The Longer Ending of Mark

Mark was not written as a complete story of Christ by any means. In fact, many think that Mark was recording Peter's sermons. If you couple that with Matthew being written prior to Mark, you stop trying to make Mark have the longer ending.

 

Lost? I don't know of any conservatives that buy that theory. I think it is more probable that the copyists of Mark tried to make it end just like Matthew.

 

First, the overwhelming number of scholars, conservative, liberal, or otherwise hold to Markan priority, with only a few still holding out for Greisbach (Matthew first). In my mind, the issue is settled (though that may not mean anything for anyone else).

Second, in Edward's commentary, does he deal with the critique that the commission story in Matthew betrays a very Matthean theme (emmanuel--God with us--where Jesus doesn't ascend, but remains "with" the church) that is not present in Mark? I am unfamilar with his particular work.

What is the title of the work? Publication date? Publisher? etc.

Grace and Peace, Danny

 

Matthean priority was the view of the fathers (from what we can tell) and the view of the church for centuries.

With the rise of redaction and historic criticism, Markan priority developed.

 

The father's were hardly modern historians, and historical truth is not contigent upon a historiographical view of any portion of history. If it smells like, tastes like, and feels like Mark was first, it probably was.

Take this for an example of the difficulty with the priority of Matthew. Why would someone take a perfectly good, concise, and memorable rendering of Jesus' sayings in Greek and replace them with grammatically inferior, verbose, and difficult to remember versions?

Grace and Peace, Danny

 

Surely that isn't your reason to pick Mark first.

As I said earlier, if Mark's purpose was to record sermons from Peter (since they spent some time together), there is no reason to even think it is supposed to be a fullblown biography.

 

IMO, the geographical difficulties of Mark's work, as well as its references to the destruction of the temple, remove Peter from the writting whatsoever. We are dealing with two books that rely on one another--the literary evidence is overwhelming--and such reliance makes most sense with Matthew relying on Mark.

Grace and Peace, Danny

 

Of course Peter didn't write it. Mark recorded Peter's sermons though. Peter did not have to be at every event to be able to preach about it. I know I wasn't at any of them and can still teach about them.

On what grounds do you say Matthew relied on Mark? How do you know they weren't written without the other? Again, this is ridiculous. To say Matthew relied on Mark is completely indefensible. That is such an assumption I will not even deal with it.

 

I still think the evidence would suggest that they each wrote without the other. Mark's ending is at verse 8.

Like all good sermons, Mark leaves the readers with what they will do with this risen Christ.

The extra is an addition. Probably someone looked at Matthew and thought Mark was missing something.

 

Perhaps people in this discussion of Mark's last 12 verses should read "The Last 12 Verses of Mark" by Dean John Burgon. Available here: http://www.sovgracepub.com/sgpbooks/1589600142.htm He proves that they are genuine. Perhaps they should also by his "Inspiration and Interpretation" as well.

Burgon: “It is a known rule in the Law of Evidence that the burden of proof lies on the party who asserts the affirmative of the issue. . . . But the case is altogether different, as all must see, when it is proposed to get rid of twelve verses which for 1,700 years and upwards have formed the conclusion of S. Mark’s Gospel, . . This assumption that a work which has held to be a complete work for seventeen centuries and upwards was originally incomplete, of course requires proof. . . . I can only imagine one other thing which could induce us to entertain such an opinion [to brand Mark 16:9-20 as spurious] and that would be the general consent of MSS., Fathers, and Versions” (ibid., p. C-10).

Burgon: “To raise an irrelevant discussion concerning the Received Text — to describe the haste with which Erasmus produced the first published edition of the New Testament — to make sport of the copies which he employed — All this kind of thing is the proceeding of one who seeks to mislead the student, to throw dust into his or her eyes, and thus to divert their attention from the problem actually before them — such is not the method of a sincere lover of Truth” (ibid. p. D-8).

 

Perhaps you are unware that over 90% of the extant MSS (5200+) support the underlying greek text of the AV. There is very little supporting documentation for the the underlying text of all new "translations" after 1881. Obviously you have not studied the evidence very well and come from an anti-kjv presupposition.

And to clarify, I originally supported the modern translations before researching for myself the people who put together the underlying greek and hebrew texts of the modern versions. It is because of their poor christian testimony and their heretical beliefs (not believing in a literal devil, that Jesus is God, et al) and the manifold contradictions between these newer versions that I now only use the AV.

 

And perhaps you are unaware that the vast majority of the "over 90%" of MSS that support the KJV comes from the 9th C. and later, the time when the Byzantine text was finally and fully standardized? This fact has *enormous* implications for the usefulness of the bulk of later MSS in establishing the text of the NT.

Far more than you think. All the Greek, versional, and patristic evidence we have from the earliest centuries tells us that the text of the NT looked more like the modern Critical Text than like the TR. There's no evidence of a Byzantine text (i.e., a TR-type text) before Constantine; an early form of the Byzantine text makes its first appearance in the 4th C.; and the Byzantine text continues to develop until it reaches its final form in the 9th C.

The Greek text behind the KJV (AKA the TR) is the creation of Erasmus. It is essentially an "eclectic" text (in other words, a text resulting from Erasmus' picking and choosing between variants), and is primarily Byzantine with a smattering of "Western" readings thrown in for good measure. The TR is a unique text which agrees with *none* of the extant Greek or versional MSS we now have. Let me stress this: no known copy of the NT in the entire history of the Christian church before Erasmus agrees 100% with the TR.

 

Not only do I have a problem with the longer ending of Mark from the standpoint of the manuscript evidence but also the theological aspect in verses 17 and 18, "These signs will accompany those who have believed: in My name they will cast out demons, they will speak with new tongues; they will pick up serpents, and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover."

Know of any who have never spoken in tongues who are saved? Verses 17 and 18 seem to support the idea of speaking in tongues and various other things accompanying salvation.