Mark 16:12-16 True Or False

[d0c markus]

I hear that Mark 16:12-16 is not in some of the manuscripts that we have. Does anyone know if this is true, and if so can we really rely on what this portion of scripture is telling us?

 

[JeffreyLloyd]

Yes you can.

 

[d0c markus]

The issue at hand is, if its not in some of the manuscripts then its 50/50 as to whether its true or a lie. At some point it was changed to make it say what someone wanted to say. So u would hold that its reliable?


http://www.therain.org/appendixes/app168.html

 

[JeffreyLloyd]

... So u would hold that its reliable?

Yes.

 

[d0c markus]

Yes.

Can't argue with a man of principal.. lol

 

[JeffreyLloyd]

I have faith in Christ's church. I don't believe the Holy Spirit would allow error to corrupt Sacred Scripture.

 

[d0c markus]

I would agree with ya, but there are some who would disagree. My Poll/Post is to hear arguments for and against.

 

[middo]

I have faith in Christ's church. I don't believe the Holy Spirit would allow error to corrupt Sacred Scripture.

I hold the same beliefs, except i have troubles with it to when some churches ONLY follow the old testament, or ONLY the new, or all the new except for Pauls letters, or...or...or...so some churches who believe they have the spirit obviously dont, or do they? as they believe that faith in jesus as the son of God brings salvation.

Its so tough lol

 

[Rafael]

It is there for a reason....

 

[SavedByGrace3]

I have faith in Christ's church. I don't believe the Holy Spirit would allow error to corrupt Sacred Scripture.

Not to get into it here dear bro... but which version is the one that does not have error? Can only be one.

 

[JeffreyLloyd]

Not to get into it here dear bro... but which version is the one that does not have error? Can only be one.

Well, the most perfect version is St. Jerome's Vulgate

 

[Gary M]

Hi dOc

The verses in question are (IMO) a valid part of the inspired scriptures. The manuscripts (Vaticanus & Sinaiticus) that omits these verses, are in my opinion corrupt manuscripts (based on study about manuscripts). I've never actually seen the Vaticanus & Sinaiticus manuscripts myself, but Finnis J. Dake said that there is a blank space where these verses should appear.

I would recommend reading Dake's full comments on this issue. Dake's Annotated Bible

I would also recommend getting a copy of the book entitled "COUNTERFEIT OR GENUINE MARK 16? JOHN 8? by David Otis Fuller, D.D. Grand Rapids International Publications.

Gary

 

[SavedByGrace3]

Well, the most perfect version is St. Jerome's Vulgate

I had one in High School. Enjoyed it immensely!
I think Rheims was based on the vulgate??

 

[filosofer]

The verses in question are Mark 16:9-20, not 12-16. And there are two issues:

1) Are the verses part of Mark's Gospel? (manuscript evidence, style, vocabulary, etc. have to be examined).

2. If they are not part of Mark's Gospel originally, are they still part of the canon of Scripture.
=======================

The issue is really about what manuscripts have - and it is not a simple case of claiming that only two (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus) are missing these verses. Here is a summary of the manuscript evidence:
[note: manuscript refers to a hand written copy of the Scriptures essentially before 1500 (printing press in 1453).

1.* * * * No ending

Manuscripts: Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, 304 syriac(a), Coptic (sahidic), Armenian (~100 mss), Georgian (two traditions),Clement, Origen, Eusebius. And Eusebius and Jerome both note that most Greek manuscripts did not include an ending - even the numbering scheme used in the Eusebian writings make no numeric provision for anything beyond 16:8.

2.* * * * Shorter ending of two verses (sometimes given in footnotes),

"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."
Manuscripts: L, Psi, 099, 0112, it(k), syriac(Harclean margin), 274(margin), 579, lectionary (1602), coptic (several Sahidic mss, several Coptic mss), several ethiopic mss.
Note: all of these except it(k) also then include the longer ending below.

3.* * * * Longer ending (vs. 9-20)

Manuscripts: A, C, D, K, Chi, Delta, Theta, Pi, f(13), 28, 33, 565, 700, 892, 1009, 1010, 1071, 1079, 1195, 1230, 1242, 1253, 1344, 1365, 1546, 1646, 2148, 2174, many Byzantine mss, lectionaries (60, 69, 70, 185, 1761), it (Aureus, Colbertinus, Bezae Cantabrigiensis, Corbeiensis II, Rehdigeranus, Sangellensis [5th cent and 7th cent], q[13] Monacensis), vulgate (Clementine and Wordsworth-White), syriac (Curetonian, Peshitta, Harclean, Palestinian), coptic (Sahidic, Boharic, Fayyumic), gothic, armeinian (several mss), ethiopic (several mss), georgian (Blake), Diatesseron (a, i, n), Irenaeus (Greek, Latin), Tertullian, Aphraates, Apostolic Constitutions, Didymus

4.* * * * Longer ending (vs. 9-20) plus addition in vs. 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. Therefore, reveal your righteousness.' — thus they spoke to Christ. And Christ answered 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 handed over to death, that they may return to the truth and sin no more, in order that they may inheirt the spiritual and incorruptible glory of righteousness which is in heaven.' "
Manuscripts: W, (and attested to its presence by Jerome)
-------------

-------

One thing that is missed in the proposal that items would be more likely to be deleted is then to explain how the other textuals differences arose. Namely, why take something that was "smooth" syntactically or grammatically, or more complete, and then chop it up so that it becomes difficult to understand?

