Last 12 verses of Mark

[Askjo]

To show how things are on this passage....this I post from the ESV

Quote:

Some manuscripts end the book with 16:8; others include verses 9-20 immediately after verse 8. A few manuscripts insert additional material after verse 14; one Latin manuscript adds after verse 8 the following: But they reported briefly to Peter and those with him all that they had been told. And after this, Jesus himself sent out by means of them, from east to west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation. Other manuscripts include this same wording after verse 8, then continue with verses 9-20

Which one is right?

Massive manuscripts going back to 2nd Century contained these passages. A few manuscripts going back to 4th Century removed them. The question: According to Jack Moorman, are we really to believe that the Gospel of Mark would end in verse 8 with the words, "for they were afraid"?

 

[standingfirminChrist]

I do not believe the original manuscripts omitted the last twelve verses of Mark 16.

To omit them leaves one hanging... what happened next? Am I going to have to buy the next book of the series to find out?

No, since Mark was his own writer, he would not have left the readers hanging. He would have told the blessed story of the resurrection of our Lord.

 

[TCGreek]

Massive manuscripts going back to 2nd Century contained these passages. A few manuscripts going back to 4th Century removed them. The question: According to Jack Moorman, are we really to believe that the Gospel of Mark would end in verse 8 with the words, "for they were afraid"?

What are the names of those manuscripts (MSS) which contain these verses?

 

[John of Japan]

Hello, John of Japan, and Happy New Year to you. (I understand you got about a 16 hour head start on us, here, in KY.)

Seriously, I cannot comment on "the Robinson-Pierpont Byzantine Text Form", for I have never seen it.

However, the statement is incorrect about the Majority Text of Hodges and Farstad, here, at least with the 2nd Edition in the "no footnotes" description. (I hold a "hard copy" in my hot little paws, as I speak.) The 'sigla' used in by Hodges and Farstad show that there is a difference in the "majority" of the "majority texts", (M) plus "A" & "C" as opposed to that of "א", "B", plus the so-called "critical text" (Cr) which is basically equivalent to the UBS text.

Thanks for correcting me, Ed. I have the first edition of Hodges-Farstad, and I simply overlooked the footnote.

In fact, the "Majority text" is itself, an 'eclectic' text, as well, as is/was the TR, W/H, the UBS, etc.. They all are 'eclectic'. The amount and weight of the evidence that lies behind a particular text we have, is a debatable question; but we have no extant "text" per se, from what I understand, but rather all texts are 'compiled', and no two manuscripts or codices are in 100% agreement as to every minute detail. (It begs the question to dismiss this as "only a few" varainces, in one case vs. "a whole bunch" in another, IMO.)

The question of how 'eclectic', therefore is still one of degrees.

I do admit placing much more stock in the "Majority/Byzantine Text" tradition, as compiled by Hodges and Farstad with over 400 texts checked out, and even in the UBS "tradition" a large improvement over W/H, with also a great number checked out, than I do in W/H and even the early TRs, which were based on an extremely limited number of texts, at the disposal of the compilers.

That is neither to question the motives, nor render an indictment of anyone, but merely is a recognition of what they had available to work with. Here is one place, I see a decided "safety in numbers", if you will.

Just for information, gang.

Ed

I guess it depends on how you define "eclectic." Currently, however, scholars of textual criticism use the term to define a methodology. By that methodology, all text families and all manuscripts are given weight (though it may be different weight based on the presuppositions of the critic).

On the other hand, the Byzantine/Majority texts that are out there (Robinson-Pierpont, Hodges-Farstad) have a methodology of sticking to one textual family versus the others. Thus, if the mss of the Byz/Maj tradition give primary consideration to mss from that family, and never choose a reading if the Alexandrian text family has it when the Byz/Maj does not.

 

[John of Japan]

1. I'll like to read it.

In "Against the Pelagians II" Jerome refers to a lot of Scripture, including Mark 16:14 where he comments, "Even the Apostles showed unbelief and hardness of heart."

2. Personally, nothing is lost if vv. 9-20 turn out not be be genuine at all, for the truths of those verses are taught in other places, over and over again.

Oh, but I love to preach Mark's Great Commission on furlough!

4. I remember my OT prof saying that NT scholars didn't have much to do, so they come up with all these theories. I believe he's somewhat correct. :laugh:

And that's the truth! Thanks for the laugh.

 

[TCGreek]

In "Against the Pelagians II" Jerome refers to a lot of Scripture, including Mark 16:14 where he comments, "Even the Apostles showed unbelief and hardness of heart."

1. Thanks, John. I went and saw it too--this appears to be strong evidence for including these vv.

Oh, but I love to preach Mark's Great Commission on furlough!
And that's the truth! Thanks for the laugh.

2. I've preached from them before, but since going to seminary, I haven't. Now that doesn't speak well of seminary education, does it? :smilewinkgrin:

 

[JustChristian]

1. What do you mean it's in the canon? How is it in the Canon, when it's bracketed and hotly debated for centuries?

2. Being in our Bibles is really not the same as being in the Canon. Is it?

If you want to discuss the cannon, what about the 7 Apochraphal books which were included in the Authorized 1611 KJV? Who decided what is ultimately in the cannon? Also, it's generally accepted that the Catholic version of the Lord's prayer ending with "but deliver us from evil" is the more correct version.

 

[John of Japan]

If you want to discuss the cannon, what about the 7 Apochraphal books which were included in the Authorized 1611 KJV? Who decided what is ultimately in the cannon?

Usually, you put the powder, wadding and cannon ball in the cannon. :smilewinkgrin:

But seriously, God's believers, His priests in this dispensation, decided what should be in the canon as the Holy Spirit led them. That's why all the early churches eventually agreed on it.

