Last 12 verses of Mark

What happened to your new-found enthusiasm for the HCSB ? I thought you were switching over .

 

Rippon,

Read my comments on the HCSB in the Translation Forum---I like it, but I have a few stylistic issues with it--nothing big: "Dear friends," "brother" and so on.

 

I tend to agree with John of Japan and the others who say that vv. 9-20 belong. As for something not from wiki, while this fellow is not a total Baptist, his study is from a conservative Baptist background, and he has a number of articles which I like personal for their depth - here is his look at Mark: http://www.bible-researcher.com/endmark.html

Again, he may be mroe of a layman than some would want, but I like how he has examined many sources, etc.

As to the writing being different, It may be that an older Mark wrote it. In fact, that *could* account for the discrpancy, if someone saw it without. Perhaps verses 9-20 were lost and Mark had to re-write it. Jeremiah had a whole lot more ripped and burned by the king in Jeremiah 36, after all, and had to re-write everything. Could some enemies have laid hold of a scroll, ripped up the part written on that part, and then when word got back to Mark, he was led to rewrite the last part? And someone in the meantime had seen it without, and spread the word that it was supposed to end at what we have as 16:8?

My mind is spinning with a possible adventure story there I better quit now, and get back to work, before I feel like writing it but, anyone else may feel free to use it.

 

John,

1. You are correct. And I know you can marshal all the evidence as to why the Bzy/MT is superior to the Alexandrian text type.

2. Point taken. But some leading textual critics I've looked at, they are willing to part ways with vv. 9-20 completely.

3. Then, those who favor the Bzy text must convince the rest of us why that is the superior text.

4. I've never been to impress by it myself. For example, that's one argument used againts Pauline authorship of the Pastors and the Petrine authorship of 2 Peter.

5. But here's the difference: The Pastorals and 2 Peter are both hold documents, whereas, the vv.9-20 are part of the rest of a book that has a unique style to it. Vv. 9-20 is guilty of violating those features--Why? I ask.

6. Mark could have--but where is the external evidence to support this claim?

7. And some textual critics are willling to live with v. 8 as the Markan ending, until more convince evidence---I happen to be there right now.

8. Our current text--vv.9-20--is a composite ending, drawn from the other Gospel narrative endings and the book of Acts. That's my evaluation.

9. Mark already has the empty tomb from vv. 1-8. V. 6, "Do not be amazed; you are looking fro Jesus the Nazarene, who has been crucified. He has risen; He is not here; behold here is the place where they laid Him" (NASB, emphasis mine).

10. Sometime in this New Year it will certainly be a good debate--looking forward to it. :thumbs:

 

We're trying. :smilewinkgrin: But it's been an uphill climb ever since W & H declared that the Byz wasn't even worth considering, because Vat. and Sin. (with all their many marginal corrections) were all we needed. At least modern eclectics give more weight to the Byz text than they did.

This is a pretty general argument. In what ways are vv. 9-20 guilty of violating the style of the rest of the book? I know this is thrown around quite a bit, but I rarely see attempts to prove it. My contention is that with only one book by Mark, it is presumptuous to say we know his style perfectly.

Also, consider this. Phil. 2:5-11 has four words found nowhere else in Paul's extensive works: robbery, equal, "highly exalt" (one word in the Gr.) and "things under the earth" (one word in the Gr.). Plus, the style is unique! Nowhere else to my knowledge does Paul use this poetic style. So, do we throw out this passage? No, of course not. But the same arguments could be made against it that are made against Mark's longer ending. There are other similar passages in other books, too.

It's in the fact that the vast majority of manuscripts include the longer ending. Even the ESV says something like, "Some mss don't include this ending." That means most do. Not just most Byz, I believe it is most mss.

Maybe you can grow out of it.

I'm not sure I see any similarity to Acts, though since Matt. and Mark are both Synoptics I see a normal similarity there.

Point taken. That still leaves that negative and extremely unusual ending of v. 9 that my presuppostions steer me away from, "and they were afraid."

So, you're going to make me work? It's been a lot of years since I studied the whole thing. But I do have one strong argument very rarely addressed by the eclectics. (In an e-mail correspondence with a noted Byzantine advocate he told me the same thing--only he no doubt thought of it first.)

 

1. Well, even a Reasoned Eclectic like Daniel B. Wallace of DTS doesn't think these verses should be included, but would have represented what the early Christians believe.

2. Point taken. But I still think these vv. reflect a later hand.

3. John, I'm sure you're aware that Paul is here quoting a Christian hymn, hence the vocabulary differences--this is well established.

4. As I said, I'm not totally prepared to side these vv. aside. :thumbs:

5. I'm referring to Paul's incidence on Malta (Acts 27)--snake-handling. :thumbs:

6. I find this to be quite in sync with Mark's dramatic, literary flow. Besides, we have the other narratives to fill in the blanks.

7. Like you John, I'll have to brush up. raying:

 

The argument from the Byzantine or Majority Text is simply that the "Majority" of the churches down throughout the ages accepted it. If the majority accepted it, that is fairly good reason in and of itself to accept it as well.

The argument against the critical text is that it is eclectic, or as one university professor put it, "it is not a text at all." It is a synthesis borrowed from many different MSS all put together, helter skelter, without any one text being foundational. It really can't be taken seriously by empiric objective scientific study. It was never a text to begin with.

 

1. I thought the MT was called the MT because it represents the "Text" that is reflected in all extant MSS.

2. Therefore the MT suffers the same fate as the CT. :thumbs:

 

Upon reflection, I don't want to get too much into what should have been posted in the versions forum (I was just posting there). But just to say this: there is some very interesting history behind the critical text which many have not bothered to look into.

 

The MT wasn't really birthed until 1982 with Hodges and Farstad and differs in about 2000 places from the TR.

 

Just goes to show that even a top notch scholar like Wallace can be mistaken!

Seriously, I'm impressed with Dr. Wallace right now. He took time to help my son a little on a seminary Greek project on the Granville Sharpe rule, and has asked my boy to keep him posted.

Sorry, I don't agree with this at all. it is pure speculation dating to the 20th century with no external proof and nigh unto zero internal proof. The old time commentators like Alford and A. T. Robinson don't even mention the possibility.

Homer Kent says, "The literary form of the beatiful passage before us leads many to regard it as an early Christian hymn that Paul incorporated into his Epistle.... But Paul himself was quite capable of a highly poetic style (cf. 1 Cor. 13), and may well have composed these exalted lines." (Expositors Bible Commentary, Vol. 11, pp. 122-123).

Regardless, there are other passages I could give, but I don't have the time right now to do the research. It is not that uncommon for a 1st century writer to have an excursus with different style and vocabulary.

Oh, okay. (Acts 28.) But of course there is no textual similarity. Even the word snake is different!

Well, yes. But Mark's Great Commission is distinctively different from the others.

Well.... If we get time and inclination.

 

1. Dr. Wallace is quite accessible. I've exchanged a few emails with him on translation issues. What impressed me most is the fact that he took to time to respond time and time again.

2. But is he wrong on vv. 9-20? Both Jerome and Eusebius said that the best MSS available to them didn't contain these vv.

3. I would add however, that Justin Martyr seems to be aware of these verses. But why they were not considered Markan by the majority of Church Fathers, I don't know.

4. If the top notch Dan B. Wallace can be mistaken, I think Alford and Robinson could have been.

5. FF Bruce says, "Like many other early Christian hymns it is cast i rhythmical prose, not in poetical meter (whether Greek or Semitic)" (NIBC, vol.11, p. 68)

6. Do you believe there are Christian hymns incorporated in Scripture?

7. I agree that the words are different, but that doesn't rule out Acts 28 as a source.

8. And the others are distinct from each other. :thumbs:

 

Jerome may have said this or something like it (can you source this for me?), but he included the verses in his Vulgate, so he must have thought them to be genuinely Scripture.

As for Eusebius (the church historian, I take it you mean), he didn't actually say that the passage was not in the original Mark. He discusses a perceived clash between Matthew and Mark, and does express doubt. Burgon gives 11 pages to refuting the view that Eusebius completely rejected Mark's longer ending in The Last Twelve Verses in Mark (40-50).

Sure, but I believe the Biblical authors wrote them, not that they came from some other source.

It just makes it doubtful.

Exactly my point! Luke didn't copy from Matthew, who didn't copy from Mark (if you believe in Markan priority).

 

1. Carson and Moo, An Introduction to the NT, 2nd. ed, p. 189: "Jerome and Eusebius both state that the best MSS available to them did not contain this longer ending."

2. Maybe Jerome was under pressure like Erasmus, who put 1John 5:7-8 in his translation, when there wasn't sufficient or no evidence for it.

3. Metzger, Text of the NT, 2nd. ed, p. 226: "The original form of the Eusebian sections makes no provision for numbering sections after xvi. 8."

Guthrie, NT Introduction, 3rd ed., p.: "Eusebius cites an apologist who appealed to 'incurrate copies' of Mark as evidence against the genuiness of 16:9-20."

