Last 12 Verses of Mark: Part II

[Nazaroo]

Summary of earlier thread: (hope I got everybody)

is Mark 16:9-20 supposed to be part of the bible?

the NIV, "The Knowing Jesus Study Bible". It states in reference to Mark 16:9-20, "The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have mark 16:9-20."

The ESV Bible adds this note:

Mar_16:9 Some manuscripts end the book with 16:8; others include verses 9-20 immediately after verse 8. A few manuscripts insert additional material after verse 14; one Latin manuscript adds after verse 8 the following: But they reported briefly to Peter and those with him all that they had been told. And after this, Jesus himself sent out by means of them, from east to west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation . Other manuscripts include this same wording after verse 8, then continue with verses 9-20

The Scoffield Bible adds this note:

The passage from verse 9 (Mar_16:9) to the end is not found in the two most ancient manuscripts, the Sinaitic and Vatican, and others have it with partial omissions and variations. But it is quoted by Irenaeus and Hippolytus in the second or third century.

The NKJV says this:

Mar_16:9-20 is bracketed in NU-Text as not original. It is lacking in Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, although nearly all other manuscripts of Mark contain it

The earliest and best manuscripts (mss) do not have these verses. Therefore, it is highly doubtful that they are authentic. Nonetheless, this cannot really be used to somehow prove the biblical text is corrupt and thus cannot be trusted. We have well over 2,000 extant mss testifying to the content of the NT writings. Imagine you wrote a letter to a friend. Now imagine that the content of this letter was found to be so wise and eloquently rendered that it was thought to be important enough to be copied over and over again. Any document that has been hand-copied will contain some transmission errors compared to the original. But obviously, not all the copiers are going to make the same mistakes. Hence, the more copies we are able to collate and compare, the easier and more accurate it will be for us to identify the authentic content of your letter. I've heard it theorized that a few dozen copies would be sufficient for such a process--certainly no more than a hundred. As I state above, we have over 2,000.

Yes, well over 2,000. In fact, we have around 5,300 Greek manuscripts alone. Not to mention in the tens-of-thousands of Latin manuscripts and lectionaries and attestations of the fathers.

Well, as long as we are updating:
Greek manuscripts: ~5,500
Versional manuscripts (Latin, Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, etc.): ~30,000
Citations by Early Church Fathers: 1,000,000

Generally, one of the premises behind the science of biblical translation is that the older the manuscripts, the more accurate or closer to the original autographs they are. Thus in the majority if not all of the Alexandrian texts as well as the eclectic findings in the dead sea scrolls(?)[sic], the last portion of Mark was not found. Thus the conclusion from most scholars would be that in the original autograph those verses were non-existent; and that what we find in the KJV are interpolations done by well meaning and "overzealous" scribes (if I have described them appropriately).

2. The key words in your first sentence are "one of the premises" -- "older is better" cannot work alone as a reason for chosing a variant over another. There are several canons of the science: 1) The reading which best explains all the others is to be preferred; 2) The reading from a manuscript of greater reliability is to be preferred; 3) The reading which is not explained by any of the others is to be preferred; 4) The reading which is attested by the widest geographical area is to be preferred; 5) The oldest reading is to be preferred. The different rules check and balance one another.

Scholars are divided over the authenticity of these verses. Those who follow the received text tradition point to the fact that this text is found in the majority of biblical manuscripts down through the centuries. Thus, they believe it was in the original manuscript of Mark.

On the other hand, those who follow the critical text tradition insist that we should not add evidence, but weigh it. Truth is not determined, they say, by majority vote, but by the most qualified witnesses. They point to the following arguments for rejecting these verses: (1) These verses are lacking in many of the oldest and most reliable Greek manuscripts, as well as in important Old Latin, Syriac, Armenian, and Ethiopic manuscripts. (2) Many of the ancient church fathers reveal no knowledge of these verses, including Clement, Origen, and Eusebius. Jerome admitted that almost all Greek copies do not have it. (3) Many manuscripts that do have this section place a mark by it indicating it is a spurious addition to the text. (4) There is another (shorter) ending to Mark that is found in some manuscripts. (5) Others point to the fact that the style and vocabulary are not the same as the rest of the Gospel of Mark.

Whether or not this piece of text belongs in the original, the truth it contains certainly accords with it. So, the bottom line is that it does not make any difference, since if it does belong here there is nothing in it contrary to the rest of Scripture. And if it does not belong, there is no truth missing in the Bible, since everything taught here is found elsewhere in Scripture. This includes tongues (see Acts 2:lff), baptism (Acts 2:38), and God's 1st century supernatural protection of His messengers unwittingly bitten by poisonous snakes (cf. Acts 28: 3-5). So, in the final analysis, it is simply a debate about whether this particular text belongs in the Bible, not over whether any truth is missing.
(When Critics Ask by Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe)

The third study down in the article Mark 16:16 (King James Version) :: Forerunner Commentary :: Bible Tools <http://bibletools.org/index.cfm/fus.../eVerseID/24890> by Richard T. Ritenbaugh and the article Should Christians Handle Snakes? [particularly the "Inset: Is Mark 16:9-20 Inspired Scripture?" also by Richard T. Ritenbaugh] <http://bibletools.org//index.cfm/fu...how/CT/RA/k/831> which says essentially the same thing as the above link but adds a few extra paragraphs.