Also, it's generally accepted that the Catholic version of the Lord's prayer ending with "but deliver us from evil" is the more correct version.

Generally accepted? Catholic version? Where in the world did you hear this?? There are a lot of us out here, including recognized scholars, who believe the longer ending is the more correct ending.

 

[TCGreek]

If you want to discuss the cannon, what about the 7 Apochraphal books which were included in the Authorized 1611 KJV? Who decided what is ultimately in the cannon? Also, it's generally accepted that the Catholic version of the Lord's prayer ending with "but deliver us from evil" is the more correct version.

BB,

1. I have to agree with John on this one. Since the 2nd century there have been debates about what should be in and what should not be in.

2. Do you want to see a copy of the Marcion canon? I don't think you would like to.

3. Providentially, God has seen to it that what should be in, are in the canon that we now have.

4. Though 1611 was a great moment in church history, it has little to do with the canon, IMO, for the 11611 was built on the canon that was already established. The 1611 KJV was not a new version. :thumbs:

 

[JustChristian]

BB,

1. I have to agree with John on this one. Since the 2nd century there have been debates about what should be in and what should not be in.

2. Do you want to see a copy of the Marcion canon? I don't think you would like to.

3. Providentially, God has seen to it that what should be in, are in the canon that we now have.

4. Though 1611 was a great moment in church history, it has little to do with the canon, IMO, for the 11611 was built on the canon that was already established. The 1611 KJV was not a new version. :thumbs:

Therefore, the Apochrapha should be in the Protestant Bible. Correct? The only point I was making is that there have been more than one cannon.

 

[TCGreek]

Therefore, the Apochrapha should be in the Protestant Bible. Correct? The only point I was making is that there have been more than one cannon.

How did you get that conclusion from what I wrote? Do you know what the Apocraphal books are and how they came about?

 

[JustChristian]

Usually, you put the powder, wadding and cannon ball in the cannon. :smilewinkgrin:

But seriously, God's believers, His priests in this dispensation, decided what should be in the canon as the Holy Spirit led them. That's why all the early churches eventually agreed on it.

Generally accepted? Catholic version? Where in the world did you hear this?? There are a lot of us out here, including recognized scholars, who believe the longer ending is the more correct ending.

You make the same mistake I did. Actually both versions are in the KJV Bible.

Mat 6:9 After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Mat 6:10 Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as [it is] in heaven. Mat 6:11 Give us this day our daily bread. Mat 6:12 And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors. Mat 6:13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.


Luk 11:2 And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth. Luk 11:3 Give us day by day our daily bread. Luk 11:4 And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil.

 

[John of Japan]

You make the same mistake I did. Actually both versions are in the KJV Bible.

Mat 6:9 After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Mat 6:10 Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as [it is] in heaven. Mat 6:11 Give us this day our daily bread. Mat 6:12 And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors. Mat 6:13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.


Luk 11:2 And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth. Luk 11:3 Give us day by day our daily bread. Luk 11:4 And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil.

The fact that Luke has a different version of the Lord's Prayer than Matthew in no way negates the massive manuscript evidence (going back to the 1st century Didache) that the longer ending of the Lord's Prayer in Matthew is the correct one. The fact is, the sermon in Luke is not the "Sermon on the Mount" but the "Sermon on the Plain," given at a different time and in a different place. (Compare Matthew 5:1 to Luke 6:17.)

But all of that is off topic. If you wish to start a new thread on the Lord's Prayer or the Sermon on the Mount/Plain, go right ahead and I'll contribute when I can. Bring your "cannon." You'll need it.

 

[TCGreek]

The fact that Luke has a different version of the Lord's Prayer than Matthew in no way negates the massive manuscript evidence (going back to the 1st century Didache) that the longer ending of the Lord's Prayer in Matthew is the correct one. The fact is, the sermon in Luke is not the "Sermon on the Mount" but the "Sermon on the Plain," given at a different time and in a different place. (Compare Matthew 5:1 to Luke 6:17.)

But all of that is off topic. If you wish to start a new thread on the Lord's Prayer or the Sermon on the Mount/Plain, go right ahead and I'll contribute when I can. Bring your "cannon." You'll need it.

John,

The Didache is a very intriguing document, from its very date to its contents. Fascinating, I say!

 

[John of Japan]

John,

The Didache is a very intriguing document, from its very date to its contents. Fascinating, I say!

No doubt! I've always been entrigued by it. I first became aware of it when I bought J. B. Lightfoot's The Apostolic Fathers in my younger days. Good show, eh what? :type:

 

[rstrats]

TCGreek,

re: "Personally, nothing is lost if vv. 9-20 turn out not to be genuine at all, for the truths of those verses are taught in other places..."

Actually there is a statement in verse 9, as the KJV has it, that is used for a doctrinal teaching that is to be found nowhere else in Scripture. As the KJV translates it, it is the only place that puts the resurrection on the first day of the week.

 

[TCGreek]

TCGreek,

re: "Personally, nothing is lost if vv. 9-20 turn out not to be genuine at all, for the truths of those verses are taught in other places..."

Actually there is a statement in verse 9, as the KJV has it, that is used for a doctrinal teaching that is to be found nowhere else in Scripture. As the KJV translates it, it is the only place that puts the resurrection on the first day of the week.

1. I reconsidered the other Synoptic Gospels and John and saw what you're saying. But from the very mood of text, there's no doubt that Jesus was raised on the day after the Sabbath, the first day of the week.

2. Furthermore, we can engage on what three days look like regarding the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus.