hard work taking proof of the claims of Christ working miracles of confirmation to the common people in Judaea.
Luke represents the son of man testifying to the outcasts, the object of the efforts of the Jewish Christian preachers work in Asia Minor where the strangers of Israel lived.
John (after the apostolic era), the eagle, flying over the West and the whole world of nations with the gospel of salvation to whomever will come because of the rejection of the previous three.

This Bible is the wisdom of God and I thank the Lord publicly for showing me some of these wonderful truths. I believe all the words and verses of Mark 16. His is a faithful and true word. 2 Cor 13:5 is written under inspiration to warn you and me to examine ourselves to see if we are in the faith, lest we be reprobates.

2Co 13:5 Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?

This just after he wrote 2 Cor 11.

 

[37818]

I believe all the words and verses of Mark 16.

 

[Van]

So you can't even be as careful as a college freshman??

I have fully put forth my premise, and feel no need to expand on it just for Van.

More fallacious argumentation, against the person, rather than addressing the evidence that the Ending of Mark is questionable. Nuff said

Early copies in several languages end at verse 8 of Mark 16.

Important witnesses attest that Mark ended at 16:8.

An early church father indicated the most accurate copies of Mark ended at verse 8.

Translations like the NET and NASB indicate the ending after verse 8 is questionable.

And what is the evidence that the long ending alone should be declared the inspired word of God?

 

[Van]

I just looked at the BB rules: https://www.baptistboard.com/threads/general-posting-rules-from-may-19-2006.117032/page-2. I don't see anything about sourcing there, but there should be. It is simply plagiarism to quote someone without identifying who that writer is. There are laws against that, and one can be sued for plagiarism, lose their job, or just tarnish their name and the name of Christianity. It is not enough to say, "You can Google it." That's a copout.

By the way, Turabian 8th ed. requires that when quoting an Internet source, the writer must put when the website was accessed. This allows the prof or editor or anyone else to see if the article is still there, and if it is it can be consulted for the level of scholarship of the writer, the content, the context, etc. Here on the BB it is a little much to say when the article is accessed, since one can simply look at the date of the post. But surely it is the absolute bare minimum to give the source and author!!

Note JOJ is once again addressing my behavior as if his classroom rules were necessary. He suggests if I quote or paraphrase without a source it is plagiarism. Again, addressing me and not the topic.

This practice of deflection is unethical behavior, below the standards of decorum needed to edify others.

​

The Gospel of Mark ends at this point [verse 8] in some witnesses (א B 304 sys sams armmss Eus Eusmss Hiermss), including two of the most respected mss (א B). From the footnote of the NET bible​

​

 

[37818]

And what is the evidence that the long ending alone should be declared the inspired word of God?

'. . . Irenaeus wrote, “Also, towards the conclusion of his Gospel, Mark says, 'So then, after the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven, and sits on the right hand of God” (3.10. 5). Irenaeus's copy of Mark obviously included Mark 16:9–20, since he is quoting here from Mark 16:19.'

 

[Van]

'. . . Irenaeus wrote, “Also, towards the conclusion of his Gospel, Mark says, 'So then, after the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven, and sits on the right hand of God” (3.10. 5). Irenaeus's copy of Mark obviously included Mark 16:9–20, since he is quoting here from Mark 16:19.'

The copy we have now of Against Heresie with that "quote of Mark 16:19 dates to the 16 century. We have no evidence that copy is unaltered, whereas we do have copies dated to the 5th Century missing the ending.

The Gospel of Mark ends at this point [verse 8] in some witnesses (א B 304 sys sams armmss Eus Eusmss Hiermss), including two of the most respected mss (א B). From the footnote of the NET bible​

​

 

[37818]

The copy we have now of Against Heresie with that "quote of Mark 16:19 dates to the 16 century. We have no evidence that copy is unaltered, whereas we do have copies dated to the 5th Century missing the ending.

The Gospel of Mark ends at this point [verse 8] in some witnesses (א B 304 sys sams armmss Eus Eusmss Hiermss), including two of the most respected mss (א B). From the footnote of the NET bible​

​

Well the genuine text belonging to Irenaeus would be from the 2nd century. It is my understanding the Latin Irenaeus dateed.from 380.

Codex Vaticanus blank column suggest Mark 16:9-20 was known to the Vaticanus' scribe.

The Byzantine mss distribution supports Mark 16:1-20 being genuine. Also being 100% of the Byzantine mss.

Colossians 1;23, has the, Greek "every creature," Mark 16:15, New Testament Greek cross reference.

 

[Conan]

The copy we have now of Against Heresie with that "quote of Mark 16:19 dates to the 16 century. We have no evidence that copy is unaltered, whereas we do have copies dated to the 5th Century missing the ending.