This page: http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=1369 explains how the shorter, abrupt ending would make sense to Mark.

I have a Greek-English interlinear Bible published by Hendrickson (Jay P. Green, Sr., General Editor and Translator; c. 1984; ISBN 0-913573-29-9) that has this to say on the topic:

"The Sinaiticus was so poorly excecuted that seven different hands of 'textual critics' can be discerned as they tried to impose their views on the Bible. They twisted it like a nose of wax to meet their purposes at the time. It is no wonder it was discarded, found in a wastebasket fourteen centuries after it was executed. The Vaticanus manuscript lay on a shelf in the Vatican library at Rome until 1431, and was considered so corrupt that no one would use it. (Erasmus, the noted Roman Catholic scholar, refused to consider it as a source when he formed the Received Text.) The Vaticanus has errors so absurd that the books purporting to teach 'textual science' carefully avoid mentioning these gross errors in their favorite manuscript. They take this one and add it to a handful of other Alexandrian textbase, all of them very loose in their handling of the Scriptures...they have done entirely away with Mark's witness to the ascension, simply because these last twelve verses do not appear in those two corrupt manuscripts, the Sinaiticus and the Vaticanus (yet the scribe of the Vaticanus has left an empty space exactly large enough to contain those twelve verses -- he must have seen them in an older manuscript, else how would he know how much space to leave? And the last twelve verses of Mark in the Sinaiticus manuscript are written in much larger letters, very loosely, to fill up the space which would contain these last twelve verses if the same size letters had been used throughout)."

I have never heard this issue addressed anywhere but in the forward to this interlinear Bible...not even in Geisler and Nix's excellent General Introduction to the Bible.

Any comments?

The only known version which uses the byzantine manuscripts (NT) in their fullness is the KJV. Note also the alleged extra verses it contains, such as the doxological ending of the Lord's prayer which was scissored off in most modern versions today. The Johannine Comma was also deleted off - that alleged verse that supposedly stated the doctrine of the trinity in the most explicit way possible.

 

[Nazaroo]

and TruthsetsYouFree's contributions:

My 2 cents on Mark 16:9-20



(For readability, I quoted the Mark verses in bold, and below I explain how I feel those statements were backed up elsewhere in scripture)

~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

9) Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils.

John 20:1-13 tells us that Mary Magdalene was the first one that Jesus appeared to after rising from the dead.

10) And she went and told them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept.

John 20:18 tells us that she went and told the rest of the disciples.

11) And they, when they had heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, believed not.

Luke 24:11 tells us that the rest of disciples didn't believe her when she told them that the Lord has risen.

12) After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country.

Luke 24:13-15 tells us that two of them were walking along talking, when suddenly Jesus appeared to them.

13) And they went and told it unto the residue: neither believed they them.

Luke 24:35-38 tells us how the rest of them didn't really believe that Jesus appeared to the two.

14) Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen.

Luke 24:35-41 tells us how He appeared to the 11 of them, and got onto them for their unbelief.

15) And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

Matthew 18:19, "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."

16) He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

John 3:18 tells us that he who believes will not be condemned, but he who doesn't believe will be condemned. Acts 2:38 tells us to repent and be baptized for the remission of our sins. Note that this verse in Mark doesn't say that if you aren't baptized, you won't be saved. It simply puts baptism along side believing, both of which are preached elsewhere in scripture. I believe the believing part is what makes a person saved, and the baptism part is preached elsewhere in scripture as a recommendation for new converts.

17) And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;

Believers casting out devils is backed up by John 14:12, when Jesus said that those who believe will do the works He did (and casting out devils was a big part of what He did). Jude 1:20 tells believers to be building themselves up by praying in the Holy Ghost. Praying in the Spirit and tongues is clearly linked in 1 Corinthians 14:14-15.

18) They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

I believe this is backed up when Jesus told His disciples that they will tread on serpents and scorpions and nothing by any means will harm them in Luke 10:19. Healing the sick is one of the works that Jesus did, and said that we would do the works He did and greater in John 14:12.

19) So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.

The story where He ascended into heaven after speaking to them is also spoken of in Luke 24:51. Acts 2:33 tells us that Jesus went and sat at the right hand of God.

20) And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.

Hebrews 2:4 speaks of God confirming the Word with signs and wonders.

~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

I believe if God didn't want Mark 16:9-20 in the Bible, He wouldn't have allowed it. I believe if it were added, it wasn't simply 'made up', but inserted by somebody who understood what happened or God revealed to them what happened. Since Jesus spoke in verses 15-18, these couldn't have been made up too easily. They say that some of the old Greek manuscripts don't include these verses, while other Greek manuscripts do. How do we know that the original manuscripts don't include it, but some of the old copies were ripped and these verses were lost?

My gut feeling tells me these verses were meant to be there.

