Corruption Of Mark's Gospel

ABenShema · Dec 4, 2007

Marks Gospel is found with four different endings amongst the ancient manuscripts, but only two have any possible (yet flimsy) claim to authenticity: (1) the ending that concludes the gospel at 16:8; and (2) the Longer Ending (16:9-20). However, most scholars, the oldest and best-attested manuscripts and versions, plus principles of textual criticism, all end Mark at 16:8. Thus, one question still arises: Did Mark actually intend to end his gospel at 16:8? If so, the following need to be explained:

(1.) why the early church felt so strongly its lack of completion, witnessed by the insertion of a variety of longer endings;

(2.) why a book that purports to be the "good news about Jesus Christ" should end with the women being afraid; and

(3) why it records no resurrection appearances to Peter and the other disciples (cf. 16:7).

The best solution is that Mark did write an ending to his gospel, but that it was somehow lost, or perhaps intentionally destroyed because of some undesirable (to orthodoxy) information! The various longer endings we now possess represent attempts by the church to supply what was obviously lacking, or to amend something that they considered unacceptable! There are many other examples of such variations (additions, omissions, changes, etc.) in the most ancient manuscripts, see e.g. John 7:53 8:11 (a later addition); and also in Matthew 18:11; Luke 9:55; 11:2-4; 22:19-20, 43-44; 23:34; 24:5, 12, 40, & 51.

Peace, Love, & Understanding

divided sky · Dec 4, 2007

ABenShema said:
(2.) why a book that purports to be the "good news about Jesus Christ" should end with the women being afraid;

It's not a bad ending, considering the audience the book was addressed to already believed Jesus had been raised from the dead. They already knew it.

ABenShema · Dec 4, 2007

divided sky said:
It's not a bad ending, considering the audience the book was addressed to already believed Jesus had been raised from the dead. They already knew it.

So do you think that was the original ending?

PLU

ABenShema · Dec 7, 2007

ABenShema said:
Marks Gospel is found with four different endings amongst the ancient manuscripts, but only two have any possible (yet flimsy) claim to authenticity: (1) the ending that concludes the gospel at 16:8; and (2) the Longer Ending (16:9-20). However, most scholars, the oldest and best-attested manuscripts and versions, plus principles of textual criticism, all end Mark at 16:8. Thus, one question still arises: Did Mark actually intend to end his gospel at 16:8? If so, the following need to be explained:

(1.) why the early church felt so strongly its lack of completion, witnessed by the insertion of a variety of longer endings;

(2.) why a book that purports to be the "good news about Jesus Christ" should end with the women being afraid; and

(3) why it records no resurrection appearances to Peter and the other disciples (cf. 16:7).

The best solution is that Mark did write an ending to his gospel, but that it was somehow lost, or perhaps intentionally destroyed because of some undesirable (to orthodoxy) information! The various longer endings we now possess represent attempts by the church to supply what was obviously lacking, or to amend something that they considered unacceptable! There are many other examples of such variations (additions, omissions, changes, etc.) in the most ancient manuscripts, see e.g. John 7:53 8:11 (a later addition); and also in Matthew 18:11; Luke 9:55; 11:2-4; 22:19-20, 43-44; 23:34; 24:5, 12, 40, & 51.

Peace, Love, & Understanding

Has no one here any comments or ideas about this subject?

CShephard53 · Dec 7, 2007

ABenShema said:
Mark’s Gospel is found with four different endings amongst the ancient manuscripts, but only two have any possible (yet flimsy) claim to authenticity: (1) the ending that concludes the gospel at 16:8; and (2) the ‘Longer Ending’ (16:9-20). However, most scholars, the oldest and best-attested manuscripts and versions, plus principles of textual criticism, all end Mark at 16:8. Thus, one question still arises: Did Mark actually intend to end his gospel at 16:8? If so, the following need to be explained:

(1.) why the early church felt so strongly its lack of completion, witnessed by the insertion of a variety of longer endings;

(2.) why a book that purports to be the "good news about Jesus Christ" should end with the women being afraid; and

(3) why it records no resurrection appearances to Peter and the other disciples (cf. 16:7).

