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

[Van]

Folks, just read post 185, and see how many of these arguments have been addressed by advocates claiming the Long Ending is not questionable, and should not be bracketed.

Why does the long ending seemingly introduce Mary Magdalene as the one seven demons had been cast out, when no mention was made in three early mentions of her?

Why was Mary Magdalene visiting the tomb unaccompanied not mentioned in the other gospels.

 

[Van]

The 16th Century refers to 1500 to 1600 AD. The Middle ages, Medieval, dates to the 1500's. This citation should not be taken to overrule
your source. I was not able, after a brief search to find a second source for the date in the 1500's, but did find sites supporting 380 AD.
I have not yet given up finding a second source, but am not encouraged.

 

[Van]

This is not the author giving his source. Van does not give that. It is simply that the author linked to a source, the "Hitler Homer" thing. If Van had given us the source for his quote, we could then have discerned that the source the unknown author linked to was a book of his own (self-published, by the way). Frankly, this atheist, anti-Christian, arrogant (just read his pages!) author is the last person on earth I would use as a source for textual criticism.

Some think claiming their opinion must be accepted over Dr. Dan Wallace, or the editors of the NASB, because they question their credentials. What would Daffy Duck say if Bugs Bunny made that claim? "Pusillanimous Pipsqueak."

 

[John of Japan]

Some think claiming their opinion must be accepted over Dr. Dan Wallace, or the editors of the NASB, because they question their credentials. What would Daffy Duck say if Bugs Bunny made that claim? "Pusillanimous Pipsqueak."

Van, why is this so difficult for you? Simply humble yourself and start giving your sources! That's a very easy thing to do--only takes a few seconds! I would be 100% satisfied with that result!

 

[Van]

Van, why is this so difficult for you? Simply humble yourself and start giving your sources! That's a very easy thing to do--only takes a few seconds! I would be 100% satisfied with that result!

Talk about unrepentant posting of "against the person" fallacious arguments. And asking me to humble myself? That is rich from the guy who claims the majority of Textual Critics are wrong.

 

[Conan]

Talk about unrepentant posting of "against the person" fallacious arguments. And asking me to humble myself? That is rich from the guy who claims the majority of Textual Critics are wrong.

The majority of Textual Critics are wrong. They mean well. But they are wrong. Some can be misleading with the evidence.

 

[Van]

The majority of Textual Critics are wrong. They mean well. But they are wrong. Some can be misleading with the evidence.

From the internet:

​

Yes, the use of "Lord" (kyrios) in Mark 16:9, along with other factors, strongly suggests that verses 9-20 are a later addition to the original Gospel of Mark. Most scholars agree that this longer ending was not written by Mark himself.​

​

Here's why:​

• Manuscript Evidence:
  The oldest and most reliable Greek manuscripts of Mark's Gospel end at verse 8, not 20. The longer ending is absent from these early manuscripts.

​

• Linguistic and Stylistic Differences:
  The vocabulary and writing style of Mark 16:9-20 differ significantly from the rest of Mark's Gospel. Words and phrases used in this section are not found elsewhere in Mark.
  
  
• Contradictions with Earlier Narrative:
  The longer ending introduces a different narrative flow, including appearances of Jesus that contradict the original ending's message of the disciples going to Galilee to meet him.
  
  
• Borrowing from Other Gospels:
  The longer ending incorporates elements found in other Gospels, particularly Luke and John, suggesting it was likely written after those Gospels were composed.
  
  
• Introduction of New Doctrine:
  The longer ending introduces teachings on baptism, sign-giving, and other practices not explicitly mentioned in Mark's Gospel.

​

While some argue for the authenticity of the longer ending, the consensus among scholars is that it was added later by scribes or editors who sought to provide a more conclusive ending to Mark's account. The use of "Lord" (kyrios) in this context is consistent with this later addition, as it's a title used more commonly in other Gospels and Pauline literature.​

 

[Van]

From the Internet:

At least 23 Greek manuscripts that include Mark 16:9–20 also have anomalies like extra endings or notes that express doubts concerning the authenticity of these verses.​

​

 

[Van]

From the Internet:

Because Mark 16:9–20 is undeniably early, is present in 99 percent of manuscripts, and has traditionally been considered canonical, I recommend keeping it in the text.

But it’s probably not from Mark.

Some have suggested that the verses might be apostolic, but not from Mark himself. The best solution in my judgment is that of Ephraim: include the verses, but with a word of caution explaining they may not be original.​

​

 

[Van]

From the NASB

​

Mark16:16​

The one who has believed and has been baptized will be saved; but the one who has not believed will be condemned.​

Mark16:17​

These signs will accompany those who have believed: in My name they will cast out demons, they will speak with new tongues;

Mark 16:18​

they will pick up serpents, and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not harm them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover.”

Some interpret these verse in a way inconsistent with other gospel doctrine.