I don't like the idea of picking apart the Bible... before long, you begin to question the whole thing! What does that do for your faith in God? Why trust anything at all in the Bible? How can we be sure that the rest of our Bible is "authentic"?

To me, Satan hates these verses in Mark, and wants God's people to 'write them off'.

I found a really good Web site that embraces these verses:

http://www.victoryword.100megspop2.com/mark16-1.html

I found another very good Web site that tackles this:

http://www.westpalmbeachchurchofchr...est/Mark16.html

He goes on to say that the two manuscripts that omit these verses also omit THOUSANDS of other verses in the gospels ALONE... these manuscripts were HEAVILY tampered with!!!

While THOUSANDS of other Greek manuscripts DO include these verses in Mark... why should we believe a couple heavily tampered manuscripts, when thousands of other manuscripts include it??

Like I said... I believe Satan wants those verses omitted... and that's why he's caused such a rift here.

 

[Nazaroo]

To this thread I'd like to add my two photographs:

...and the following comments:

Modern Versions and Stupid Footnotes


Many modern versions of the New Testament have annoying brackets around certain verses, and disparaging footnotes in the margins which cast doubt upon various traditional verses and phrases.

Typically, such footnotes take the form,

"*the oldest and best manuscripts omit these verses" or some similar expression.

(1) Upon reading such a note, the student can be forgiven for thinking that by 'oldest' the note means that the verses were somehow added later than the date of the manuscript. But this is completely misleading, since ALL READINGS are demonstrably old, and most are far older than the oldest complete manuscripts.

(2) The student can also naturally be excused for thinking that by 'best' or 'better' the note means that these manuscripts referred to are remarkably good and accurate copies of the original text of the New Testament. Again, nothing could be further from the objective truth. While a manuscript like for instance Codex Vaticanus (B) is excellent in the sense of being made from high quality sheepskin, and containing remarkably neat calligraphic writing, the text itself is notoriously corrupt and perverse.

A typical case is the Last twelve verses of Mark, where such a note usually appears. What the note doesn't say, is that while the two Ancient 5th century manuscripts Vaticanus and Sinaiticus do indeed omit the verses, they clearly knew about their existance, because they carefully left a space for the verses to be copied in, if so desired!

Have a look at the attached photos,and you will see that the footnotes in most modern versions can only be described as a (not so very) pious fraud.

 

[Nazaroo]

And to briefly sum up the basic textual critical situation:

There are respected and credentialed scholars on both sides of the issue as to the authenticity of the Last Verses of Mark.

One of the most recent serious scholarly works on this topic is:

The Last Twelve Verses of Mark by W.R. Farmer, Cambridge University Press 1974,
who supports the authenticity of the verses, and covers the evidence and arguments extensively.

I'm going to quote Farmer's take on the space left in Codex Vaticanus.
After recounting Williams' attempt to explain the blank third column,
Farmer says this:

..A more correct inference would seem to be that the scribe knew that the gospel did NOT end at 16:8, ...but...was producing a copy which could be ended according to the wishes of others. That the scribe considered the form of the gospel which ended with 16:8 as the authentic one, is by no means clear. He only knew that the text..up to 16:8 was largely undisputed, ad that what if anything was to follow 16:8 was a matter of dispute. By not copying anything beyond 16:8 he met the essential requirement of those who felt the gospel needed either an ending or some word of explanation following 16:8. By including the ornament and subscription kata markcon afterward, the scribe was 'finishing' his work. It could 'go out' of the scriptorium in this form. Buy any purchaser or user easily could have had the ornament and subscription erased and, in the space allowed, he could have ended the gospel according to his own decision or he could have used it without alteration. The advantage of this form of the text is that it allows for some further treatment of a disputed matter. It is certainly copied in such a way that an ending may be added if desired. Whe the space left blank is more than necessary for the shorter ending or slightly less than needed for the longer ending is not entirely clear. ...All this is in keeping with a situation in which the longer ending is known, but disapproved, and where it is felt prudent to allow for something further to be written in the space left blank."
(ibid. pg 58-9)

I can present more detailed evidences here for those interested!

Peace

 

[justified]

There are other, more nuanced reasons for the space. I haven't had a chance to examine the facsimiles, but something strikes me as odd about the pictures you have there.

Anyways, back to the science:
No one denies that the existance of the long endings of Mark is extremely early. It's found in A C D and translations of Irenaeus, not mention lots more. But you also have a very confused tradition wherein the verse pops up with a semi-short ending in Aleph, A, B, C, D, W and the majority; then you have part of the ending before 16:8 (A, C, D, W). In the early days, no one knew where the verses belonged.

Add to this that the vocabulary is different, and that it is much easier reading (because it is hard to read a manuscript that ends so abruptly) and you have a high probability for a lost (or non-existant) ending which was later added in.

 

[Nazaroo]

but something strikes me as odd about the pictures you have there....
Anyways, back to the science:

Oh come on. Drop the innuendo. If you think I've somehow 'faked' fascimiles of these pages, tell me where you think they differ from those in every major library in the world. That is just a cheap shot.

In the early days, no one knew where the verses belonged.