The Gospel of Mark ends at this point [verse 8] in some witnesses (א B 304 sys sams armmss Eus Eusmss Hiermss), including two of the most respected mss (א B). From the footnote of the NET bible​

​

Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus should not be considered " two of the most respected mss" ! They are only valuable because they are old. They survived because of their poor Texts. No one used them or copied them. No one copied them. There are no latter manuscripts copied from these. Scribes used other manuscripts to copy their Bibles from. Of course I should specify Gospel Manuscripts. But the ending of Mark is in the Gospel section.

I, like you Van had heard they were the best. So I wanted to know what they said. Turns out they miss a lot of text in the Gospels though eye skip, where they accidently lost text. Not on purpose, and I suppose all manuscripts have a little text losses. But these 2 go way back on their agreements, including the eye skips. And when these two disagree (which is often in the Gospels), one or the other goes with the Byzantine Text. They are not evil or bad manuscripts. They are just not copied very accurately. Or more likely their copy texts weren't that accurate.

 

[Conan]

Well the genuine text belonging to Irenaeus would be from the 2nd century. It is my understanding the Latin Irenaeus dateed.from 380.

Codex Vaticanus blank column suggest Mark 16:9-20 was known to the Vaticanus' scribe.

The Byzantine mss distribution supports Mark 16:1-20 being genuine. Also being 100% of the Byzantine mss.

Colossians 1;23, has the, Greek "every creature," Mark 16:15, New Testament Greek cross reference.

Also the Original Sheets in Codex Sinaiticus were canceled and replaced with other sheets. In other words the scribe was so bad he had to have the ending of Mark the beginning of Luke replaced with new sheets and copied over before the Manuscript left the scriptorium . This was pointed out by Tischendorf himself. So we don't even know what the original scribe wrote first there.

 

[37818]

About 44 minutes

 

[Van]

Well the genuine text belonging to Irenaeus would be from the 2nd century. It is my understanding the Latin Irenaeus dateed.from 380.

Codex Vaticanus blank column suggest Mark 16:9-20 was known to the Vaticanus' scribe.

The Byzantine mss distribution supports Mark 16:1-20 being genuine. Also being 100% of the Byzantine mss.

Colossians 1;23, has the, Greek "every creature," Mark 16:15, New Testament Greek cross reference.

Your understanding of the extant Latin translation of 380 AD is wrong, the extant copy dates to the 16th Century.

The blank may suggest the possibility of a missing ending, but certainly does not point to a specific ending such as the Long Ending.

No, the evidence available does not support the conclusion that the long ending is authentic. It supports the conclusion we cannot rule the long ending in or out.

Yes, one of the problems with the Long Ending is that it seems to allude to other writings not written when Mark was written, pointing to a latter addition, after they were written.

 

[Van]

Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus should not be considered " two of the most respected mss" ! They are only valuable because they are old. They survived because of their poor Texts. No one used them or copied them. No one copied them. There are no latter manuscripts copied from these. Scribes used other manuscripts to copy their Bibles from. Of course I should specify Gospel Manuscripts. But the ending of Mark is in the Gospel section.

I, like you Van had heard they were the best. So I wanted to know what they said. Turns out they miss a lot of text in the Gospels though eye skip, where they accidently lost text. Not on purpose, and I suppose all manuscripts have a little text losses. But these 2 go way back on their agreements, including the eye skips. And when these two disagree (which is often in the Gospels), one or the other goes with the Byzantine Text. They are not evil or bad manuscripts. They are just not copied very accurately. Or more likely their copy texts weren't that accurate.

Yes, the standard behavior of some is to ask for sources, then claim those sources are no good. The NET footnote lists several witnesses that Mark ends at verse 8. So they address two and ignore the rest.

Lets take the "some valid parts of the gospels are missing in these two, Sinaticus and Vaticanus. But other early extant copies have those parts, they are not bracketed, in the NET or NASB. So the argument rests on, if they are missing something else, we cannot accept anything included or not included. Illogically argumentation. Think about this, since the KJV or NASB or NIV are wrong sometimes, we cannot accept anything about them.

 

[Van]

From the internet:

No second century author evinces any knowledge of the LE being in Mark, even though in several places they would likely have mentioned that fact (Hitler Homer, pp. 290-95). Only a medieval Latin translation of Irenaeus includes mention of it, and there is strong evidence that’s an interpolation of a marginal note not written by Irenaeus (Hitler Homer, pp. 295-300). Third century authors all fail to mention the LE even when they should have (e.g. Hippolytus, Origen, Clement, Vincentius), while fourth century authors (e.g. Eusebius and Jerome) outright tell us it was a rare reading (Hitler Homer, pp. 300-09). A later medieval author even admitted to adding it to manuscripts he found lacking it (Hitler Homer, pp. 306-07).​

​

 

[37818]

Your understanding of the extant Latin translation of 380 AD is wrong, the extant copy dates to the 16th Century.

Nestle-Aland reference is wrong?

 

[John of Japan]

Note JOJ is once again addressing my behavior as if his classroom rules were necessary. He suggests if I quote or paraphrase without a source it is plagiarism. Again, addressing me and not the topic.