1) You must be water baptized to be saved, rather than you must be spiritually baptized into Christ in order to be saved.

2) The sign and wonder gifts have not ceased, but rather only those who cast our demons or speak in unknown languages are saved.

3) If you are a believer, you can engage in snake handling and not be damaged by its poison, or drink poison and not be damaged, or have the ability to heal the sick.

However, since the long ending to Mark is questionable, other believers assert we should not rely on Mark 16:9-20 for biblical doctrine unless supported by other verses in sections not under a cloud. In Acts 28:1-6, Paul is accidentally bitten by a snake, but it has no affect. That is very long way from claiming any believer will also be miraculous protected. Similarly, righteous believers praying for the healing of someone, if its in God's will, is a long way from claiming such efforts will heal.

 

[37818]

Christ taught Paul in Corinthians 1:17, For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

 

[John of Japan]

Talk about unrepentant posting of "against the person" fallacious arguments. And asking me to humble myself? That is rich from the guy who claims the majority of Textual Critics are wrong.

What in the world does this have to do with the conversation? My view of the majority of textual critics being wrong is totally unconnected to you not giving your sources. And by the way, I was mentored in Byzantine priority by noted textual critic Maurice Robinson, who goes against the tide of "the majority of Textual Critics" in holding to the longer ending of Mark. And I have heard through the textual criticism grapevine that Dr. Robinson has been asked to contribute to the festschrift of Dr. Dan Wallace.

Among actual scholars of textual criticism, the Byzantine priority position has become mainstream. I highly recommend that to keep up with what is happening in the field you abandon non-textual critic atheists, and buy and read Harry Sturz, The Byzantine Text-Type and New Testament Textual Criticism. Here is the link: https://www.amazon.com/Byzantine-Text-Type-Testament-Textual-Criticism/dp/1631998064/ref=sr_1_1?crid=1XIQJKSBY0D20&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.g7EnPgpbGA4IT_qIeMOuHD6-SD0OybtTxndKCKliieU.Le_7wWMfLwcG1Q3MDG4Dnhk1JvVRQ-dcehPLp6YY8Lo&dib_tag=se&keywords=Harry+Sturz&qid=1748368903&s=books&sprefix=harry+sturz,stripbooks,104&sr=1-1. Sturz is the scholar who put Byzantine priority on the same basis as the critical text with this book, though he himself did not hold specifically to a Byzantine/Majority position.

 

[John of Japan]

From the NASB

​

Mark16:16​

The one who has believed and has been baptized will be saved; but the one who has not believed will be condemned.​

Mark16:17​

These signs will accompany those who have believed: in My name they will cast out demons, they will speak with new tongues;

Mark 16:18​

they will pick up serpents, and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not harm them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover.”

Some interpret these verse in a way inconsistent with other gospel doctrine.

1) You must be water baptized to be saved, rather than you must be spiritually baptized into Christ in order to be saved.

No need to hold to this considering the syntax of the verse.

2) The sign and wonder gifts have not ceased, but rather only those who cast our demons or speak in unknown languages are saved.

Absolutely no one here who holds to the longer ending of Mark believes that you have to hold to these things to be saved. And the verse doesn't actually teach that.

3) If you are a believer, you can engage in snake handling and not be damaged by its poison, or drink poison and not be damaged, or have the ability to heal the sick.

The apostle Paul was bitten by a snake and "not damaged by its poison," as indeed you point out in this post. In Tortured for Christ, noted author and pastor Richard Wurmbrandt was imprisoned by the Communists in Yugoslavia, who forced him and the other Christian prisoners to drink poison based on this very passage. The Christian prisoners prayed based on Mark 16:17-18, and were protected from the poison.

However, since the long ending to Mark is questionable, other believers assert we should not rely on Mark 16:9-20 for biblical doctrine unless supported by other verses in sections not under a cloud. In Acts 28:1-6, Paul is accidentally bitten by a snake, but it has no affect. That is very long way from claiming any believer will also be miraculous protected. Similarly, righteous believers praying for the healing of someone, if its in God's will, is a long way from claiming such efforts will heal.

Do you not believe in miracles? And why do you require more than one passage for biblical doctrine? "All Scripture is given by inspiration...."

 

[John of Japan]

From the Internet:

​

Because Mark 16:9–20 is undeniably early, is present in 99 percent of manuscripts, and has traditionally been considered canonical, I recommend keeping it in the text.​

​

But it’s probably not from Mark.​

​

Some have suggested that the verses might be apostolic, but not from Mark himself. The best solution in my judgment is that of Ephraim: include the verses, but with a word of caution explaining they may not be original.​

​

It would have taken you about five seconds to copy and paste the URL address for this quote. But frankly, I am finding it very difficult to find the source through Google. Please simply copy and paste the URL for us.