Nonsense. You quote the evidence of a handful of Uncials, all from approximately the same brief time period and area, (5th century Rome, the wealthy capital of corruption and greed) and which are essentially "rich man's bibles." These rare and 'beautiful' but expensive items were commisioned for wealthy patrons of various churchs and monasteries. There is no doubt that the large amounts of money involved in their production allowed their sponsors to dictate to their heart's content any changes that suited them. And when they are examined closely, this is exactly the case.

You had at least some credibility with the papyrii. These at least are far more representative of the thousands of cheaper (and more accurate) copies of the scriptures that real Christians who lived and died as martyrs would have used, namely the poor.

Except for one fact: All the papyrii are from Egyptian garbage dumps around Alexandria, and so represent a very very small geographical area and narrow slice of time, and a text AFTER the peak of the persecutions. And it is known that many Egyptian scriptoriums producing these manuscripts were not Christian at all, but professional businesses contracted to do the copying and production in this period.


The Real Explanation for the Garbage Texts in the Elegant Uncials

It is quite sensible to suppose that the majority of poor Christians, with their own papyrii produced carefully and lovingly by themselves in their life and death struggle against persecution, were highly accurate, although not as ornate and elegant as the Codex Vaticanus et al.

While on the other hand, the overblown and fancy productions pandering to the wealthy and made by scribes who could be bribed to do the task for cash would have been vain enough and competative enough to produce elegant caligraphy but completely careless as to the actual text. And this is precisely what the evidence reflects.

Rich people overpay for garbage, because the people working for them hate them .

 

[justified]

Oh come on. Drop the innuendo. If you think I've somehow 'faked' fascimiles of these pages, tell me where you think they differ from those in every major library in the world. That is just a cheap shot.

Like I said, I can't do that for ya as I haven't examined them. But I can tell you that in approximately 35 days I will examine them and if I remember, will get back to you.

Nonsense. You quote the evidence of a handful of Uncials, all from approximately the same brief time period and area, (5th century Rome, the wealthy capital of corruption and greed) and which are essentially "rich man's bibles." These rare and 'beautiful' but expensive items were commisioned for wealthy patrons of various churchs and monasteries. There is no doubt that the large amounts of money involved in their production allowed their sponsors to dictate to their heart's content any changes that suited them. And when they are examined closely, this is exactly the case.

First of all, that's not nonesense. You've picked up the attitude again. It really does not help. You've also ignored the very important point that the entire tradition is confused. It's not just a handful, it's ALL the uncials which seem to disagree.

Now, as to your ideas about these Uncials:
The provenance of Aleph, A, B, C, D, W -- Aleph is Alexandrian, not Roman, and from the early fourth century, not fifth. Likewise Vaticanus. Obviously Alexandianus is from Egypt as well, 5th century. D, or Bezae, comes from the 5th century and is of unknown origin. It's probably western, but it's text-form is unlike anyother and has errors not found in other manuscripts. C, or Ephraemi, also from 5th c., is also Alexandrian. W, or Washingtonianus, is from 4-5 c., is of mixed form, making it quite important. It's western in parts and Byzantine in parts. See Hatch, The Principal Uncial Manuscripts for all of this data.

These rare and 'beautiful' but expensive items were commisioned for wealthy patrons of various churchs and monasteries. There is no doubt that the large amounts of money involved in their production allowed their sponsors to dictate to their heart's content any changes that suited them. And when they are examined closely, this is exactly the case.

You have no evidence for this. We know Constantine comissioned a bunch. But the codex was the way the bible was done during this time. Sinaiticus is actually a rather mundane manuscript in terms of its ornateness.

There is no doubt that the large amounts of money involved in their production allowed their sponsors to dictate to their heart's content any changes that suited them. And when they are examined closely, this is exactly the case.

How can you say there is no doubt? I really would like you to stop wasting my time with these types of posts and instead put up your evidence the first time. There is no evidence for corruption in this way.

These at least are far more representative of the thousands of cheaper (and more accurate) copies of the scriptures that real Christians who lived and died as martyrs would have used, namely the poor.

Still waiting for evidence. But on the papyrii, it is extremely fragmentary, and none is extant for the end of Mark.

BTW, the reason the papyri were preserved in Egypt is of course the climate. It doesn't mean it was a garbage dump, and even if it were, who gives a crap? It's still evidence. Just because you have a bunch of Arabs in the middle ages burning the NT doesn't mean anything. Stop the ad hominem and get to the point. You are wasting everyone's time with this type of argument.

 

[Nazaroo]

Like I said, I can't do that for ya as I haven't examined them. But I can tell you that in approximately 35 days I will examine them and if I remember, will get back to you.

If you haven't even bothered to verify the evidence, what business do you have casting doubt upon my evidence, and my integrity?

You've picked up the attitude again. It really does not help.

I must have got that from you!

You've also ignored the very important point that the entire tradition is confused. It's not just a handful, it's ALL the uncials which seem to disagree.

No. But your erroneous claim that the entire tradition is confused just shows you are. "All the Uncials SEEM to disagree" . (a) 'All the uncials' IS just a handful! (b) some of the UNCIALS obviously have the long ending.