This practice of deflection is unethical behavior, below the standards of decorum needed to edify others.

Okay, that settles it. Our college freshmen are more careful about sources than Van. Hands down! And he is an unrepentant plagiarizer.

Dude, your primary reaction against rebuke is to attack the rebuker. Why is that, I wonder?

 

[John of Japan]

From the internet:

​

No second century author evinces any knowledge of the LE being in Mark, even though in several places they would likely have mentioned that fact (Hitler Homer, pp. 290-95). Only a medieval Latin translation of Irenaeus includes mention of it, and there is strong evidence that’s an interpolation of a marginal note not written by Irenaeus (Hitler Homer, pp. 295-300). Third century authors all fail to mention the LE even when they should have (e.g. Hippolytus, Origen, Clement, Vincentius), while fourth century authors (e.g. Eusebius and Jerome) outright tell us it was a rare reading (Hitler Homer, pp. 300-09). A later medieval author even admitted to adding it to manuscripts he found lacking it (Hitler Homer, pp. 306-07).​

​

Oh, well, it's the Internet, so it must be right. Never mind who wrote it and their training and scholarship to write such a thing, they are right, because it's from the Internet!!! And we are not allowed to question Van's sources, because they're from the Internet.

 

[John of Japan]

From the internet:

​

No second century author evinces any knowledge of the LE being in Mark, even though in several places they would likely have mentioned that fact (Hitler Homer, pp. 290-95). Only a medieval Latin translation of Irenaeus includes mention of it, and there is strong evidence that’s an interpolation of a marginal note not written by Irenaeus (Hitler Homer, pp. 295-300). Third century authors all fail to mention the LE even when they should have (e.g. Hippolytus, Origen, Clement, Vincentius), while fourth century authors (e.g. Eusebius and Jerome) outright tell us it was a rare reading (Hitler Homer, pp. 300-09). A later medieval author even admitted to adding it to manuscripts he found lacking it (Hitler Homer, pp. 306-07).​

​

Since Van refuses to reveal his sources, I looked this one up, and the dude is here: Was the Long Ending of Mark Original? First Reply • Richard Carrier Blogs. Note that Richard Carrier is not a textual critic, does not have his PhD in church history, does not appear to know the Greek, does not list any Bible degrees, etc. And in the blog post Van quotes from (we don't allow blog posts as sources for a college paper) Carrier quotes himself as an authority!! (Who does that, really??) And that is "the Internet" that Van is so sure is authoritative. And his own book that Carrier quotes is self-published and has a weird title. Check it out here: https://www.amazon.com/Hitler-Homer.../dp/1493567128/?ie=UTF8&tag=richardcarrier-20. Oh, and by the way, he believes Peter's reference to "cleverly devised myths" in his epistle is the Gospels!

Anyone who trusts Van's quotes after this deserve what they get.

 

[Van]

Nestle-Aland reference is wrong?

Yes, I see my source says only a Medieval copy includes mention of the long endiong. But, having searched other sites, several say the extant copy in Latin dates to 380 AD.

 

[Van]

Since Van refuses to reveal his sources, I looked this one up, and the dude is here: Was the Long Ending of Mark Original? First Reply • Richard Carrier Blogs. Note that Richard Carrier is not a textual critic, does not have his PhD in church history, does not appear to know the Greek, does not list any Bible degrees, etc. And in the blog post Van quotes from (we don't allow blog posts as sources for a college paper) Carrier quotes himself as an authority!! (Who does that, really??) And that is "the Internet" that Van is so sure is authoritative. And his own book that Carrier quotes is self-published and has a weird title. Check it out here: https://www.amazon.com/Hitler-Homer.../dp/1493567128/?ie=UTF8&tag=richardcarrier-20. Oh, and by the way, he believes Peter's reference to "cleverly devised myths" in his epistle is the Gospels!

Anyone who trusts Van's quotes after this deserve what they get.

There he goes again! My source was posted, and JOJ reviewed it. But then he falsely claims I did not reveal my source.
Next, predictably, he claims my source is no good. How many times is he going to run this silly play?
He seems to think he is the final judge, first Dr. Wallace is no good because he disagrees, now Dr. Carrier is not good too.
Did I say the internet is authoritative? Nope, but there he goes again, misrepresenting others.

Finally, not JOJ is still addressing my behavior, rather than the topic, thus once again use fallacious argumentation on a Christian board.

Finally, he seeks to disqualify Richards argument, because other arguments of Richard are nonsense. That is the old, since he was wrong on "A" he must be wrong on "B." Illogical nonsense again.

 

[Van]

Oh, well, it's the Internet, so it must be right. Never mind who wrote it and their training and scholarship to write such a thing, they are right, because it's from the Internet!!! And we are not allowed to question Van's sources, because they're from the Internet.

Here JOJ falsely claims that others are not "allowed" to question the arguments made from "internet quotes." Ludicrous