The best solution is that Mark did write an ending to his gospel, but that it was somehow lost, or perhaps intentionally destroyed because of some undesirable (to orthodoxy) information! The various longer endings we now possess represent attempts by the church to supply what was obviously lacking, or to amend something that they considered unacceptable! There are many other examples of such variations (additions, omissions, changes, etc.) in the most ancient manuscripts, see e.g. John 7:53 – 8:11 (a later addition); and also in Matthew 18:11; Luke 9:55; 11:2-4; 22:19-20, 43-44; 23:34; 24:5, 12, 40, & 51.

Peace, Love, & Understanding

Yeah, next time you post claims like this in the theology section you might try providing evidence and sources for your claims.

ABenShema · Dec 7, 2007

jawsmetroid said:
Yeah, next time you post claims like this in the theology section you might try providing evidence and sources for your claims.

So many sources ~ it is common knowledge amongst scholars. Try this (CLICK HERE).

PLU

CShephard53 · Dec 7, 2007

ABenShema said:
So many sources ~ it is common knowledge amongst scholars. Try this (CLICK HERE).

PLU

You provide unbacked assertions amongst the facts. I'm asking your sources for that. Let me quote a few:

The best solution is that Mark did write an ending to his gospel, but that it was somehow lost, or perhaps intentionally destroyed because of some undesirable (to orthodoxy) information!

The various longer endings we now possess represent attempts by the church to supply what was obviously lacking, or to amend something that they considered unacceptable!

Can you prove to us beyond reasonable doubt that the Bible is unreliable? Can you prove to us in the same way that the inserted information is wrong? Also, can you prove that the other 'variations' are wrong and contrary to fact? If you can't, your simply stating the facts is absolutely pointless.

ABenShema · Dec 7, 2007

jawsmetroid said:
You provide unbacked assertions amongst the facts. I'm asking your sources for that. Let me quote a few:
Quote:
The best solution is that Mark did write an ending to his gospel, but that it was somehow lost, or perhaps intentionally destroyed because of some undesirable (to orthodoxy) information!
Quote:
The various longer endings we now possess represent attempts by the church to supply what was obviously lacking, or to amend something that they considered unacceptable!

To understand fully what I refer to above, one must study the history and theology of Paul, and his obvious disagreements and contention with the original Apostles. There is one particular incident where Paul took Mark along on one of his missionary journeys, but Mark, soon after embarking, mysteriously left Paul and return to Jerusalem. After this incident Paul flatly refused to allow Mark to accompany him ever again, even causing the break with his faithful companion Barnabus. The whole story and a full explanation is given HERE (CLICK).

Can you prove to us beyond reasonable doubt that the Bible is unreliable?

SEE (CLICK) HERE (see post # 4)

Can you prove to us in the same way that the inserted information is wrong? Also, can you prove that the other 'variations' are wrong and contrary to fact? If you can't, your simply stating the facts is absolutely pointless.

The whole point is that the 'variations' are NOT original ~ NOT by Mark! This makes them no less than forgeries.

PLU

CShephard53 · Dec 7, 2007

ABenShema said:
To understand fully what I refer to above, one must study the history and theology of Paul, and his obvious disagreements and contention with the original Apostles. There is one particular incident where Paul took Mark along on one of his missionary journeys, but Mark, soon after embarking, mysteriously left Paul and return to Jerusalem. After this incident Paul flatly refused to allow Mark to accompany him ever again, even causing the break with his faithful companion Barnabus. The whole story and a full explanation is given HERE (CLICK).

SEE (CLICK) HERE (see post # 4)

The whole point is that the 'variations' are NOT original ~ NOT by Mark! This makes them no less than forgeries.

PLU

Nice claims, but they still don't hold. See, you claiming the sacrifice was inserted only shows an ignorance of how the sacrificial system was setup. Those same verses only show that sacrifice wasn't God's main objective. The point was obedience and faith, not just actions. The point was the heart. James 2:14-26 and Hebrews speaks to this.

And your assertions that they were forgeries doesn't mean anything either. Even if it was inserted doesn't mean they were untrue. Show beyond reasonable doubt that they are untrue, you might get somewhere.

CShephard53 · Dec 7, 2007

Oh, and your post on Saul- do you honestly expect anyone to read that lack of formatting? Just glancing at it gave me a headache.

ABenShema · Dec 7, 2007

jawsmetroid said:
Nice claims, but they still don't hold. See, you claiming the sacrifice was inserted only shows an ignorance of how the sacrificial system was setup. Those same verses only show that sacrifice wasn't God's main objective. The point was obedience and faith, not just actions. The point was the heart. James 2:14-26 and Hebrews speaks to this.