The provenance of Aleph, A, B, C, D, W -- Aleph is Alexandrian, not Roman, and from the early fourth century, not fifth. Likewise Vaticanus. Obviously Alexandianus is from Egypt as well, 5th century. D, or Bezae, comes from the 5th century and is of unknown origin. It's probably western, but it's text-form is unlike anyother and has errors not found in other manuscripts. C, or Ephraemi, also from 5th c., is also Alexandrian. W, or Washingtonianus, is from 4-5 c., is of mixed form, making it quite important. It's western in parts and Byzantine in parts. See Hatch

(a) Basically you agree that all the UNCIALS are a handful, and they all date from mainly the 4th and 5th centuries.

(b) The whole idea of 'text-types' is under serious dispute in this field. They are too 'liquid' to be nailed down, and most textual critics nowadays satisfy themselves with characterizing them as 'tendencies' .

(c) Codeces like D (Bezae) can hardly be called a 'text-type' but are rather just a bad and perverse editing job. 80% of its worst errors are first generation/lone witness type of errors, most likely invented or created by the scribe who executed the manuscript.

(d) While a couple of the UNCIALS have been classified as 'Alexandrian' mainly because of agreement with Codex Alexandrinus, again, the 'Alexandrian' text-type is more a deliberate editing style practised by the Egyptian 'scribe/editors'

(e) their very divergance among themselves although described by critics as evidence of a 'wide and variable, unsolidified' textual stream (read: 'goldmine' for textual critics), in fact really reflects appalling copying and deliberate mutilation of the text. Colwell's collations (which I have here) show just how pathetic the scribes of manuscripts like P66 and P75 really are.

You have no evidence for this. We know Constantine comissioned a bunch. But the codex was the way the bible was done during this time.

Call it a thesis. Thanks for enabling me to avoid furnishing any, since you just furnished evidence yourself. Yeah this was the way the bible was done at this time --- in rich churches in busy commercial centers and for wealthy commissioning patrons.

I really would like you to stop wasting my time with these types of posts and instead put up your evidence the first time. There is no evidence for corruption in this way.

No. I would really like you to stop wasting my time with petty innuendos against the clear photographic evidence I provided, before even bothering to check your paranoid fantasies.

If photographic fascimiles aren't evidence, I don't know what is.

Still waiting for evidence. But on the papyrii, it is extremely fragmentary, and none is extant for the end of Mark.

You're waiting for evidence, but admitting there isn't any. Please. the 'who gives a crap' seems extreme. Can you tone that down a touch?

You are wasting everyone's time with this type of argument.

No. I provided photographic evidence, the best kind there is, which people can examine for themselves, instead of listening to 'professors' hoard it and explain it for them.

You naturally feel gelded by an opponent who has literally pounds of photographs at his disposal, preventing you from having any cogent rebuttal.

I noticed you didn't even remark upon Farmer's intelligent assessment of the photographic evidence of Vaticanus which I posted. Is he not expert enough a witness for you? Or do you feel you can provide a better explanation of the photo?

 

[justified]

No. I provided photographic evidence, the best kind there is, which people can examine for themselves, instead of listening to 'professors' hoard it and explain it for them.

Photographic evidence which shows that the ending is not there. My goodness.

 

[Nazaroo]

Photographic evidence which shows that the ending is not there. My goodness.

No one is disputing that.
We are merely pointing out the hopeless inadequacy of the typical misleading footnotes in modern translations of the NT, suggested by the 'scholars' who want to think for us.

As far as the one and a half blank columns in the codex Vaticanus,
never has the argument from silence spoken more eloquently of guilty knowledge.

Let me repeat my previous question. I think you must have missed it:

I noticed you didn't even remark upon Farmer's intelligent assessment of the photographic evidence of Vaticanus which I posted. Is he not expert enough a witness for you? Or do you feel you can provide a better explanation of the photo?

 

[Nazaroo]

Here's another photo of a 10th century cursive, #247 (Paris).

It shows both the shorter (intermediate)ending of Mark,
and also the typical fancy asterisks and scholia that are peppered all over most manuscripts.

The majority of these markings are not 'scholarly critical' delimiters or indications of doubt in any way, but liturgical markings to indicate to readers where to begin and end the reading for each service.

The Lectionary system and the breaking up of texts into 'pericopes' or bite-sized snacks with a lesson for use in service was very old, probably originating in the 2nd century in imitation of synagogue practices.

It is highly likely that in many cases, copyists confused the meaning of the markings, taking them for editing or correctional instructions. This is probably what caused the majority of variant readings to arise in the early 2nd century. There would have been a short period of confusion and promulgation of errors of this type before word spread backward to copyists and the text was re-corrected and stabilized.

Again this is a good quality file (JPG) 8x10 in size at about 150 dpi. 300k in size. Print it and enjoy!

 

[justified]

[heavy sigh] I hate trying to read these things. Exactly what verse does this manuscript end with?

It is highly likely that in many cases, copyists confused the meaning of the markings, taking them for editing or correctional instructions. This is probably what caused the majority of variant readings to arise in the early 2nd century. There would have been a short period of confusion and promulgation of errors of this type before word spread backward to copyists and the text was re-corrected and stabilized.

