Mark ends at Mark 16:8

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

One thing to remember about the end of Mark 16 is that Jesus is speaking to the apostles about their (un)belief:

11 And they, when they had heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, believed not.
12 After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country. 13 And they went and told it unto the residue: neither believed they them.
14 Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen. 15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. 16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; 18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.
19 So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God. 20 And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.

The signs of Mark 16:17-18 are particular to the apostles.
Compare:

II Cor. 12:12
Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds.

Hebrews 2:3-4
How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him; God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will?

GE:

Well explained! That's why I say one good thing about this ending which marks its genuineness, is that it exposes all those wonderworkers for fakes, and confirms the Apostles' authority for God-given. Christianity rests on the sure foundation -- and it says so, that the Apostles are its foundation. Not quackery.

 

[Eliyahu]

Eliyahu:
You are also inaccurate on the dates of Codex A and Codex C. Both manuscripts date to the 400's. Codices Vaticanus and Sinaiticus date to the 300's.

I knew A and C are a little later than B and א(Aleph) but as you mentioned they were in the same millenium, only the difference is 50-100 years.

I know B and Aleph worshippers don't like Alexandrianus even though they belong to the same Alexandrian text group.


Why don't you answer my question?

Is Vaticanus really reliable?

What does it omit?

Genesis 1-45,
Luke 23:34 " Father forgive them for they know not what they do"
John 7:53-8:11 Woman caught in the adultery
1 Timothy ( RC didn't like "Bishop should be a husband of one wife")
2 Timothy
Hebrews 9:15- 13:25 ( Because they don't like " there is no more sacrifice for the sin Heb 10:18)

Do you believe that John 8:1-11 is not a part of the Bible because the story is not found in the oldest Bible ( Vaticanus and Aleph)?

How can you trust such texts as B and Aleph full of modifications and omissions?

 

[Darron Steele]

I knew A and C are a little later than B and א(Aleph) but as you mentioned they were in the same millenium, only the difference is 50-100 years.

I know B and Aleph worshippers don't like Alexandrianus even though they belong to the same Alexandrian text group.


Why don't you answer my question?

Is Vaticanus really reliable?

What does it omit?

Genesis 1-45,
Luke 23:34 " Father forgive them for they know not what they do"
John 7:53-8:11 Woman caught in the adultery
1 Timothy ( RC didn't like "Bishop should be a husband of one wife")
2 Timothy
Hebrews 9:15- 13:25 ( Because they don't like " there is no more sacrifice for the sin Heb 10:18)

Do you believe that John 8:1-11 is not a part of the Bible because the story is not found in the oldest Bible ( Vaticanus and Aleph)?

How can you trust such texts as B and Aleph full of modifications and omissions?

Actually, Genesis 1-45 were torn out. The last part of the manuscript was also torn away. The manuscript did not "omit" them. The loss of those original contents reflects on its handlers, not its original text.

As for the other passages, again, this thread is not about those. Each variant of the New Testament text needs to be considered on the basis of the ancient evidence on each. I prefer to keep threads on-topic.

If you want to throw your anti-Catholic bigotries into this, you should notice that the Vatican went to drastic measures to keep the contents of this manuscript from being widely known. You should also keep in mind that the Latin Vulgate has material after Mark 16:8, as does the King James Version, when this ancient manuscript never did.

I am somewhat surprised that someone as anti-Catholic as you is so willing to trust manuscripts from the Middle Ages over ancient manuscripts -- especially one that the Vatican secluded.

However, going after one or two manuscripts will not even remotely vindicate the traditional embellishment after Mark 16:8.

I, for one, am more comfortable accepting the consensus of the ancient evidence. Very ancient translations translated ancient Greek manuscripts, and often do not have text after Mark 16:8, and/or something have other than the traditional embellishment. As reported by two writers from the 300's, most manuscripts at their time still did not include the traditional embellishment after Mark 16:8. Do you wish to try to impugn on the trustworthiness of most manuscripts at that time as well?

 

[Eliyahu]

Darron,

You conveniently evade my question.
I asked you if you believe that the Pericope Adulturae ( John 7:53-8:11) is not a part of Bible. You didn't answer me!

Do you believe Luke 23:34 " Father forgive them, for they know not what they do" is not written in Gospel Luke?

These 2 questions are important because we can judge the credibility of the mss and texts

If your judgment soley rely on " The older, the better" principle, then why P66 which is 150 years older than Vatican text and Sinaiticus have " Hagion" in John 7:39, while Aleph doesn't have ? B has Hagion dedomenon. Only 2 mss ( p75 and Aleph) omit it. In that case can you trust the other majority? Read this: http://members.aol.com/user192905/photos/P66.htm

Is Sinaiticus still reliable?

Why do only 2 mss omit Hagion while more than 900 mss have hagion? Most of modern versions follow Sinaiticus ( only 2 mss bases).

Why does the oldest mss betray Aleph?

ONe problem is that p45 has the last chapter of Mark torn out, even though many presume it would have had the longer ending.

You must note that the medieval age mss are from Byzantine area, not the Roman religion area.

 

[Darron Steele]

[ Darn it; I thought I was editing this. Evidently, I created a new post. Please see below for what was supposed to go here.]

 

[Darron Steele]

Eliyahu: I am not "evading" anything. I am restricting my conversation to the thread's topic to keep it on topic. It is really very simple.

Judging a manuscript's credibility on the basis of its agreement with passages you assume original is circular. The Vatican did not rush to publish the text of Codex Vaticanus because it did not closely match the Latin Vulgate, which from the Council of Trent to 1943, they held to be indisputable.

By the way, the "Roman religion" era started in 1054, right around the start of the second millennium, which is when the majority of manuscripts were created.

Third, all through the time periods after the first few centuries of the Christian era, it was the `Roman era' in the dominant church body. Orthodox sources point out that the bishop of Rome was preferred "first among equals" before he claimed absolute primacy. Therefore, after the first few centuries, the bishop of Rome was the `main player.'

Even without Codex Vaticanus or Sinaiticus being super reliable, the reports by two 300's church authors, the evidence of the ancient translations plus the very existence of another attempt to add to Mark 16:8 is enough to make me reject the traditional embellishment.

 

[tragic_pizza]

Remember, folks, that in the struggle for textual accuracy, it generally isn't
a given manuscript, but the number of manuscripts, which holds the key.

We know given parts are missing from a manuscript because a given number of older manuscripts include them. We know that it is a "log" in your own eye and not an "apple" because we compare one manuscript with others to see the typographical error.

 

[Eliyahu]

Eliyahu: I am not "evading" anything. I am restricting my conversation to the thread's topic to keep it on topic. It is really very simple.

.

I repeatedly asked you about Pericope Adulturae and Father Forgive Them for they know not what they do, because it is related to the credibility of the texts.

I think I have explained enough in defense of the Longer Ending, if you cannot believe, I have no more remedy for you.