And your assertions that they were forgeries doesn't mean anything either. Even if it was inserted doesn't mean they were untrue. Show beyond reasonable doubt that they are untrue, you might get somewhere.

Can you show me, beyond reasonable doubt, that the whole of the Bible is the truth, and contains only the pure words of God?

One cannot argue points like this with any religionist. Have you tried telling a Muslim that his scriptures are not wholly the words of God (Allah)? or a Buddhist, or a Hindu??? You might as well bang your head against a brick wall - for none will listen to the Truth.

PLU

CShephard53 · Dec 7, 2007

ABenShema said:
Can you show me, beyond reasonable doubt, that the whole of the Bible is the truth, and contains only the pure words of God?

One cannot argue points like this with any religionist. Have you tried telling a Muslim that his scriptures are not wholly the words of God (Allah)? or a Buddhist, or a Hindu??? You might as well bang your head against a brick wall - for none will listen to the Truth.

PLU

I don't need to. You asserted first, you provide the evidence. I haven't made any assertions as far as that is concerned.

I have actually argued the Quran with a Muslim. But that's irrelevant, you claim to have the truth yet won't provide a logical argument for it.

ABenShema · Dec 7, 2007

jawsmetroid said:
Oh, and your post on Saul- do you honestly expect anyone to read that lack of formatting? Just glancing at it gave me a headache.

What are you talking about?

ABenShema · Dec 7, 2007

jawsmetroid said:
I don't need to. You asserted first, you provide the evidence. I haven't made any assertions as far as that is concerned.

I have actually argued the Quran with a Muslim. But that's irrelevant, you claim to have the truth yet won't provide a logical argument for it.

Enough said.

CShephard53 · Dec 7, 2007

http://gnosis.forumotion.com/christianity-f9/paul-false-apostle-first-christian-1-of-8-t28.htm

That

ABenShema · Dec 7, 2007

jawsmetroid said:
http://gnosis.forumotion.com/christianity-f9/paul-false-apostle-first-christian-1-of-8-t28.htm

That

Yes, THAT!

CShephard53 · Dec 7, 2007

Have fun with a lack of credibility, then.

BrotherDave · Dec 9, 2007

There is overwhelming evidence that Mark 16:9-20 are part of Gods Word and men, no matter how learned they may be must not tamper with it for they will lead others astray. Mark 16 presents the resurrection of Christ and states the responsibilities of the Church. It is a wonderful conclusion to the Gospel of Mark

The 2 oldest NT manuscripts are the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanus from the 3rd century AD. They both differ in many places but both omit Mark 16:9-20. Modern scholars base their conclusions on this omission. But what they overlook is the more than 600 manuscripts that contain these verses. Rather than believe the 600 are correct and that scribes changed the earlier manuscripts they chose to believe the 2 conflicting Codices.

Only the King James versions are not translated from manuscripts influenced by the variant codices. This version is translated from the Majority Text, a collection of Greek manuscripts dating from the 4th century AD (see David Otis Fuller, Counterfeit or Genuine? 1984, p 209) also known as the Byzantine Text or the Textus Receptus from the area of the Old Byzantine Empire (Turkey, Bulgaria, Greece, Albania, Yugoslavia). There is greater homogeneity among these texts than any other.

In 1881 a couple of scholars published The New Testament in the Original Greek relying on Alexandrian manuscripts, the codices because they were older. Unfortunately most new translations since 1881 have referenced this collection, again ignoring all the other evidence.

Interestingly, there are a growing number of scholars who now recognize the Byzantine type text is older than their extant manuscripts. NT readings thought to be uniquely Byzantine have been found in the papyri, the oldest manuscripts.

Mark 16 is an enlightening chapter that stresses faith and trust in the Lord. All scripture is given by inspiration of God (2 Tim 3:16) and we must not add or take away from it (Gal 1: 9, Rev 22:18, 19). We can be confident that these verses are part of God's holy canon.