You are the first person I've heard suggest that the lectionary system is from the 2nd century.

 

[Nazaroo]

You are the first person I've heard suggest that the lectionary system is from the 2nd century.

But I'll wager a guess, not the last.

Peace to you, Justified.

 

[justified]

right, so, what verse does the ms end with? I imagine you know since you posted it...

 

[Nazaroo]

I'll transcript it for you, since it is not a normal ending.

edit: in fact, I want to leave it for a week to let bible students challenge themselves to transcribe it before checking their answers. It's too easy if the answer is just handed out, and real students need things to practise on.
Let's not take it away just yet. The majority of manuscripts are cursives (small-letter connected handwriting) and this is what people really need to try, instead of just reading printed texts from their grammars and lexicons.

 

[Nazaroo]

Student Guidelines for Reading and transcribing Greek and Coptic cursives:

1. Don't panic or become discouraged because it looks like heiroglyphics. Just remember that your sister's handwriting is probably almost as cryptic and idiosyncratic. Most of what scribes do is fairly natural and efficient, and not superfluous or excessive, especially 100 folios or so into the copying process. Most things will be decipherable and make sense eventually.
2. Synchronize your printed text with the exemplar. This is always your first step. Do this by searching for a common medium sized noun that is not just a pronoun or common coordinating construction like "he said". Look for names of places or categories that don't show up every other verse, but are easy to recognise in almost any handwriting. "ouranos/heaven" or "adelphos/brother" are good examples, while long compound verbs are not. Remember, you haven't yet figured out the alphabet in this particular scribe's era, or demographic location, or personal style.
3. Once synchronised, move a short distance in either direction from your anchor point, and start copying letters that you know you recognize. From here you can often deduce at least some of the forms of most others.
4. Build up a chart of this scribe's letter styles, with at least a half-dozen examples of each letter, and try to fill out the whole alphabet, carefully expanding your knowledge of the text in each direction. Constantly refer to your printed text to confirm you have the right spot, and there is no significant variant (addition or ommision or word order reversal). Make notes of any differences from your printed text on a separate worksheet.
5. Keep your worksheet organized with plenty of space around words and between lines, and STICK to the actual number of letters/words in each line. Follow the format of the exemplar exactly here, and number the lines. Use the margin to tag verse beginnings and endings. And leave lots of space for critical notes. Allow room to copy any scribal asterisks, scholia, or footnotes the scribe or another hand have added to the margins, and note any corrections. Try to discern if the hand is the same as the original scribe or if there are multiple hands correcting the document.
6. Don't strain or sweat it if you hit something you can't figure out. Work around it, or come at it from both ends and see if you can crack it that way. Keep your alphabet style chart up do date, and note where in the manuscript you have drawn from for future reference. Don't worry if you can'tsolve every problem you find on a page. Experience will pay off. Stick to it.

Here are some notes I hand out to students. In this particular manuscript, there are some challenges, because the handwriting is late and very stylized. Here's how I would tackle this folio if working from scratch. First crack open your critical text of Mark (last page) or open an interlinear bible program.

A glance at the second line in this photo shows what looks like the word "mathetas"/disciple. You can now (looking at the note up the side) realise that the "Mark 16:6-20" is a bit inaccurate. Only the last two words of verse 6 are present. Verse seven starts in a bit from the left on the first line, and you can sync up with 'disciple' from verse 16:7, to get started transcribing this scribe's handwriting style.

Only work with two or three lines, until you are confident in recognizing most of the letters, and then you can follow your critical text for the long version along to the end of verse twenty.

Now the real challenge! The shorter ending in the bottom margin! Start by identifying as many key words as you can , and also fill in all the coordinating words, conjunctions, pronouns, prepositons. Try a tentative xlation of the text, and compare it with a commentary or critical note in English in some large bible like a footnoted New Jerusalem Bible or a New Revised Standard.
Now you're well on your way to reading manuscripts for yourself and collating the variants!

 

[justified]

Well, as fun as it is to work through these things, and as satisfying as it DOES feel when you're done, most of us don't have hours to spend deciphering random squiggles where the scribe went WHOOPS! because he had alzhimers. Moreover, there are dozens of manuscripts that bear on the passage -- so why show one particular 10th century cursive?

Below i've pasted in Metzger (stolen from bible-researcher.com so I don't have to type it out) on this passage.

Bruce Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (Stuttgart, 1971), pages 122-126.

16:9-20 The Ending(s) of Mark. Four endings of the Gospel according to Mark are current in the manuscripts. (1) The last twelve verses of the commonly received text of Mark are absent from the two oldest Greek manuscripts (&#1488; and B), from the Old Latin codex Bobiensis (it k), the Sinaitic Syriac manuscript, about one hundred Armenian manuscripts, and the two oldest Georgian manuscripts (written A.D. 897 and A.D. 913). Clement of Alexandria and Origen show no knowledge of the existence of these verses; furthermore Eusebius and Jerome attest that the passage was absent from almost all Greek copies of Mark known to them. The original form of the Eusebian sections (drawn up by Ammonius) makes no provision for numbering sections of the text after 16:8. Not a few manuscripts which contain the passage have scribal notes stating that older Greek copies lack it, and in other witnesses the passage is marked with asterisks or obeli, the conventional signs used by copyists to indicate a spurious addition to a document.

