-
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!
The Long Ending of Mark and The Woman Caught in Adultery According To The Byzantine Text
- Thread starter Conan
- Start date
They were heavily favored in the past. People are learning that they are not as reliable as once thought.
The 2 manuscripts are from the 4th Century AD, making them very ancient and valuable. The 2 manuscripts have many, many differences between them in the Gospels. So they are not immediate cousins. But they do have agreements that go back in time, unique to those two. They are good representatives of the Alexandrian Text. They were once thought to be the best, but people have doubts. The tide is turning. They share many errors, or if correct original readings. But I notice that when Vaticanus and Sinaiticus disagree, one or the other will agree with the Byzantine Text. I first heard that from Professor Maurice Robinson. From what I have seen I think that is correct. In my opinion, I think that means the Byzantine Text is what is behind every Manuscript on this planet, but variant readings were caused by errors, most accidental perhaps some intentionally. Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are offshoots of the original Text. That's just my opinion but I believe it to be true. I once thought differently, because I read that Vaticanus and Sinaiticus were the best, and thought it true because others said it. But after studying Textual Criticism after many years, maybe 30+, I now think diffently. I am not an expert, nor claiming to be someone. But that is what I have found out by God's grace through reading on the subject. Again, I am no qualified expert, just a layman. But Westcott and Hort, Bruce Metzger, Kurt Aland I believe to have wrong theories. They seemed to me to rely on the 2 ancient manuscripts to heavily.
Here is a little information about Codex Sinaiticus.
The Net footnote says the opposite, the alternate endings indicate the gospel ends at verse 8.
Silverhair
Well-Known Member
Please address the fact that multiple endings indicate alteration of the text, such that the best choice is without an addition past verse 8.
" All of the witnesses for alternative endings to vv. 9-20 thus indirectly confirm the Gospel as ending at v. 8.) Because of such problems regarding the authenticity of these alternative endings, 16:8 is usually regarded as the last verse of the Gospel of Mark."
The fact of the many variety endings demonstrates addition or alteration, not found in the text before verse 8. Still waiting for a cogent argument, rather than the absurdity that multiply copies of error adds to the credibility of that error.
There are not "many" varieties of endings of Marks Gospel. All but 3 Greek Manuscripts have the Long Ending. A few Greek manuscripts have both the long ending and a short ending combined. 1 manuscript, W, has an different ending. If the Long Ending is in virtually all manuscripts it has to be early. And do you really think Mark ended his Gospel at verse 8? Or was he interrupted before being allowed to finnish?
Isn't that though what many say regarding the long ending, that scribes tried to smooth it out, as ended far to abruptly ?
You mean all scribes everywhere? That level of cooperation isn't capable in our time, much less theirs. If verse 8 was all that Mark wrote, it would indeed look strange. Perhaps he was Martyred before he completed. Perhaps an early copy was damaged and the real ending lost. Or, perhaps Peter or someone else completed the ending. But since it is virtually in all manuscripts, it seems unlikely. Codex Vaticanus left room for the ending. Perhaps just Sinaiticus and Vaticanus copy text were damaged after verse 8. It is in virtually all manuscripts.
Sir, I believe we can trust that after verse 8, we should not teach as doctrine, unless also stated in non-controversial passages. You continue to claim all the copies of the long ending support that it is original, and ignore that early and reliable manuscripts do not have it.
"All of the witnesses for alternative endings to vv. 9-20 thus indirectly confirm the Gospel as ending at v. 8."
I am not trying to tell you what to believe about verses 9-20. But I am trying to point out evidence. Evidence that is usually falsified. No matter one's position, truthfulness must win out. There are many, many issues on these verses alone. I am well aware that 2 4th century manuscripts end at verse 8. One, their Alexandrian copy text may have been damaged. Two, one of them, considered the best between the 2, left a blank column, meaning he was aware of the long ending and left space to include it later. An early church father Irenaeus quoted Mark 16:19 in the 2nd century. That predates Vaticanus and Sinaiticus by 2 centuries. Also, do you think Mark intended to end his Gospel at verse 8? Or that his Gospel was damaged and lost to us?
What is the date of the Latin translation copy in existence today of Irenaeus quoting Mark 16:19? What is the date of the Greek copy in existence today of the quote?
Why override 2 direct copies with a hearsay copy in Latin? Smells like manufactured evidence.
Why override 2 direct copies with a hearsay copy in Latin? Smells like manufactured evidence.
Dave G
Well-Known Member
The so-called "long ending of Mark" is indeed Scripture, and always has been.
Those words, in Greek, are found in the "Byzantine" text.
In my native language of English, those words are also found in many translations...
Words that have been faithfully and accurately carried over, into many languages, from what is known as the "Textus Receptus" and the "Ben Chayyim" Hebrew.
Those words can be found today in the Authorized version of 1611 ( and its many editions ) and many prior translations into the English, as well as a very few select and modern translations in that language.
I also hold that any translations ( into any language ) that do not have these as their source texts, or any translation that do and tend to take liberty with how the words are carried over, are not, and never have been, God's word in its entirety.
I do believe that, while they may contain some of God's words, they are not wholly His.
In other words, the source texts are not only of immense importance, so are the methods of translation.
At the end of the day,
We as God's people can rest assured that we currently have, and always have had, all of His preserved words down through the centuries.
No matter how unbelieving men may corrupt it,
God's words will always be there for His own to read, preach from and admonish one another with.
Those words, in Greek, are found in the "Byzantine" text.
In my native language of English, those words are also found in many translations...
Words that have been faithfully and accurately carried over, into many languages, from what is known as the "Textus Receptus" and the "Ben Chayyim" Hebrew.
Those words can be found today in the Authorized version of 1611 ( and its many editions ) and many prior translations into the English, as well as a very few select and modern translations in that language.
I also hold that any translations ( into any language ) that do not have these as their source texts, or any translation that do and tend to take liberty with how the words are carried over, are not, and never have been, God's word in its entirety.
I do believe that, while they may contain some of God's words, they are not wholly His.
In other words, the source texts are not only of immense importance, so are the methods of translation.
At the end of the day,
We as God's people can rest assured that we currently have, and always have had, all of His preserved words down through the centuries.
No matter how unbelieving men may corrupt it,
God's words will always be there for His own to read, preach from and admonish one another with.