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

[37818]

The 3 sole whole Greek Gospels of Mark endings at 16:8.

Greek manuscripts (e.g., א, B, 304).

 

[Van]

And confirmes now only 3 whole Greek mss of Mark end at 16:8.

Six or so early copies of the ending of Mark end at verse 8. I referred to the six texts mentioned in the NET footnote, and did not say nor suggest there were 6 Greek manuscripts without the ending.

Why not address all six or so witnesses indicating the original might have ended at verse 8? Or the various copies with various combinations of endings?

 

[37818]

Six or so early copies of the ending of Mark end at verse 8.

Greek mss, if so, what are their identity?

 

[John of Japan]

Very ironic to me in all of these textual criticism discussions that tend to get very pointed here, that we many times seem to fail to understand that few if any of us posting here are qualified to get into the nuts and bolts of these issues. I can quote Dr Wallace, another Dr Black, another Dr Robinson, yet how many of us really even understood what they all wrote down concerning this issue?
My view is still that while one can prefer a certain Greek text as best one available to use, all are profitable to study and use, and all can be used to make a good translation off from

I apologize for not being able to answer this over the weekend.

What you are missing is that this discussion is really about the doctrine of the preservation of Scripture. Therefore it is important to take a stand. Can God preserve His word? Of course. Did He? Not only does Daniel Wallace say no to a doctrine of the preservation of Scripture, he quotes Bart Ehrman as a source extensively ("Inspiration, Preservation, and New Testament Textual Criticism," Grace Theological Journal 12.1 (1992) 21-50.)! (Remember, Wallace is not a theologian, and Ehrman is an atheist.)

I believe the Bible clearly teaches that God preserves all of His creation, and that would include the Word of God. So, I will defend the inclusion of the two passages in question on the grounds of divine preservation, especially the longer ending of Mark. I can't believe that God would end the book as the advocates of ending with v. 8 claim.

Just feel its wrong when start to make it personable, such as when someone states only CT best, Bzt/MT/Tr all bogus, or that unless one uses TR or Bzt its bogus..

I think you mean "personal" instead of "personable." But to be clear, the Bible is still the Word of God, even if someone leaves out the two passages in question.

At that point, seems to be getting into like when KJVO derides all other English translations as shams and bogus to use!

I certainly don't agree with that.

And you are one of the more level headed who post here on this issue!

Thank you for the kind words.

 

[John of Japan]

1) Yes, I reject majority rule textual evaluation.

Advocates of the Byzantine textform position such as Dr. Maurice Robinson do not "count mss" and do not use the majority methods of Hodges and Farstad, or Wilbur Pickering.

2) Famed textual critic Dan Wallace's NET footnote notes several, more than 4 different endings of Mark, due to the combinations and wordings.

Please clarify. In your very long quote I only see four.

And how is Wallace more knowledgeable than "famed textual critic" Metzger, who I quoted as saying four Greek endings?

3) You are saying I do not understand, rather than addressing the argument from logic in the NET footnote.
4) Your special usage definitions are irrelevant, the NET footnote calls them witnesses.

I have quoted Metzger contra your understanding of Wallace. And while I respect Wallace's worldwide pursuit of new Greek mss, and his Greek expertise (I've taught from his textbook), in textual criticism he is not in the class of Metzger, who (though I disagree with him) is one of the editors of the UBS text, and author of authoritative books on textual criticism.

I'll wait for you to specifically give from your Wallace quote the "more than four" Greek endings, because I don't see it.

 

[37818]

Why not address all six or so witnesses indicating the original might have ended at verse 8?

"There are only three known Greek manuscripts of Mark that end at verse 16:8."

 

[John of Japan]

Near as I can tell, Van is counting witnesses in other languages than Greek to point to more than 3-4 endings. If this is true, it shows a misunderstanding of how language works. For example, "For God so loved the world," in the Japanese Lifeline NT has: なぜなら…神はこうしてこの世を愛されました。A literal back translation into English would be, "God in this way this world loved." The Japanese word order always has the verb last. But this is not a different reading, but just a different translation.

Similarly, the Chinese Union Version has 神愛世人, back translated as "God love world person." That is simply how Chinese syntax requires it to be.

Closer to the subject, the Latin Vulgate has enim dilexit Deus mundum ut, with the last word meaning so...that. This is quite different in several ways from the Greek it was translated from, which was, Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον. Does this make the Latin a different reading? Of course not.

The different endings of Mark must be limited to the Greek. You cannot with proper linguistics and textual criticism add other language renderings as new endings. Very seldom do we find an actual new reading in a different language: Latin, Syriac, etc. Textual critics are cautious about this.

 

[Van]

Greek mss, if so, what are their identity?

Good Grief, why post nonsense?

 

[37818]

Good Grief, why post nonsense?

I posted truth. Currently there ere are only 3 know Greek mss of Mark ending at 16:8. Your Post #85 cited this.