ABenShema · Dec 9, 2007

BrotherDave said:
There is overwhelming evidence that Mark 16:9-20 are part of Gods Word and men, no matter how learned they may be must not tamper with it for they will lead others astray. Mark 16 presents the resurrection of Christ and states the responsibilities of the Church. It is a wonderful conclusion to the Gospel of Mark

The 2 oldest NT manuscripts are the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanus from the 3rd century AD. They both differ in many places but both omit Mark 16:9-20. Modern scholars base their conclusions on this omission. But what they overlook is the more than 600 manuscripts that contain these verses. Rather than believe the 600 are correct and that scribes changed the earlier manuscripts they chose to believe the 2 conflicting Codices.

Only the King James versions are not translated from manuscripts influenced by the variant codices. This version is translated from the Majority Text, a collection of Greek manuscripts dating from the 4th century AD (see David Otis Fuller, Counterfeit or Genuine? 1984, p 209) also known as the Byzantine Text or the Textus Receptus from the area of the Old Byzantine Empire (Turkey, Bulgaria, Greece, Albania, Yugoslavia). There is greater homogeneity among these texts than any other.

In 1881 a couple of scholars published The New Testament in the Original Greek relying on Alexandrian manuscripts, the codices because they were older. Unfortunately most new translations since 1881 have referenced this collection, again ignoring all the other evidence.

Interestingly, there are a growing number of scholars who now recognize the Byzantine type text is older than their extant manuscripts. NT readings thought to be uniquely Byzantine have been found in the papyri, the oldest manuscripts.

Mark 16 is an enlightening chapter that stresses faith and trust in the Lord. All scripture is given by inspiration of God (2 Tim 3:16) and we must not add or take away from it (Gal 1: 9, Rev 22:18, 19). We can be confident that these verses are part of God's holy canon.

You may believe that there is no corruption in the Bible, but I must say that this is merely wishful thinking.

As I have explained and given proof of in other posts (e.g. "The True Meaning of Sacrifice") some things in the Bible are merely the beliefs and traditions (i.e. insertions) of men (e.g. 'orthodox' priests).
How can you say: We are wise: we possess the Law of the Lord? for the lying pens of the scribes have falsified it! (Jeremiah 8:8)
In the process of time ungodly customs strengthen, and are eventually observed as Law! (Wisdom 14:16).

God is never vengeful, sadistic, or evil in any way, as He has sometimes been shown to be in the OT. These things are from satan (i.e. the carnal, unenlightened, lower, "first-born" mind of man/woman).

So, quite simply, we must not believe everything which the Bible says ~ especially those passages that state that God requires or performs any bloody acts of killing or other evil deeds.

PLU

CShephard53 · Dec 9, 2007

ABenShema said:
You may believe that there is no corruption in the Bible, but I must say that this is merely wishful thinking.

Says you. And what have you given us to show us that you're credible and authoritative in saying that?

As I have explained and given proof of in other posts (e.g. "The True Meaning of Sacrifice") some things in the Bible are merely the beliefs and traditions (i.e. insertions) of men (e.g. 'orthodox' priests).

Proof? Is it proven beyond reasonable doubt? Then you cannot say that it's proof.

How can you say: We are wise: we possess the Law of the Lord? for the lying pens of the scribes have falsified it! (Jeremiah 8:8)
In the process of time ungodly customs strengthen, and are eventually observed as Law! (Wisdom 14:16).

What on earth are you even talking about?

God is never vengeful, sadistic, or evil in any way, as He has sometimes been shown to be in the OT.

The heck He has! Justice is not evil. Vengeance IS God's, therefore in some cases God is vengeful. That's in the Bible, look it up.

These things are from satan (i.e. the carnal, unenlightened, lower, "first-born" mind of man/woman).

Sure they are.

So, quite simply, we must not believe everything which the Bible says ~ especially those passages that state that God requires or performs any bloody acts of killing or other evil deeds.

PLU

So how do you choose what is right and what is wrong?

Corruption Of Mark's Gospel

GNOSTIC

Veteran

GNOSTIC

GNOSTIC

Somebody shut me up so I can live out loud!

GNOSTIC

Somebody shut me up so I can live out loud!

GNOSTIC

Somebody shut me up so I can live out loud!

Somebody shut me up so I can live out loud!

GNOSTIC

Somebody shut me up so I can live out loud!

GNOSTIC

GNOSTIC

Somebody shut me up so I can live out loud!

GNOSTIC

Somebody shut me up so I can live out loud!

Regular Member

GNOSTIC

Somebody shut me up so I can live out loud!

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency