No, it doesn't. Read it for yourself. It is a little hard to read in some places, but it is there.
Codex Sinaiticus - See The Manuscript | Genesis |
-
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!
Mark 16: 9-20?
- Thread starter tyndale1946
- Start date
- Status
Codex Sinaiticus - See The Manuscript | Genesis |
I don't know if this was mentioned before, but the Syriac Sinaiticus (also called the Sinaitic Palimpsest) dated late in the 4th century doesn't have the L.E. It contains Matthew and Mark.
It's interesting that Minuscule 304 --dated in the 12th century doesn't have the L.E. even though it is Byzantine. It contains Matthew and Mark.
It's interesting that Minuscule 304 --dated in the 12th century doesn't have the L.E. even though it is Byzantine. It contains Matthew and Mark.
I think John 20:1-2 and Matthew 28:1 indicate the same thing.
I understand the concern, but I really do think that it is at the very minimum strongly implied (enough to constitute doctrine) that the discovery of the empty tomb corresponds with the Resurrection.
And, just to make sure I'm not being misunderstood, I also believe that the end of Mark (the long ending) belongs. I think that the passage being left out is probably due to an incomplete manuscript at some point in time (people used what they had). But I also appreciate the versions of the Bible that provide both the text and a note of explanation.
Insofar as building doctrine, I would be very hesitant to actually build doctrine on one verse of Scripture. Even with Mark, I believe the comment of the Resurrection goes back to the women at the tomb as Mark 16 begins with the Sabbath ending and the women bringing spices to the tomb.
I understand that if we need a definitive statement that Jesus was resurrected on Sunday (and not on the Sabbath) upon which to build doctrine then we are dependent on this verse. But if that's the case then we have more issues than whether or not this passage belongs in Mark.
Just some thoughts: As some have mentioned, there is evidence for early references to the Majority Text (with the longer ending of Mark.) I appreciate that, and I happen to agree that the longer ending does belong there. However, just because a source is early doesn't make it accurate - I'm referring to Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, which are called the "oldest and best" manuscripts, primarily "best" because they're early. We don't have the original manuscripts. We have copies of copies and copies of copies of copies. You could have an "early" manuscript that is the twenty-third generation copy, and a manuscript that is a couple hundred years later, that is only an eleventh generation copy. In this case the "early" manuscript could contain many more errors than the later manuscript. Therefore, being an early manuscript alone, is not enough to discredit later manuscripts.
Also, there are a few other possibilities. What if the Majority Texts (the later manuscripts of which most, if not all, contain the longer ending of Mark), were actually present in the first and second centuries, but they were in such popular demand that they were destroyed by such great use? They were simply worn out. This could explain why no older Majority Texts (with the longer ending) are found. I don't believe the argument "There are so many of those manuscripts; surely they could have found one or two," would be valid. I wouldn't believe the Majority Texts started out with such huge numbers. They would have started small and grown over time.
Along those lines, look at the climate. Vaticanus and Sinaiticus (again - the "best" manuscripts) came from Alexandria, Egypt, an ideal climate which would preserve manuscripts beautifully. Look at the location of most of the Majority Texts - Asia Minor, with a climate that would destroy manuscripts upon much exposure. This could also explain the lack of the early Majority texts.
Speaking of location, there's something to be said about the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus coming from Alexandria, Egypt, while the Majority Texts come primarily from an area where the original Manuscripts were written/written to, and New Testament Churches were planted and influencing their society. I would think the likelihood of more trustworthy manuscripts would be greater from those in close vicinity to areas where the original manuscripts had been present.
The number of manuscripts has already been discussed in this thread, but I think it's worth a mention, because there is a reason for the huge number of manuscripts with the long ending of Mark. And again, we're not talking about but a very small number of manuscripts that are supposedly the best, on which we're putting such a high priority, and most Bibles today are based on these few manuscripts. Disclaimer - I'm not a KJVO/NKJO proponent.
Lastly, although this doesn't specifically mean what we have in vss. 9-20 are the final verses to end the Book of Mark, we can almost be assured that Mark 16:8 is not the ending to the book. "So they went out quickly and fled from the tomb, for they trembled and were amazed. And they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid." NKJV The very last line of the book being "And they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid."???? I think not.
Also, there are a few other possibilities. What if the Majority Texts (the later manuscripts of which most, if not all, contain the longer ending of Mark), were actually present in the first and second centuries, but they were in such popular demand that they were destroyed by such great use? They were simply worn out. This could explain why no older Majority Texts (with the longer ending) are found. I don't believe the argument "There are so many of those manuscripts; surely they could have found one or two," would be valid. I wouldn't believe the Majority Texts started out with such huge numbers. They would have started small and grown over time.