 

[Van]

Advocates of the Byzantine textform position such as Dr. Maurice Robinson do not "count mss" and do not use the majority methods of Hodges and Farstad, or Wilbur Pickering.

Please clarify. In your very long quote I only see four.

And how is Wallace more knowledgeable than "famed textual critic" Metzger, who I quoted as saying four Greek endings?

I have quoted Metzger contra your understanding of Wallace. And while I respect Wallace's worldwide pursuit of new Greek mss, and his Greek expertise (I've taught from his textbook), in textual criticism he is not in the class of Metzger, who (though I disagree with him) is one of the editors of the UBS text, and author of authoritative books on textual criticism.

I'll wait for you to specifically give from your Wallace quote the "more than four" Greek endings, because I don't see it.

1) I see the famed "stonewall."
2) Claiming you do not see, rather than you see only 4, seems for the purpose of plausible deniability
3) Different endings listed in the NET footnote given in post 11:

(1) Ending at verse 8 (B for example)
(2) Short ending "a" after verse 8 (k for example)
(3) Long ending after verse 8 (A for example)
(4) Long and short ending "a" after verse 8 (L for example)
(5) Texts with marginal notes indicating earlier texts lacked these long ending verses.
(6) Long ending after verse 8, short ending "b" before verse 8. (W for example)
​

 

[Van]

"There are only three known Greek manuscripts of Mark that end at verse 16:8."

Again, you change the rules, did anyone say all the witnesses were Greek? Truth matters

 

[Van]

I posted truth. Currently there ere are only 3 know Greek mss of Mark ending at 16:8. Your Post #85 cited this.

Again, you change the rules, did anyone say all the witnesses were Greek? Truth matters

 

[37818]

Again, you change the rules, did anyone say all the witnesses were Greek? Truth matters

Again, you change the rules, did anyone say all the witnesses were Greek? Truth matters

The Greek mss evidence has been the primary evidence. Can you show the the larger translation evidence supersedes the Greek evidence proving Mark 16:8 is the original ending?

 

[Conan]

1) I see the famed "stonewall."
2) Claiming you do not see, rather than you see only 4, seems for the purpose of plausible deniability
3) Different endings listed in the NET footnote given in post 11:

​

(1) Ending at verse 8 (B for example)​

Again, the scribe of Vaticanus knew of the long ending of Mark, because he left a blank column to include it later if desired by the manuscript owner. His copy text was damaged, but he knew of the long ending anyway.

(2) Short ending "a" after verse 8 (k for example)​

An Old Latin Witness.

(3) Long ending after verse 8 (A for example)​

Perhaps you mean Codex Sinaiticus? A is usually the abbreviation for Codex Alexandrinus. But I am sure you meant Sinaiticus. Correct.

(4) Long and short ending "a" after verse 8 (L for example)​

Which is testimony for the long ending. No one, today or back then cared for the short ending. They included it because it was in their copy text.

(5) Texts with marginal notes indicating earlier texts lacked these long ending verses.​

that might have meant lacking in the Eusebius Gospel cannons.

(6) Long ending after verse 8, short ending "b" before verse 8. (W for example)​

​

W has the Long Ending? Excellent testimony for the Long Ending! So the long ending did exist early in Egypt!

 

[Van]

Again, the scribe of Vaticanus knew of the long ending of Mark, because he left a blank column to include it later if desired by the manuscript owner. His copy text was damaged, but he knew of the long ending anyway.

An Old Latin Witness.

Perhaps you mean Codex Sinaiticus? A is usually the abbreviation for Codex Alexandrinus. But I am sure you meant Sinaiticus. Correct.

Which is testimony for the long ending. No one, today or back then cared for the short ending. They included it because it was in their copy text.

that might have meant lacking in the Eusebius Gospel cannons.

W has the Long Ending? Excellent testimony for the Long Ending! So the long ending did exist early in Egypt!

1) Your guess is no better than others who reject the long ending, as to the purpose of the blank area. Perhaps it was to suggest an "unknown" ending may have been lost, rather than a space for the long ending you want to insert.

2) "k" is a different ending, deal with it.

3) I am referring to the "A" listed in the NET footnote, obviously not what you claimed.

4) I am referring to the "L" listed in the NET footnote, not a person.

5) The marginal noted witnesses differed from those lacking the marginal notes and add to the question-ability of the endings appearing after verse 8.

6) "W" had a different short ending inserted before verse 8. All these differing endings require the conclusion that any ending after verse 8 is questionable, but not necessarily corrupt. Hence, knowledgeable scholars put the ending chosen in brackets.

 

[Conan]

1) Your guess is no better than others who reject the long ending, as to the purpose of the blank area. Perhaps it was to suggest an "unknown" ending may have been lost, rather than a space for the long ending you want to insert.

Well, at least we agree there is a blank space.