So, how to address these issues? I will only comment briefly now by adding what two commentators have provided as an assessment of this evidence. The style is definitely not Markan. Henry Barclay Swete. Commentary on Mark: The Greek Text with Introduction, Notes, and Indexes, 1913] notes that Mark 16:9-20 showed evidence that the longer ending is part of a self-contained unit that was assimilated sometime in the late 2nd century to Mark's Gospel. Also, interesting because Swete asserts that the style of the longer ending (vs. 9-20) is Johannine in style rather than Markan.

William L. Lane The Gospel According to Mark: The English Text with Introduction, Exposition, and Note, 1974] provides a terse summary of issues regarding the shorter and longer endings of Mark, claiming that evidence indicates that the shorter ending was probably written prior to the longer one. Vocabulary of the longer ending is marked by 17 non-Markan words (p. 604, fn 10). Lane also notes that "Mark's usual transitions, EUQUS, PALIN are absent from verses 9-20; the use of KAI is rare and no phrase begins with parataxis."

That ending of the gospel at Mark 16:8 is consistent with the theology that Mark presents problems. No reason to suspect that Mark once had additional material, now lost, that may have included resurrection appearances. Mark has no need for them, and it weakens Mark's theme of God’s power to accomplish that which Christ's mission and the Good News of Christ sets out to do, and which is done by God's action and bidding alone. It also weakens the theme of God being an active force in the world, out there, working ahead of us, like Jesus in Galilee, like the Spirit let out of heaven, God on the loose.

One possible explanation (again, only conjecture) has been offered that Mark had taken a break from writing and never went back to it. That is, Mark had been arrested and died before finishing. After 20+ years of study and being all over the board on this issue, I personally have come to this position. But am open to further study and interaction.

Another thought is that ending on a fear is not typical "gospel" stuff. But that too might fit with his own identifying mark (poor pun) in chapter 14 when he runs away (naked) in fear.

=========
Thus as far as the first question above: the evidence suggests that these verses were not part of Mark's Gospel originally. As for the second question, the evidence is clear that it is canonical. that is, by the time of the final formalization of the canon as we know it today, those verses were considered part of the canon.

 

[Gary M]

Hi Filo

Filo: "Thus as far as the first question above: the evidence suggests that these verses were not part of Mark's Gospel originally. As for the second question, the evidence is clear that it is canonical. that is, by the time of the final formalization of the canon as we know it today, those verses were considered part of the canon."


Gary:

So Filo, given your position that these verses are not original, but are canonical, does this constitute inspired or un-inspired in your view?

Also, have you ever read John W. Burgon’s treatment on this subject, or the book I referred to in my earlier post? If so, what is your opinion of the same? If not, if you ever get a chance to review such works, I would be interested in your assessment. I find these works very scholarly and quite convincing.

Also, (and this might be more readily available to you) I would like to hear your opinion of Dake’s treatment if you have (or have available) a Dake’s Bible. He enumerates quite a few reasons for personally believing in the authenticity of these verses as original.

In Him

Gary

 

[filosofer]

I would consider Mark 16:9-20 as inspired (as also John 7:53-8:11) but which were not part of the original writings of the authors of those works.

Burgon was in many ways a fine scholar. At the same time, he reacted to the circumstances of his time. However, manuscript evidence has mushroomed since his day (now there are 5,500+ Greek manuscripts alone, plus 30,000+ translation manuscripts, and 1,000,000+ quotes by early church fathers), which Burgon would have at least taken into consideration, which many do not. I read recently that Burgon today would not be a member of the Burgon Society.

As for Fuller, what I have read does not impress me much from a scholarly standpoint. Most of the arguments that Burgon and Fuller (and others) have presented have been refuted (scattered throughout the literature).

Again, my study of the evidence (external and internal) convinces me that the verses were not originally part of Mark's Gospel. The alternative endings became common as a way for copists to smooth out the stark ending, incorporating some oral material that had been passed on by the apostles.

 

[Gary M]

Hey Filo, are you still there? I can't believe I'm still here because it is nearly eleven o'clock here -- got to work tomorrow.

Filo: "I would consider Mark 16:9-20 as inspired...but which were not part of the original writings of the authors of those works."

Gary: I thought that the "inspired" scriptures was/are the apostolic writings --- the revelation(s) that came through the apostles (as penned by the apostles or their (what's the word here, I forgot), not later copists.

Later, I'm too tired now, but I will find and post a quote that I would like for you to address, that questions/challenges the idea of "not original" yet "canonical" or "not original" yet "inspired".

Filo, if you are still on line, please do a real quick post just letting me know --- I may stay up a little longer.

Your Bro. in Christ
Gary