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!
And where, exactly, is this "original?"any other passage that wasn't in the original.
I think you'll find it's in Uncial D 05 which dates from the 5th Century. It's in more than 900 mss of John's Gospel, which is quite enough for me.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.
Try and get it right, please. Two of the oldest manuscripts do not have Mark 16:9ff. Whether they are the best is open to debate.Many of the best and more ancient sources did not have that so called longer ending as being part of the original Gospel ending..
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.
Among others that do not have the P.A. : Codex Sinaiticus(344), Codex Vaticanus(312), p66 (175)and p75(200).Try and get it right, please. Two of the oldest manuscripts do not have Mark 16:9ff. Whether they are the best is open to debate.
Gone, as God wants us to worship Him, and not the Book he authorized to us....And where, exactly, is this "original?"
Ypu are correct, and I do not have a problem with the longer ending, but still do not think that it fits....Try and get it right, please. Two of the oldest manuscripts do not have Mark 16:9ff. Whether they are the best is open to debate.
Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are the two I mentioned. For the rest, I am depending on the textual apparatus in my copy of the UBS Greek New Testament dated 1993. It appears to list only one other ms that does not have the verses in question (304). If I am reading it wrong or if the UBS NT is unreliable, my apologies. What cannot be denied is that the vast majority of extant Greek mss, well over 99%, have Mark 16:9-20.Among others that do not have the P.A. : Codex Sinaiticus(344), Codex Vaticanus(312), p66 (175)and p75(200).
I agree with you on that, as this all depends upon which one sees as being the most reliable text source!Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are the two I mentioned. For the rest, I am depending on the textual apparatus in my copy of the UBS Greek New Testament dated 1993. It appears to list only one other ms that does not have the verses in question (304). If I am reading it wrong or if the UBS NT is unreliable, my apologies. What cannot be denied is that the vast majority of extant Greek mss, well over 99%, have Mark 16:9-20.