Never mind, I found what you refuse to source: Was Mark 16:9–20 Originally Part of Mark’s Gospel?

The sad thing is that the author, Elijah Hixson, is an actual scholar of textual criticism, having done his dissertation on it, so his scholarship would have helped your cause! You missed a great opportunity by your refusal to take 5 seconds and copy and paste the URL for us. I am really having a hard time understanding someone who would rather commit plagiarism than take 5 seconds to copy and paste a URL.

 

[Van]

It would have taken you about five seconds to copy and paste the URL address for this quote. But frankly, I am finding it very difficult to find the source through Google. Please simply copy and paste the URL for us.

Never mind, I found what you refuse to source: Was Mark 16:9–20 Originally Part of Mark’s Gospel?

The sad thing is that the author, Elijah Hixson, is an actual scholar of textual criticism, having done his dissertation on it, so his scholarship would have helped your cause! You missed a great opportunity by your refusal to take 5 seconds and copy and paste the URL for us. I am really having a hard time understanding someone who would rather commit plagiarism than take 5 seconds to copy and paste a URL.

Why in the world would you ask me something, when I have asked you to stop addressing me and address the topic?

1) Yes, your view that I need to give sources according to your requirements is connected with using against the person argumentation, rather than addressing the argument in favor of brackets and notes.

2) I keep trying to discuss the topic and you in post after post address me. You are unrepentant.

3) No one here avoids the fact some in the body of Christ believe people must be water baptized to be saved.

4) Yes, God can heal or choose not to heal, that is sound doctrine. God will protect you from poison is false doctrine, He may or may not.

5) Next, this false claim artist innocently asks if I believe in miracles. Talk about an unrepentant false claim artist, he is suggesting I do not believe in the risen Christ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[John of Japan]

According to Metzger, "The longer ending..., though current in a variety of witnesses, some of them ancient, just also be judged by intrnal evidence to be secondary" (A Textual Commentary on the NT, 2nd ed., p. 104). Why? "The vocabulary and style of verses 9-20 are non-Markan" (Ibid.). Then he goes on to give some Greek words that occur in the passage but not in the rest of Mark. What is wrong with this picture? It's actually not that rare for such a thing to happen.

It is said that vv. 9-20 guilty of violating the style of the rest of the book. In what ways? I know this is thrown around quite a bit, but I rarely see attempts to prove it. My contention is that with only one book by Mark, it is presumptuous to say we know his style perfectly. Also, consider this. Phil. 2:5-11 (a shorter passage than the Mark ending) has four words found nowhere else in Paul's extensive works: "robbery," "equal," "highly exalt" (one word in the Gr.) and "things under the earth" (one word in the Gr.). Plus, the style is unique! Nowhere else to my knowledge does Paul use this poetic style. So, do we throw out this passage? No, of course not. No scholar does! But the same arguments could be made against it that are made against Mark's longer ending. There are other similar passages in other books, too.

I had a short book published in 1979, The Making of a Soul Winner (I'll attach a PDF here for your enjoyment). Check out the chapters. The first two are anecdotal, the third is more hortatory, and the 4th is didactic. Because of their different purposes, the vocabulary can be quite different from chapter to chapter. So, I reject the view from internal evidence that the longer ending of Mark is bogus because of vocabulary differences.

 

[John of Japan]

Why in the world would you ask me something, when I have asked you to stop addressing me and address the topic?

Why in the world would I obey you? And I've already addressed the topic. But tell you what, look at #217 where I address the internal argument.

1) Yes, your view that I need to give sources according to your requirements is connected with using against the person argumentation, rather than addressing the argument in favor of brackets and notes.

It's not just my view, it is standard ethics. If you quote someone you are ethically required to tell who you are quoting. People get sued for plagiarism all the time.

2) I keep trying to discuss the topic and you in post after post address me. You are unrepentant.

3) No one here avoids the fact some in the body of Christ believe people must be water baptized to be saved.

4) Yes, God can heal or choose not to heal, that is sound doctrine. God will protect you from poison is false doctrine, He may or may not.

5) Next, this false claim artist innocently asks if I believe in miracles. Talk about an unrepentant false claim artist, he is suggesting I do not believe in the risen Christ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh, baloney. That thought never even crossed my mind..

 

[John of Japan]

Yet another fallacious argument attacking the source and running from citing an alternate source. I have heard better arguments.

Don't throw your arm out of joint by patting yourself on the back.

 

[37818]

Christ taught Paul in Corinthians 1:17, For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

Christ taught Paul that baptism is distinct from the gospel in Corinthians 1:17.

 

[Van]

Christ taught Paul that baptism is distinct from the gospel in Corinthians 1:17.

Yes, the idea a person needs to be water baptized is false doctrine, but certainly a person needs to be "baptized into Christ spiritually" is the essence of salvation. Romans 6:3.