A manuscript issue with the ending of the book of Mark

[tonychanyt]

NIV note in Mark 16:

The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have verses 9–20.

On the other hand, Wiki:

Irenaeus (c. 184), in Against Heresies 3:10.6, explicitly cited Mark 16:19, stating that he was quoting from near the end of Mark's account. This patristic evidence is over a century older than the earliest manuscript of Mark 16.

The earliest manuscripts we have today do not contain the long ending with Mark 16:19 but outside of the Bible manuscripts, Irenaeus quoted Mark 16:19 in his writing. Apparently, he read a manuscript that contained it. His quotation was older than those earliest manuscripts.

 

[Receivedgrace]

NIV note in Mark 16:


On the other hand, Wiki:


The earliest manuscripts we have today do not contain the long ending with Mark 16:19 but outside of the Bible manuscripts, Irenaeus quoted Mark 16:19 in his writing. Apparently, he read a manuscript that contained it. His quotation was older than those earliest manuscripts.

Irenaeus was not under Holy Spirit inspiration when he wrote that statement. His opinion remains just that an opinion. An opinion not necessarily rooted in fact.

It is generally observed that the long ending of Mark lacks continuity with the rest of the book.

 

[tonychanyt]

It is generally observed that the long ending of Mark lacks continuity with the rest of the book.

and whose opinion is that?

 

[Soyeong]

NIV note in Mark 16:


On the other hand, Wiki:


The earliest manuscripts we have today do not contain the long ending with Mark 16:19 but outside of the Bible manuscripts, Irenaeus quoted Mark 16:19 in his writing. Apparently, he read a manuscript that contained it. His quotation was older than those earliest manuscripts.

It could be the case that the original did not contain the long ending, then there was a copy made with the long ending, then Irenaeus quoted from the copy with the long ending, and the earliest manuscripts that we have are copies of the original while the later manuscripts are copies of the one that he used. However, even if the long ending was part of the original, then that does not necessarily mean that it didn't happen. I think that the fact that book of Mark 1:1-16:8 forms a complex chiastic structure that verses 9-20 are not part of is evidence that the long ending is not part of the original.

A chiasm is where a a sequence of thoughts are expressed and then expressed in the reverse order. For example:

A) Whoever sheds
(B) the blood
(C) of man
(C’) by man
(B’) shall his blood
(A’) be shed

Chiasms are often used as a tool for the authors to give commentary by placing emphasis on what is at its center and help us to interpret them by knowing that two parts are expressing the same thought that the author wants us to pick out. Furthermore, they can serve as a signature for the author because if you added a different element to the above example, then it would stick out, and we would know that it was added, though it is possible wanted something to stick out for us to notice.

Many of the books of the Bible have complex chiastic structures. For example, the book of Genesis is one giant chiasm that is composed of 81 smaller chiasm, and if we divide the smaller chiasms into halves, thirds, fourths, fifths, sixths, eighths, ninths, tenths, or eighteenths, then each part of each of those fractions also forms its own chiasm. For instance, the disaster of too much water of Noah's flood mirrors the disaster of too little water of Jospeh's famine, and on a different section Joseph's famine mirrors the famine of when Abraham went down to Egypt. All of the Books of Moses and all of the Gospels as well as many other books form these sort of complex chiastic patterns, so Mark 1:1-16:8 forms that sort of pattern while verses 9-20 are not part of it, so make of that what you will.

 

[tonychanyt]

It could be the case that the original did not contain the long ending, then there was a copy made with the long ending, then Irenaeus quoted from the copy with the long ending, and the earliest manuscripts that we have are copies of the original while the later manuscripts are copies of the one that he used. However, even if the long ending was part of the original, then that does not necessarily mean that it didn't happen. I think that the fact that book of Mark 1:1-16:8 forms a complex chiastic structure that verses 9-20 are not part of is evidence that the long ending is not part of the original.

A chiasm is where a a sequence of thoughts are expressed and then expressed in the reverse order. For example:

A) Whoever sheds
(B) the blood
(C) of man
(C’) by man
(B’) shall his blood
(A’) be shed

Chiasms are often used as a tool for the authors to give commentary by placing emphasis on what is at its center and help us to interpret them by knowing that two parts are expressing the same thought that the author wants us to pick out. Furthermore, they can serve as a signature for the author because if you added a different element to the above example, then it would stick out, and we would know that it was added, though it is possible wanted something to stick out for us to notice.

Many of the books of the Bible have complex chiastic structures. For example, the book of Genesis is one giant chiasm that is composed of 81 smaller chiasm, and if we divide the smaller chiasms into halves, thirds, fourths, fifths, sixths, eighths, ninths, tenths, or eighteenths, then each part of each of those fractions also forms its own chiasm. For instance, the disaster of too much water of Noah's flood mirrors the disaster of too little water of Jospeh's famine, and on a different section Joseph's famine mirrors the famine of when Abraham went down to Egypt. All of the Books of Moses and all of the Gospels as well as many other books form these sort of complex chiastic patterns, so Mark 1:1-16:8 forms that sort of pattern while verses 9-20 are not part of it, so make of that what you will.

Sure, I put some weight on that

 

[eleos1954]

NIV note in Mark 16:


On the other hand, Wiki:


The earliest manuscripts we have today do not contain the long ending with Mark 16:19 but outside of the Bible manuscripts, Irenaeus quoted Mark 16:19 in his writing. Apparently, he read a manuscript that contained it. His quotation was older than those earliest manuscripts.

Apparently, he read a manuscript that contained it. His quotation was older than those earliest manuscripts.

Assumptive .... no one knows exactly what he read

 

[tonychanyt]

Apparently, he read a manuscript that contained it. His quotation was older than those earliest manuscripts.