2) "k" is a different ending, deal with it.

Deal with it? I reject its single, different ending as unoriginal. Perhaps the scribe was not aware of the long ending of Mark through a damaged exemplar and someone used this for an ending instead.

3) I am referring to the "A" listed in the NET footnote, obviously not what you claimed.

I guest what you meant. Usually someone using an A has a squiggly mark coming of the side to differentiate Sinaiticus from Codex Alexandrinus, "A or 02".

4) I am referring to the "L" listed in the NET footnote, not a person.

Yes, half Alexandrian half Byzantine manuscript. I know it'snot a person. But its scribe or scribes were.

5) The marginal noted witnesses differed from those lacking the marginal notes and add to the question-ability of the endings appearing after verse 8.

6) "W" had a different short ending inserted before verse 8. All these differing endings require the conclusion that any ending after verse 8 is questionable, but not necessarily corrupt. Hence, knowledgeable scholars put the ending chosen in brackets.

Yes, there were a few Manusripts of Mark circulating with a damaged ending. Maybe through persecutions of Christians with Bibles. Any scribe aware that his exemplar was damaged would include whatever endings he could know.

The vast overwhelming number of Scribes knew of the long ending obviously. That's why they included it.

 

[Van]

Well, at least we agree there is a blank space.

Deal with it? I reject its single, different ending as unoriginal. Perhaps the scribe was not aware of the long ending of Mark through a damaged exemplar and someone used this for an ending instead.

I guest what you meant. Usually someone using an A has a squiggly mark coming of the side to differentiate Codex Alexandrinus, "A or 02".

Yes, half Alexandrian half Byzantine manuscript. I know it'snot a person. But its scribe or scribes were.

Yes, there were a few Manusripts of Mark circulating with a damaged ending. Maybe through persecutions of Christians with Bibles. Any scribe aware that his exemplar was damaged would include whatever endings he could know.

1) Never in dispute
2) More conjecture which requires adoption of questionable speculation.
3) I used the NET footnote designation.
4) Agreed, we are discussing differing versions of the textual witnesses of the questionable ending of Mark.
5) Agreed, it appears scribes added endings after verse 8 because of the several variants.

 

[37818]

I remain persuaded Mark 16:9-20 is original to Mark.

Proverbs 30:5-6, Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

 

[John of Japan]

1) I see the famed "stonewall."
2) Claiming you do not see, rather than you see only 4, seems for the purpose of plausible deniability
3) Different endings listed in the NET footnote given in post 11:

​

(1) Ending at verse 8 (B for example)​

So far so good.

(2) Short ending "a" after verse 8 (k for example)​

So far so good.

(3) Long ending after verse 8 (A for example)​

So far so good.

(4) Long and short ending "a" after verse 8 (L for example)​

This is not a new ending, but simply indicates mss which have endings 2 and 3, both.

(5) Texts with marginal notes indicating earlier texts lacked these long ending verses.​

Not a different ending, but simply the ending at v. 8.

(6) Long ending after verse 8, short ending "b" before verse 8. (W for example)​

I actually mentioned this version of the longer ending. You have here at the very most 4 endings, which I held to 3 endings because the last one is simply a different version of the long ending. "W" is Washingtonianus, which I have already discussed, and it is the only ms which has this version of the long ending, so it does not help your cause in the slightest. So, there are not "numerous endings," but only 4 at the maximum.

 

[JesusFan]

I apologize for not being able to answer this over the weekend.

What you are missing is that this discussion is really about the doctrine of the preservation of Scripture. Therefore it is important to take a stand. Can God preserve His word? Of course. Did He? Not only does Daniel Wallace say no to a doctrine of the preservation of Scripture, he quotes Bart Ehrman as a source extensively ("Inspiration, Preservation, and New Testament Textual Criticism," Grace Theological Journal 12.1 (1992) 21-50.)! (Remember, Wallace is not a theologian, and Ehrman is an atheist.)

I believe the Bible clearly teaches that God preserves all of His creation, and that would include the Word of God. So, I will defend the inclusion of the two passages in question on the grounds of divine preservation, especially the longer ending of Mark. I can't believe that God would end the book as the advocates of ending with v. 8 claim.


I think you mean "personal" instead of "personable." But to be clear, the Bible is still the Word of God, even if someone leaves out the two passages in question.

I certainly don't agree with that.

Thank you for the kind words.

I think that the Holy Spirit indeed has preserved to and for us now the completed texts of the inspired 66 canon books of the bible, and that regardless if we use the CT/MT/Bzt or TR Greek texts we would have "essentially" the Original scriptures to us. My contention is though since cannot have full assurance of what the originals really were as written, by using textual criticism we can get very close to them, but if it s a shorter or longer mark ending, I cannot discern who is right on that

And just curious as to how you would see the relationship and differences between the MT or the Bzt Greek texts then?