4. I really have no problem in these hymns being oral sources among the early believers that were incorporated into the biblical text. Jude is filled of references to 1 Enoch and so on.

5. That's another story, even if I believe in Markan priority.

 

I found Jerome quoting from the passage as Scripture, but I left my Jerome at church and can't give the reference.

You know, chances are these two preachers held both postions during their lifetimes. So we can both use them in this debate! How handy!

It wouldn't bother me at all if this were true. It's just that there is no evidence of it--kind of like Q, over which is made much ado about nothing from no extant sources (except for that one nebulous quote about a Hebrew Gospel from what's his name).:type:

 

1. I'll like to read it.

2. Personally, nothing is lost if vv. 9-20 turn out not be be genuine at all, for the truths of those verses are taught in other places, over and over again.

3. If these long contested vv. are geniune, then I suppose much is to be gain, for Mark would be seen as agreeing with the others in print. :thumbs:

4. I remember my OT prof saying that NT scholars didn't have much to do, so they come up with all these theories. I believe he's somewhat correct. :laugh:

 

"Technically Speaking", as well as "strictly speaking" this is Article X of "The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy", as drawn up and signed by the nearly 300 participants of the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy. While I am in agreement with virtually every word found in "The Chicago Statements", it is not a "confession", per se, for it represented no official church organization, or group, at the time of its adoption by the signers.

I cannot speak definitively about today, but I think that it may possibly now be 'binding' on Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, currently, but am not sure of this. (The Abstract of Principles and the Baptist Faith and Message - 2000 are both binding on Southeastern, and this I do know. Further, 'The Chicago Statements' were "commended" to "all Baptist educational institutions, and agencies" ... "as biblically grounded and sound guides worthy of respect ..." by the Presidential Theological Study Committee, whose report was adopted by the SBC in 1994.) It does not say they are or were 'binding', here, that I read.

Beyond that, to my knowledge, the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy is 'binding' only on the Evangelical Theological Society, which has adopted this, and the 'Coalition on Revival' groups. I would be interested in knowing if any others have 'adopted' this, as well, if anyone knows.

Thanks,

Ed

 

Hello, John of Japan, and Happy New Year to you. (I understand you got about a 16 hour head start on us, here, in KY.)

Seriously, I cannot comment on "the Robinson-Pierpont Byzantine Text Form", for I have never seen it.

However, the statement is incorrect about the Majority Text of Hodges and Farstad, here, at least with the 2nd Edition in the "no footnotes" description. (I hold a "hard copy" in my hot little paws, as I speak.) The 'sigla' used in by Hodges and Farstad show that there is a difference in the "majority" of the "majority texts", (M) plus "A" & "C" as opposed to that of "א", "B", plus the so-called "critical text" (Cr) which is basically equivalent to the UBS text.

In fact, the "Majority text" is itself, an 'eclectic' text, as well, as is/was the TR, W/H, the UBS, etc.. They all are 'eclectic'. The amount and weight of the evidence that lies behind a particular text we have, is a debatable question; but we have no extant "text" per se, from what I understand, but rather all texts are 'compiled', and no two manuscripts or codices are in 100% agreement as to every minute detail. (It begs the question to dismiss this as "only a few" varainces, in one case vs. "a whole bunch" in another, IMO.)

The question of how 'eclectic', therefore is still one of degrees.

I do admit placing much more stock in the "Majority/Byzantine Text" tradition, as compiled by Hodges and Farstad with over 400 texts checked out, and even in the UBS "tradition" a large improvement over W/H, with also a great number checked out, than I do in W/H and even the early TRs, which were based on an extremely limited number of texts, at the disposal of the compilers.

That is neither to question the motives, nor render an indictment of anyone, but merely is a recognition of what they had available to work with. Here is one place, I see a decided "safety in numbers", if you will.

Just for information, gang.

Ed

 

Let's just say a "printed" and "titled" MT a la Hodges and Farstad was not around before 1982. I do know that Messers Robinson and Pierpont were around a few years earlier. And such notables as Miller, Burgon, and Scrivener predate these by a century. Much earlier than that, I cannot say, for I have not researched this. That is not to render judgment (good or bad) on the scholarship of any, but merely to note the time period, involved.

Ed

 

From where??

Welcome to the BB. (From one 100 miles south of 10 miles north of 10 miles south.)

BTW, my bride {hearts} is actually from 40 miles north of 10 miles south of 10 miles north of 10 miles south. (Mt. Orab)

Just don't ask me to repeat what I just wrote, because I can't! :laugh:

Ed