Assumptive .... no one knows exactly what he read

reference?

 

[eleos1954]

reference?

We don't know what people did or did not read ..... you said "apparently" (seemingly) , it's assumptive.

 

[tonychanyt]

We don't know what people did or did not read ..... you said "apparently" (seemingly) , it's assumptive.

The earliest manuscripts we have today do not contain the long ending with Mark 16:19 but outside of the Bible manuscripts, Irenaeus quoted Mark 16:19 in his writing. Apparently, he read a manuscript that contained it. His quotation was older than those earliest manuscripts.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

NIV note in Mark 16:


On the other hand, Wiki:


The earliest manuscripts we have today do not contain the long ending with Mark 16:19 but outside of the Bible manuscripts, Irenaeus quoted Mark 16:19 in his writing. Apparently, he read a manuscript that contained it. His quotation was older than those earliest manuscripts.

This is true. The earliest manuscripts which we no longer have did contain the ending of Mark because as you said, it was quoted by Irenaeus and other First Century church fathers.

 

[Berserk]

NIV note in Mark 16:


On the other hand, Wiki:


The earliest manuscripts we have today do not contain the long ending with Mark 16:19 but outside of the Bible manuscripts, Irenaeus quoted Mark 16:19 in his writing. Apparently, he read a manuscript that contained it. His quotation was older than those earliest manuscripts.

Irenaeus' quote from the bogus ending of Mark (16:19) is neatly explained once the forger's identity is discovered. One ancient manuscript identifies the forger of Mark 16:9-20 as "Aristo of Pella (c. 165 AD), who wrote 20 years before Irenaeus. The real concern for Christians here are the many corrupt readings that riddle the manuscripts on which the LKKV and NKJV are based.

 

[tonychanyt]

One ancient manuscript identifies the forger of Mark 16:9-20 as "Aristo of Pella (c. 165 AD), who wrote 20 years before Irenaeus.

reference?

 

[Bobber]

Just wondering. When I look at the instructions at the end of Mark I can see them basically the same as the other gospels. Things he said to do in the commission. So at the end of the day is there any real need to question that last chapter of Mark so much ?

 

[Berserk]

reference?

When I had access to a major university library, I read a book that printed and discussed manuscripts pf the bogus ending of Mark, and one ancient Greek manuscript had a Greek note in the margin attributing this ending to "Aristo of Pella," who is known for his other writings.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Irenaeus' quote from the bogus ending of Mark (16:19) is neatly explained once the forger's identity is discovered. One ancient manuscript identifies the forger of Mark 16:9-20 as "Aristo of Pella (c. 165 AD), who wrote 20 years before Irenaeus. The real concern for Christians here are the many corrupt readings that riddle the manuscripts on which the LKKV and NKJV are based.

The total words in the original Greek in the whole book of Mark is equally divisible by 7 without a remainder. The odds of that happening by chance is around 3 million to one. It shows that the book of Mark is inspired and designed by the Holy Spirit. It is interesting that when the disputed ending is added, there is no difference. With the ending, the words of the book are still divisible by 7 without a remainder. This shows that the ending is also designed and inspired by the Holy Spirit. It doesn't really matter exactly who wrote that ending, because it is the same Holy Spirit who designed and inspired the rest of the book.

 

[Berserk]

The total words in the original Greek in the whole book of Mark is equally divisible by 7 without a remainder. The odds of that happening by chance is around 3 million to one. It shows that the book of Mark is inspired and designed by the Holy Spirit. It is interesting that when the disputed ending is added, there is no difference. With the ending, the words of the book are still divisible by 7 without a remainder. This shows that the ending is also designed and inspired by the Holy Spirit. It doesn't really matter exactly who wrote that ending, because it is the same Holy Spirit who designed and inspired the rest of the book.

So you agree that drinking poison and handling poisonous snakes (e. g. Acts 28:3-5) are not just accidents, but are actually "signs" of the true believer? Do you approve of the Appalachian snake-handling Christians?

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

So you agree that drinking poison and handling poisonous snakes (e. g. Acts 28:3-5) are not just accidents, but are actually "signs" of the true believer? Do you approve of the Appalachian snake-handling Christians?

That's not the issue. We are talking about whether the ending of Mark is authentic or not. How the passage is interpreted is a matter of hermaneutics, and that is a bottomless theological black hole that I am not prepared to be sucked into.

 

[Berserk]

That's not the issue. We are talking about whether the ending of Mark is authentic or not. How the passage is interpreted is a matter of hermaneutics, and that is a bottomless theological black hole that I am not prepared to be sucked into.

The bogus ending of Mark has caused needless deaths in the Appalachian region.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

The bogus ending of Mark has caused needless deaths in the Appalachian region.

It's not the ending itself but how it was interpreted and used by fringe pseudo cultish groups.

 

[ARBITER01]

The total words in the original Greek in the whole book of Mark is equally divisible by 7 without a remainder. The odds of that happening by chance is around 3 million to one. It shows that the book of Mark is inspired and designed by the Holy Spirit. It is interesting that when the disputed ending is added, there is no difference. With the ending, the words of the book are still divisible by 7 without a remainder. This shows that the ending is also designed and inspired by the Holy Spirit. It doesn't really matter exactly who wrote that ending, because it is the same Holy Spirit who designed and inspired the rest of the book.

Look at the manuscript vaticanus. It has blank section at the end of Mark where the ending fits perfectly in.

There was a lot of pruning that went on in some of the Alexandrian type manuscripts. Scholars won't ever admit to that, but it becomes apparent once you see how most of those so-called "later additions" tend to fit so well in and agree doctrinally once inserted. So I agree with the quote from Irenaeus.