Along those lines, look at the climate. Vaticanus and Sinaiticus (again - the "best" manuscripts) came from Alexandria, Egypt, an ideal climate which would preserve manuscripts beautifully. Look at the location of most of the Majority Texts - Asia Minor, with a climate that would destroy manuscripts upon much exposure. This could also explain the lack of the early Majority texts.
Speaking of location, there's something to be said about the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus coming from Alexandria, Egypt, while the Majority Texts come primarily from an area where the original Manuscripts were written/written to, and New Testament Churches were planted and influencing their society. I would think the likelihood of more trustworthy manuscripts would be greater from those in close vicinity to areas where the original manuscripts had been present.
The number of manuscripts has already been discussed in this thread, but I think it's worth a mention, because there is a reason for the huge number of manuscripts with the long ending of Mark. And again, we're not talking about but a very small number of manuscripts that are supposedly the best, on which we're putting such a high priority, and most Bibles today are based on these few manuscripts. Disclaimer - I'm not a KJVO/NKJO proponent.
Lastly, although this doesn't specifically mean what we have in vss. 9-20 are the final verses to end the Book of Mark, we can almost be assured that Mark 16:8 is not the ending to the book. "So they went out quickly and fled from the tomb, for they trembled and were amazed. And they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid." NKJV The very last line of the book being "And they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid."???? I think not.
TC... I went there and no sooner than as I got there I left there... As it was all Greek to me... That was Greek wasn't it?
... Then I opened by KJV Bible to where I thought it was
... I wish you could help me out but in all honesty this old dog is to old to go to language school now
... Brother GlenNo offence TC but you brethren sure like to Sinaiticus and Vaticanius each other... Now me on the other hand will Englishify it... That's the only word I could come up with
... Brother Glen
Last edited:
Actually I don't. I am unabashedly Byzantine Preferred. I posted the reference only to disprove One Baptism's false claim that certain words/passages were missing.
Actually I don't. I am unabashedly Byzantine Preferred. I posted the reference only to disprove One Baptism's false claim that certain words/passages were missing.
... I missed one... At least you know what you are talking about... It's good to know a brother believer who can right the write... My wife is retired English teacher and I butcher the kings English everyday... Could you brethren kindly pray for me?... Couldn't hurt!... Brother Glen
Some here are Critical text preferred, some MT, others even Tr, so glad that we all can get along!Actually I don't. I am unabashedly Byzantine Preferred. I posted the reference only to disprove One Baptism's false claim that certain words/passages were missing.
jonC,
re: "... I really do think that it is at the very minimum strongly implied (enough to constitute doctrine) that the discovery of the empty tomb corresponds with the Resurrection."
I'm really not trying to be difficult, but I wonder if you could point out the parts of those verses that you think strongly imply a first of the week resurrection?
BTW, I do think the resurrection probably did take place on the first of the week.
re: "... I really do think that it is at the very minimum strongly implied (enough to constitute doctrine) that the discovery of the empty tomb corresponds with the Resurrection."
I'm really not trying to be difficult, but I wonder if you could point out the parts of those verses that you think strongly imply a first of the week resurrection?
BTW, I do think the resurrection probably did take place on the first of the week.
I believe that Scripture presents a concern that the crucifixion and burial take place before the Sabbath begins (to the extent I believe Christ's burial was the day before the Sabbath...i.e., Friday) and that Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea prepared the body (as the women could not under their law). I believe that the discovery of the women when they arrived with spices (I believe they went to the tomb on Sunday because this was their first opportunity under the Law). I also believe that Jesus was in the tomb 3 days. The resurrection, in my view, had to occur on Sunday based on Scripture apart from the ending of Mark.
Garrett20
Member
Really? Did the day of Pentacost come before or after the tomb?
Look at the ending of John. We find a meek and doubting Peter who is filled with shame.
The ending with people being afraid seems quite accurate to the events, which transpired over that fateful weekend.
Calv1
Active Member
Maybe someone could enlighten me, this verse is in my KJV but I have heard it is not in other translations... Sorry you other brethren are missing it in yours... Could somebody explain to me why the controversy?... Beats anything I ever heard... Brother Glen
It's a Variant. It's in the KJV, but not in the critical text, that is it's not found in the earlier manuscripts, so in better translations like ESV it's not there.
Calv1
Active Member
Good post, it's FASCINATING in reading John Gill's Commentary, for he lived in a time when they were bringing in the critical text, so he'd show both.
Of course all bibles have annotations, most Christians never bother to read them, but we need to know our history, or the New Atheists and their followers will eat naive Christians for breakfast!
Calv1
Active Member
Maybe someone could enlighten me, this verse is in my KJV but I have heard it is not in other translations... Sorry you other brethren are missing it in yours... Could somebody explain to me why the controversy?... Beats anything I ever heard... Brother Glen
You could also ask the question about the women caught in adultery in John. It's not found in any of the early texts, and scholars are almost uniform that it's not original.
- Status