(2) Several witnesses, including four uncial Greek manuscripts of the seventh, eighth, and ninth centuries (L Y 099 0112), as well as Old Latin k, the margin of the Harelean Syriac, several Sahidic and Bohairic manuscripts, and not a few Ethiopic manuscripts, continue after verse 8 as follows (with trifling variations): "But they reported briefly to Peter and those with him all that they had been told. And after this Jesus himself sent out by means of them, from east to west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation." All of these witnesses except it k also continue with verses 9-20.

(3) The traditional ending of Mark, so familiar through the AV and other translations of the Textus Receptus, is present in the vast number of witnesses, including A C D K W X D Q P Y 099 0112 f 13 28 33 al. The earliest patristic witnesses to part or all of the long ending are Irenaeus and the Diatessaron. It is not certain whether Justin Martyr was acquainted with the passage; in his Apology (i.45) he includes five words that occur, in a different sequence, in ver. 20. (tou logou tou iscurou on apo ierousalhm oi apostoloi autou exelqonteV pantacou ekhruxan).

(4) In the fourth century the traditional ending also circulated, according to testimony preserved by Jerome, in an expanded form, preserved today in one Greek manuscript. Codex Washingtonianus includes the following after ver. 14: "And they excused themselves, saying, 'This age of lawlessness and unbelief is under Satan, who does not allow the truth and power of God to prevail over the unclean things of the spirits [or, does not allow what lies under the unclean spirits to understand the truth and power of God]. Therefore reveal thy righteousness now -- thus they spoke to Christ. And Christ replied to them, 'The term of years of Satan's power has been fulfilled, but other terrible things draw near. And for those who have sinned I was delivered over to death, that they may return to the truth and sin no more, in order that they may inherit the spiritual and incorruptible glory of righteousness which is in heaven.' "

How should the evidence of each of these endings be evaluated? It is obvious that the expanded form of the long ending (4) has no claim to be original. Not only is the external evidence extremely limited, but the expansion contains several non-Markan words and expressions (including o aiwn outoV, amartanw, apologew, alhqinoV, upostrefw) as well as several that occur nowhere else in the New Testament (deinoV, oroV, proslegw). The whole expansion has about it an unmistakable apocryphal flavor. It probably is the work of a second or third century scribe who wished to soften the severe condemnation of the Eleven in 16.14.

The longer ending (3), though current in a variety of witnesses, some of them ancient, must also be judged by internal evidence to be secondary. (a) The vocabulary and style of verses 9-20 are non-Markan. (e.g. apistew, blaptw, bebaiow, epakolouqew, qeaomai, meta tauta, poreuomai, sunergew, usteron are found nowhere else in Mark; and qanasimon and toiV met autou genomenoiV, as designations of the disciples, occur only here in the New Testament). (b) The connection between ver. 8 and verses 9-20 is so awkward that it is difficult to believe that the evangelist intended the section to be a continuation of the Gospel. Thus, the subject of ver. 8 is the women, whereas Jesus is the presumed subject in ver. 9; in ver. 9 Mary Magdalene is identified even though she has been mentioned only a few lines before (15.47 and 16.1); the other women of verses 1-8 are now forgotten; the use of anastaV de and the position of prwton are appropriate at the beginning of a comprehensive narrative, but they are ill-suited in a continuation of verses 1-8. In short, all these features indicate that the section was added by someone who knew a form of Mark that ended abruptly with ver. 8 and who wished to supply a more appropriate conclusion. In view of the inconcinnities between verses 1-8 and 9-20, it is unlikely that the long ending was composed ad hoc to fill up an obvious gap; it is more likely that the section was excerpted from another document, dating perhaps from the first half of the second century.

The internal evidence for the shorter ending (2) is decidedly against its being genuine. Besides containing a high percentage of non-Markan words, its rhetorical tone differs totally from the simple style of Mark's Gospel.

Finally it should be observed that the external evidence for the shorter ending (2) resolves itself into additional testimony supporting the omission of verses 9-20. No one who had available as the conclusion of the Second Gospel the twelve verses 9-20, so rich in interesting material, would have deliberately replaced them with four lines of a colorless and generalized summary. Therefore, the documentary evidence supporting (2) should be added to that supporting (1). Thus, on the basis of good external evidence and strong internal considerations it appears that the earliest ascertainable form of the Gospel of Mark ended with 16.8. At the same time, however out of deference to the evident antiquity of the longer ending and its importance in the textual tradition of the Gospel, the Committee decided to include verses 9-20 as part of the text, but to enclose them within double square brackets to indicate that they are the work of an author other than the evangelist.
-----------

..A more correct inference would seem to be that the scribe knew that the gospel did NOT end at 16:8, ...but...was producing a copy which could be ended according to the wishes of others. That the scribe considered the form of the gospel which ended with 16:8 as the authentic one, is by no means clear. He only knew that the text..up to 16:8 was largely undisputed, ad that what if anything was to follow 16:8 was a matter of dispute. By not copying anything beyond 16:8 he met the essential requirement of those who felt the gospel needed either an ending or some word of explanation following 16:8. By including the ornament and subscription kata markcon afterward, the scribe was 'finishing' his work. It could 'go out' of the scriptorium in this form. Buy any purchaser or user easily could have had the ornament and subscription erased and, in the space allowed, he could have ended the gospel according to his own decision or he could have used it without alteration. The advantage of this form of the text is that it allows for some further treatment of a disputed matter. It is certainly copied in such a way that an ending may be added if desired. Whe the space left blank is more than necessary for the shorter ending or slightly less than needed for the longer ending is not entirely clear. ...All this is in keeping with a situation in which the longer ending is known, but disapproved, and where it is felt prudent to allow for something further to be written in the space left blank."
(ibid. pg 58-9)

A few things on this guy (and Scrivener, and Burgeon, et. al. who happen to try to defend the long ending based on Vaticanus' omission:

One has to admit that we have no clue whatsoever why there is an open column in Vaticanus. It is an interesting theory that perhaps the copyist knew of a longer ending. Yet, why was it not copied in? As an Alexandrian manuscript it would have had a corrector as well (as evidenced by the multiple hands on the text). Now, Farmer says that the scribe was playing it safe and conservatively by ending at 16:8 -- I'm not sure what to say to that. It's a leap of logic and cannot be substantiated. It's legitimate to suggest that the column was left free because the scribe was aware of a longer ending (this I can concede as a POSSIBILITY). It's quite another to assign an entire complex of motivations to a scribe during a time in history when there few qualms with amending a text and correcting it to a better version.

Yet in my opinion this is all subsidiary. We know that the ending was disputed in the early church. We know the Armenian and Georgian differ from certain OL mss and codex W and codex L...I don't much care what one particular scribe MIGHT have been thinking. What matters in terms of fact is that the manuscript lacks the passage, and there for is a positive attestation to the fact that the shortest ending is original.

 

[Nazaroo]

Yet in my opinion this is all subsidiary. We know that the ending was disputed in the early church. We know the Armenian and Georgian differ from certain OL mss and codex W and codex L...I don't much care what one particular scribe MIGHT have been thinking. What matters in terms of fact is that the manuscript lacks the passage, and there for is a positive attestation to the fact that the shortest ending is original.

But what does matter is that the 'scholars' and editors of critical Greek texts and modern translations have deliberately misled the reader on these critical issues.

He who is untrustworthy in a small thing is untrustable in a big thing.

And as to the reason Vaticanus was abandoned, as it clearly WAS, and sat on a shelf in the Vatican for nearly 1000 years, the answer is the quality of the text itself.
Anyone with even a basic familiarity of the New Testament would spend about five minutes with Vaticanus and conclude it was USELESS and UNFIXABLE.

There was no conspiracy to hide the thing, only a reluctance to waste time with it.

The Full Detailed Description of Codex Vaticanus from A to Z

 

[justified]

The Full Detailed Description of Codex Vaticanus from A to Z

I've been through this site before. It's done quite a good job and I appreciated the research. Very complimentary of the ms, as well.

But what does matter is that the 'scholars' and editors of critical Greek texts and modern translations have deliberately misled the reader on these critical issues.

He who is untrustworthy in a small thing is untrustable in a big thing.

How did we get from me disagreeing with you to you saying that scholars have misled people? Scholars like Metzger have not forgotten about the empty column -- they simpliy choose to work with what is verifiable.

And as to the reason Vaticanus was abandoned, as it clearly WAS, and sat on a shelf in the Vatican for nearly 1000 years, the answer is the quality of the text itself.
Anyone with even a basic familiarity of the New Testament would spend about five minutes with Vaticanus and conclude it was USELESS and UNFIXABLE.

No, it sat on a shelf for less than that. The site you just gave me talks about critical marks which were probably being used in the 7th century. The manuscript has a long history, and the miniscule corrections show it was still be used at divers times in the middle ages.

The reason it was rediscovered on a Vatican shelf is because Europe had become entrenched in the Latin church which followed the Vulgate -- who cared what this said? Same way with Sinaiticus -- how were a bunch of semi-literate monks in the Egyptian desert going to know they were about to burn one of the important Greek texts extant?

Please, start giving evidence, not inference. You want to attack Vaticanus -- go right ahead. But attack it with evidence, not "it wasn't used, so therefore it's bad."

 

[Nazaroo]

how were a bunch of semi-literate monks in the Egyptian desert going to know they were about to burn one of the important Greek texts extant?

Have you ever thought about the sheer implausibility of Tschendorf's story? He was a thief, and his removal of a national treasure from a foreign country was scandalous and inexcusable.

And where is the manuscript now? It has been photographed and x-rayed to death.
Surely the new thieves can finally return it. It is no longer needed for purposes of scholarship...

When it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, its a criminal.